Why won't they take me seriously?!!!!!Recently, CBS announced that Katie Couric will step down as their anchor person. Or, their anchor. They also released a statement blaming America's not being "ready for a woman anchor" or some such nonsense.
So here's a news flash for CBS News. No one cares that she's a woman. Your ratings have fallen lately because of media bias. And your statement is a beautiful example.
I don't watch a lot of news on television. Years ago, I'm told, newscasters and their stations actively supported American troops in the field. I've seen old Life Magazine issues and have seen old newsreels slapped together by CBS and other companies, highlighting the bravery of American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen. I have yet to see a single story, put together by CBS or any other major network (other than Fox), on any television broadcast, website or any other media, highlighting the bravery, fighting character and love of country of the American fighting soldier that I saw with my own two eyes in Iraq. I've seen a lot of why-we-shouldn't-be-there stories, though. Lots of those. And lots and lots (and LOTS) of coverage of bombs going off, casualties and blown-apart American military vehicles.
I've even seen the Evening News run footage that was put together by al-Qaeda as anti-American propaganda. Footage featuring my friends' dead bodies, thank you very much.
Is it a liberal-vs-conservative issue? I think so, and here's why.
Politically speaking, I came of age during the Clinton years. I specifically remember how damaging Bill Clinton's lies were to the American fighting man, as I was in the military at the time. In fact, before Clinton I wanted to make the Army my career, and by the end of his second term I was out of the Army with no intention of ever going back. My beloved Army had become a pawn in his perverted political game, from the Loathing Letter to the whole Don't Ask Don't Tell circus - and it had a serious effect of the morale of the American soldier.
I remember also while Bill Clinton was running for President, Bryant Gumble interviewing George H. W. Bush, the sitting President of the United States, and arguing with his answers like some kind of protestor. It was so painfully obvious who the reporter supported for the office, and that he was going to say whatever he had to say to discredit the most powerful man in the world. I felt like trying to call the President personally and assure him that most Americans did not feel as Gumble did. This was on the Today Show, I think. And the whole event opened my eyes to just how far out there a bunch of liberal reporters can be - and just how much they can get away with.
Just how disrespectful they can be.
I came away from that wondering just who these people thought they were. In his grandest dreams, Bryant Gumble could never do half as much for this country as George H. W. Bush (that's the elder George Bush, for those of you who don't know) has done. But he was never, so far as I could see, called on the carpet for his actions, and nor were any of the show's producers, directors, or writers. No one, nothing. Never. So I started wondering, just how far gone are these people?
Of course, these days, I have my answer. For example, not a day goes by in which I don't hear (read, etc) someone in the media saying "It's now five years since President Bush gave his famous 'Mission Accomplished' speech". Never mind that President Bush never said the words "Mission Accomplished." They were printed on a banner that had been raised by US Navy personnel on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Also, never mind that those words referred specifically to the military routing of the Iraqi army, the capture of Baghdad, and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime of Hitleresque henchmen. It was never intended to refer to subsequent counter-insurgency operations in Iraq.
But that's just one example. I've referred to the whole media-bias phenomenon as the Couric Conspiracy, because Katie Couric came from the same source of bias that we saw with the Gumble incident, which cemented my opinion of the newsmedia back in the early 90s. Same band of conceited, we-know-better-than-you, puffed-up reporters who will stop at nothing to put their own political views at the forefront of every story - even if it means criticizing a banner put up by sailors to celebrate a military victory.
And it falls right in line with the typical media big-headedness that they're now saying it's because she's a woman. Or, more accurately, that the rest of us rubes aren't ready to get our news from a woman. According to them, we're all just that shallow. We're too stupid to see through their bias, and we're too oafish to watch a female news anchor.
It's not only typical media conceit, it's typical liberal conceit, in a typically right-of-center country. It couldn't be more obvious - evidently, that is, to everyone but the media.
So here's a news flash for CBS News. No one cares that she's a woman. Your ratings have fallen lately because of media bias. And your statement is a beautiful example.
I don't watch a lot of news on television. Years ago, I'm told, newscasters and their stations actively supported American troops in the field. I've seen old Life Magazine issues and have seen old newsreels slapped together by CBS and other companies, highlighting the bravery of American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen. I have yet to see a single story, put together by CBS or any other major network (other than Fox), on any television broadcast, website or any other media, highlighting the bravery, fighting character and love of country of the American fighting soldier that I saw with my own two eyes in Iraq. I've seen a lot of why-we-shouldn't-be-there stories, though. Lots of those. And lots and lots (and LOTS) of coverage of bombs going off, casualties and blown-apart American military vehicles.
I've even seen the Evening News run footage that was put together by al-Qaeda as anti-American propaganda. Footage featuring my friends' dead bodies, thank you very much.
Is it a liberal-vs-conservative issue? I think so, and here's why.
Politically speaking, I came of age during the Clinton years. I specifically remember how damaging Bill Clinton's lies were to the American fighting man, as I was in the military at the time. In fact, before Clinton I wanted to make the Army my career, and by the end of his second term I was out of the Army with no intention of ever going back. My beloved Army had become a pawn in his perverted political game, from the Loathing Letter to the whole Don't Ask Don't Tell circus - and it had a serious effect of the morale of the American soldier.
I remember also while Bill Clinton was running for President, Bryant Gumble interviewing George H. W. Bush, the sitting President of the United States, and arguing with his answers like some kind of protestor. It was so painfully obvious who the reporter supported for the office, and that he was going to say whatever he had to say to discredit the most powerful man in the world. I felt like trying to call the President personally and assure him that most Americans did not feel as Gumble did. This was on the Today Show, I think. And the whole event opened my eyes to just how far out there a bunch of liberal reporters can be - and just how much they can get away with.
Just how disrespectful they can be.
I came away from that wondering just who these people thought they were. In his grandest dreams, Bryant Gumble could never do half as much for this country as George H. W. Bush (that's the elder George Bush, for those of you who don't know) has done. But he was never, so far as I could see, called on the carpet for his actions, and nor were any of the show's producers, directors, or writers. No one, nothing. Never. So I started wondering, just how far gone are these people?
Of course, these days, I have my answer. For example, not a day goes by in which I don't hear (read, etc) someone in the media saying "It's now five years since President Bush gave his famous 'Mission Accomplished' speech". Never mind that President Bush never said the words "Mission Accomplished." They were printed on a banner that had been raised by US Navy personnel on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Also, never mind that those words referred specifically to the military routing of the Iraqi army, the capture of Baghdad, and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime of Hitleresque henchmen. It was never intended to refer to subsequent counter-insurgency operations in Iraq.
But that's just one example. I've referred to the whole media-bias phenomenon as the Couric Conspiracy, because Katie Couric came from the same source of bias that we saw with the Gumble incident, which cemented my opinion of the newsmedia back in the early 90s. Same band of conceited, we-know-better-than-you, puffed-up reporters who will stop at nothing to put their own political views at the forefront of every story - even if it means criticizing a banner put up by sailors to celebrate a military victory.
And it falls right in line with the typical media big-headedness that they're now saying it's because she's a woman. Or, more accurately, that the rest of us rubes aren't ready to get our news from a woman. According to them, we're all just that shallow. We're too stupid to see through their bias, and we're too oafish to watch a female news anchor.
It's not only typical media conceit, it's typical liberal conceit, in a typically right-of-center country. It couldn't be more obvious - evidently, that is, to everyone but the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment