print“I suspect most media cheered for Obama reflexively, rather than consciously—too stupid to ask themselves whether what they were doing was journalism or advocacy. A couple of older news guys, ABC’s Charles Gibson comes to mind, failed to take sides. Consequently, the pack pounced on him and on George Stephanopoulos for asking the senator some pointed questions. But good newsmen are a dying breed. Good newswomen are mostly dead already. By the time she died, the brilliant and brave Oriana Fallaci had long since been buried professionally by mediocrities like Barbara Walters of the ‘cutting edge’ anti-aging reportage and colonic crusader Katie Couric.”
“So how did a mindless monolith’s hunger for Hussein help the Obama momentum?”
Find out by reading “Mindless Monolith: Media Pick Obama.” The column leads the WND Commentary Page today.
Update I: A friend, who’s no fan of Katie Couric, thought my description of her as a “colonic crusader” should be patented. Fun aside, to be a “good” newsman today means taking up a disease and fighting against it. The triumph of sentimentality over reason. Couric’s thing is colon cancer, an awful illness, indubitably, but, consider Fallaci who’d been blown-up covering many a revolution–she never so much as discussed the breast cancer that killed her. I suspect that given the kind of mind she had, it didn’t much interest her. I too switch off most newscasts when they start on the kiddies, cures, and critters crap. Part of the takeover by women.
Update II (June 7): In reply to the reader from Lewrocwell.com, who asserts that I have singled out “comrade” Obama for criticism for some reason he simply cannot fathom:
I too cannot quite understand why readers assert baselessly, rather than argue based on facts. The reader has clearly not read “Ilana’s” scathing commentary on the other candidates. It’s on this site, for those willing to do a wee search—two mouse clicks away really.
Of course, it’s also a no-brainer that the most prominent candidate—the frontrunner—would garner more commentary than the rest. Is it not? Perhaps not to all. Genghis Bush got my undivided attention in years past.
Here’s some of the commentary Mr. Allen “missed”:
“The Hillary, Hussein, McCain Axis of Evil”
“Busybody Hillary’s Bhutto Blather”
And more; practically every column of mine, here’s another example, is peppered with derogatory comments about the candidates and their positions, or lack thereof, as applied to the issues discussed in the column. I guess people see what they want to see.
A different perspective on my rather matter-of-fact narration of the media’s crowning of Obama comes from a rather independent-minded gentlemen I’ve come to know—he happens to be Sean Hannity’s producer, although as much as he often likes what I have to say has not succeeded in getting me on the program:
“This is your typical iconoclastic clarity – some people fight PC, you remind me more of some Buffy who stakes it through the heart and then cuts its head off on the backslash.”
“So how did a mindless monolith’s hunger for Hussein help the Obama momentum?”
Two, count them two, interwoven alliteration streams.
If I could do so well,
I’d be a poet swell 🙂
Months ago as I reflected upon how Obama rose from obscurity to prominance, I composed the following… I submitted it to WND as a letter to the Editor… but alas… Thus I submit it unto you for your reading pleasure…
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When our first ten amendments were wisely put into written words, ‘Freedom of the Press’ was deemed and looked upon as one of fourteen others as equally necessary for the security of a free state, as much as that of the “right of the individual to keep and bear arms.” When that one fifth of the First Amendment, was purposely commingled with four others, their being; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition, all five collectively and individually are freedom of expression, thus each dependent upon the other. When these five commingling rights along with the nine other Amendments was codified as part of our Supreme Law of the Land by the majority of America’s Republic voters, the purpose of a free press was intended be the ‘watchdog of government. ’ That it is the obligation upon the Free Press to scrutinize all conduct and legislation of elected leaders of our representative government, as prescribed in accordance to the enumerated powers and provisions as outlined within the Constitution its subsequent rule of law along with Congress’s and President’s oath of office “…to protect and defend the Constitution…” Now the ‘freedom of the press’ no longer serves that purpose. Rather the ‘Freedom of the Press’ has evolved into the advocacy of what philosophic ideology of political science should [be in] control the government, irrespective of the provisions and constraints within the U.S. Constitution, respective of state’s constitutions and city charters and their subsequent uniqueness of history; a written ‘Supreme Law of the Land’ and ‘Rule of Law.’ And should the time come, as past history validates, that the freedom of the press ever be eroded into non-existence, it will be as result of they’re own doing for propagating but one ideology.
