Newsday update
Apparently, Newsday's forgotten about the whole "London bombers did it because of Iraq" meme they tried to spread earlier in the week. Tells me one very simple thing: it was bullshit to begin with. If they followed up on it, that would have meant that there was at least a source that they can backtrack with, but they didn't do any follow-up work on it. Nor did any other major newspapers even mention it. So, Newsday got to do a shrill article that most readers of the newspaper would look at the cover page and the headlines, and never think twice about it. Good job, Newsday, on your shoddy journalistic practices and shrill leftist campaigning and talking points.
On top of that, they're being shrill and sappy about the casualties in Iraq in the past few days. There hasn't been any outcry from the families of the fallen soldiers (who, btw, I give my utomst condolences and my pride to, with their sons and daughters having died fighting for our country's continued freedom)- and in the NY Post, there was more of a spirit of fierce determination from the military famiies. But that didn't stop Newsday (and other mainstream media) from their disgraceful talking points meme of "we'll cry a river for the fallen soldiers, so long as it allows us to pretend to give a damn while pushing for our anti-Bush and anti-military ideology". They don't care about the soldiers one iota- and articles like those just show how crass and stupid they really are.
It's no small wonder that Newsday's readership is dwindling (especially since Kerry only won Suffolk County, the main powerbase for Newsday, by 1,000 votes), and advertising is down for Newsday (gee, you think the ad scandal with Newsday has anything to do with both?). Maybe a more moderate tone from Newsday- and a less shrill and sloppy journalistic approach would help them regain readers. But I somehow doubt Newsday would find a pulse if someone gave them a stethoscope.
UPDATE: The Marines who were killed earlier this week, it turns out, were effectively killed in retaliatory strikes by the terrorists in the western parts of Iraq, west of Baghdad (For more info, check out The Fourth Rail). What that means, is that as usual, the media ignores the acutal contextual background for the story in order to go with their BS sob story. The marines died in a forward combat zone, where they were actively taking part in offensive operations (or getting ready to, in jump off areas). They fully expected to have to absorb any attacks the terrorists might throw at them. Does it suck that they were killed? Yes, it does. You never want to see an American soldier make the ultimate sacrifice. But knowing the actual details of their deaths makes it alot more understandable, rather than cheesey sob stories that Newsday and the rest of the mainstream media wants to pull over our heads.
We're fighting the terrorists in their own rear lines. Expect casualties. Also, expect us to win- the terrorists have shown that they can't stand and fight modern armies, and the deaths of the marines earlier in the week don't change that one bit. Shame on Newsday and their ilk for playing pathetic partisan politics with the families of the fallen Marines, and with the actual effects of the war. I wonder if Ernie Pyle is rolling in his grave.
On top of that, they're being shrill and sappy about the casualties in Iraq in the past few days. There hasn't been any outcry from the families of the fallen soldiers (who, btw, I give my utomst condolences and my pride to, with their sons and daughters having died fighting for our country's continued freedom)- and in the NY Post, there was more of a spirit of fierce determination from the military famiies. But that didn't stop Newsday (and other mainstream media) from their disgraceful talking points meme of "we'll cry a river for the fallen soldiers, so long as it allows us to pretend to give a damn while pushing for our anti-Bush and anti-military ideology". They don't care about the soldiers one iota- and articles like those just show how crass and stupid they really are.
It's no small wonder that Newsday's readership is dwindling (especially since Kerry only won Suffolk County, the main powerbase for Newsday, by 1,000 votes), and advertising is down for Newsday (gee, you think the ad scandal with Newsday has anything to do with both?). Maybe a more moderate tone from Newsday- and a less shrill and sloppy journalistic approach would help them regain readers. But I somehow doubt Newsday would find a pulse if someone gave them a stethoscope.
UPDATE: The Marines who were killed earlier this week, it turns out, were effectively killed in retaliatory strikes by the terrorists in the western parts of Iraq, west of Baghdad (For more info, check out The Fourth Rail). What that means, is that as usual, the media ignores the acutal contextual background for the story in order to go with their BS sob story. The marines died in a forward combat zone, where they were actively taking part in offensive operations (or getting ready to, in jump off areas). They fully expected to have to absorb any attacks the terrorists might throw at them. Does it suck that they were killed? Yes, it does. You never want to see an American soldier make the ultimate sacrifice. But knowing the actual details of their deaths makes it alot more understandable, rather than cheesey sob stories that Newsday and the rest of the mainstream media wants to pull over our heads.
We're fighting the terrorists in their own rear lines. Expect casualties. Also, expect us to win- the terrorists have shown that they can't stand and fight modern armies, and the deaths of the marines earlier in the week don't change that one bit. Shame on Newsday and their ilk for playing pathetic partisan politics with the families of the fallen Marines, and with the actual effects of the war. I wonder if Ernie Pyle is rolling in his grave.
posted by Fafhrd1 | 2:27 PM
4 Comments:
Ah, but you've forgotten something, my friend. If Iraq isn't the issue, what is? You neglected to make the argument on the assumption that everyone reading is already fully conversant with global politics and policies... Short version: they're out to get everyone, and they're only starting with the people who shoot back.
And then, of course, you didn't ask the question, did you? The question being "Why does everything have to be about Iraq? THE BRITISH ARE IN AFGHANISTAN TOO!!!!"
Personally, I'm waiting for calls to evacuate Afghanistan too.... then we can crucify some libs.
As for the Afghani part of your post, some have indeed yapped about it. But those have been the real fringe elements. When even Kerry and Ted Kennedy can't babble about Afghanistan, you know it's off the table as far as their talking points are concerned.
And as for the first part, I did in fact say what the media's after. They have an anti-Bush and anti-military position, and the terrorists in Iraq allow them to push an "Iraq as vietnam" meme that snipes at Bush, the military, and our whole country all in one.
I MEANT what the BOMBINGS were about, not what the frigging libs were after....
Terrorists have more originality than Liberals... the libs have been after the same damn thing for the past 50 years
As for the bombings in London themselves, British authorities aren't fully sure yet, but they're pointing to the answer being that the bombers were pissed about the UK, Afghanistan, Iraq, 9/11, and the whole shebang. The simple problem that Newsday had with their article is that the bombers effectively began plotting in 2002- long before Iraq.
It'll prob be some time before we get official word on the reasons, though, other than that they're bloodthirsty morons who hate the West.
Post a Comment
<< Home