The Myth of The Liberal Media

The Conservative Moguls are openly boasting that it's history...
But did it ever even exist? Certainly not in the past decade or more.
(13 June, 2003)

Recently, Fox's ultra-right-wing "journalist", Bill O'Reilly boasted that the "liberal" control over the media had been successfully dismantled. (Quote, in case that link dies: "The radical left is furious that liberals no longer set the agenda in the national media.")

So now, even those windbags who get paid to pontificate about the various "liberal" conspiracies that threaten the US (gay marriage, health care for everyone, a decent education system, peace) are admitting that they control the media. "liberals" recognized that a long time ago.
Just a few examples off the top of my head:

Lewinskygate How much time was devoted to this soap opera? Years of investigations and unknown ammounts of taxpayer dollars went into trying to get some kind of dirt on President Clinton (who can blame the Republicans for wanting to share the scandal spotlight, since their party owns the monopoly for this century: Teapot Dome, Watergate, and Iran-Contra) and all they could pin on Bill was that he got a blowjob from a 22-year-old. So what. Does that make him a bad husband...yes! Does that have anything to do with leading the country...No. While the Republicans kept the media focused on Bill's penis, terrorists were plotting against the US (more on that below) and untold numbers of Senators on both sides of the aisle were balling outside their marriages.
A decade before, Reagan administration officials had admitted to treason: lying to Congress, selling weapons to Iran, and funneling the profits of those illegal sales to terrorists and drug-traffickers in Nicaragua. What happened after this startling confession? Nothing. And now many invovled in those same actions are running our country. The Clintons got crucified for their sex lives, and the Republicans who funded terrorists in Central America, Saddam Husein, AND the Taliban (see below) all got off scott-free. No, my friends...there was no sign of a Liberal Media during the Clinton administration. Kenneth Star barely deserved 15 seconds of news coverage, much less fifteen MONTHS.

Election 2000...aka, The Coup Independent recounts were carried out by various bipartisan groups after the Supreme Court agreed with George Bush's request that votes not be counted in Florida. Different criteria were used for different recounts. Despite the fact that Al Gore won in some of the recounts, the mainstream media seized on and reported only the recounts that declared Bush the winner (Here'sa source from pre-sept 11, and this is a very comprehensive one.) The other recounts (the more comprehensive ones that showed Gore clearly won the state) were only reported on the back pages of a few major papers, or in fringe sources easily dismissed. Not only was this blatant towing of the party line an indication that the media was not being controlled by liberals, it was also downright fraudulent.
Even more disturbing, though, is the way the mainstream media completely let die clear evidence of election tampering. The worst example of tampering was in Florida where several thousand black people were turned away from the polls because their names had been put on a list of people inneligible to vote for commiting felonies...but these people hadn't commited crimes (other than being black)(Source). Also affecting the outcome of the election was an unapproved "butterly" ballot format that confused elderly voters and caused several thousand to mistakenly vote for Pat Buchanan (Source). As Micheal Moore put it: "If you still believe that 3,000 elderly Jewish Americans -- many of them Holocaust survivors -- voted for Pat Buchanan in West Palm Beach in 2000, then you are a true devotee to the beauty of fiction". For his part, in a rare show of rationality and honesty, Buchanan conceded that the number of votes he received in that county undoubtedly constituted a mistake (Source)
So, the bottom line is this: Al Gore clearly received more votes in the US election in 2000...even the Republicans admit this. Who won the electoral vote will never be known, because of all the "irregularities" that occurred in voting (illegal ballots, people being turned away from the polls, etc). But the idea that Bush won the election, even electorally, is a very biased view of history. Had the governor, or the election officials been Democrats rather than Republicans (Mrs. Harris, Florida's Secretary of State, who was responsible for overseeing all recounts, was Bush's campaign manager in Florida), the results in Florida would undoubtedly have been different. Probably, the man who received the most votes (by a VERY slim margin) would have won the election. Al Gore.

