Open Letter to ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and Affiliates, also The Arizona Republic, U.S.A. Today

Open Letter to ABC, CBS, NBC,  PBS and Affiliates, also The Arizona Republic, U.S.A. Today and The East Valley Tribune,
 
    I thank God for computers and e-mail, without which, I would only see and hear ONE side of the news. I do use the word “News” loosely.
    I’m from the old school where a Journalist reported the facts, all the facts. That means when someone says something, you check the facts before reporting it. Obviously the new school allows you to editorialize and choose which facts you deem pertinent. We the public used to count on you for the news. Not anymore. You have tarnished the name “Journalist.”
    The media is having a love affair with Obama and you are not even trying to report the news. The bias is so obvious it makes me sick. You let news of Obama’s ties with questionable people go so you can hatchet McCain and Palen for the least things. Are you hypnotized are just stupid with bias? Is your love that blind?
    Do you really think Socialism is what America needs. Do you really think this man is RIGHT for a country that he and his wife privately hate? Perhaps I gave you too much credit for being thinking and educated people.
    If it were not for Conservative Radio, the Drudge Report and all the e-mails I receive, I would never hear anything unflattering about Obama and I would not have heard anything flattering about McCain. For instance, all the flack about McCain being born in the Panama Canal. That got a lot of play. The fact that a law suit has been filed about Obama being born in Kenya has never been mentioned on your shows or in your papers. It’s been fair game to hit McCain and Palen with any and everything, but don’t mention Obama’s middle name, his wife, his kids, his ears, his race [which by the way is not black]. The man has ties to terrorist, bigots and Islam, but there are no questions from you.
    Do you realize how you have beaten down President Bush? Never do you mention that for the last two years he has had NO cooperation from a Democratic Congress. He is blamed for everything that’s gone wrong. You never mention how the Democrats contributed to the financial problems. The old school would at least show Honor to the Office. The new school has spent too much time with “academia,” another word for “Liberal.”
       In Orissa, India, killings of Christians and 5,000 homes have been burned, but we have not been informed by you of this condition. Where did you go to school? Better yet, did you go to school? You don’t even try to hide your feelings. Your bias is so apparent that it makes your reports unbelievable. 
    I think you must take responsibility at this time for the division in our country . I am seventy-five years old and have never been as angry with the opposition as I am this time and it’s 90% your fault. If our country is divided, guess who’s to blame? You have continually fanned the fire with your bias reports. No wonder the newspapers are in trouble and the television news ratings are down.       
                                        Bettye H. Simmons

Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions

Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions

October 24, 2008 – by edgelings

By Michael S. Malone

The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game.  With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling.  And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living.  A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me.  I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut.  I am a fourth generation newspaperman.  As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kansas during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).  My hard-living – and when I knew her, scary – grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times.  And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer.  I’ve spent thirty years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor.  And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national by-line before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media.  Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored.  Hell, I can show you ten different ways to color variations of the word “said” – muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. – to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote.  We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.  But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against their unconscious.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.  That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views, and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire.  If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty – especially in ourselves.

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions.  But I always wrote it off as bad judgment, and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.  Sure, being a child of the ‘60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from ‘real’ reporting, and at least in mainstream media, usually was.  The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.  I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work – not out any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense . . .indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes – and if they did they were soon rehired into an even more prestigious jobs.  It seemed as if there were two sets of rules:  one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who’d managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page.  Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith – and I know the day and place where it happened – was the War in Lebanon three summers ago.  The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism.  But this was CNN International, which is even worse.  I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel.   The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story . . .but it never happened.

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign.  Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates.  But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass – no, make that shameless support – they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.  I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather – not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake – but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage.  This is the Big Leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.  The few instances where I think the press has gone too far – such as the Times reporter talking to Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends – can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha Bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side – or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden.  If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.  That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault:  his job is to put his best face forward.  No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer – when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction?  Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview?  All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize?  And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.  Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate.  So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a manner that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are.  It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide – especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50:50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes . . .and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s.  That’s what reporters do, I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign?  Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors.  The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay-out the editorial pages.  They are the real culprits.

