|
Lies and the Liberal Media |
||
|
Dr. Joseph Goebbels, propaganda chief under Adolph Hitler, is quoted as saying, “If one repeats a lie often enough to enough people it will become the truth they believe.” Probably he was right. And we see this in the present administration. At a recent meeting of selected Republicans, President Bush said that Social Security is broken and he's going to keep saying so until people believe him. He told us Iraq had WMDs until enough people believed him. He told us Saddam needed to be replaced until enough people believed him. He told us the world is safer without Saddam until enough people believed him. Now he continues to tell us that we must "stay the course" in Iraq, waiting for enough people to believe him. And all this is promulgated through “the far left liberal media . . . ." Republicans and other far-right conservatives have been referring to the "liberal media" for years, long enough for enough people to believe them. But the "liberal media" did everything in its power to aid and abet the Republicans' effort to destroy the presidency of William J. Clinton. In fact, it was misinformation fed to The New York Times and published by it without proper verification that sparked the Whitewater investigation. Eventually, The Times acknowledged its failure. But the "liberal media" never failed to publish the leaks, innuendos, and lies fed it illegally by Kenneth Starr and his team. And that "liberal media" never rose to Clinton's defense but instead continuously disseminated every criticism any Republican or conservative wanted to voice against Clinton and his administration. Why has the "liberal media" been so silent on George Bush's "War on Terrorism"--a war that can never be won because no bombs or bullets ever destroyed any "ism" in the entire history of mankind? Why the "liberal media's" duplicity in revealing the identity of a CIA agent whose husband had criticized the Bush administration? Why has the “liberal media” been so gentle with Carl Rove in that case? Why has the "liberal media" been so silent on the Cheney/Halliburton connection in Iraq? Why has the "liberal media" allowed statements such as these by Carl Rove to go unchallenged: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"? That's a blatant lie without the slightest foundation, but Carl Rove said it and the "liberal media" never questioned it, so it must be true, at least enough people believed it.
|
You may have noticed that the "liberal media" have not hesitated to discharge reporters who made negative statements about this administration which later proved to be unsubstantiated. Which member of the "liberal media" has been discharged for unsubstantiated remarks about William J. Clinton and his administration? And why did the "liberal media" give such prominent play to the vicious attacks the Republicans have just mounted against Hillary Clinton because of her remarks comparing George W. Bush to Alfred E. Neuman? In their scathing remarks, they never offered the slightest suggestion that Ms Clinton's remarks were inaccurate; they never offered the slightest support for the President's record. Instead, they mounted their scurrilous attack against Ms Clinton herself!!! Here's all the Republicans had to offer in defense of the President: "Hillary Clinton's opportunistic attempt to market herself as a centrist is like a wolf dressing up in sheep's clothing. Such thinly veiled rhetoric doesn't change the fact she is part of today's angry and adrift Democrat Party [RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt]." So we're supposed to believe that Ms Clinton's "attempt to market herself as a centrist" and use of "thinly veiled rhetoric" proves that her remarks about the President were inaccurate?! Give me a break. But after all, this is an example of the way the Democrats and the liberals have gained control of the media! Not! And we’re supposed to accept the RNC’s evaluation that the Democratic Party is angry and adrift. It must be true, its spokeswoman said so and the “liberal media” didn’t question her assessment. Do the Republicans and other conservatives who continue to harp on the "liberal media" believe that the rest of us are so stupid as not to be aware that "the media" in the United States are owned by huge corporations--the very corporations and moguls that funded George W. Bush's campaign and that send their lobbyists to Washington to get their pieces of the American pie in preference to us every-day citizens?! Do they think the rest of us are not aware that the Republicans and other conservatives are doing everything they can to destroy the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the one medium that attempts relatively fair and balanced coverage of issues and events?! Evidently, there are those who want us to believe the lie that "the media" are liberal just because they keep calling it that. “If one repeats a lie long enough to enough people, it will become the truth they believe.” Goebbels was right--almost. Not everyone is buying the big lies of the Republican Party and the extreme conservatives, regardless how often they repeat them! --Bob Hartsell, Ph.D.
|
|