Photo from the Washington Post
That crazy liberal media
Still looking for someone to blame
August 29, 2005
One of the most effective strategies of the vast rightwing conspiracy has been its constant attacks on the mainstream media as liberal. This gets their message across while simultaneously painting any demonstrable objections as liberal bias. Thus, journalists become intimidated and balk at making calls against the shouting conservative choir. This strategy has been labeled by Eric Alterman and others as "working the refs". Two weeks ago, the New York Times buckled and covered the inconsequential Air America “scandal.” This week, they have more ambitious goals. Frustrated that the media thinks dying American soldiers qualifies as news, the conservative chorus wants the mainstream media to focus on the "good news."
MYTH: The "liberal" media paints an inaccurately bleak picture of the economy and Iraq
The American people have to wise up to the media's tricks. We are involved in a propaganda war that may be more important than what happens on the battlefield.
We have to face up to the fact that the enemy has the U.S. on the run, using our own media against us.
-- Cliff Kincaid, Al Qaeda Loves Our Unpatriotic Media, Accuracy in Media, 08/18/05
If you're out in the world, it falls right in your lap. At our church a few weeks back, one of our service men, home on leave, stood up to say that we shouldn't believe what we saw on TV or in the newspapers, that it was nothing like what was going on in Iraq. After church, he told me, "You don't know anything if you're not reading the blogs."
-- Lawrence Henry, Editors Ponder, American Spectator, 08/19/05
Economic news heavily negative: Coverage of economic news on the three broadcast networks was negative 62 percent of the time, despite ongoing good news of more jobs, low unemployment and economic growth.
REALITY
The media serves a vital function in a democracy. Part that role is to operate as a government watchdog so that citizens in a democracy can hold elected leaders accountable. The Bush crowd, is of course, uncomfortable with any form of dissent, and most major forms of the truth. They prefer professional reporters on their payroll, like Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams.
Chickenhawk lackeys like Accuracy in the Media and The American Spectator believe that the media should serve the President instead of serving the public. Cliff Kincaid’s title, “Al Qaeda Loves Our Unpatriotic Media,” is revealing because it suggests, among other things, that reporters who uncover facts that contradict this administration's claims are unpatriotic. To anyone who noticed American flag lapel pins adorning network reporters in March of 2003, this description seems inaccurate. It wasn’t until the end of the war’s initial phase that reporters were willing to report upsetting realities. In fact, if the mainstream media had seriously assessed the Administration’s case for war in 2002, our country might be in a better situation right now.
Instead, the American public didn’t learn until after the war began that the case for war had unraveled. And the consequences have been dire. To date 1,866 American soldiers and up to 26,765 Iraqi civilians have died in this war. Our nation-building efforts have been largely unsuccessful, as evidenced by the persistent failure to produce an Iraqi Constitution. More importantly, the war is producing new terrorists and bringing old ones together. According to CIA Director Porter Goss, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists." Perhaps I’m missing the “good news,” but the situation in Iraq seems pretty dismal, which may account for the lack of optimistic media reports.
MYTH: Radio talk show host, Michael Graham’s comments about the Islamic community were blown out of proportion
Though the outcome is uncertain in the current situation, two things are certain: 1) CAIR will continue demonizing genuine criticism of radical Islam as "Islamophobia," and 2) it will never specifically condemn radical Islam or Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Regardless of whether or not CAIR is successful in ousting Mr. Graham, though, it's only a matter of time before the group launches its next smear campaign. There's no telling whom CAIR would target next for condemnation, though it is clear who would not be.
-- Joel Mowbray, CAIR and Michael Graham, Washington Times, 08/18/05
REALITY
One disturbing trend over the last 4 years is the American public’s growing tolerance towards muslim bashing. Muslims have become easy targets for racists who have patiently awaited the time when racism and ethnocentrism would again be acceptable. Michael Graham’s comments were, unfortunately, pretty typical of the conservative radio talk show set. Rightwingers call his comments “politically incorrect,” but racist would be a better word. According to Graham, “Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it.” Well, at least it pained him to say it. One of President Bush’s brighter moments came in an address to the nation after September 11th. In that speech, he warned Americans not to indict the entire Islamic community for the actions of a few. It seems that Michael Graham has failed to heed that warning.
But the Washington Times’ defense of him is odd. Essentially, they argue that CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is wrong to condemn Graham’s comments because they should be condemning terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists—as if one precludes the other. Why can’t they do both? A radio talk show host’s declaration that Islam is terrorist organization strikes me as something on which the Council on American-Islamic Relations should comment. The same can be said of Islamic extremism, which is why CAIR signed onto the fatwah against terror.