Why?  I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one:  Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power . . . only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry.  The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent.  Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared.  Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb.  The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, ten years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -and desperate times call for desperate measures.  Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play.  Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here.  After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway – all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself:  an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.  With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe, be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country . . .

Democrats: Call Joe Lieberman NOW Obama: a word meaning, “He Who Speaks with Forked Tongue”

Democrats: Call Joe Lieberman NOW

Obama: a word meaning, “He Who Speaks with Forked Tongue”
by Bill Levinson

At least that is what we would conclude based on its typical context. The latest communication from Barack Obama underscores the need for Democrats to find a qualified Presidential candidate between now and next Spring’s primary elections. It is eminently clear that none of the self-serving frauds who are currently running are qualified for any position of public trust or responsibility in the United States. The National Jewish Democratic Council has, in fact, openly set standards that disqualify Clinton, Obama, and Edwards right out of the starting box. The Republicans can and should cite this standard if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards becomes next year’s nominee.

The latest communication we received from Barack Obama’s campaign manager, David Ploufe, underscores Obama’s total lack of character, ethics, and integrity. He is nothing more than a big phony smile on top of an empty suit. At present, his chief supporter seems to be a scantily-clad woman with what looks like a ring or stud in her tongue who has a crush on Barack Obama whom, as we remember, is currently married to Michelle Obama. We are not interested in hearing anything he has to say about the issues, because we don’t believe anything he says. Although we don’t agree with Senator Lieberman on all the issues either, we respect him and we will certainly listen to what he has to say before deciding how to vote next year–if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

This is what we just received from David Ploufe in response to complaints about Obama’s ongoing association with and endorsement of racist and anti-Semitic individuals and organizations. These include Al Sharpton and his National Action Network, Allan Houston (who with a Knicks teammate said Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death), Jeremiah Wright, and MoveOn.org.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. We have a President who stubbornly refuses to end a war that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. We have a vice president who believes he’s completely above the law. And yesterday, the Supreme Court essentially threw out the Brown v. Board of Education ruling.

For the next 48 hours, we have a chance to define ourselves and our movement as a force for serious change and a new kind of politics.

We have highlighted Obama’s “cut, run, and show the terrorists our backs” statement that shows his total lack of fitness to protect the United States from its enemies. We have also established that Barack Obama is a liar (we assume that he approves everything Mr. Ploufe says) like his supporters at the National “Jewish” “Democratic” Council.

To anyone who would still claim there are few differences between Democrats and Republicans, consider this: but for a few incorrectly counted votes in Florida or a handful of votes in Ohio, we wouldn’t have the Supreme Court of the United States acting to undermine Brown v. Board of education today.

It is easy enough to tell when a NJDC blogger has lied; his words appear on NJDC’s blog. According to NJDC, Al Gore really won the 2000 election, and Elvis Presley is alive and well in a UFO. As is usual with both the NJDC and Barack Obama, there is a considerable discrepency with what they tell us and what the truth actually is. The U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn or undermine Brown vs. Board of Education, which makes it illegal for bigots to keep Black children out of white schools. The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly the right thing but, as is usual with both the National “Jewish” “Democratic” Council and Barack Obama, black is white, day is night, and so on. Or, to quote the witches in Macbeth, “Fair is foul and foul is fair.”

Supreme Court Rejects School Race Plans

Chief Justice John Roberts asserted in his majority opinion that by classifying students by race, the school districts are perpetuating the unequal treatment the Brown decision outlawed. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts said.

…Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s only black member, wrote a separate opinion endorsing the ruling and taking issue with the dissenters’ view of the Brown case.

“What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today,” he said. “The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because ‘our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’ such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional.”

There seems to be an enormous difference with the truth (as shown above) and the image NJDC and Obama want to paint of racists standing at the schoolhouse door with attack dogs and fire hoses to keep Black children out. (Speaking of racists who stood in the schoohouse door, Obama signed a MoveOn.org fundraising letter for a genuine Ku Klux Klan Kleagle who once corresponded with the famous segregationist Theodore Bilbo.) For the record, we have never recognized the legitimacy of forced busing of students to achieve racial integration, and we support parents and communities that refuse to cooperate with such activities.

Now that we have established that both NJDC and Barack Obama have completely misrepresented the U.S. Supreme Court decision, we will cite the National Jewish Democratic Council’s standard under which Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are not qualified to hold public office.

Location of Presidential Announcement Suggests Romney Needs American and Jewish Histories 101

Location of Presidential Announcement Suggests Romney Needs American and Jewish Histories 101

Below is NJDC’s statement this morning on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

It is tough enough for Romney’s campaign to explain away his ever-changing views on social issues — now, he trips up his own considerable efforts to court Jewish political support.

####
National Jewish Democratic Council Decries Mitt Romney’s Embrace of Henry Ford

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: David Goldenberg

February 12, 2007

Washington, DC – The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) expressed its deep concerns today about Republican Mitt Romney’s decision to announce his candidacy for President from the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit, Michigan. Located on grounds formally owned by Ford, the museum is a testament to the life of Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite and xenophobe whose belief that Jews were second-class, inferior citizens were expressed in detail in his writings on his theory of Americanization. Ford was also bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolph Hitler. [NJDC, as usual, omits little facts like the one that the award was for Ford’s industrial work, not for anti-Semitic activities.]

“NJDC is deeply troubled by Governor Romney’s choice of locations to announce his Presidential campaign. Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life. Yet he chooses to kick his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe. Mitt Romney’s embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford’s legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney’s words or his understanding of basic American history,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman.

…”Mitt Romney’s courtship of the Jewish community has primarily occurred within the realm of political fundraising. He will soon find out, however, that simple pro-Israel platitudes will only get him so far in the Jewish community. We hope that Mitt Romney will dedicate himself to learning American history – and especially the history of the American Jewish community,” Forman concluded.

Good. Ira Forman (the same individual who signed his name to a whitewash of MoveOn.org’s anti-Semitic hate speech, which was later found to include anti-Catholic hate speech and 9/11 denial as well) has just set a standard under the name, “National Jewish Democratic Council.” The standard says that appearing at the museum of a long-dead EX-antisemite who retracted and repudiated his offensive publications disqualifies a candidate for consideration. Under Ira Forman’s standards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are unfit to hold public office in the United States.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards endorse living and unrepentant racist and anti-Semite

Senator Hillary Clinton (NY): “I have enjoyed a long and positive relationship with Reverend Al Sharpton and National Action Network, and I don’t ever remember saying “no” to them and I intend to remain their partner in civil rights as I clean the dirt from under the carpet in the oval office when I am elected President”

Senator Barack Obama (Ill): “Reverend Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.”

Senator John Edwards: “I will work with National Action Network to fight poverty and seek justice for those marginalized in our society.”


Barack Obama with Live Anti-Semite and Racist

“NJDC is deeply troubled by Governor Romney’s choice of locations to announce his Presidential campaign. Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life. Yet he chooses to kick his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe. Mitt Romney’s embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford’s legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney’s words or his understanding of basic American history,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman.

The fact that Barack Obama campaigned at the headquarters of an active hate organization that was involved in the burning of a Jewish-owned store in Harlem (Freddy’s Fashion Mart) and appeared arm in arm with a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite (and racist who, unlike Ford, never repudiated his actions) raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Obama’s words or his basic ethics, character, and integrity.


Hillary Clinton with Live Anti-Semite and Racist

“NJDC is deeply troubled by Governor Romney’s choice of locations to announce his Presidential campaign. Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life. Yet he chooses to kick his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe. Mitt Romney’s embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford’s legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney’s words or his understanding of basic American history,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman.