Bill Keith, 3/12/08
Three, actually:
Mindless monolith,
Hunger for Hussein and,
O-ba-ma mo-men-tum.
Whatsa madda, dontcha like newsfotainment? [Come again?IM]
Were it not for the pathetic opposition, this phenomenon would have been historic in its own right. I find it ironic that Mrs. Clinton spoke of Robert Kennedy, and his campaigning in California in June, and the media immediately pounced, decrying her bringing him up, and presumptively assessing the statement as a sugestion that she would like her opponent to go the same way.
The real point she made was washed over and put out because it did not support the “media darling”. A lot has been said about party rules and such, but her point was Kennedy was still campaigning in June, as had all the previous Democrat candidates for the office. It is the bastardization of the primary process that has taken the choosing from taking place at the party convention, where it was an officially announced winner, based on a standard process. Today, one needs only be the “putative winner” or even just “the projected winner”, and the media demand every oponent to throw up the white flag and surrender, even though the count doesn’t take place until the convention. It’s a mighty good thing we have “rules”.
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC
Just to clarify how muddy the Michigan delegate issue really is, Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. A strong argument against seating any Michigan delegates could be made on this basis alone. Not that it matters. The super-delegate structure guarantees control by party elites anyway. Do voters have to be “enfranchised” before they can be “disenfranchised”?
NEITHER Obama nor Hillary had a significant convincing share of voters. Like Florida in 2000, it was within a standard deviation of a tie.
Apparently, the tie goes to the media-anointed Messiah.
Meanwhile – some tougher questions for Messiah Obama:
1. How is it that SENATOR Obama channeled grant money to U of Chicago hospital while your wife was getting a $100,000 raise? Does this constitute good ethics, “change”, and fiscal responsibility?
2. Ditto for grants to Father Pfleger’s church? What about separation of church and state? What under Article 1 Section 8 entitles them to federal dollars?
3. How does Cornographic Ethanol subsidies and sugar tariffs help energy independence and clean the environment? How is this change from the Washington cult of corruption?
4. Do you expect the rest of the world to increase its oil production while America refuses to explore its own Alaskan and off-shore oil? How is this change?
BONUS question – do you believe that the cost of living has risen ONLY 3% per year for most Americans? What is the real inflation rate and what do you intend to do about it?
Voting for the lesser evil now has given us McCain on the GOP side. [I disagree; McBush is more or as evil, and at least Obama may end the war.–IM]
But as to MI and FL (and I’m from MI), Obama obeyed the rules and didn’t campaign either place because at the time the delegates were to be limited or not seated. So any results from these two states are tainted.
I know we aren’t supposed to care about the rule of law, or a nation of laws and not of men after 9/11 with Bush and now McCain, but doesn’t Obama set a better example?
At the same time, I don’t see the coverage of McCain any better – the trivia, the celebrity faux pax stories, the what do you think of X’s comment about Y’s comment stuff.
I’m glad we have the internet, so those who want to inform themselves can do so.
But I do remember back to 1984, where all 3 networks complained about lack of time on their nightly news and one evening all spent two minutes on “Ms. Ferraro, what do you think of Barbara Bush calling you something that rhymes with ‘witch'”.
30 Days is originally based on that guy who ate super-sized McDonalds – however I don’t know why anyone would expect a different result when eating so much junk food. Same with the MSM’s junkfood for the mind. Neither McDonalds nor the MSM have changed much over two decades, but there are healthier alternatives.
Obama can do a great service if he wins and he probably will whether he wants to or not. He is, in my opinion, a good man but with inadequate ideas.
The truth is that character and good ideas are the things that matter most.
I enjoyed “Mindless Monolith.”
Although I disagree with you vehemently on animal rights (thank God I’m a vegetarian and animal rights advocate and activist), I found your take on the media to be right on.
I’m a Hillary supporter who will vote McCain.
BTW, I also love J.S. Bach’s music, music such as the orchestral suites (overtures). Have you heard D. Scarlatti’s music? If not, the sonatas are remarkable.
I’m a student of Hebrew, studying in preparation for my 2010 Israel trip. I’m going up to the Golan for awhile. It should be fun.
I disagree with your stance on U.S. aid to Israel. Israel can be as independent as they wish even with U.S. aid. Aid needn’t imply servility on Israel’s part. Israel needs the assistance and the friendship. It’s just that the recent leaders have been flunkeys for the U.S. That’s what must stop.
