Media Malpractice?

The security of Constitutionally guaranteed individual liberty and personal freedom has always rested on the actions of a well educated and well informed public.  To that end, the establishment of the Bill of Rights.  Chief of which is the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  A free press, protected from interference or influence by wealthy, powerful and politically connected interests, is of crucial importance when it comes to the creation and maintenance of a well educated and well informed public.  Lately, we have been witness to increasingly blatant evidence of politically biased coverages and "slants" to news stories, as well as what seem to have been political calculations as to what stories were deemed "newsworthy".  There used to be a name for such practices:  Yellow Journalism.

There is no doubt of a liberal bent to most mainstream media news outlets.  Surveys have shown a tilt as great as 70-80% when it comes to personally held political views, as well as a similar percentage contributing to liberal, Democratic/Progressive causes, politicians, and political parties.  It was accepted that the editorial pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Los Angeles Times, etc., etc. were liberal in tone, just as the editorials in their counterparts, The New York Post, Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, etc., were seen as conservative.  The First Amendment specifically protects such opinion, as it should.  The problem arises when the line between news and opinion becomes blurred.  When personal political opinion and ideological agendas are presented as news fact, and certain other, perhaps contradictory, information  is not given full disclosure, or is omitted altogether in furtherance of such agendas we lose something of incalculable value. 

The "papers of record" get replaced by a Pravda-style State controlled or influenced propaganda outlets whose purpose is to mold public opinion in favor of a certain political point of view, rather than a source of impartial information through which people can form their own conclusions, and use those conclusions to inform their own political choices.

Benghazi is back in the news.  Belatedly, insofar as the mainstream media is concerned.  It isn't looking good for either the administration, or the media that has seemingly been complacent in the administration's attempt to keep certain information from coming to light.

Thanks to some truly courageous whistle blowers, earlier "conspiracy theories" concerning the Obama administration's manipulation of the information coming out of Benghazi, Libya after the attacks on our diplomatic outpost there and the murder of Ambassador Stevens, a member of his staff and two brave former SEALs who attempted to come to their aid, have been borne out as not as outlandish as the administration's representatives would have had us believe. 

Information in the form of direct Congressional testimony by high ranking career State Department officials involved has contradicted the Obama administration's claims.  Almost point for point.  From information revealing that it was known almost immediately that the attack was a well planned assault staged by the Al Aqsa Brigade, a well known Al Qaida group operating in the region (NOT a spontaneous response to some third rate YouTube video), along with the revelation that the CIA talking points given to the administration included references to that fact, as well as information that they had advance warning concerning possible attacks on our facility and concerns about security well before the attacks occurred; to confirmation of claims by others that military assistance had been called for, repeatedly and desperately, and had been denied by someone high up in the administration.  It has since been confirmed by ABC News that the administration had re-edited the talking points as many as 12 times before UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out on 5 of the Sunday talk shows with her since-debunked claims of the video being the root cause of the attacks, scrubbing any and all references to Al Qaida and terrorism.  One internal email from the State Department made reference to the need to avoid the possibility that revealing potential terrorist involvement would be used by the political enemies of the administration.

None of this is news to people who have been paying attention to something other than the network news outlets.  People have been demanding answers for Benghazi since the attacks, refusing to accept the inconsistencies of the government's declarations and questioning the missing information.  Unanswered questions, such as: "Who pushed the video?" as the officially named cause of the attack, in the face of any evidence supporting such an assertion, and continued to stand by the official line long after the claim had been discredited?  "Who was ultimately responsible for ordering military responders to 'Stand Down' when they requested authority to mount a rescue attempt?"  This one is still largely unanswered, with contradictory statements being offered at different times.  One thing is clear, when it comes to authorizing military action into another sovereign country there is only one individual who has the responsibility and authority:  the Commander-in-Chief.  Which brings up the biggest and most serious unanswered question: "Where was Obama during the 7 hours the attack was ongoing?"  This is the biggie, but don't expect anyone from the mainstream media, or even Fox News for that matter, to press the president or his administration for the answer to this one.  Don't look for the announcement of any press conference.  Not only has this President shown a marked aversion to unscripted question and answer sessions, but given the prominence of the Benghazi testimony in the current news cycle, he will be certain to face potentially awkward questions, at least one of which will concern his activity and location during the assault.  The White House published photos of our "courageous" President surrounded by his advisers in the Situation Room during the operation to take out Osama bin Laden, where are the photos of similar meetings and monitoring of the situation during Benghazi?

Our primary sources of news and information, our free press, our "unbiased" news media, has shown itself to be, instead of a servant of the people and of the people's "right to know", largely a propaganda machine promoting certain political causes and protecting the image of certain politicians.  However, some of these outlets--those for whom it's not too late--may be forced by circumstances to finally begin to fulfill their obligation to inform the American people and to provide them with the unbiased "who? what? when? where? how?" information they are supposed to.  Any who fail to do so, who continue to suppress information in service to any party's political agenda or President, is guilty of media malpractice

The Road to Hell & Dual-edged Swords

In the aftermath of any major catastrophic event, whether natural disaster or mass shooting or terrorist attack, conspiracy theories sprout like dandelions after a summer shower and there are demands that "something has to be done" to prevent such from ever happening again.