The fact that Hillary Clinton campaigned at the headquarters of an active hate organization that was involved in the burning of a Jewish-owned store in Harlem (Freddy’s Fashion Mart) and appeared arm in arm with a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite (and racist who, unlike Ford, never repudiated his actions) raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Clinton’s words or her basic ethics, character, and integrity. We add that she has been accused of using the phrase “Jew bastard,” which has also been used by Sharpton’s entourage. There is controversy over whether she really used this slur, but her appearance with another bigot whose followers use this kind of language and worse makes the story more and not less believable.

We repeated Ira Forman’s statement twice for a reason: to underscore the importance of the Republican Party repeating it over and over, in the context of the pictures shown above, should Clinton, Obama, or Edwards become the Democrats’ nominee. We cannot overemphasize how devastating it is to judge someone by their own side’s standards, and the National Jewish Democratic Council has set a standard that disqualifies all three front runners. This is why it is so important for Democrats to contact Joe Lieberman (”Jew Lieberman” as they called him at MoveOn.org while trying to replace him with an unqualified individual like Ned Lamont) and encourage him to step into the race. Lieberman’s character, ethics, and integrity are, in contrast to those of Barack Obama, highly respected. The same applies to his standing on national security issues. Lieberman could win next November, and he is probably the only Democrat who can.

=============================================
Footnote:
David Ploufe’s fundraising pitch says, “We’re less than 10,000 donations away, and your donation will count towards the goal. Please make a donation during these critical final 48 hours:”

Our questions for Mr. Ploufe:

(1) If people donate money and later discover that Barack Obama consorts openly with, and/or endorses, prominent racists and anti-Semites like Al Sharpton, and hate groups like the National Action Network, will your campaign return their money?

(2) Do you or do you not believe that the people whom you are asking to donate money have a right to know that Obama appeared with and endorsed Al Sharpton and his National Action Network?

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 5:26 pm |

Britain ends “War On Terror”!

HalfHourNewsHour.jpg
Parody becomes reality

Britain wants to drop the “war on terror” phrase “because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.”

I’m gobsmacked, I tell you, gobsmacked. The “war on terror” is a silly, stupid, inadequate phrase, but for almost exactly the opposite of these reasons. One of its defects is that it doesn’t communicate the fact that we are facing one enemy (with various degrees of organization) with with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. As I and many others have pointed out on numerous occasions, terrorism is a tactic, not an opponent, and it was not invented by Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001.

And the British also have a bad idea here because we are facing one enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. Even if one believes that they are twisting and hijacking Islam, they are still at least self-proclaimed Islamic jihadists with the goal of setting up a worldwide caliphate. Even President Bush has spoken about that, on one or two occasions. But evidently now official Britain is retreating so far from reality that we have to pretend that we are facing simply a few gangs of thugs with no coherent ideology or common aims.

And don’t forget: the Democrats want to do this too.

“‘War On Terror’ Row,” from SkyNews, with thanks to the American Israeli Patriot:

Britain has decided to ban the term ‘War on Terror’ – sparking fears of a major row with the US.The International Development Secretary will say the phrase has strengthened militant groups by giving them a shared identity.

Hilary Benn’s speech is expected to anger the White House when he criticises President Bush’s phrase.

He will stress the term makes terrorist groups feel that they are part of something “bigger”.

Mr Benn will also urge world leaders to open dialogue with potential enemies rather than use military force.

President Bush championed the phrase ‘War on Terror’ shortly after the al Qaeda attacks on New York on September 11, 2001.

The Foreign Office called for it to be dropped in December last year but Washington stuck to its guns.

Mr Benn will say in his speech: “In the UK, we do not use the phrase ‘War on Terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.

“It is the vast majority of the people in the world – of all nationalities and faiths – against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups.

“What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength.”

They are part of something bigger, Mr. Benn, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it. They believe that they are the sons and heirs of mujahedin going back 14 centuries. Do you really think they have just gotten this idea because you started calling them “terrorists”? If so, it is an appalling commentary on the state of affairs in the West that you occupy any position of public influence at all.

BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias — BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians, . Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias

Company executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals

By Gudrun Schultz

LONDON, United Kingdom, October 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network’s executives and key anchors, in a leaked account of an “impartiality summit.”

The Daily Mail reported Sunday on the secret London meeting of key executives, called by BBC chairman Michael Grade and hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley. The report revealed that many senior executives are deeply frustrated with the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” and liberal policies at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians, .

Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral,” said Andrew Marr, senior political commentator with the corporation. “It’s a publicly funded, urban organization with a abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

Senior executives raised a chorus of complaints against the corporation for bias against the United States and strongly anti-national reporting. Justin Webb, Washington correspondent, said anti-American sentiment runs so deep in the corporation that the U.S. is treated with scorn and derision and given “no moral weight.”

“There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness,” said one senior executive. “Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture that it is very hard to change it.”

Mary Fitzpatrick, who oversees the corporation’s “diversity” policies, said Muslim women readers for BBC News should be permitted to wear veils while on air, if they choose, after  a female newsreader caused a stir by wearing a visible cross on air. Ms. Fitzpatrick also defended the BBC against internal accusations of selective reporting on issues critical of the black community.

Andrew Marr, in an interview with the Mail, said, “The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.”

During the recent international upheaval over Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on Islam, the BBC was accused by media watchers of deliberately inflaming the Muslim community worldwide through biased and inflammatory coverage. Political commentator David Warren, writing for the Ottawa Citizen, said the BBC was “having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world.”

The international uproar led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy, and the murder of a nun in Somalia

EU’s fight against radical Islam — Religious leaders, politician say only if Muslim immigrants accept western values tensions would subside — (DUSSELDORF) – Henrik Broder, a prominent Jewish journalist in Germany, recently published a book titled, “Hooray! We Surrender!” which criticizes what the author refers to as ‘Europe’s weakness in its battle against Islam.’

Gil Yaron Henrik Broder, a prominent Jewish journalist in Germany, recently published a book titled, “Hooray! We Surrender!” which criticizes what the author refers to as ‘Europe’s weakness in its battle against Islam.’“We must define what sets us aside as a society, and what values we must uphold in our struggle against Islam,” Broder tells Ynet. Broder’s remarks come amid the ever-increasing tension in Europe between the traditional values and those of radical Islam, which are beginning to spread throughout the continent. It began with the Madrid terror attack, which was carried out by a cell of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and continued with the London bombings, which were carried out by UK-born Muslims, and the attempts to attack airliners in Britain and trains in Germany. In the interim there were the violent riots in response to the prophet Muhammad caricatures, the outrage and threats over Pope Benedict XVI’s accusations and the public outcry following the UK veils affair.
Muslim Europeans protesting Muhammad cartoons (Photo: AFP)With the end of the Cold War 17 years ago, Europe was able to unite around values of democracy, individualism and a free market. But lately the atmosphere ion Europe has begun to change, and tolerant Europe has started to organize against radical Islam (and some say Islam in general), an ideology that is being referred to more and more as ‘an enemy of modern western society’s lifestyle.

Until recently political correctness reigned in Europe, and those who dared point an accusatory finger at minorities were ostracized. When immigrants attacked their host-countries in Europe, the Europeans blamed western society for ‘inadequately absorbing them.’

Dialogue, not confrontation was the solution to the absorption difficulties of immigrants; criticism of the Muslim minority, part of which refused to accept the social ideals of the majority, was dismissed as racist – and so the Muslims in Europe did not integrate with the western population.

Muslim quarter in Brussels (Photo: Roee Nahmias)

But following Madrid and London attacks, as well as the Muslim riots over the Mohammad caricatures, there are more and more signs indicating that the European Union is beginning to view Islam and the Muslim immigrants as an existential threat.

Mission: Intelligence

About 15 million Muslims live In Europe today, which constitute about 3-4 percent of the population in most European countries. In France, Muslims make up and estimated 10 percent. Police forces across Europe have already started to focus efforts on collecting intelligence information among their countries’ Islamic communities.

For German intelligence, for instance, this is virgin territory. German police, who confer regularly with Jewish officials to assess the threat to their safety, admitted to them that they have know idea of the goings-on in Germany’s Muslim communities.

