That, simply put, is the only problem with having an
entertainment, ideologue based media to replace what we need – a fundamental
based, constantly questioning authority media.
We already have a foreign press which sees America vastly differently
that our media presents the current administration.
Here are a few very recent examples:
Hillary is glorified by the American Hollywood media. Read this report from China’s official newspaper
– “"Many people in China dislike Hillary Clinton,"
said an editorial in the state-run Global Times.”She has brought new and
extremely profound mutual distrust between the mainstream societies of the two
countries." What was the occasion
of this commentary? Her pending visit. Seldom do state run mouthpieces blast the
visitor in China before his/her arrival.
You may ask why she was there; what were the objectives of her visit and
what did she accomplish? Well, here is
the report from The Telegraph, a London newspaper – “On what may be her final
trip to China as America's top diplomat, Hillary Clinton failed to find any
agreement over Syria or the South China Sea and saw her meeting with the
country's next president cancelled.” Nothing
happened. China’s leader didn’t even
show up for the meeting. Hillary went to
China to be stood up. Did you know that?
We have no
interest in making political hay out of the tragic death our America’s
ambassador to Libya. As a matter of
fact, if you wish to learn a bit about this man we would direct you to this
website for a brief video made by him upon taking over the diplomatic
responsibilities in Libya. Please go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGk4vUcGzY0
Is it reasonable
however to ask a few questions about what is going on in the Middle East? Or, more pointedly, what the heck is America
doing so visibly involved in this neck of the woods given that they hate us? What could our media be asking? Well, why did the American embassy issue a statement
condemning the silly video about the prophet which was then dismissed by the
white house? What are the rules about
such statements? And why jump on someone
for taking exception to such a statement when the very same statement is
countered by the president himself?
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to question those in authority about
their handling of the matter rather than making the focus of attention the
candidate running for office? It seems
crystal clear to this observer that the media will do anything to avoid the
missteps of the people in power and do everything to amplify the “missteps” of
those who seek to replace the people in power.
That is exactly the same process that brings us to our wallowing and
unhopeful economic situation at home. Do
you wish the same thing for our foreign relations too?
One other
question that we would pose about this current Middle Eastern mess. We apparently know that there is a great deal
of lawlessness and armed bands of thugs rooting around the Libyan countryside. At least we are talking about it a day or two
after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi.
We didn’t know this two or three day ago? So we have an unprotected outpost in a land
occupied by armed thugs who don’t like us and we send our ambassador into this
situation unprotected? And no one can question
that situation? No one can ask why not
shut the place down? Why do we need a Benghazi
outpost? Are we totally nuts? Why do we send marines there after the fact? Have
you noticed that we (our government that is) always seem to be a day late? But never a dollar short?
The Hollywood
media is pursuing a policy of don’t ask – don’t tell when it comes to America’s
current administration. In the meantime,
those who want to know must go outside America to get the facts and find a few
journalists who either ask pointed questions or just tell the truth.
Here is a recent
report that raises many more questions than it answers. From a foreign source, of course – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
No comments:
Post a Comment