|
September 10, 2005
Objectively irresponsible advice for CNN . . .
Glenn Reynolds is wondering why the press (with CNN in the leadership role) is so determined to show dead bodies now when they were morally opposed in the past: It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.No it didn't. Nor did it want to show what the enemies of this country were doing to captured Americans. In case anyone has forgotten, many blogs (including this one) linked to graphic images and video of the awful beheadings of Nick Berg, Eugene Armstrong, and Paul Johnson -- precisely because CNN and other MSM outlets refused to show them. Indeed, Tom Kunkel, president of American Journalism Review stated that it would be a form of terrorism to do so: "Any news outlet — or any private individual, for that matter — who makes available footage of the actual beheadings is, to my mind, an accessory to the crime itself," says Kunkel, dean of journalism at the University of Maryland. "Those are the individuals who are essentially finishing the work of the terrorists, by delivering their grisly 'message.' "Gee. Pretty tough words. Does that mean that CNN would be an accessory to Katrina? Why the about-face? I mean, assuming that it's a bad idea to inflame the public against enemies like al Qaida, it's not as if what happened in New Orleans might inflame the public against our enemies, because these deaths weren't caused by our enemies. Surely CNN isn't trying to inflame public sentiment against government bureaucracies which failed to evacuate people before the storm, trapped the victims by blocking exits from the flooded city, and refused to allow the Red Cross inside? Why wouldn't that be irresponsible journalism by CNN's own, uh, standards? I'm sure some would call me irresponsible and for having linked to graphic beheading scenes -- precisely because "responsible" journalists like CNN and others refused to show them. I don't think I was irresponsible, but if we assume I was, then the moral judgment would have derived from "standards" set by CNN and others in the MSM. That makes CNN even more irresponsible now, and infinitely more hypocritical, because after all it's their standard! A lingering question of responsibility, of course, is what is inflammatory? It's not based on the type of content, so it must depend on who is intended to be inflamed. From what I can determine, CNN has a simple but flexible journalistic standard: if the right people are inflamed, it's responsible. If the wrong people are inflamed, it's irresponsible! Or am I trying to be overly objective? posted by Eric on 09.10.05 at 09:37 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2758 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Objectively irresponsible advice for CNN . . .:
» natural selections XXXVI: twelve-pack of natty from evolution
Since I am currently out of a job and staying with my friend, Natty is all I get. Maybe these are some of my future career options: » I could sell out pro-freedom dissidents to the Chinese government. » I could brazenly pimp myself for ... [Read More] Tracked on September 10, 2005 06:00 PM
Comments
Funny abou me I know: Actually, spectrumologically speaking, when I speak of "the Left" as I did in my last comment, I am referring to the lower left-hand quarter of the 2-dimensional spectrum I am using these days more and more. The "Left" in this sense ranges from mixed-economy Keynesian New Deal-style pragmatists (which is what the media mean by "the moderates") on the left side to the classic Marxists at the lower left-hand corner to the totalitarians and nihilists of Political Correctness at the bottom, who are increasingly indistinguishable from Nazis. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 11, 2005 01:27 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
CNN: Communist News Network
The Left has had its moments of glory, beginning with the fall of the Bastille in 1789, inaugurating the French Revolution. Then the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia 1917, and the Communist revolutions that followed that in other countries.
But their greatest moment ever was the Crash of 1929, beginning the Great Depression. That was when the Left reached its zenith in America and around the world. It was the fulfillment of Karl Marx's prophecies of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the intolerable impoverishment of the working classes which would stir them to revolution. The workers of the world had nothing to lose and a world to win (if they only put on the chains of Communism). Communist Party membership in the U.S. soared to unprecedented heights, and its fronts multiplied exponentially. Popular Fronts were formed everywhere, most notably in Spain, uniting all liberal, democratic, and progressive thinkers against reaction and fascism. Uncle Joe was turning Russia into a Worker's Paradise, and FDR was starting his New Deal here in America, including persuading the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution a bit more flexibly. As Wordsworth wrote of the French Revolution: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very Heaven!" The Depression was anything but depressing for the Left.
Alas, it has never been the same since. The first shock began when Stalin signed his pact with Hitler to divide up Poland (thus staring World War II). Many broke with Communism upon that. Fortunately for Stalin, Hitler rescued his prestige among anti-fascists by invading Russia, thus making smiling Uncle Joe once again our beloved ally. But, after the War, many Americans, including President Truman, became rather impatient with the behavior of our erstwile ally (e.g., see the Berlin Airlift). Whittaker Chambers and Evil Joe and many others exposed Communist infiltration and treason in our government and other institutions. Even Kruschev himself, the Butcher of the Ukraine (and later of Budapest), finally blew the whistle on Stalin's mass murders. Over the decades, the crimes of Communism, equalling or even surpassing those of Hitler, became increasingly known to all.
The post-War economic boom gave American workers a prosperity never dreamed of in the works of Marx. Factory and mill workers began owning their own homes and cars and appliances, buying luxuries once reserved for the wealthy, and sending their sons and daughters off to universities (not yet realizing what sort of professors were predominating in many of those universities, see William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale and E. Merrill Root's Collectivism on the Campus). Blue-collar workers were no longer interested in revolution, all they wanted was (in Samuel Gompers's words) "more" of what capitalism had to offer. They were turning back to God, family, and country. They increasingly opposed Communism. They were becoming, not revolutionary, but reactionary, counter-revolutionary, even more reactionary than many big businessmen such as the Rockefellers who favored trade and "detente" with Communist states. They became the hated "hard-hats", evil "Archie Bunkers", and they voted for Reagan as they had once voted for Roosevelt.
Intellectuals of the Left such as Immanuel Wallerstein and Herbert Marcuse becan to formulate new theories to account for this and to create an alternative, a New Left. Instead of Marx's industrial workers, the revolutionary vanguard would now be university students correctly indoctrinated by their professors to see through the "false consciousness" of their benighted parents, to see the true fascist and imperialist essence of the "AmeriKKKan" system, and to work to undermine it from within, largely by getting into the media and reporting the news from a progressive point of view, not merely reporting the news but thereby actively shaping it. They already had Walter Duranty as an example to emulate.
Also, as they did in 1968 and then in 1972 and 1976, take over the Democratic Party and re-mold it in their image. Use the media to get progressive-minded Democrats elected. Destroy Republicans by any means necessary. Reverse historical fact and portray the Republicans, not the Democrats, as the party of slavery, segregation, and racism. Re-write history to portray America and Western civilization as the source of all evil.
As Big Brother said: "Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future." There is no "objective" truth just as there are no "absolute" moral values. Everything is relative. Whatever promotes the Revolution and the Party of the Revolution is true, right, and good. Whatever or whoever opposes it is false, wrong, evil, and to be discredited and destroyed by whatever means necessary.
Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of most of New orleans is, the destruction of thousands of homes and lives, is therefore the greatest thing that has happened since the Great Depression, since the deaths of 57,000 American soldiers in Viet Nam and the final surrender of Viet Nam to the Communists. Unlike September 11, 2001, it is not uniting fascist AmeriKKKa and giving power to the imperialist warmongers. Unlike June 26, 2003, it is not focusing thought on trivial, unimportant Constitutional and moral issues and the obsolete ideal of the freedom of the individual.
Instead, through the progresive voices in the media, this hurricane is dividing Americans along lines of class and race, focusing all thought on the only really important factor: economics, and the only important goal: equality. It is increasing demands for more and ever more government spending and government controls. Taxes, too, especially on the hated exploiters. It is discrediting the hated Party of Reaction. It is vindicating not only Marx, Mao, and Marcuse, but also Rousseau and Darwin, as it shows the beneficence of Nature itself as a most progressive force in history. Man's "superstructure" of religion, culture, and law is only a delusion. In reality, he is merely another animal, (literally) swept along by the flood of inevitable Progress.
"Hurrah for Hurrican Katrina!" says the Communist News Network.