69 million page views

Logic behind double standards of the elitist media

Reader comment on item: Television in Time of War

Submitted by Dave Loev (United States), Aug 5, 2005 at 13:55

In my humble opinion, stated reasons, cited by media "insiders", are not the real reasons for their providing a Forum for legitimizing Islamist terrorism. In fact, they may not even realize the real reasons driving their policies, due to group-think/self-delusion mentality of the media elites.

I am going to use the analogy of abortion clinic bombers, to illustrate my arguments. And I quote:

"My conversations with insiders reveal that they include extremists for three main reasons.
First, because good viewer ratings are generated by impassioned, articulate, and known panelists with sharply clashing viewpoints."

If this was the true reason, then it would make perfect sense to provide ample air time for "impassioned, articulate" defenders of bombing abortion clinics, which they see as a "legitimate means of resistance against state-sanctioned mass murder of millions of babies". Go to any anti-abortion web site to get details. Millions of Americans would have plenty of understanding and sympathy for "impassioned, articulate" views of supporters of abortion clinic bombers. I bet you ratings would go through the roof. Given a bit of air time, "political wing" of abortion clinic bomber movement would become "well known panelists" - just like PLO propaganda pundits.

Yet, this kind of terrorism is not currently sanctioned by the Leftist Establishment, and is therefore censored. The kind of terrorism that targets Jewish residents of Israel, including women and children, is currently sanctioned by the Leftist Establishment (for reasons they deem "beneficial to their agenda"), and therefore supporters of murdering Jews are given plenty of CNN air time.

"Second, today's broadcasts strive toward impartiality. For instance, a memo distributed to Canadian Broadcast Corporation staff cautions against using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism," because these "can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict." "

Actually, journalists are taking sides in the conflict every day, by applying ethnically/religiously-selective definition of "settler" to Jewish residents of liberated portions of Judea; while failing to apply the "settler" slur to the Arab residents of "West Bank" and Jerusalme, conquered by Jordanian army in 1948. Notice that media PC fascists intentionally saturate their racist "settler" slur with hateful emotive content, used to legitimize murder of Jewish women and children - denied their humanity by the PC slur.

"Third – and quite contradictorily – when pressed about the appropriateness of broadcasting the enemy's view, producers assert they are doing a public service by exposing these. Is freedom of speech, they ask, not premised on the open marketplace of ideas? And does that not imply having faith that an informed citizenry will discern the sensible from the wrong-headed?"

What about supporters of abortion clinic bombers? What about neo-Nazis? What about KKK? What about Aryan separatists? Why is it that CNN producers not interested in providing a valuable "public service" by having faith in the informed citizenry by exposing them to propoganda of white supremacists, who legitimize killing black people just like current pets of the PC Establishment, Arab/Islamist terrorists, legitimize killing Jewish women and children?

Given enough air time, the same set of propoganda being repeated over-and-over again by "well known, articulate, passionate" silver-tongued PR people will convert a large segment of population to their point of view, and legitimize any policy they push. Media knows this, and is intentionally using their power to strengthen Islamist terrorists, disregarding pain and murder their policies will cause.

Clearly, media is a propaganda tool, utilized by political movements. They have no integrity. To understand rationale behind their policies, look for promoting party agenda, rather than their stated reasons. Clearly, Leftists cost/benefit calculation indicates that temporary alliance with Islamo-fasiscts will help them to achieve their goals, by weakening Unites States moral/economy/mlitary; destoying US allies (eg., Israel); and creating conditions necessary for a Socialist Revolution.


