Hugh Hewitt has a great observation.
Everything that American media could throw at a story, it threw at New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. No expense was spared. All hands were on deck. And yet not one news organization produced anything like complete coverage of the events unfolding inside the city's convention center or the Superdome. Horrific stories of murders and rapes spread like wildfire, reports of little girls with their throats slashed stunned Americans, and hysteria gripped many in the MSM. Weeks later the Los Angeles Times and others began to examine the collapse of the media's own levees that traditionally hold back rumor and urban myth.
Given this failure to capture the true story in New Orleans even with all of the combined resources of all the MSM working around the clock, why would anyone believe that American media is accurately reporting on the events in Iraq from the Green Zone, in the course of a bloody insurgency fought in a language they don't understand? If the combined forces of old media couldn't get one accurate story out of the convention center, why for a moment believe it can get a story out of Mosul or Najaf?
1 comment:
I heard Rush making this point yesterday. Apparently he was on a panel in 1993 about the Clintons' proposed health plan. He asked "Why should we believe what they tell us about this? They have been known to lie." No one could challenge the point. Likewise, why would we believe the MSM's reporting on anything? They have been known to lie. Rush pointed to a new Gallup poll that indicated that a great majority of Americans think the MSM tilts too far to the left. (Presumably some of the minority believe it but like it that way.)
Post a Comment