HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 26, 2004 I read another blog earlier today that raised a few important questions about John Kerry and the media. Has anyone else noticed the ANGER with which the news media is covering the Swiftboat Vets' ad issue? Chris Matthews' attack the other day on Michelle Malkin who had been asked to talk about the Swiftboat Vets' book "Unfit for Command" was only one, albiet glaring, example. Why should the news media and commentators be so angry about this issue? They get a story either way it goes, don't they? Do they have a dog in this hunt that we don't know about? This has, so far, been a campaign full of surprises--not the least of which has been the virulence and venom coming out of the left-- literally HATEFUL speech, not just criticisms. I've noticed, for example, that the Kerry campaign does NOT send out any of that "band of brothers" supporting Kerry to confront the Swiftboat vets in debate. Instead, they send out John Podesta, James Carville, Lanny Davis and other, professional political operatives. So far, however, Mr. O'Neill seems to be holding his own fairly well; even against these pros. Also, the Kerry campaign isn't attempting to argue much against the SBVFT ads or charges in the book. Instead, they've concentrated their efforts in trying to dig up the dirt on those 264 men who comprise Kerry's strongest critics or trying to divert attention from the issue to blaming the ads on the Bush campaign--even though the President has repeatedly said that there is no connection between his re-election campaign and the Swiftboats group. He did acknowledge that one participant in the 2ND SBVFT ad had been listed as a volunteer advisor on veterans' issues, but that he'd been asked to divorce himself from the Bush campaign when it was discovered. This is in contrast to the Moveon.org media advisor who now holds that position in the Kerry campaign--apparently without criticism. One thing has been VERY obvious in this whole issue. The SBVFT ads have NOT endorsed anyone for the Presidency. The Moveon.org groups ads have strongly endorsed Kerry. Now which group is "coordinating" its efforts again? Let me reiterate, I don't criticize Kerry's service while in Vietnam. I strongly question his attaching himself to the anti-American left when he got home, however. But, the main point of this piece is wonder at why the media is so obviously angry about this story--trashing at every turn those with the temerity to challenge Kerry's version of things. Unless the media has a vested interest in getting Kerry elected (and that wouldn't be terribly far off, in my opinion) there's no REASON for them to have responded with such viciousness in their coverage of the SBVFT group and their allegations. There may be an answer in the history of the media's behavior DURING the Vietnam War. They were VERY negative about the war and tried their damnedest to insure a loss for the United States. Why? Only they know, but they flexed their muscles there (successfully, as it turns out) and misinformed the American public about what was really going on over there and succeeded in turning public opinion against the war, forcing us out and allowing the subjugation of the entire peninsula to people who committed VASTLY more "atrocities" and "war crimes" than the Americans ever thought about. Mostly, they've preened themselves in overweening pride at what they did--probably convincing themselves that they'd done the world some sort of "service." In reality, what they did prolonged the war according to General Giap's own autobiography, since Ho Chi Minh was ready to sue for peace after the disaster he suffered during the 1968 Tet offensive. Seeing on the American media all the gory details of the campus rioting, violent protests and hearing stories of "atrocities" bandied about by those leftists given so much prominence in the media, his advisors suggested if he'd just hold on a little longer, he'd have a "friendlier" government in the U.S. with which to deal. Now that some of the truth about what they did is coming to light at long last, it COULD be that the media is running scared that their dirty little secret will come to light and people will realize that, contrary to the Lt. Kerrys, Jane Fondas and Tom Haydens of that era, what we were doing there was important and moral and what the MEDIA did was shameful and caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, in the long run. Just another instance of what they may have perceived as being "well-intentioned" having terrible "unintended consequences," something that's VERY common with much of what comes out of the left in the last 75 years or so. ------------ About the author: A semi-retired middle-manager in the oil and gas industry, Mr. Jared is currently writing his first book, which will contain TRUTHFUL accounts of his two tours in Vietnam, which should be a refreshing change from anyone who's read "Tour of Duty." Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