Senior police officials themselves confessed to Ynet that, “There are whole areas in German cities that in our view are ‘out of bounds’, and we don’t enter them anymore. For too long we thought that as long as we let them manage themselves, they won’t bother us. Now this attitude is taking its revenge on us.”

Germany Defense Ministry official Christian Schmidt, a member of the governing Christian Democrats party (CDU), told Ynet that among the Muslim community in his country, “Thousands tend towards extremism and pose a threat to us.”

He said that contrary to absorption processes in other communities, among Muslims future generations become more fanatic, with “the third generation being the most extremist.”

Currently various German states are considering legislation to obligate imams to carry sermons in German, to “increase the transparency of Muslim communities and abate concern and suspicion.” In effect, this reflects the shortage of Turkish and Arabic speakers in the German intelligence community and the difficulties hindering them from collecting crucial information from this sector.

Tensions between communities have been rising since last summer’s thwarted terror attacks in Britain and Germany. Two and a half month ago plans to blow up two trains in Koln failed to materialize due to technical failures in the makeshift bombs hidden in two suitcases.

German authorities nabbed a number of suspects and the mastermind of the attempted attacks, which prompted a debate about whether the government should make it obligatory for transportation operators to install CCTV cameras on trains.

In Britain a plot to blow up a number of US-bound planes using liquid explosives, shook a nation that was still trying to come to terms with the July 7 attacks two years earlier.

Relations between 1.8 British Muslims and the rest of the country suffered another set back as tension grew and a wide-scale arrest raids conducted against Muslim terror suspects across the country only added fuel to the fire.

The government said it is weighing plans to cut public funds to Muslim schools, although no such plans were considered for the 36 Jewish and 7,000 Christian schools in the monarchy.

In another dramatic development, the Ministry of Education announced new regulation to the higher education system which would make it obligatory for British universities to keep track of the activities of Muslim students and report any suspicious behavior to law enforcement authorities.

Many countries did not suffice with discussions: The governments of Germany and Britain launched dialogue with Muslim organizations in the hope that a European form of Islam – one that is pragmatic and pacifist – would emerge.

In Berlin, the home of many Germans of Turkish origins, Turkish kindergartens would be forced to adopt the German language as the only communication tool in the hope to inoculate minority children with the values of democracy and civil rights.

In Switzerland meanwhile, where Muslims constitute less than one percent of the population, referendums held in a number of cantons reflected the will of an overwhelming majority to limit the spread of Islam. More so, strict immigration laws were introduced, and in many areas the construction of new Mosques has been banned.

Debate on values

But for many this is not enough. While individualism has been a supreme value in Europe for many decades, common European values have been subject to intense debate especially to the backdrop of Turkey’s impending membership in the European Union.

“We need to start public discussions about our values, which we have to communicate in a resolute manner,” Michael Geller, a member of the European parliament representing Germany’s CDU told Ynet.

“Islam is not a threat yet, but a challenge that forces us to define our common values. Citizen rights and the status of women especially are things that should be assimilated among Muslim immigrants,” he said.

Henrik Broder however is a skeptic. “I don’t think Europe know to do something besides to surrender. People have no idea what they are fighting for. We can’t set the clock back, and I don’t want Europe to give up on its Muslims. But when the Dutch justice minister says it is possible for Sharia to become the basis for Dutch laws and when in England there are independent Sharia courts – that’s the end of European society as we know it,” he said.

BBC, NY Times and Guardian Appear to Have Stage-Managed Muslim Anti-Pope Hatred — This is deplorable the media has been manipulating stories to sensationlize thier coverage They are as bad as the terrorists

LifeSiteNews.com

Monday September 18, 2006

BBC, NY Times and Guardian Appear to Have Stage-Managed Muslim Anti-Pope Hatred

Ratzinger, now Benedict, has been favorite Catholic target of liberal media for years

by Hilary White

LONDON, September 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The international furor over the Pope’s comments at Regensburg last week appears to have begun through a series of carefully stage-managed media reports

Tracing the media coverage from the day of the Pope’s speech in Regensburg, Germany, a distinct shift in approach, what media analysts call a “meme,” of “Islamic outrage”, is clearly traceable starting with the BBC’s coverage three days later.

