Not all that surprising

A while ago I put up a post that said in part,

The liberal bias of the media is in the news again. The question: Is liberal bias a problem? I would say not. I'm not going to claim liberal bias doesn't exist, it does. I just don't see bias as the problem. The problem is dishonesty.

That was last June.  Since then Dan Rather, desperate to get John Kerry elected, thought he could fool everybody with phony forged memos.  That deception lasted a couple of hours at most.  The memos, supposedly from a deceased Air National Guard officer, were demonstrated to be forgeries and Rather demonstrated to be faithful to a "higher thruth".  In other words he's a liar. 

Now, apparently Eason Jordan of CNN has accused American military personnel of systematic murder. 

The office of Senator Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut who attended the panel, released a statement that said he "was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He - like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank - was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."

Within minutes of making the comments, Mr. Frank said, CNN's Mr. Jordan began to immediately "pull back" on the assertion that 12 journalists had been killed by American forces. He instead focused on the deaths of two reporters killed when a missile fired from an American jet struck the 15th floor of Baghdad's Palestine hotel, where many reporters and film crews stay when in Baghdad.

Mr. Frank said he tried to get information out of Mr. Jordan so that he could forward it to the appropriate congressional investigative authorities. " I think Congress has demonstrated with Abu Ghraib that we will aggressively pursue reasonable allegations," he said. Mr. Frank said he has tried repeatedly over the past few days to get Mr. Jordan to provide evidence of crimes against journalists. He said Mr. Jordan promised to get back to him, "but I haven't heard anything yet," Mr. Frank said.

This is not the first time that Mr. Jordan has spoken critically of the American military's conduct toward journalists. In November, he reportedly told a gathering of global news executives in Portugal called News Xchange that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces.

And in October 2002, at a News Xchange conference, he accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions."

Mr. Jordan's remarks might have shocked the American attendees, but they certainly played well among some in the audience. The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged "bravery and candor" in discussing the matter.

This is the same Eason Jordan who admitted to filtering the news from Saddam Hussein's Iraq in order that CNN be allowed maintain a presence in Baghdad.  His story was that he was protecting the lives of his reporters, but if that was the objective he should have pulled his organization out.  Instead he chose to sugar coat the news for the benefit of Saddam.  Isn't it odd that he wouldn't do for that the American military?  Well, maybe not.

The centerpiece of leftist ambition is socialism.  Free market America has been repudiating socialism in a big way lately.  The problem with embracing socialism is that you may not also embrace the truth.  You have to make up the truth by inventing concepts like social justice, which has nothing whatever to do with justice, and everything to do with income redistribution and all of the coercion that goes along with it.  Or you have to twist the meaning of things, so that freedom becomes freedom from want or freedom from fear, but freedom does not mean freedom of speech, especially if you happen to be on a college campus.  Social equality means equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, or equality before the law.

No, the more you know about socialism the more you realize that you have to lie about it if you want to sell the concept.  Leftists know this and that's why the euphemisms come about.  Academia and the media are riddled with leftists who yearn for a socialist utopia, and for years they've had the soap box while everybody else was effectively silenced.  Sure there were conservative and libertarian messages out there but who heard them?  And when they were loud enough to gain attention, the authoritative voices from academia and the media spoke in disparaging terms, tainting the message and telling the casual listener, "This isn't for serious people.  Intelligent and responsible people don't go in for nonsense like this."

But the other voices, the conservative and libertarian voices, are getting louder now.  They can be heard on talk radio and on the internet, and it's become impossible for the leftists to discourage them all, or ignore them, or rate them unserious.  So they have to fight them in other ways and given that socialism is inherently dishonest, it should come as no surprise that the leftist fight employs dishonesty.  What's surprising is that the leftist fight employs such stupidity.  Well, maybe not.

Update:  Captain's Quarters has been all over the Eason Jordan scandal and the failings of mainstream media.

