Daily Archives: August 11, 2006

Viewing the Media’s Anti-Israel Bias from Other Possible Angles

I’m expanding my inquiry into the media’s participation in producing Hezbollah propaganda. This is old, but worth a read: The News We (CNN) Kept To Ourselves. It’s not about the current situation in Lebanon, but it could be relevant. Here we see how intimidation kept journalists from reporting certain stories. When Saddam was in power, their reporting could also put the lives of innocent Iraqis in danger. I hinted at intimidation in my first exploration of this topic, but it wasn’t pivotal to my argument.

How much are journalists being intimidated in Lebanon by Hezbollah? Of course, they didn’t intimidate Hajj into altering pictures of Beirut. That he did on his own accord. So, how much of a role does this intimidation playing? How is it altering their news coverage? I believe it is a component.

On to the second angle… Has anyone watched South Park? I love the show. I was watching “The Passion of the Jew” episode with Mel Gibson the other night. In it, Cartman watches “The Passion of the Christ,” and starts a Mel Gibson fan club. He dresses up as Hitler and hints at a “final solution,” but the adults in the club are completely oblivious, even when they start chanting in German. In South Park, people often fall for the stupidest things. So, I was just wondering if the media was just so unsavvy that they can’t recognize when they’re helping Israel be destroyed. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the case for some of them. “Goodness, all these Jews can do is murder civilians; I better help Hezbollah.”

While we’re on this topic, I have a few other things to say. First, here’s more media manipulation from Hezbollah. A supposed member of the Lebanese Red Cross cares so much about saving lives that he exploits a dead child for PR. Here’s the YouTube video which I will embed later. The weblog where I found that video claims that jihadi manuals have entire sections on media manipulation.

Still, I’m having trouble believing that it’s all just slick PR on Hezbollah’s part. I mean, they’re using the Lebanese people as human shields. Then, people die, and supposedly, the survivors are driven into the arms of Hezbollah. Does this sick chain of events make sense? Methinks that there is already Hezbollah sympathizing going on.

Finally, here’s one more article that’s a must-read: Hezbollah’s deadly hold on heartland.

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

“Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?”

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.

This excerpt shows exactly what I’m talking about. This guy is obviously a Hezbollah collaborator. He’s trying to manipulate the media into showing how Israel is killing “civilians” for no reason. His hospital was used as a site to launch rockets. Guess where these rockets land? In Israeli civilian centers! GAH! He’s helping Hezbollah try to kill innocent Israelis, by launching rockets from a hospital.

Also, the article indicates that the Lebanese Red Cross found rocket launcher shreds (in or surrounding… I can’t tell) the area of Qana. I’ll do a search later for that in the NY Times, etc.

I’m rambling and going off-topic now, but I’m just so angry. Hezbollah’s actions are just so obvious to me! Why would CNN let Hezbollah direct one of their segments? Are they that stupid? Are they being intimidated? Or is something more sinister happening? A combination? None of the above?

I do know one thing. Hezbollah is murdering Israelis, launching rockets only into civilian centers, and is using the Lebanese people as human shields. That’s disgusting. If you’re producing Hezbollah propaganda… I’m not even going to finish that thought.

More Lamont and Lieberman

Another concurring voice in the “this is not the end of the world for Democrats” category: Michael Tomasky on Slate. He notes that there are 8 Democratic Senate incumbents up for reelection who voted for the war in Iraq. Only one, Lieberman, has faced a serious challenge. One, Tomasky says, is not a trend. I agree.

Prediction: Conventional Wisdom will soon shift to this camp. There will also be a downplaying of the role of the liberal blogosphere. (Note: If this prediction is wrong, I will completely ignore the fact that I made this prediction. If this prediction is right, expect me to loudly trumpet that I was right and link to the offending headline.)

UPDATE: Then again, to add flames to the fire, I found this statistic from Rasmussen Reports very interesting: “Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.”