Show Me the Way to the ''Liberal'' Media?

Published: Mon 4 Oct 2004 11:25 AM
Can Someone Show Me the Way to the "Liberal" Media?
By The Top Dog
On September 24, the liberal NBC network broadcast the following:
''The Republican National Committee now has acknowledged sending mass mailings to two states that say liberals want to ban the Bible. Republican Party officials say the mailings in Arkansas and West Virginia are aimed at mobilizing Christian voters for President Bush. Some Christian commentators say liberal support for same-sex marriage could lead to laws that punish sermons denouncing homosexuality as sinful."
F.A.I.R. correctly labeled the above as “Bible Ban” BS:
It’s clear how one should describe the claim that “liberals want to ban the Bible”: It’s a lie, and a blatant and incendiary one. But not only does Brokaw not tell his viewers that the RNC smear isn’t true, he gives “Christian commentators” a chance to justify that deceit with another, that gay marriage could lead to censorship of sermons. Why does such an unsubstantiated and frankly bizarre claim deserve space on a national newscast?
Meanwhile, the victims of the lie don’t get any chance to speak in Brokaw’s report; the entire item is sourced either to Republicans or to the religious right.
When are we gonna get over the idea that the mainstream US media is “liberal?” Kee-rist, these are the same scribes that thumped the drums for war with nary a discouraging word heard, the same bunch of limp wrists that willingly agreed to embed their “reporters” for a shock-and-awe campaign that awed only network advertising departments and war contractors.
And guess what? The CEO of Viacom, which owns the “liberal” CBS, declared last week that he was for Bush because the Republicans were good for Viacom. Imagine that! The head of a huge corporate octopus declaring that he favored the gene doctors that allowed him to grow an extra octet of arms.
Am I pissed? Yes I am! On Tuesday night I watched Joe “yes-an-intern-did-die-in-my-office-and-I-then-quit-Congress-early-but-please-let’s-talk-about-Gary-Condit-because-now-the-liberal-media — yuk-yuk — have-given-me-a-soap-box” Scarborough give on-the-air advice to John Kerry.
You have learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam. You see everything through the specter and the spectrum of Vietnam. Middle Americans don‘t. Middle Americans think that their government failed in Vietnam because they didn‘t do enough to win the war. So this is what I am going to tell you to do, and if you follow my advice, you are going to win.
Lordy, that takes a serious set of “roves,” by which I mean an inbred ability to look at Jesus on the cross and then issue a press leak suggesting Christ was a miscreant member of the “body piercing” lifestyle who would ban the Bible if allowed to assume power.
Scarborough continued, saying Kerry’s problem was he was a wimp, that America could have won the Vietnam war if we had just got tough with those uppity slants (the Phoenix Program, Agent Orange and more spent ordnance than WWII aside). And we could be winning the Iraq war if we would simply stop listening to the namby-pamby pacifists who suggest that turning all of Iraq into a parking lot would be an “overreaction” to those fighting against an unprovoked American invasion of their own country.
Honestly, folks, and I’m not making this up, Scarborough said we should simply give 24-hours notice to the residents of Fallujah: All women and children out, because we are about to flatten your city.
Sweet. Of course, he didn’t really talk about where those people would go. Why bore oneself with details…
Remind you of someone? “We will invade Iraq and vanquish Saddam, and fuck-sakes, it’ll just be peachy when I can say to my dad: ‘See, I did amount to something! I showed you!’”
Those “liberals” who had not launched WWIII following Scarborough’s exhortation for “Yankee jihad” were treated to Chris Matthews’ Softball, where he sat straight-faced while the Republican governor of Colorado baldly deadpanned that having Saddam in jail was more important to America’s safety than having Osama. Huh? Did he really just say that? Yes, he did:
MATTHEWS: Governor, would you rather have—would you rather have Osama bin Laden in jail right now or Saddam Hussein in jail right now?
OWENS: Well, actually, I would like to have both in jail right now, but Chris...
MATTHEWS: But if you had to choose between the two, you‘re saying it is better to have Saddam Hussein.
OWENS: Clearly Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was in fact capable of building nuclear weapons. He had tried to do so earlier. He had used chemical weapons on his own people and others.
What Owens failed to mention was that the US helped Saddam make those very weapons, and when he was using them, the current US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was in Baghdad, shaking the man’s hand.
It’s time the American public was called out. If you vote for this SOB, knowing what you know now, you prove only one thing: Americans are no different from the Germans who said: “Jews? Death camps? I had no idea.” Today, Germans know what went on in those death camps.
If enough people in Middle America still don’t know why we lost in Vietnam, or why we’re taking an old-fashioned licking in Iraq, then either kick this idiot back to Crawford village or start preparing for the day when Dubya decides he needs yet more fodder for his desert folly.
It can happen here. And it is.
**** ENDS ****

Next in Comment

Totalitarian Cyber-Creep: Mark Zuckerberg In The Metaverse
By: Binoy Kampmark
'Influenza' Pandemics In New Zealand's Past
By: Keith Rankin
When the internet disappears 
By: Digitl
Gasbagging In Glasgow: COP26 And Phasing Down Coal
By: Binoy Kampmark
Why Julian Assange’s Inhumane Prosecution Imperils Justice For Us All
By: Globetrotter
Dunne Speaks: Labour's High Water Mark
By: Peter Dunne
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media