Hard-nosed, aggressive journalism requires that sacred cows suffer examination, and sometimes that examination reveals ugly truths. Journalists used to know this. Unfortunately, they now apply it only to those who fit their political beliefs as acceptable targets -- the US military, the Israeli military, the Bush administration and Republicans in general. When the sacred cows of the Left come under the exact same kind of aggressive journalism but unfettered by editors with political agendas, then we have balanced coverage and the promise of the full truth getting out to the public.

That, supposedly, had been the mission of the mainstream media. Based on their hysterical reaction to our demands for accountability from media executives, just as the media rightly demanded accountability from corporate executives cooking their books, that mission has been eclipsed. And if it has been eclipsed, as this "lynch-mob" excuse and the media blackout on Eason's Fables that preceded it demonstrates, one has to wonder what exactly eclipsed it. From our point of view, their mission appears to track quite closely with the American Left's mission of isolationism, growth of the federal government, and stepped-up attempts at redistribution of wealth.

Exactly.

Comments

[Scott]

I think you're making argument for two distinct issues, Tom. I can easily see how a socialist would support what we're doing in Iraq--I don't believe this germane to the Eason Jordan problem. Jordan is guilty of fomenting disdain for American militarism with lies.

[Tom Bowler]

Perhaps you're right. But if you can find a socialist who supports what we're doing in Iraq, I'd love to hear about it. Socialists tend to be anti-American unless of course they are American. Then they claim to be patriots while they work at tearing down the constitution in hopes of making America more to their liking -- socialist.

I'll confess I'm making a snap judgment on Jordan. I don't know if he's really a socialist, but what he has been doing and saying are anti-American. In my left/right political spectrum he's way over on the left, and his actions put him there.

[Scott]

I don't know if he's really a socialist, but what he has been doing and saying are anti-American.

Therein lies my point. I'd describe my father as a tax and spend liberal, tax and spend mostly because he doesn't understand free markets particularly well (in my opinion). On the other hand, he loves this country and could have died in the line of duty serving the public while in the FBI. As a result, I think you're pointing out two different issues, and generalizing to boot.

However your points about Jordan stand and stand well, albeit separately from the socialism business.

[Tom Bowler]

I'll fess up to generalizing and speculating as well. But in my view the difference between a socialist and liberal is a matter of degree. Both favor using of the benevolent power of the state to solve problems of any kind, economic or other. A person like your father, and like my parents when they were alive, doesn't fully understand the impact of government intervention in the market, but he's seen enough of life to know that liberty works in practice and he's willing to die for it. But he can also buy into socialistic programs because they can sound like the right thing to do.

I think the true socialists understand that socialism involves coercion and the loss liberty. Having no faith in the average persons ability to take care of himself, the socialists consider themselves part of a ruling elite who must fool the common people into accepting socialism for their own good. That is where the dishonesty comes in.

Now, go back and read all the Democratic soul searching that went on after the loss of the election. You will find a lot of statements about how they can better package their message. In other words, how can they better fool the people into voting for them, for their own good of course. Read Orwell's "1984" again and picture today's Democrats and todays mainstream media, Fox excepted. Mainstream media wanted a Democrat to win and they didn't care who it was. They don't want us to succeed in Iraq. Why do you suppose that is? No elitism there?

[Scott]

The way I interpreted your post was I saw several good paragraphs about the Eason Jordan situation, followed by a tangential rant on socialism. Separating aggressive and idealistic foreign policy from socialism, I think, is in fact critical to dissecting Democratic politics today.

By your definition of "true socialists", I don't think either of my parents qualify. They're probably liberals of the Darwinist variety--if you've made no effort to survive and strive on your own, and/or you haven't been given the tools to do so (by either community or family), you deserve only private sympathy and help for your plight. They are strong defenders of the American mechanisms of liberty. The socialists/ruling elite you refer to are a very small, but yes influential beyond their numbers, group of people in America. The issue I've taken with some of your posts is that you tie up the entire Democratic party with these powerful elites. I look at a lot of the people in my extended family, most of whom are Democrats, as entirely different than the elites. They're all very smart people but suffer from none of the "we're doing what's best for you" syndrome of the elites (except for one--she's a college professor--shock there, huh? I love her to death though)

I made the case to my mother a few months ago that the Democrats' core economic philosophy has a very bad long-term future. Even on the issues for which they're considered strong--providing an adequate safety net, and wanting to require something akin to a health care safety net--the government lowering taxes and providing incentives for private creation of such entities has a much better chance of standing up over the long-run. I still think they're right on libertarian social issues like gay marriage/civil unions, limited access to abortion, and some others, but these do not a majority make. They're in a lot of trouble in the long run.

