Winds of War: The ‘Objectiveness’ of the Media

In times of war, the media can either contribute to victory as in World War II or to defeat as in Vietnam. Today’s Main Stream Media has evolved from being supportive of the country in a national conflict to being ‘objective’.

In June of 2005, CNN did a piece on Ted Turner as he looked back 25 years on his news reporting organization. Turner said he had envisioned CNN filling the role on television that The New York Times (my emphasis) fills in newspapers, and implied that CNN once did so, but may have slipped.

"In 20 short years, by all the surveys, we became the world's most respected news source. The New York Times had been there for 100 years. We did it in 20," Turner said.

And there turns the tale.

CNN, like most other MSM sources see themselves as not a member of the nation they inhabit but a global organization without the need to support any one nation’s agenda. But this attempt at standing above the world stage and ‘objectivity’ is really a smoke screen for the political agenda that they promote. Like Turner’s hero, the New York Times, CNN is a left leaning organization that sees no problem with airing propaganda videos from an enemy our country. The insurgent videos that show American soldiers being killed by snipers is just news to CNN and they claim no political agenda byshowing it.

But when it comes to reporting news that would encourage victory in Iraq, CNN is poorly lacking. In fact, any attempt by other news source like FOX at trying a balanced approach is seen as blatant right wing propaganda.

Google is another case of a company seeing themselves as a global organization with little or no ties to the country they live in. The censorship on YouTube of anti-jihad videos and the recent e-mail from Blogger, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google is another example of ‘objectivity’ that lacks any responsibility. It seems they don't think it's a big deal that they are providing free hosting to al Qaeda.

If CNN and Google existed during WWII, such behavior would not be tolerated. Imagine Wolf Blitzer interviewing Hitler to understand ‘his side of the story’.

WOLF: So, Heir Fuhrer, you feel attacking France was necessary?

HITLER: Yes. We were given a raw deal at Versailles.

WOLF: Good point.

Or….

WOLF: So let me understand this PM Tojo. You had to attack Pearl Harbor?

TOJO: It was an issue of national survival. Your country cut us off from our oil supplies and resources we need for our war effort.

WOLF: Good point.

American news companies that have an international and not a national responsibility is a dangerous thing for a country at war. But of course, the liberal agenda of the MSM does not believe we’re at war but a police action – meaning we have a criminal justice problem with a small band of terrorists. Or as Nancy Pelosi said, “Iraq is not a war. It’s a situation.”