This is one more example of Marxist/Modernist corruption; that is: truth is an illusion, all things are political, and the masses can mold the world into utopia with effective mind control. Ann Coulter is absolutely correct, so-called 'Liberalism' is a Godless religion that has brought incalculable suffering and evil into the world.


The rush to judge the Marines and all of America with the accusations is nauseating. Just the accusation seems enough to condemn them. If they are eventually absolved of any guilt, you can bet that it will be just like the Rathergate affair as far as the left is concerned. I can hear my lefty friends now: "Just because the Marines were found innocent it doesn't mean that the military isn't a bunch of brutal murdering thugs" "The US is still fascist anyway"; "I'm sure there are plenty of instances in which they ARE guilty of killing innocents" etc. etc. etc.

That's their story, and they're sticking to it.


The thing is that I am perfectly willing to accept that it is possible that the accused Marines are innocent--while the left is incapable of admitting that possibility. I am also perfectly willing to accept it if they are found guilty, while the left assumes a priori that is the only possible conclusion.


As a CPA, I often don't follow the pyschological aspects expressed here. But I have a business theory that sets the media apart from all other industries. For most industries, having the better product, doing better work, and being honest & keeping noses clean is the best business plan. For every Enron or Tyco there are about 8,000 publically traded companies doing things properly. Then there's the mainstream media, whose business plan is to appeal to the dumbest 80%. Bush's tax cuts are a giveaway to the rich- that's an easy sell to the bottom 80%. Not many can analyze the last 3 year's revenue collections and comprehend that lower rates resulted in more tax collected, not less & that the rich are paying a bigger percentage share now even with lower rates. Put a picture of massacred civilians on the front page & make everyone think they are Haditha victims. Very few will hear about the correction. My point is the MSM has a financial interest in having a business plan that is the exact opposite of "selling the better mousetrap". Their plan is to feed the agenda they think the masses want to hear & can understand and they'll have a customer for life. I can think of no other industry that is corrupt by nature and this permeates everything they do. Even a prostitute will thrive by looking good and doing a good job!


"Even a prostitute will thrive by looking good and doing a good job!"
--Chunky

So, prostitutes are more ethical than journalists?

Heh™

BTW, Don't sell yourself too short on the psych front...


Remember:

If a US soldier is accused of something, he's automatically GUILTY. And if an inquiry finds him innocent, it's a COVER-UP.

If a terrorist is captured, he's presumed INNOCENT. And if he's eventually convicted of his crimes, that's RACISM.

Any questions?


Also, terrorists may "take lives" or even "kill". But our soldiers "massacre"!!. Good blog on that somewhere (here?) where the worst terrorist slaughterings never qualified as a massacre according to their PR partner, the MSM.


After reading many of the Lefty blogs on this issue, it becomes quite apparent that they are avidly seeking the "big atrocity" that will
finally turn the vast majority of Americans against the war, Bush, and the military. An example is this post from "A Dissident Voice" at:
www.dissidentvoice.org/May06/Smith31.htm

That type of post makes one realize that the anti-war movement is searching for any shred of evidence of a "slaughter" or "massacre" to try to turn others against the war.

Would they be willing to proclaim a massacre where none had actually happened? They do seem desperate.

I have Marine friends who tell me that Haditha is a propaganda ploy by the Iraqi insurgents in league with an all too cooperative media. I hope they're right.


Here's something for everyone to think about. If we continue to attack the media by calling them liberal. If we continue to cut funding for PBS. If we continue to spread right wing stations such as FOX. If we intall fake, pro Bush reporters at the White House press conferences. If we continue to spread Limbagh to every radio station, we will no longer have a free press.

It will resemble the state run media, such as those found in Russia, North Korea, and China. Is that what you want?

The right wing conservative movement has made such a mess of America that they want to cover it up by censoring the news. Labeling the news as liberal is part of this strategy. The conservatives don't want the truth to be heard about thier corrupt regime in Washington.


No conservaites are censoring news; the righty blogs are merely calling the MSM, which has no love for the Bush admin, on their manufactured stories. I have no problem with the press holding politicians to account by publishing the truth. But, when the press is actively engaged in not only falsifying news to attack their political enemies, but covering up for their preferred political party as well, then it needs to be called out for what it is; self-serving propaganda. Because it certainly isn't news.


Kevin - so it's part of a "strategy," eh? Who's in on the deal?

A media run by the opposition party would preferable to one run by the state, but not by much. Right? And then when the opposition party comes to power...

We are fortunate that the media is "run" by neither party. The MSM is sympathetic to the Democrats. The alternative media is more balanced, having sympathies in many directions.

Kev, if you start from a neutral stance you can't get to your position. You can only get there by granting the MSM a supposition of greater accuracy, then discarding all other sources as inferior because they don't sound the same. A professional media could theoretically be a more objective one; what is your evidence that they in fact are?


"If we continue to attack the media by calling them liberal. If we continue to cut funding for PBS. If we continue to spread right wing stations such as FOX. If we intall fake, pro Bush reporters at the White House press conferences. If we continue to spread Limbagh to every radio station, we will no longer have a free press."

I dont understand your thinking.

How is it that when people challenge the government in the name of free speech and speaking truth to power, that makes the government better; but when people challenge the MSM in the name of free speech and speaking truth to power, that will kill the MSM?

Doesn't that disjointed attitude illustrate exactly the point of Ann Coulter's book? That is, no one is permitted to challenge the liberal priesthood?

If you disagree then please explain your thinking - how is freedom of the press and freedom of speech fatal to a free media but healthy for the government?


Kevin, that is typical. NY Times & Cronkite decided what the news was & how it would be distorted to fit their purposes for about 35 years. Now that truth seekers challenge the bias & correct it, "oh, boo hoo, that isn't fair!" You had it all according to your rules for so long, you don't even recognize fair and balanced.


> So, prostitutes are more ethical than journalists?

PSG, lawyers are more ethical than journalists.

Politicians, no.
But lawyers, yes.


> Also, terrorists may...

Damned good point, Chunky.


> The right wing conservative movement has made such a mess of America that they want to cover it up by censoring the news. Labeling the news as liberal is part of this strategy. The conservatives don't want the truth to be heard about thier corrupt regime in Washington.

Ah, THAT's IT!!

Can't be anything wrong with the reporting, no, it's gotta be the VOICES WHICH DISSENT!!!

Is your real name Malloch Brown, by any chance?


Hm... maybe I'm just some dumb red-stater but doesn't censorship usually involve, um... censoring? You know, stopping broadcasts, the presses, etc.

Kevin seems to be confusing disagreement with censorship. Apparently, some leftists are delicate flowers that can't stand someone saying their claims are incorrect.


So, according to Kevin, dissent against the news coverage is unpatriotic.

I swear, you can't parody the left anymore. It's just not possible to get more bizarre than that and still make sentences.

OBH & Patrick - yes, I've seen a lot of that. The Left can't tell the difference between self-defence and murder, between killing terrorists and killing schoolchildren, and between disagreement and censorship.

Thus we have Hollywood whack-jobs screaming about censorship. Have their fillms been pulled? Have they been arrested? Have their interviews been blocked from broadcast?

No, of course not - but someone disagreed with them and that's CENSORSHIP!

Censorship (n) - the practice of publicly disagreeing with a liberal.

It's not just a joke, it's an observation.


Yup. And my weekend edition of the Manila Bulletin has the NYTimes editorial blasting the marines as murderers, which means all the elites in the Philippines will be convinced they are, if CNN Int hasn't convinced them already.


That's how the leftists avoid, deflect, and distort an issue.
They come up with new definitions for words.
I believe that it should be the law of the land that:
If a newspaper or magazine make an "error", or their anonomous sources tell lies that a story is based upon, then the corrections must be printed on the front page.
If the TV news makes "errors", it must be corrected at the beginning of the broadcast, during prime-time.
I be the number of "errors" would sharply decrease.


Kevin,

Having grew up in a country with government-controlled media, I can tell you "You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about".

Isn't the goal of the leftists State-Run-Everything?

Now, respectfully, STFU.


> some leftists are delicate flowers that can't stand someone saying their claims are incorrect.

"Some"??


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ?

Commenting by HaloScan.com