Regards,
Steven Zeluck
http://www.stevenzeluck.com
I agree with Myron Pauli’s point, above, regarding asking where the candidates stand on the horrible “ethanol” issue. The emphasis on growing corn for fuel is directly responsible for the increase in food prices nationwide, and worldwide. Will either McCain or Obama stand against this?
If neither, do we not have two candidates who will work furiously, and tirelessly, to pickpocket Americans in order to placate the false god of “global warming?”
If Americans vote their pocketbooks, as many have claimed they do, which of these two is likely to take less from Americans who work hard every day to put food on their tables?
It’s not clear. Hillary, at least, resonated well with blue-collar voters. I doubt that this group will turn around and support Obama merely because she has done so. Hard- working American men and women who are not affluent have no champion in this election, and that is a great shame.
Dear Ilana,
I know neither who decided to assign the colors “red” and “blue” to the two ruling political parties, nor when that decision was made; but I do know something. In reporting the 1980 presidential election, N.B.C. Television News decided to show Carter’s and Reagan’s expected victories in the Electoral College with a map. They gave Carter “red.” They assigned Reagan “blue.” “Everybody” among the pollsters had given the next presidential tenure to Carter, but the people decided otherwise. After Reagan racked up his overwhelming totals, David Brinkley groused about the map, “It looked like a suburban swimming pool, and nobody predicted it.”
Later, some dimbulb in the Democrats’ publicity department probably remembered that historically, “red” has referred to Communist sympathy, or at least to that associated with hard-core leftism. Presto-change-o! Suddenly, “red” went to the Republicans, and “blue” to the Democrats!
Dear Ilana,
I have long enjoyed your commentary and perspective, but when you mentioned the honorable Oriana Fallaci, it gave pause to consider you in a new light. I think you are exactly right on the state of male reporting, and certainly right about female journalists as well. I believe the honorable Oriana Fallaci was at the top of the heap, and I miss her incisive wit and wisdom with which she made her writing tantalizing, prescient and dead on the money, I hope many people will be reminded of her work through yours.
Thanks for reminding me of what I miss so very much. As a Marine, I took her words and saw raw courage of conviction, as a Marine, honor is the best word I know to describe her and her work. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
John McClain
What’s the surprise? The mindless media picked McCain first, thus ensuring no real choice.
I never quite understood why Ilana was so rabidly against Comrade Obama when the other “viable” candidates were just as loathsome. Now that Brother Barry has capitulated to AIPAC, it’s less understandable than ever.
Barack Obama will be a horrible president, on this we agree. What I still don’t understand is why anyone would think McCain or Hillary would be less so.
[See Update II in the main post.–IM]
“What I still don’t understand is why anyone would think McCain or Hillary would be less so. ” Joe Allen
Your conclusion is logical if you buy into the “we must support the lesser of evils” strategy. [Mr. Allen’s comments also happen to be a convenient misrepresentation of my consistent position: Like yourself, I endorsed Ron Paul. Allen’s comment is also illogical: The fact that I happen to be climbing into Obama doesn’t mean I like the others more. A non sequitur.—IM]
To not vote for the best candidate “because he can’t win” is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
My candidate, Ron Paul, may have so many write-ins this Nov, that he can’t be ignored in 2012 by the mainstream media. But every third party vote is a well deserved slap in the face of the Democratic and Republican leadership.
People, don’t let the media accuse you of being apathetic or lazy this Nov. Please get out and lodge a protest vote or write-in.
Ms. Mercer, Okay: I admit it: I cannot support Ron Paul, because I disagree with both him and you on the Iraq War. (My son served a combat tour there, so, perhaps, you and I can agree to disagree.) Still, on DOMESTIC issues, I have LONG admired Ron Paul. Living as I do in South Texas, I have known about the gentleman for a long time.
Some people are not aware that Ron Paul is a medical doctor specializing in obstetrics/gynecology. As such, he is pro-life. Moreover, he is a Christian.
I seem to have made myself misunderstood. I am not defending BHO, especially after that horrible AIPAC kowtow. I am especially not encouraging anyone to vote for the lesser evil, whichever candidate that is. Kick’em when they’re up if you want to, but it seems to me that you have already covered the subject adequately. I was hoping you would demonstrate more of your “broad” range 🙂