|
| |
Would
You Like ‘Files’ With That?
EDITORIAL
Frank Salvato
July 22, 2004 |
I have often spoken of the
ongoing hypocrisy in the mainstream media. To be sure there has been no
change in that hypocrisy. In fact the cyclical nature of this liberal cancer
has again rejuvenated itself.
The recent events regarding Sandy Berger have exposed one aspect of the
mainstream media’s hypocrisy, a duplicity currently eating a hole into the
fabric of ethic. It would seem that there is are two criteria in place for
how far one can go in prosecuting someone in the court of public and the
criteria is based by political affiliation.
Sandy Berger – or as I like to refer to him now, the Sansabelt Bandit – is
of the liberal persuasion. He was Bill Clinton’s national security advisor
and consequently was John Kerry’s "uncompensated” advisor on national
security issues. The recent revelation that he stuffed classified documents
into his socks, pants and jacket in a successful effort to remove them from
the National Archive can be classified as both a political blunder and an
illegal activity. Berger even admits to the former and did as much in a
press conference outside his office on the day the news hit the press.
Common sense mandates there is no possible way a former national security
advisor could be devoid of the knowledge that removing classified documents
from a secure area is illegal. Yet, even with this common sense mandate and
the fact that Berger held an office that had everything to do with knowing
the ins-and-outs of "everything security,” the Liberal-Left in this country
and the mainstream media is screaming from the rooftops that one is innocent
until proven guilty and that this legal absolute should apply in total to
the Levi Larcenist. In fact, they are correct, one is supposed to be
innocent until proven guilty. It’s just too bad they only apply the laws of
our land when it benefits their needs, desires and agendas.
Rewind the tape to when Joseph Wilson was pontificating as to the level of
George W. Bush’s ability to tell the truth. Here we have a man who has now
proven to be a liar on multiple topics and as a result smeared the President
of the United States for personal and political gain. If we were to have
applied the laws and standards that members of the Democratic Party and the
mainstream media would have us apply in the Khaki Cat Burglar’s case we
would have seen
them outraged at someone calling George W. Bush a liar when
there was no irrefutable proof. Of course that didn’t happen and we hear
every nitwit who wants to believe he or she has a grasp on the totality of
the issues calling President Bush a liar and equating him to Hitler.
Keeping this in mind one can only deduce that it is acceptable to call a
Republican a liar without fully exploring the truth of any given allegation.
Conversely, it is quite unacceptable to accuse a Democrat of breaking the
law, even if he admits it, until the courts have had their say and in this
climate of judicial activism even admitted crimes are open to
interpretation.
This type of hypocrisy has existed for a long time. One needs only look back
to the anti-Reagan rhetoric of the 1980 presidential campaign. Then the
mainstream media’s "slur of the moment” was to paint Ronald Reagan as a
war-mongering, nuclear nightmare waiting to happen. The media and the
Liberal-Left in this country, armed to the teeth with their scare tactics,
rumor and innuendo, had many of the fickle among the American public to the
point of tears wondering if that ticking they were hearing was the sound of
the nuclear clock striking midnight. In the end, it was only the sounds of
their hearts beating, elevated heart rates courtesy of the fear-mongers of
the Left and the DNC. In the end, the media had tried Ronald Reagan even
before he attained office. In the end Reagan won the Cold War no thanks to
the Liberal-Left.
Conversely, when Bill Clinton went into Kosovo – without a UN mandate and
without a fully internationalized coalition, I might add – to sustain a
military air campaign that counts among its targets the Chinese Embassy, the
mainstream media didn’t call him a warmonger; they said he was being a
humanitarian. When he neutered the US forces in Somalia leaving them
incapable of defending themselves and then again when he pulled them out of
Somalia only to leave the people of that country under a tyrannical regime
the media didn’t say that he had gone to war illegitimately, there he was a
leader among the UN’s international community.
Again, this goes to show that it is acceptable to disparage a Republican
without any verifiable proof, to try and convict him in the court of public
opinion, the media as the prosecution, while a Democrat will be afforded a
full-ranged benefit of the doubt until convicted and "frog marched” out of
the court room, their defenders the very people who disparaged the
Republican.
Bias, as defined, is a preference or an inclination, especially one that
inhibits impartial judgment. So perhaps there is no liberal media bias. For
a liberal bias to exist the conservative point of view would still have to
be in the equation. And with MoveOn.org challenging FOX News on their ‘fair
and balanced’ claim when FOX News provides more people to comment on the
issues from both sides than all the alphabet media outlets combined that
element of the equation is in jeopardy of being tried in the tainted court
of public opinion.
Next on the chopping block: Editors that practice censorship under the guise
or accuracy, semantics be damned.
 |
|