Sincerely,

Dave Loev
Dislike
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (95) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
t.v. , just one more weapon of radical islam. [15 words]Phil GreendAug 18, 2007 22:30106500
I sympathize, but you're wrong! [224 words]J. BerkowiczAug 15, 2005 11:0424655
P.S. CAIR contacts advertisers [81 words]DaisyAug 8, 2005 18:5724438
Dave Loev - Compelling [136 words]DaisyAug 8, 2005 16:1024434
Pipes appearance at public debates [144 words]Milton Alter MD PhDAug 8, 2005 10:2824425
How large is the communications industry? [183 words]David W. LincolnAug 7, 2005 22:3424412
A Maxim [24 words]Derek WicksAug 7, 2005 21:1924411
before Iraq Const./must re-write our own [125 words]tim mayrathAug 7, 2005 13:1024410
Let them show their true colors [124 words]Joseph KomissaroukAug 6, 2005 22:0824403
To debate or not to debate [332 words]Walter ManchurAug 5, 2005 17:2324384
Logic behind double standards of the elitist media [620 words]Dave LoevAug 5, 2005 13:5524382
Mohammad....Please interpret :)) [345 words]DvoraAug 5, 2005 11:5924381
Mixed thoughts on these shows [192 words]Sean H.Aug 5, 2005 10:5524379
Pipes / Lipstadt debates [151 words]J SchamrothAug 5, 2005 09:1824377
Television/Debating [29 words]Kermit J. Halperin, D.D.S.Aug 5, 2005 09:1724376
media tolerance of terrorism [266 words]barry kumarAug 5, 2005 02:5124375
Re: Once again you've nailed it [303 words]Reuben HorneAug 5, 2005 01:4624372
Debate on TV [365 words]Andrew L SullivanAug 4, 2005 23:2924370
Idiocy of our future-blind liberal media is appalling. [58 words]Ephraim LiorAug 4, 2005 20:3124368
Fair and Balanced? [88 words]Mark RothAug 4, 2005 19:4424366
Great Job! [103 words]Bruce BoymanAug 4, 2005 19:1324364
A Very Difficult Issue [383 words]Ron ThompsonAug 4, 2005 18:0824360
Appearing on TV [99 words]ALLEN GINSBURGHAug 4, 2005 17:3424359
Let it Rip! [107 words]Kate WrightAug 4, 2005 16:5224358
Talking Heads, Balking Heads [70 words]Steve MullanyAug 4, 2005 16:3724357
Teaching Others a Lesson at your (our) Expense [518 words]KarynAug 4, 2005 16:3624356
Don't legitimize what is illegitimate [153 words]Lawrence AusterAug 4, 2005 16:3524355
Fine Daniel Pipes Article on TV and War in Aug 2 NY Sun [157 words]Aharon MayneAug 4, 2005 16:2724354
Terrorism and mass media [421 words]Stephen SchwartzAug 4, 2005 15:5624353
Amen! [19 words]Frank VeranoAug 4, 2005 15:5324352
yes but....... [175 words]Lily SteinerAug 4, 2005 15:3424351
Disappointment [159 words]Francois MedioniAug 4, 2005 15:2724349
Appear for a moment, say your piece, then make a dignified withdrawal... [61 words]Dean FreemanAug 4, 2005 14:4924347
I applaud your ethics... [79 words]Dean FreemanAug 4, 2005 14:4524346
Enemies of Freedom [77 words]S. PulincherryAug 4, 2005 14:2824344
We are at war ! [153 words]Don MarshAug 4, 2005 12:5724342
A needed step - but with caution [382 words]David B. AroninAug 4, 2005 12:3224341
TV in Time of War [171 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
ChayajaneAug 4, 2005 11:2724337
#590 "Television in Time of War" [195 words]Lowell ByrdAug 4, 2005 09:2124333
BBC [22 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
JonathanAug 4, 2005 08:2324331
لهم الدعم المالي..والمعنوي وهو برهان الإلت [325 words]mohamedAug 4, 2005 07:3524330
Mute Button [20 words]Eli StoltzfusAug 3, 2005 21:4424319
Absolutely correct! [123 words]J.S.Aug 3, 2005 17:5524306
Write to the Advertisers [176 words]DaisyAug 3, 2005 17:3124305
Re those who wish you to provide 'balance' [230 words]DanAug 3, 2005 17:2624304
This is SO Correct! [78 words]Kathy O'LearyAug 3, 2005 17:1424303