We saw this in the wake of the original 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, when we were attacked on home soil for the first time in the country's history since the War of Independence.  The result was the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Patriot Act, and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and the requirement that in order to board an airplane we allow ourselves to be subjected to invasive body scans and physical pat downs.  After the "shoe bomber" the requirement that we take off our shoes was added to the list.  From the fringes of both sides there were shouts of "Conspiracy!" with claims ranging from "the government planted explosive charges in the towers and brought them down on purpose (1) so "W" would have an excuse to wage war, or (2) to perpetuate the persecution of the followers of Islam and provide an excuse for "The Great Satan" to wage war on the "Religion of Peace", to claims that the government was using the situation as justification for broadening it's power and intrusion into the lives of law-abiding citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights.

Conspiracy theories abound even after natural disasters.  In the aftermath of "Irene", "Sandy", "Hugo" and "Katrina", et al., there were  demands that government "help" be both quicker to arrive and broader in scope.  Where we used to have the Red Cross, now we've got FEMA.  The aid used to be immediate and locally based, now it's slowed and made largely wasteful and inefficient by distance and unnecessary levels of bureaucracy.  At every step, you have to submit to government inspection of your need and approval of aid, meaning that you cannot act to help yourself (or your neighbor) without risking the disapproval of any such aid.  Even if you don't want or need aid, you are told to not touch anything until government inspectors have been by to "evaluate the situation".  You see, if you act to help yourself it lessens the extent of damage seen by the inspectors, potentially impacting the amount of federal aid dollars the state can expect to receive; and everyone knows (conspiracy theory) that's all the state is really interested in.  After Katrina, conspiracies ranged from accusations of government acting directly against a group of people "George Bush blew up the levees to kill black people in New Orleans!" to claims of the government acting indirectly to withhold aid " FEMA's too slow!"  "Where's the money the government promised?" "We aren't getting help because George Bush hates black people!" "If this was a white city we'd have all the help we needed."  After "Irene" and "Sandy" there were claims in a similar vein concerning President Obama, saying that his administration didn't do enough to help victims in the northeast because they were already "blue" and that he didn't need to worry about their support and that since he had become President he had "lost touch with regular folks" and had become too detached and "aloof".

You know where this is going.  After the shootings in Columbine, CO we had the imposition of a so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and cries that "government has the responsibility to take action to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again".  So along with the ban we got demands that government move to restrict all gun ownership by private individuals "in the name of public safety and the protection of our children", and insistence on a nationwide database of gun owners so we could "keep track of all these dangerous weapons and prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals".  Groups on the right raised the claim that the government and "anti-gun activists" were using the tragedy as a pretense to erase the 2nd Amendment right to "Keep and Bear Arms", often adding the eventual imposition of a "police state" once the civilian population had been "disarmed", while groups on the left claimed that opposition to such was an indication that the NRA and the "gun lobby" was complicit in the murders and that they "only care about their profit, not the countless number of murder victims they are responsible for" with some going so far as to claim that the pro gun side was actually happy to see victims of violent crime reported because it gave them a platform for proclaiming the need for people to bear arms to protect themselves.  Some on the fringe right claimed that President Clinton was "comfortable with a certain level of violence in society" because it helped him drive public sentiment in the direction he wanted, furthering government control of private individuals.  Now that we've had the tragedies of Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT these twin conspiracies have again found full flower in society.

What, if anything, can we do about the above?  Not much.  Whenever there is a tragic event or disaster of any kind our first response has become to demand that someone(else) "do something".  It really appears that the American archetype, the "rugged individualist", is no more.  Despite the wealth of evidence that government really can't be all things to all people and provide everything for everyone every time, it seems that a majority of the population has accepted the notion that (1) they can't (and shouldn't have to) do for themselves and (2) everything will be fine if we only agree to give over more of our tax dollars (and freedoms) to government in exchange for being relieved of the responsibility of taking care of ourselves.  Believe me, ALL politicians are only too happy to oblige.

In the case of national defense and reaction to terrorist attacks such as Oklahoma City, 9/11, and the most recent Boston Marathon bombing it's slightly more complex.  Government is mandated by our Constitution to provide protection and security for the nation against enemies "foreign and domestic".  It HAS to act.  HOW it acts is largely a matter of overreaction and public pressure.  The former is usually caused by the latter demanding that "something be done" immediately.  The problem arises from no one taking the time to contemplate potential "unforeseen consequences".  In spite of all the cries from liberals, the ACLU, and Constitutionalists that the Patriot Act violated citizens' rights, no such claims have either been made or proven.  That doesn't mean that others can't (or won't) eventually take advantage of the framework put into place to do just that.  There's no question that increased surveillance and monitoring helps law enforcement and national security agencies do a better and more effective job protecting us from potential attack, but the same systems that serve to defend can easily be used to suppress and control a population.

What may grow out of a sincere desire and need to protect people and safeguard their freedoms can, and unless vigilantly supervised eventually will, be turned to the control of those same people "for their own good".  If people can be successfully indoctrinated into the belief that they aren't capable of providing for themselves, that in fact it's impossible for anyone to stand on his own without the government's protection, it's a simple matter to get them to agree to give up the tools and skills they need to do so.  Enter the Totalitarian State.  Everything we rely on for protection is a dual-edged sword.  Police?  They can either "Serve & Protect" the public or suppress the public in service of the rich and politically connected.  The military can do great service in defending the country's borders from invasion and foreign attack under the direction of government, or it can be turned to the subjugation of the population at the direction of the same government.  In each case, the tools used are the same, just put to different uses by different people with different agendas.

If we are to limit the number of such "dual-edged swords" we need a wholesale reclamation of the previously mentioned American archetype of independence and self-reliance.  In giving over responsibility for ourselves to the government, we have unwittingly planted the seeds of our possible future enslavement.  Good intentions and all.