The day after the speech, Wednesday the 13th, the Pope’s lecture elicited little response from apparently bored secular journalists who had little interest in what was considered his “obscure” and “academic” points on the relationship between religious belief and the secular world.

Catholic news sources who reported the day after the lecture were also quiet. “Pope spends quiet afternoon at home with brother,” was the leading headline at Catholic World Report.

On Thursday the 14th, however, under the headline “Pope’s speech stirs Muslim anger,” the BBC began with a report that police in Kashmir had seized newspapers carrying coverage of the pope’s speech in order “to prevent tension.” The BBC’s coverage did not include any quote from the Indian-administered Kashmiri police force.

The BBC’s September 14th report was transmitted around the world in Arabic, Turkish, Farsi (the language of Iran), Urdu, the official language of Pakistan; and Malay. The next day, the anticipated furor had became a reality.

Immediately after the appearance of the first BBC coverage, the Pakistani parliament issued a declaration condemning Benedict’s speech and demanding an apology.

Later the same day, the BBC published, under the headline, “Muslim anger grows at Pope speech” a report on the Pakistan government’s reaction. It quoted the head of the Islamic extremist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, saying “the Pope’s remarks ‘aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world’.

The same day, the Guardian, following the BBC’s lead, ran the headline, “Muslim anger builds over Pope’s speech.” From that moment, the internet was flooded with reportage from around the world on the Pope’s alleged “attack” on Islam and the predicted response from Islamic groups began.

On the 13th, the New York Times, focusing on the Pope’s critique of Western secularism ran the headline, “The Pope Assails Secularism, with a Note on Jihad.” The report contained no hint of their later demands for papal apologies.

Ian Fisher wrote, “Several experts on the Catholic Church and Islam agreed that the speech — in which Benedict made clear he was quoting other sources on Islam — did not appear to be a major statement on, or condemnation of, Islam.”

By the weekend, however, the New York Times had dropped its examination of the content and intention of the pope’s lecture, and joined the chorus of demands for apologies in its editorial.

The BBC continued stirring the pot on the 15th, with commentary from their religious affairs correspondent, Rahul Tandon, who wrote darkly that the former Cardinal Ratzinger had “appeared to be uncomfortable with Pope John Paul II’s attempts to improve dialogue with the Islamic world.”

Benedict’s unpopularity with the secularist mainstream media is legendary. Since before his election as Pope, Joseph Ratzinger had been for years the secularist and leftist media’s favorite Catholic target. Led by the BBC, the Guardian and the New York Times, media editorials had long since dubbed him “The Rottweiler” and the “Panzer Cardinal,” for his defences of Catholic doctrine, particularly on abortion and contraception.

Thousands of stories and editorials are appearing online – with no sign of slowing – carrying headlines such as that from Australia’s The Age: “‘Rottweiler’ bares teeth.” The Guardian today has issued an editorial headlined, “An Insufficient Apology,” featuring the familiar secularist accusations against the Catholic Church’s past. 

On Sunday, Toronto-based columnist, David Warren, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on the media-instigated uproar that has led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy and the murder of a nun in Somalia.

By manipulating the event, Warren says, the BBC was “having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world.”

Warren wrote, “The BBC appears to have been quickest off the mark, to send around the world in many languages…word that the Pope had insulted the Prophet of Islam, during an address in Bavaria.”

While the pope, Warren said, was not offering a “crude anti-Islamic polemic,” the content of the Pope’s speech, and his key questions in the dialogue between religions and the secular world, will now be ignored.

Warren pointed to coverage by Rahul Tandon who implied that, since his election as Pope, though Benedict has “surprised many with his attempts to improve dialogue with the Muslim world…,there have been signs of his earlier views.” These Tandon identified as “theological conservatism.”

“From now on,” Warren writes, “the reporting will be about the Muslim rage, and whether the Vatican has apologized yet. That is the “drama” the media will seek to capture — the drama of the cockfight — because they know no better kind.”