To cut back to foreign policy, I really do see a clear line between socialism and American militarism. At this stage, I can easily see how a "true socialist" could support what we're doing in Iraq. I think what you've done is taken the true socialist definition to an extreme and equated them with "anti-American". This may not be a disservice to the tried and true socialist but to the median Democrat I think it very much is.

[Tom Bowler]

Rant? yes. Tangential? I don't think so. I've been meaning to do a post, and I guess I better get to it, about the evolution of the Democratic party. I think it's been hijacked by the far left, such that the only message out of it on the national level very nearly socialistic and very anti national defense. I don't think the average Democrat shares the same view as their national party, except perhaps the distaste for George Bush, and even that isn't universal. How would he have gotten elected without the votes of a few Democrats? (Sound thinkers in my view!)

But take a look at today's leading Democrats. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer. These are the folks that are guiding the national party, and the foreign policy message they articulate is one that urges us not to "overhype" elections in Iraq, and also urges us to give up, by announcing a timetable for departure. Kennedy's recent remarks, had he made them in another era might well have gotten him branded a traitor for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

These are the people I consider to be the elitists, not the moderate Democrats. In fact I suspect that the moderate Democrats will begin to take over in a few years and the party will begin a return to the center. It's my view that the Democratic party is a disaster precisely because the moderates, like those in your extended family, have been under represented in its leadership. My bold prediction is that the moderate takeover will be lead by Barack Obama and Harold Ford. We can hope anyway.

I'd still like you to identify a socialist, "true" or not, that agrees with our policy in Iraq.

[Scott]

Yes the elites, both political, media, academic, etc. are in control of the Democratic party, but I still don't think they represent Democrats generally. Though it is unfortunate Democrats have gotten to this point, but as a Republican it may be a good thing for you that Dem politicians are warning us about the Iraqi election "overhype"--it is such a cynical and vile view of our mission there (a mission which many of these same Democrats authorized in 2002) that the non-reflexive Democratic faithful may start to wonder what their party is really all about and at the very least defect to unaffiliated status.

"I'd still like you to identify a socialist, "true" or not, that agrees with our policy in Iraq."

Among the elites, I don't think they are any, and that is very sad indeed. I could name 1 or 2 people I know but maybe they're not socialists?

I've always been extremely impressed with Obama and Ford. I think it would be fantastic to one day, maybe in 2012, to be left with a November choice of one of these 2 and Colin Powell or Rice as President.

[Tom Bowler]

I'd have to say I'm please with the downfall of the Democrats as represented by the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, et al. I will be equally pleased (I think) when the moderates begin to drag the party back to the center.

Socialism lends itself to pandering. Welfare and safety nets are legitimate topics of debate. But they ought to be addressed with a realistic eye toward the economic effects of the policy proposals, and the effects on personal liberty as well. In my view today's Democratic leadership has used these issues not for the betterment of anybody, but for their own perpetuation in office.

[Scott]

"In my view today's Democratic leadership has used these issues not for the betterment of anybody, but for their own perpetuation in office."

Agreed.

As a side note, it was John Kerry who accused Howard Dean of being "against seniors" during the primary season when Dean suggested social security has serious problems and stated raising the retirement age was a good solution to the problem. At least Dean uh ADMITTED THE PROBLEM John. The quicker the Kennedy/Kerry types get the hell out of the party, improvements can be made. I actually think Dean a vast improvement over these two entitled clowns, though not as positive as say a Lieberman, Evan Bayh or Harold Ford taking a large role.