American Press vs European Press
By Tom Adkins (04/02/03)
"…We can't see anyone using of weapons of mass destruction.. Was it a big lie or just a cover to justify your invasion of Iraq and to remove its regime, which still cannot use any kind of these weapons to defend itself against your attacks?"
An Iraqi interrogator berating an American POW? Susan Sarandon shaking down a General in a Pentagon bathroom? No. This was a BBC reporter harassing General Tommy Franks at a CENTCOM press conference on March 19th. He no doubt wrote a story that hit the streets of London in time for fellow Englishmen to lap up, along with the afternoon tea. Is there a better illustration why Europeans disagree with the United States approach to dealing with terrorism? The European press hates America, hates George W. Bush, and dedicates itself totally to defeating "the enemy." And they unrelentingly pour their slanted drivel into the ears of their countrymen.
"Jeff Meade, Sky News. How does it help you to be regarded as liberators by the Iraqi people when they are being terrified by that display of ordnance? And also bearing in mind that some of the targets may have suspect military value, because if they are obvious regime buildings they would have long ago been evacuated. And what do you say to those people who say that the people who are most likely to be shocked and awestruck by the shock are the Iraqi civilians you claim to be liberating?"
I'm not sure what Sky News looks for on a job application, but concern for truth is probably towards the bottom. Meade completely ignored the well-known fact that Saddam Hussein routinely integrates military facilities within residential areas. He also ignored the obvious fact that people who are tortured, raped and starved might possibly appreciate liberation. Just like Meade's forefathers who ignored Adolf Hitler, the modern European press is more concerned with burying itself into nationalist sand, with a modern-day twist of American hatred tossed in.
Helen Thomas couldn't shine Meade's shoes.
There is actually a good reason for this lying, slanting and sliming. The European press takes sides. Stop at any news stand in Paris, Brussels, London or Munich, and the newspapers stake their political positions on the front page. Always have. Don't like it? Buy another paper.
The American press however, has wrapped a liberal agenda inside claims of objectivity. But once cable TV and the Internet exposed these biased frauds, the American press lost over half its audience in both print and television. Still, the old hippies and leftists manning the battlestations at the USS Liberal Press are desperately rekindling their glory days, trying to turn a ten-day old war into a new Vietnam. Rich Galen recently observed a news channel claiming a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed only 34% of the country thought the war was "going well," but they ignored the 51% who thought the war was going "moderately well," leaving a miniscule 15% who didn't think the war was going well. Slick stuff like that (along with faking exploding pickup trucks) has pulled the curtain away from the biased skunk works of the American press. And credibility is like virginity: once you lose it, it's gone forever.
But the 30-minute news cycle also made the American press stupider. At a March 22 White House press conference, MSNBC's Campbell Brown led a 14-question assault on White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, demanding he reveal the really, really important wartime television habits of George Bush. You would think they believed Fleischer was a question away from breaking down, speechlessly wiping gushing tears with one hand while passing the President's resignation to the nearest heroic reporter with the other hand. Of course, Fleisher began literally rolling his eyes at the sixth or seventh channel surfing inquisition.
From bubbleheads to blowhards, Americans don't even pay attention to these fools anymore, choosing Leno and Letterman as their prime news source. Why not? Since humor is rooted in the truth, they have greater credibility.
Our domestic press keeps asking, "Is your marriage really doing well?" And the Europeans follow with "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's hard to know whether American stupidity or European treachery is more dangerous. Throw in Peter Arnett's smoochfest with Saddam Hussein, Part II, and it's a wonder anyone even watches but to see the next train wreck. Either way, the resulting ignorance of the world public is probably the greatest threat to world peace and common sense than anything else.
No wonder we have to rescue them every 50 years.
===========================================
SOME OF THE BRILLIANT QUESTIONS POSED TO TOMMY FRANKS
Q: General, you showed us a picture of troops in the desert -- it wasn't a great picture as far as I was concerned -- I couldn't see much about it. This is a very important propaganda issue -- if Iraqi forces hear through a whole variety of means that the units are just simply melting away.
Q: Kathy Shen (ph), Phoenix TV from Hong Kong. On the second date of the operation, the coalition -- they clearly have -- (inaudible) -- secure. But a statement -- that's thrown off by the Iraqi Information Minister. And with the pictures that you've been showing us at the briefing indicates the coalition only targeted precisely on the military infrastructure. But Iraqi and also -- as a matter of fact, Iraqi Health Minister said that coalition has killed many of their civilians. So, could you tell me who is telling the truth here? And is this war all about image-building?
Q: I'm Michael Wolf (sp) from New York Magazine. I mean no disrespect by this question, but I want to ask about the valued proposition of these briefings. We're no longer being briefed by senior-most officers. To the extent that we get information, it's largely information already released by the Pentagon. You may know that ABC has sent its senior correspondent home. So I guess my question is, why should we stay? What's the value to us for what we learn at this million-dollar press center? (The reporters all loudly applaud)
Q: General, Rob Morrison from NBC News. We're getting reports from the field that Iraqi expatriates are returning by the thousands from Jordan, ready and eager to take up arms against the coalition. What information do you have on this developing situation? And isn't it an example of Iraqis who are not willing to be, quote-unquote, liberated? Thank you.
Q: Xinhua News Agency of China. General, as we know, 47 U.S. and British military personnel have been confirmed killed since the war began. And there are many persons still missing. Some American reports say if coalition casualties exceed 150, that's the number in the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. government will face a big problem. Could you give some comment about that? And when do you think this war is going to end?
Q: General, Jeff Meade from Sky News. I wonder if could talk a little bit to this pause in the advance which there's been a lot of speculation about this morning, and also whether as an airman you might also consider now advisable a pause in air operations to avoid more civilian bloodshed, which hands to your adversary -- I know you will challenge the responsibility -- but hands to your adversary the moral high ground which you claim.
Q: Kathy Shin from Phoenix Satellite TV in Hong Kong. General, you mentioned many, many times in today's briefings there's no pause in the operation. However, yesterday Lieutenant (General) Wallace told the Washington Post that overextended supply lines, combined with unconventional Iraqi tactics make a longer war look likely. And the other day President Bush just said that there is no time table for this war. My question is: would you be surprised if this war turned into -- the duration of this war turned into another Vietnam War?
Q: Thank you, sir. (Inaudible) -- with ABC News. The Ansar al-Islam camp in northeast Iraq was identified by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations as a camp with possible terrorist connections, possible links to al Qaeda, and it was used as part of the Administration's justification for war. Yet a special operations team's raid on the camp turned up, according to people who were there on the ground, none of the suspected ricin or any other weapons of mass destruction. Why is that? Was there bad satellite intelligence? And sir, if you continue to come up empty-handed in search of weapons of mass destruction, doesn't that present a big problem?
Q: Gregory Castell (ph), BBC French Service. Sir, after weeks -- General, after weeks of airstrikes on Baghdad, how will you convince later the population, this huge population, that you came in as liberators? And that includes -- of course airstrikes includes civilian casualties.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Adkins
