Posted by
Bullfrog on Sunday, April 15, 2007 6:30:15 PM
I thought
the link I followed from a
Drudge Report headline was to
The Onion or
ScrappleFace. Seriously, I thought I was reading satire until I looked at the URL, and realized the author wasn't joking. It's from the
English edition of Pravda.
"In a clear sign of its intent to reign in dissident American media personalities, and their growing influence in American culture,
US War Leaders this past week launched an unprecedented attack upon one
of their most politically 'connected', and legendary, radio hosts named
Don Imus after his threats to release information relating to the
September 11, 2001 attacks upon that country."
There
are so many things wrong with that paragraph, on so many levels. First,
Don Imus is a talk show host, not a "media personality" with powerful
political connections. Second, the columnist can call the President and
White House staff "War Leaders" all she wants, but the implication here
that they control the mass media is absurd. If anything, the mass
media is anti-Bush, and would vociferously protest any attempt by the
White House to influence its coverage of any particular event. Even
FoxNews, with its comparatively conservative stance, offers Alan Colmes
to balance Sean Hannity, and books many left-wing guests on O'Reilly.
Third, I find it tough to believe that Don Imus has anything of
substance to add to any discussion about 9/11, let alone anything
worthy of silencing him by firing him.
"Unable to attack such a powerful media figure as Don Imus,
directly, the US War Leaders, and as we have seen many times before,
resorted to a massive media attack against him using as the reason a
racial slur against a US woman's basketball team, but which has been
pointed out by other media outlets was not by any means a rare
occurrence for the legendary radio icon to make."
Um, yeah, he's a "shock jock" by trade. They make controversial
remarks. Sharpton et. al. piled on for their usual purposes of
self-promotion. You can bet the bean-counters at MSNBC and CBS were
working on ad revenue projections before any decision to fire Imus was
made.
"From our past research of the tactics used against those threatening
America's War Leaders, the likelihood of imprisonment for Don Imus
would only occur should he persist in his threats to undermine their
authority, and which appears, at this time, unlikely after the public
disgrace he has had to endure."
Note to columnist: people in the U.S. do not go to jail for exercising
their first amendment rights. If they say something stupid, they'll
get lambasted for it, and possibly lose their jobs, but it's not a
felony.
"Apparently lost upon America's media personalities is that a government . . . does not hesitate, for even a second, to
crush any, and all, opposition to it."
That may be the way it works in Russia, but not the U.S. Ma'am, you've
been living there far too long. Emigrate somewhere--anywhere--as long
as it's not a formerly communist bloc country. The White House does
not control the press in this country. If it did, you wouldn't see all
the negative coverage that's out there. Negative coverage of the
current administration cannot in any way, shape, or form, be considered
White House propaganda. However, your article is just the sort of
thing that Putin loves to see. You old-timers can't seem to get over
the fact that the iron curtain has fallen.
Here's the real kicker. The by-line at the end, says it all:
"By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers"
So this was only reported to the
West? Why not report it within Russia? The author would seem to be
quite an accomplished propagandist in her own right. It remains to be
seen whether anyone in the West buys this load of baloney. Somehow, I
doubt it.