.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, January 03, 2005

Reporters FAVOR 'stingy' interpretation

John at Crossroads Arabia has a great post on the failure of American aid officials to adequately explain how initial aid allocations were simply an expression of immediately available funds, not an indication of what aid might be forthcoming. He lays out enough of the details of the funding process to show how process restrictions account for the initial $35 million commitment and the subsequent $350 million promise, while major funding still awaits Congressional approval.

Glad to have the clarification, but who didn't already understand this? One does not need to know the details of the funding processes to know that initial allocations of aid will be a function of immediately available funds and immediate spending opportunities. The mainstream media CHOSE from the outset to misrepresent the immediately available aid as an expression of American stinginess. Statements by the U.N.'s Jan Egeland calling "rich countries" "stingy" were touted and parroted by the New York Times ("Are We Stingy? Yes") and other media.

The clearest proof of bias comes in their interpretation of the inevitable increase in funding. The San Francisco Chronicle put its spin right in yesterday’s page one headline: “Stung by charges of being tightfisted and slow to respond, Bush makes tenfold increase in pledged amount.” Of course! Why didn’t I think of that? America doesn’t give aid because it is generous, but because it doesn’t want to be seen as stingy! When I read that headline, I smashed my fist down so hard on reporter Zachary Coile’s name that my kitchen table bounced off the floor. Its is bad enough that the European press is monopolized by America haters. Does our own press have to be monopolized by America haters too? (The real evil power in the Chronicle’s Washington bureau is Bureau Chief Marc Sandalow. Coile is his protege.)

Simply stated, the mainstream media are a bunch of sick, rotten, left-wing liars. It does not matter that their hatred of America is only instrumental--that their malicious lying is driven at bottom (or closer to bottom) by hatred of Bush and Christianity and conservatism. America is now led by the Republicans so to most effectively slander Bush, the moral-trash eagerly slander America. They view everything in terms of their hatred. The nation picked Bush so they hate the nation.

Honest disagreement is the stuff of a great republic. The constant malicious disinformation of the mainstream media is a rot and a poison. Because they think in terms of lies, nothing that they presume to be right ever IS right. They have absolutely nothing to contribute. They are a pure negative force, completely unrestrained by the requirements of honest reason. How can we purge this Augean stable and remove the moral-trash from their positions of power in American society? What river can we send through?

The river of liberty. When the inroads that have already been made into the left’s media monopoly finally bring down its walls, good information and bad information will compete directly. The bubble of daily spin that protects and reinforces the left’s culture of lies will pop. Truth will out and market prices will come to reflect truth value. The market value of liars will at that point equal the negative value that they produce and they will have to find employment elsewhere.

This is the only way, so bring out the siege engines. Smash their walls. Destroy their monopoly. Let the tsunami of compassion that aids those stricken by a tsunami of sea also be a tsunami of truth that routs liars into the sea. There is no excuse for peddling malicious disinformation. Michael Moore, Dan Rather, Joe Wilson, Paul Krugman, Zachary Coile, Marc Sandalow, they and a million others all need to be gone.

NPR leads the pack in broadcasting malicious, negative misinformation about the US relief effort in South Asia. The UN, of course, conversely, always gets glowing reports from NPR for having meetings and press conferences to tell everyone else that they should be working through the UN. Meanwhile, the UN's own people have no personal concept of urgency, or any work ethic that might involve missing a fancy reception, or getting one's own hands dirty. NPR folk don't understand hard work, so have no comprehension of the UN's aversion to it.
Exactly right.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?