Bush's War. Win one for Daddy!
Okay...there's not much I can say here that you can't find elsewhere. In short, the mainstream media did nothing but tow the party line in the pre-war build up, and they've been acting like sycophantic cheerleaders since it started (and "ended"). There were so many legitimate stories detailing the hypocricy of the Bush administration's various claims against Saddam and Iraq. Here are a few with links:
--"He's used chemical weapons before...he's a monster"--Yes, this was and is true, yet why didn't the media ask why the US government hadn't protested this back in 1984, when they knew he was using it. Not only did the Reagan and Bush administrations not protest, but they continued funding and supporting the Saddam Regime. Of particular interest in that last source is the following quote from a public whitehouse condemnation of Iran in 1984:

“The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent
refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating
the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq
to be inconsistent
with the accepted norms of behavior among nations…“ (emphasis added).

As for Saddam having chemical weapons in the first place, there's plenty of evidence that a lot of it came from the US to begin with. (Yes, that link is from Micheal Moore's website, so it's easy to brush off as "liberal media", but if you notice, it has links to numerous White House and Senate documents.)
--Saddam seized power without being elected--Yeah...already dealt with that one.
--The Saddam regime is brutal and the Iraqis need democracy--The Saudis and Kuwaitis don't have anything close to democracy either. Women can't even vote or drive. There are numerous evil dictators and warlords killing their people in Africa (and in some of those places, like Zaire/Congo, the US played a DIRECT role in creating the situation); why aren't we doing anything there?
A year after "liberating" Afghanistan from the Taliban, the country is no better off...recently, the UN had to pull it's mine-sweeping units out of the country because it was so unsafe for them. And almost two months after the war "officially" ended in Iraq, American soldiers are playing many rolls, but liberator is not one of them. (That link provides a great history of the US "installing democracy" in conquered lands in general).
--"Post-war Iraq" Recent history can show anyone willing to consult it that the US has not helped set up a democracy in any nation since the end of WWII, when they did so in the former Axis powers. However, even if one chose to blindly operate under the assumption that this was the case for George II's invasion of Iraq, events after the fact have proven otherwise. There have been a few murmurs about it in the press, but nothing like the outcries of outrage there should be (as seen in the British Parliment). The Bush II regime used a calculated set of alarmism and lies to convince the nation that we not only NEEDED a war in Iraq, but had a moral obligation to wage it. As Americans continue to die, and no signs of democracy or WMD have been seen in Iraq, why aren't Americans demanding answers? Why isn't the media?

A time for America to unite...and by the way, the attacks were all Clinton's fault. Before the smoke from the fallen towers of the WTC had cleared, Donald Rumsfeld had sought out the cameras of CNN (and others) to publically blame the Clinton administration, citing the attacks as "an example of the lack of national security" that the former administration had fostered. This, at a same time that other members of the White House were calling on all Americans to unite.
It's hypocritical for Republicans to talk about Clinton slacking off on national security, when: 1)It was their witch-hunt that tied up the government with "Lewinskygate" (see above) for more than a year. 2) When the Clinton administration DID carry out a military strike against Al Quaida targets in 1998, the Republican leadership openly derided the attacks as a politically-motivated stunt to shift attention away from Clinton's impeachment. 3) Members of the current Bush administration were directly involved in aiding and arming the Taliban just a decade before (particularly Vice President Chenney as then Defense Secretary). As already mentioned and linked above, the same administration was responsible for providing Iraq with intelligence and weapons (including biological material). Rumpsfeld had direct dealings with Saddam as a special envoy of Ronald Reagan, remember.
No, the Clinton administration did not stop the terrorists who were plotting against the US, and that's a tragedy. However, the very people who created the terrorists threat blaming him for the tragedy is beyond hypocritical. And yet, it's only typical for this administration...the same administration that demands other nations adhere to international law, yet openly insists that its own members be exempt. (That's a whole other issue, but here's another link on it, too).

There are more, and I may add to this later, but I'm tired of thinking about this for now, so I'm posting this as is.
Back to the Rants Index. Or, back to my Homepage.