Major Newspapers, |
Thursday, January 25. 2007Disconnect?Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I think PJ O'Rourke put his finger on this years ago when he said that the constant jeremiads are aimed primarily at giving their issuers intellectual weight, not to point out obvious problems. Put simply, you're not going to be showered with accolades (or money) if you're in the business of pointing out how good things are.
A commenter says: "Take credit and HOLD credit. this the Bushies have not done. and they are as much to blame for not taking credit for economic successes as the media are for not giving it."
The Bushies have done so. You don't know it because it is not reported. Go to whitehouse.gov and read Bush's speeches and you'll see.
Bush doesnt get credit for it, thats true.
But, knowing that they exist in a political/media environment that will not GIVE them credit for anything, it was and remains incumbent on the Bush White House communications shop to TAKE credit where credit is due. Take credit and HOLD credit. this the Bushies have not done. and they are as much to blame for not taking credit for economic successes as the media are for not giving it. whoever the next president is, if they dont take the time and effort to understand the need...imperative even...of going end-around the major daily media in this country such as tv networks and national newspapers and magazines, to the point of stopping interviews dead in their tracks when misleading or biased info is being passed off as factual news, then no progress will be made. that is...if the next president is a Republican. If it is a Democrat, expect to see story after story after story about the Democratic Economic Miracle, citing with praise the very same data not being ignored or cited in a negative context. sigh.
Check how the media companies are faring relative to the rest of the market.
The MSMs "quagmire" thesis is contradicted by any close attention to metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, these go unreported and unmentioned, remaining out of the debate.
Consider this vector: hold three increasingly successful elections (which went underreported), and then the enemy follows the newly seated powers that be to the capital - Bagdhad. How can anyone report this as failure? The MSM can't even report this almost exclusively civilian assualt for what it is - terrorism! (Only Jews are "terrorists," you see.) Or take the fact that US deaths in Iraq fell in 2006 from 2005. Who knows this fact? Yet THIS is a "fiasco" and "failure" and means "quagmire in Iraq." These memes are lies. And given the fact that US soldiers and Iraqis (biggest economic growth in the mid-East, still), and Afghanis are much more optimistic about their future than the American people are, and are much closer to their problems than we are, you'd think we'd doubt our perceptions and question opinion leaders and the media - right? Well, just underreport - or report not at all - these facts, and the US public is fully mal-informed. Net result? US public is mostly indifferent to US defeat and Jihadist terrorist success in Iraq. This is a major failure of our "truth seeking" media, because it is dangerously false. After 9/11, some said "never again." These facts show we will most likely repeat the evil past, instead of avoiding it when we could. Because of the MSM, we are slow learners, believing in the false and imaginary.
The media is a big part of this misperception, to be sure, but not the whole of the problem. Another negative force is the many, many people in the United States who have a conflict of interest between their political fortunes and the interests of the United States (and our troops). These people are known as "Democrats".
The nightmare scenario in Iraq for Republilcans is victory by the terrorists. The nightmare scenario in Iraq for Democrats is victory by America. When you think about it, it's elementary.
Perhaps, O'Rourke's thesis is partly true but there is another core reason for the disconnect between reality and news reporting. Baby boomer liberals here and in Europe now edit almost all main stream media outlets, populate the upper levels of almost all non-governmental organizations, and still hold the greatest influence in almost every first world government bureaucracy and legislature.
That being said, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the failure of Cuba and the resort to capitalism by Viet Nam etc., even die hard socialist bureaucrats are starting to realize the manifest problems with socialism. After Rwanda, years of inaction in the Balkans, Darfur etc. even NGO loving, baby boomer, socialists are starting to realize that institutions like the UN are inept and ineffectual. Capitalism has conferred more benefit to the economies of Asia (for several of many examples) than any government or UN or World Bank economic development program ever has. The stark contrast between the Koreas is clear evidence of the relative merits of socialism v. capitalism. In Europe the great promise that socialism held in the 1950's and 1960's, just hasn't panned out the way it was supposed to and the socialists are starting to show strain from the exposure of socialism's obvious flaws. When you also factor in that elitist baby boomers also suffer from narcissistic personality you can understand how their inability to cover up the flaws in their belief system and world view are driving them crazy. What we are seeing right now is the flailing around of a bunch or arrogant, entitled people who cannot countenance the fact that they may have been wrong. They are going to tell us how horrible the world is no matter what is really happening because reality is deviating from their fantasy. |
SearchSupporterAlmased reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |