Dawn over Cambridge …
… as Harvard’s Shorenstein Center figures out the media bought a bill of goods from Hezbollah last summer in Lebanon. Literally, paying Hezbsymps for propaganda.
Not a bad start. Now let’s see them apply the same scrutiny to terrorist-, excuse me, militant-friendly coverage of Iraq. Starting with Al-P, and its fascination with body counts.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 2:53 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2007
22 Responses to “Dawn over Cambridge …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I’ll bet you over in Cambridge they at least know how to spell Boston.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Interesting report:
“However, if you were watching American television, you would quickly have concluded that Fox cable news favored Israel, CNN tried to be balanced, and the three major evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC were more critical of Israel than of Hezbollah.”
Fair and balanced indeedy.
CNN, that is.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
“Fair and balanced…CNN, that is” does not equal “…CNN tried to be balanced…”
Unless, of course, you are THE ALPHTARD and are engaging in hyperbole to divert the thread away from the topic of the media being a pawn of terrorism in general, and Hezballah in particular. Of course, THE ALPHTARD is a master of hyperbole.
The report is pretty damning…….not that it surprises a lot of people outside of the reality based community, but damning none the less.
Needless to say, the media will shrug their shoulders and ask, “Who, us?”
April 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
You’d have to go to Cornell to find someone who can spell Cambridge
April 25th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Just reading a wingnut-endorsed report, Jeff.
One that points out the obvious, that Faux News is anything but “fair and balanced.”
The real irony is that your kind have done far more damage to Israel’s security than any of the Middle Eastern news outfits have.
Stuff happens, eh?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
One that points out the obvious, that Faux News is anything but “fair and balanced.”
THE ALPHTARD now engages in goal post moving and answer deflection! THE ALPHTARD ignores the CNN error, the full context of the report, and takes aim at that horrible neo-con news network, Fox! Oh, THE ALPHTARD struggles valiantly, but fails to produce little more than a vain attempt to change the subject! This is evident by the careful use of non-sequiturs in THE ALPHTARD’s closing sentences.
STRUGGLE ON ALPHTARD!!!!! BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Did you actually read the report, Jeff?
I imagine Little Green Fascist couldn’t resist linking to a Harvard report that namechecks him, but it read this little snippet from it:
“When bin Laden wanted to help tip the 2004 presidential election in the U.S. to the incumbent, George W. Bush, he criticized Bush in a taped message delivered to Al-Jazeera. In Washington, such an approach would be called “media manipulation,” and it works there as it does in the Middle East.”
Why indeed would bin Laden want to keep the wingnuts in power for another 4 years?
I think we’ve seen why.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
WHY THE MSM and Democrats Support Islamists
FROM a recent book review about BBC bias: “So for instance, during the era of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, the BBC was too willing to find excuses for Soviet misdeeds and excesses; was too sympathetic for the notion of unilateral nuclear disarmament; was too hostile and suspicious of the motives of the US.
“In other words” Aitken continues, “it was too skeptical of the West and its motives; not skeptical enough of the Soviet Union and its motives. And I think that in bending over backwards to be fair, it often tips the other way, and is actually unfair to our side if you like.”
The MSM and Democrats are constantly moving farther left, leaving Liberalism to the Republicans. Here is modern Liberalism: “Liberalism (Websters): noun 1 : the quality or state of being liberal 2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.”
George Bush Jr., Cheney, McCain, Gingrich, etc., constantly talk about these topics, but Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, and Kennedy seldom do. Things have changed a lot since 1776! Until about 15 years ago, neither Democrats or Republicans were internally homogeneous. They had big business, blacks, southern racists, northerners, the poor, intellectuals, populists, and communist hunters mixed up in each party like two similar batches of cookie dough.
But then Karl Marx entered the mix in about 1992. With the communist scare gone, Socialism seemed safe, as long as you used `progressivism’, or some other euphemism. Marx’s philosophy, called dialectical materialism, said political opposites would unite and merge, and then new opposites would appear. This seems to have happened with the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats have always had a Socialist fringe, but now, rear-ended out of the middle of the political intersection by Bush, Democrats seem to have shed modern liberalism in favor of a fairly strong Leftist philosophy.
Forget what “far right” things the Republicans have done in the past. Right now, to me, Bush seems to occupy a liberal democratic center.
Here is the Democrat political philosophy, espoused by Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, others, and of course the MSM: (1) big government, because it’s needed to impose social control, (2) high taxes, because money is needed for big government, (3) economic levelling, because wealth redistribution is key, (4) controls on capitalism, because capitalism is bad, (5) top-down political structures, because Leftists favor cooperation instead of competition, so competition must be suppressed from above, (6) pro-global government, because Leftists are transnational, and abjure the nation state, (7) pro `Doom Theory’, because these theories justify big, global, top-down government, (8) antiwar, because they do not want to help liberal democrats win in the global struggle, (9) pro moral relativism, because according to Marx, and dialectical materialism, morality is constantly in flux, changing, and less important than striving for Socialist ideals, (10) anti-religion, because it distracts from the pursuit of higher Socialist Ideals, (11) pro-Islamist, because Socialists have common cause with Islamists in opposing Republican liberal democracy, (12) anti-Israel, in order to be pro-Islamist, (13) equivocation on the Constitution, because the liberal democracy articulated in the Constitution is at odds with Socialist ideals, and (14) pro gun control, to help facilitate top-down government control. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it may be a duck. There is no other theory that I can think of which explains so much of the disturbing behavior of the Democrats.
Canadians would not waste time on euphemisms. They’re Socialists.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Well said, DR.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
To: RebeccaH
Thank you, and please help me spread the word! In so many of these blogs, people stare at the Democrats and MSM in disbelief, unable to figure out what they’re up to. To me, the idea that the Democrats and the MSM are just garden-variety Socialists makes it all fit together. It’s like Rubik’s Cube, and the more I think about it, the more I understand. One key thing is that they don’t want anyone to notice, because they know that Americans don’t like Socialism. That’s why I’m so eager to CALL THEM OUT.
Pro Patria
DemocracyRules
April 25th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I love seeing the budget-busting wingnuts pretending to be defenders of Capitalism.
Handing the bill for your lost wars to our children ain’t exactly what Adam Smith had in mind, DR.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
“When bin Laden wanted to help tip the 2004 presidential election in the U.S. to the incumbent, George W. Bush, he criticized Bush in a taped message delivered to Al-Jazeera. In Washington, such an approach would be called “media manipulation,” and it works there as it does in the Middle East.”
Why indeed would bin Laden want to keep the wingnuts in power for another 4 years?
I think we’ve seen why.
THE ALPHTARD ignores the possiblity that bin Laden might be as much an a member of the “reality based community” as the THE ALPHTARD, and that bin Laden honestly thought that he could influence the national elections through that tape….but failed miserably.
Additionally, THE ALPHTARD expresses THE ALPHTARD’s belief as an assertion, demonstrated by THE ALPHTARD’s perception of recent history.
Since THE ALPHTARD has clearly and consistently demonstrated a severe deficiency in historical knowledge and a high degree of bias in anything even remotely related to President Bush, the non-members of the reality based community may safely disregard any historical analysis offer by the THE ALPHTARD.
THE ALPHTARD MUST NOT CEASE THE STRUGGLE!!!!! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Nicely said, DR. I don’t know that there’s a conspiracy as such, but in this fad driven world, it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between a conspiracy and the latest fashion.
And God knows a lot of people want to be “fashionable”.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy either. It seems to be more like collective consciousness, where people talk, discuss, and come to similar conclusions at the same time. I sense I’m on to something, though, because Democrats and MSM people go BALLISTIC when confronted with this theory. The extreme sensitivity means I have hit a nerve. Liberal Democracy, as it was first conceived by the founders of America, is once again under attack from within and without. Honestly, I would hate living beside a Socialist America.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Slavery is never coming back.
Accept it, guys.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
THE ALPHTARD rocks on! More non-sequiturs! More subject changing! More assertions!
THE ALPHTARD PERSEVERES IN SPITE OF IMMENSE HARDSHIPS!!
THE ALPHTARD SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER!!!!!!
THE ALPHTARD MUST CONTINUE THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND FREE LATTES FOR ALL!!!!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Here’s a question: why, if Democrats are anti-terror, do they completely lack any specific plan to fight it? Answer 1: because they are actually pro-terror, in the sense that they want to use it to defeat the Republicans, showing them up as failed militarists, bogged down in pointless wars. Answer 2: because Democrats are anti-terror, and they have a plan to fight it, but they have yet to disclose it. Which answer seems most plausible to you?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Honestly, I would hate living beside a Socialist America.
Seeing what a mess Sweden and other nations are in, I agree. Wholeheartedly.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
I have visited Sweden twice, and I liked the country, but it’s hard to tell the men from the women. All kind of emasculated. In medicine, it’s called the dose-response effect, where, for example, 1 aspirin helps the headache, and 2 does even more. Socialism is a kind of poison, that does something similar. With the 3/4 Socialism of Sweden, the country is 3/4 poisoned.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
another kudo for you, DR: excellent precis on the Left.
And, having some of them in my own family, I know that they feel quite superior to the rest of the citizenry, and therefore support ideas/policies that will increase their own power over that citizenry.
Have you noticed that one of their ongoing complaints is that BushitlerBadGuys have made “Americans” unpopular in Europe? That really means that the Left have to explain over and over and over to their fellow elites in France/England, etc, that no, no, no, THEY are not like the OTHER slobs inhabiting the USA.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Slavery? Slavery and Jim Crow were Democratic policies. The Republican Party was formed expressly to oppose slavery. The slightest aquaintence with American history would reveal that fact. It appears that Alphie is trying to confirm Jeff’s assertion of Alphie’s ignorance.
Once again, as dueing the Civil War, the Democrats have returned to their Copperhead role of seeking the defeat of the USA in war. Evidently they are stupid enough (or lying to themselves and to others) to believe that if we run away in Iraq nothing bad will happen to us afterwards. Scoundrels and piss-ants.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Alphie, you’re wrong, slavery is coming back. The radical Islamists, the guys we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, are bringing it back. This has been going on in the Sudan since about 1982, when the Sudan Islamist government started financing their genocidal war agains the black Africans of Equatoria Province by selling their prisoners into slavery. When they rape and kill in Darfur the Arab of the Janjaweed tell the black Africans there that they are natural slaves. The Islamists say that slavery must be reintroduced because the Koran approves of it, so Sharia requires it. That is part of what we are fighting against. Putting yourself on the side against America means putting yourself on the side of slavery.