I once received an award for a term paper I wrote in College. I will not make claims to its quality, but the research and writing the paper was a labor of love. The paper was titled "Censorship in War time : Justifications and Causes" or some other such bullshit, I really do not remember. I studied an episode in history, and compared the actual events to what was reported in the newspapers of the day. I made great efforts to make sure I used primary sources, secondary sources, and oral histories to see what really happened.
I compared the events of the Battle of the Bulge in WWII to what the reporters of the day told the public. The Battle of the Bulge or Ardennes Forrest was a pivotal moment in the history of warfare. The Allies came perilously close to collapsing. The war may have raged much longer than 6 more months with a German victory. I intended to write a little about this titanic battle fought in the freezing cold and snowy December 61 years ago, but current news events have influenced me to go on a different tangent.
When I did my comparison to actual events in the Ardennes Forest, I used articles from the NY Times as the basis for the "current" news reports. One could have made the argument (and I did) that as the TIMES went, so did the nation.
The idea of newspapers creating news rather than reporting it is not new. In fact the idea of a "neutral, unbiased" newspaper is far from the truth in our history. One only need to read the newspapers from the Revolutionary era, the Civil war or Reconstruction to see that newspapers took a clear position on the issues of the day. The reports from the beginning of the 20th Century are famous for their biases. The term 'yellow journalism" was coined to describe the editorial slant of the articles and the editorials pages in the time of the Spanish American War. It is only in modern times that journalism schools have preached the "objective reporter" school.
Not to get off the subject, but most of you know that reporters during WWII often did not report the facts of troop movements or impending battle plans. The reporters and newspapers knew our country was in a struggle for its very existence. During the Battle of the Bulge, the TIMES reported there was a minor skirmish in the Ardennes, when in fact the Germans had driven a salient nearly fifty miles into our lines. Days later they reported light casualties when it looked as if we were going to break, giving the Axis a clear path to our supply depots on the sea.
The morale and spirit of the homefront was essential to the war effort. The truth was printed weeks later, but only in small doses. The reporters often censored the news themselves. Was this right? I will leave it up to you, but my opinion is that in times of war sometimes extraordinary efforts are required.
That brings me to today. In recent decades it has become the philosophy of the TIMES andthe liberal media to become "gotcha" journalists. The sensationalism of the story is secondary to the scoop, and especially if it can be harmful to Conservative leaders. I find the publication of the Pentagon Papers to be one of the ultimate treasonous acts in the last 50 years, ranking with the selling of our nuclear secrets by the Rosenbergs (yes Ethel I think you betrayed our country with your Jello boxes).
The Times has continued its policy of hurting America's war efforts into this century. The over reporting and sensationalism associated with the Abu Gharib "tortures" (I was "tortured worse in Fraternity hazings) and now the "spy scandal" reports have done much to hurt our Nation's credibility and war efforts. The irresponsible Newsweek reports got people killed over lies of Koran desecration. The TIMES jumped on that bandwagon too.
I do not have a big problem with newspapers taking a political stand. As we discussed above, that has been the norm for centuries. My complaint is the Times and liberal media pretends they do not have a bias. Dan Rather preferred humiliation and "retirement" as opposed to admitting shoddy journalism and extreme bias.
When reporting begins to hurt National Security and make it easier for those who wish harm on our country we are bordering on treason. We are at war. Our Nation's survival has not been graver danger since that cold December 61 years ago in Belgium. Not only does the article headlines cover a half-truth that Senators and Congressmen were briefed on the domestic spying activities, but the courts did approve of the activity. A half truth is more lie than truth, and a lie is a lie. Shame on you New York Times, to put your circulation, your political bias, your hatred for GW Bush, and yes -- America-- before the the rights of those who want to destroy our country. The real irony is that if our enemies get their way, the news outlets will be the first to loose their freedoms.
I am not the first, and many will say it more clearly, but if you have such a hatred of this country feel free to relocate. Name one place on Earth with more freedom, more prosperity, more to offer its citizens. Our Government has many shortfalls, our President has made mistakes. Doing your best to destroy him personally at the expense of our ongoing freedoms is reprehensible. The saddest aspect is that much of the venom and hatred found on the left is spite. It is an effort to repay the Conservative base for the charges against Clinton. Let us not forget that he was not impeached for having tryst. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury, to lying under oath in a court of law. The chant of the liberal left is "Bush lied, people died". He made the same charges against Iraq as his predecessor, and Germany, and France, and the UN. Yet somehow the PROVEN liar, Wm Clinton, is made out to be a martyr, yet a Bush is called the liar. Alice, where is the rabbit hole?
