The evidence is in their deeds, not their words. Where are they when it comes to getting the reactions of those offended? Conspicously absent…
Hugh Hewitt’s blog links this source who checked out 520 American papers for “the picture”.
Michelle Malkin illustrates what the MSM does care about: their agenda.
As I’ve shared many times, my father was a newspaper reporter, columnist, and feature writer who did mostly sports, but also dabbled in other areas. Our family is no stranger to agenda-driven reporting.
November 9, 2006 at 9:55 pm
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that unless those papers carried that one particular picture on their front page they don’t care AT ALL about our troops?
Maybe they didn’t think it was any bigger of a deal then when President Bush made jokes about not finding WMD in the Oval Office while our troops were dying on his wild goose chase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yJF13BS-hE
Sure, much of the MSM ranges from moderate to liberal. Still there is plenty of conservative or right-wing (hardly the same thing) media out there. Everybody’s got a point of view and everybody’s got a voice in the media. For some there is Hugh Hewitt and Cal Thomas, for others there is John Stewart and Maureen Dowd. Would it be better if only non-liberal voices could speak? You want to live in a democracy this is what you get.
Anyway, the criteria that determines if a paper — or a person — cares about our troops is not whether or not they castigated Kerry to Hugh Hewitt’s satisfaction.
November 9, 2006 at 11:53 pm
r10b,
Thanks for commenting and reading.
No I’m not saying that. I’m clumsily implying that the MSM, in it’s attempt to get reaction to Kerry’s remarks went all over the place except for the offended parties. That picture raced across the ‘net in very little time and was a big deal to the troops. The remarks were a big deal to the troops.
Normally, when someone makes either a slip of the tongue, a remark in poor taste, a downright insult, or even a truth claim with evidence behind it that offends, the MSM is all over trying to get reaction from the party or group that could be offended. I didn’t see it in this case.
I’m not necessarily complaining that the media is liberal. It is and it’s easy to understand why. It’s also easy to understand, since the advent of cable and the internet why there are now other sources of info. There is a marketplace of ideas out there, and there will sooner or later be a sort of equilibrium. When that is, who knows?
November 10, 2006 at 9:10 pm
You’re welcome. Sorry I haven’t been able to be more in agreement with you yet. I’ve long been put off by the shrill squealings of the right-wing idealogues. Left-wing idealogues get a pass because they have little in the way of a moral foundation. But I expect more from those who claim to be on the Lord’s side. I do like Hugh Hewitt generally.