Excellent find, Curt. I excerpted and linked from Part 37 of my Jamilgate series.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt, thanks…and it would be my honor. You will have to show me around the landscape to make sure I know how to properly link to other sites and such…but, I would be happy and honored to do so…if you ever have to go away for a few days. Just email me with some advance notice.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Jamil Hussein wasn’t a stringer…he was a “blended hot source” to be spread on the wings of the stories with which we were being buffaloed.

That has to be one of the best lines I’ve heard in awhile CF.

Great points you made here in your comment (I should have you guest post sometime, good stuff) and I agree with you completely. The point I was making was the first example you gave in regards to conspiracies. I don’t believe they are all getting together and doing the super secret handshake and hashing out how they will topple this Administration but there is indeed a groupthink going on which should be highlighted every single day.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Excellent points, Curt. I have two minor distinctions or differences that I would like to point out.

“Do I think it’s one huge conspiracy? No. But I do know that the liberal bias in each individual reporter or editors mind seeps out in what they decide to report on.”

This is gracious and for that, you should be respected and admired. I just think that the conclusion (which I see elsewhere quite often, so I believe you are in the majority and I am not), is simply not justified.

Is it “one huge conspiracy” perhaps should be defined by me and maybe then we might not disagree at all. Here goes:

Do I think there is a big giant secret hall on the far left side of some hotel, where all the Ministry of Media meet and decide how to distort the news? No. So, if the defninition of a “conspiracy” is taken to mean that there is an operational center and all factions report into it to get marching orders, then there is no “conspiracy”.

However, if it is taken to mean that there is an “understanding” that certain events are to be ignored (those you mentioned above, Sandy Berger’s stocking stuffers, …that none of the “fraternity” will ever report on one of the others getting their hands caught in the cookie jar), and where ALL the distortions and misrepresentations will ALWAYS be advanced in favor of the leftist viewpoint…that they will use facts when the have them and “replacement facts” when they don’t…..then, yes…I believe there is a de facto conspiracy. A conspiracy of silence when offenses against journalistic integrity and ethics have been breached and a conspiracy of closing off and shutting down any dissenting viewpoints.

It is an enterprise conspiracy to monopolize the information where our opinions are shaped and formed. It is a conspiracy to block dissent in analysis and to more nefariously block the facts when they don’t fit. If this is not a de facto “conspiracy”, then the word has no meaning.

“I mean why else would they not report these recent events?”

This is an important point, Curt…that I believe is often missed and overlooked. It’s not just that the Ministry of Media reports misrepresentations, distortions, “replacement facts”, truthiness, fauxtography, staged events…it’s that they INTENTIONALLY sit on their hands and fail to report on stories of importance. It’s not just what they say and print and photograph, it’s what they DON’T say and print and photograph…and THERE’S more of the “conspiracy”. If ONE of them fails to report on an item…shame on them.

If ALL of them INTENTIONALLY sit on their hands…on an important story…that we KNOW would be breathlessly reported from EVERY angle had a non-leftist been the subject…then what is this…if not a conspiracy of silence? A conspiracy to hide the truth?

Of course, it’s a conspiracy. It’s the secret handshake of the leftist fraternity that you simply won’t report on leftist misdeeds. If ABSOLUTELY necessary, you give it a brief, cleansed and whitewashed glossing over…and then bury it.

“I’ll tell you why, it’s because these kind of stories would tell the world that maybe Iraq is not that bad off as they have let on. Why else would they not report the fact that almost ALL of the violence is in 5 sectors of Baghdad?”

For the same reason that they don’t report on Sandy Berger, or Jamil Hussein, or Green Helmet guy….it conflicts with the “message”. The truth is subservient to the “message”. The “message” is master and the truth is servant in this relationship. When the truth betrays the master, it is banished and replaced with a more convenient “truthiness”. Or, as we used to call them in the old days…lies.

“But alas the media won’t hear our calls for reform because they understand what they are doing when they use stringers like “Jamil Hussein”,

Jamil Hussein wasn’t a stringer…he was a “blended hot source” to be spread on the wings of the stories with which we were being buffaloed. They not only have an understanding of what they are doing…but have completely acquiesced in the doing it. They pay homage to the message. They sacrifice truth and integrity at its altar.

“they are spreading misinformation for a purpose. The defeat of the United States”

And they are perfectly content to make bedfellows with terrorists and other enemies du jour to advance that misinformation …all for the deity known as World Populism. (neo-Socialism if you prefer). They don’t necessarily want to wear burkhas and hang gays…but they will take down the current America for their purposes…and if terrorists serve those purposes…well, that’s a small price to pay.

Our Ministry of Media…we have met the enemy…now who is willing to stand up and be counted?

Like or Dislike: 0  0