But don't you know pro-American views are extreme? [102 words]Ben ShniperAug 3, 2005 16:4324301
Way To Go [44 words]alan skinnerAug 3, 2005 15:4224296
Response to Stephen L [82 words]RonAug 3, 2005 12:5724285
You're Mistaken [128 words]michael gottliebAug 3, 2005 12:1324282
Zootime Tv [150 words]michael cAug 3, 2005 11:1024280
extremists in the media [231 words]DanAug 3, 2005 10:1324277
TV Executives Do Not Believe We Are Really At War [141 words]L. J. MeyerAug 3, 2005 09:4424274
enemies viewpoint [60 words]Yvonne LawAug 3, 2005 08:5624273
Islamomarxists, not Islamofascists [264 words]HenriAug 3, 2005 08:3524272
Integrity [27 words]Jim WestcottAug 3, 2005 04:0124268
TV appearances [131 words]Sheila PickerillAug 3, 2005 01:3624264
Declining interviews on TV [153 words]Steven LAug 3, 2005 01:0324263
non-involvement on MSNBC TV [190 words]Terry SenumAug 3, 2005 00:1624261
Good decision not to disparage your image [63 words]Deborah KnefelAug 2, 2005 23:5624260
Agreement [117 words]John W. BeasonAug 2, 2005 22:2524259
There's a fourth reason [23 words]Jaime BraunAug 2, 2005 22:2324258
I think you are right, but you do not follow your observations to the appropriate conclusions. [438 words]Ray ExleyAug 2, 2005 21:4724257
The Shame was not... [89 words]Kevin HandleyAug 2, 2005 21:3424256
better to appear than disappear [133 words]Gordon WisemanAug 2, 2005 21:2624254
Only solution is . . . [13 words]MordechaiAug 2, 2005 21:2224253
Kudos [172 words]Peter J. HerzAug 2, 2005 21:1324252
CNN & MSNBC are siding with the Moslems [100 words]F.ShawkiAug 2, 2005 20:5724251
Russia's response [75 words]Jacob OlidortAug 2, 2005 20:5624250
Pipes should face all comers [207 words]William EdelsteinAug 2, 2005 19:5124248
TV shows [72 words]Donald W. BalesAug 2, 2005 19:2124247
Right On! [113 words]Dan RusenAug 2, 2005 19:1824246
Forum for continued lies: Television in Time of War [132 words]Mary Kay SmedstadAug 2, 2005 18:4524244
War as Entertainment [279 words]ArtAug 2, 2005 18:4324243
Media must accept responsibility [58 words]PhillipAug 2, 2005 18:3324242
1Debate is good, depending on a subject [215 words]BorisAug 2, 2005 18:1424241
Who are you trying to help? [133 words]Alan M. KaplanAug 2, 2005 17:5524239
Retaining Professionalism [69 words]Jan VinkAug 2, 2005 17:3524237
Broadcasting Islamofascist propaganda [109 words]Ron CrockettAug 2, 2005 17:2524235
Why Not More Pipes [69 words]Dr. Lee D. CaryAug 2, 2005 17:1524234
Media Execs will not do the right thing -- Go on TV [70 words]Steve BalogAug 2, 2005 17:0924232
Your position is a sound one [105 words]Edwin BennettAug 2, 2005 17:0224231
Thank you Daniel Pipes [178 words]Shona DarressAug 2, 2005 17:0024230
You and T.V. programs. [32 words]Monty PogodaAug 2, 2005 16:5124228
Ratings War [48 words]BethAug 2, 2005 16:4324227
Agree with your decision - do not appear when dialog is impossible [83 words]Muriel EfronAug 2, 2005 16:3624226
Right on [125 words]Jim CrossAug 2, 2005 16:2224225
Television in Time of War [67 words]Menahem DunskyAug 2, 2005 16:2124224
Broadcasting Terrorists Views [54 words]Tom HerringAug 2, 2005 16:1224223
Television in Time of War [396 words]J. A. MorrisAug 2, 2005 16:0424222
Is 'dialog' possible? [232 words]M. ArbingAug 2, 2005 15:5624220
Go on TV anyway [26 words]Tom GeorgeAug 2, 2005 15:4624219
Do Not Appear on TV with Apologists for Terrorism [35 words]Patrick BarronAug 2, 2005 15:4424218
Re:"Television in Time of War" [114 words]Bill DowlingAug 2, 2005 15:3924217
You're right, but... [190 words]ubangiAug 2, 2005 15:2324216

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)