Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Is There a Pro Obama Bias in The Media?


video video
McCain Campaign Video about media bias Ukrainian famine video
John McCain is understandably upset about the New York Times rejecting his rebuttal to a column written by Barack H. Obama and published in the New York Times earlier. McCain claimed that the objections of the editor went well beyond style and were an attempt to substantially alter statements of opinion.
Those who want to read the rebuttal had to go to drudgereport.com.
McCain has every right to be angry at the New York Times for their coverage of his campaign. Mr. McCain should know, however that he is in good company. During World War Two, the New York Times buried its Holocaust Coverage inside the paper, well away from page one . Of 24,000 front page stories between 1939 and 1945, only twenty six stories dealt with the Holocaust. Of those, only six stories mentioned the focus of liquidation efforts on Jews.
Its infamous coverage of the Ukrainian famine in the early thirties went well beyond downplaying or even neglecting the story. Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for himself and undeserved prestige for the New York Times for filing glowing reports of the success of forced collectivisation in the Ukraine. As the readers of the New York Times read about joy in socialist paradise, a man made famine was sweeping across the Ukraine. Unreported were instances of people eating dogs, cats and squirrels. Actual cannibalism, documented by those with no political agenda went unreported in the New York Times.
The damage inflicted upon doomed Jews and Ukrainians by the editors of the New York Times is incalculable. Newspapers around the country and around the world look to the New York Times for guidance in prioritising their international news. A decision to shine a spotlight on a government's atrocities can save lives . Countries concerned about their image abroad sometimes respond to negative publicity. The worst thing that can happen to a group targeted with genocide is to have a major news outlet lead a coverup. This is exactly what happened to the Ukrainians. George Bernard Shaw and Walter Duranty are a few of may who because of bribery or ideological blindness denied the existence of a famine in the Ukraine. Malcolm Muggeridge and a few other brave journalists kept the world informed at great risk to themselves. In 1932-1933, millions died. Estimates range from 2.5 million souls to as many as ten million. In a country where for years it was hard to even get a telephone book, it is difficult to reconstruct details from official records. The democratic government of Ukraine has no interest in covering up this dark chapter in its history. The millions killed are finally getting their belated recognition.
The market economy in America is inflicting serious blows upon periodicals and broadcast outlets that slant and falsify the news. The New York Times as seen its circulation plummet.
Biased papers such as the New York Times are going the way of collective farms and five year plans. The internet and talk radio are viewed with fear and contempt by the ditzerati of the liberal media . McCain should not worry about being denied space in the New York Times. Its once lofty platform sinks deeper by the day into the swamp of public indifference. Their bias against him has generated far more interest in his rejected article than if they would have printed it. The public is well aware that reporters frequently bring a personal bias to news reporting. Today, the public is more skeptical than ever before. And in the age of the internet , we have choices.
Don't worry, Senator McCain. Help is on the way.
Ukrainian Genocide video

Wikipedia article on Ukrainian Genocide


New York Times Profits Drop 82%

McCain article that was rejected by the New York Times and Drudge Report commentary


The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.


No comments: