Treading a seemingly endless road of circular
logic, the media at large
has reached a point where it must begin
eating its own tail and devouring itself.
The Bush administration assured us the
weapons of mass destruction were
there and that Saddam was poised to use
them. The media at large became
the cheerleader for the war and printed
everything they were told to print.
Now it turns out that there are serious
questions surrounding the "truth" supplied
by the Bush administration and the press
must now decide whether it goes down
with the ship of state... or whether they
make their way towards the lifeboats.
I actually saw several commentators nodding
their heads when Donald Rumsfeld
came up with THIS gem - "People are saying
there are no weapons of mass
destruction just because we can't find
them. Well, we can't find Saddam Hussein
either but I don't see anyone saying he
never existed."
Then he produced one of those death's head
grins he's so famous for and
the assembled media actually laughed along
with him.
How long can anyone with a functioning
brain go along with this drek?
How long can journalists whore themselves
out to the highest bidder before
they realize they've built a house of cards...
with a hurricane on the horizon?
So, the question I pose it this:
How long will it be before the media at
large turns on its own?
Think about it...
Do they ride the mercurial, ever-changing
river of rhetoric that flows
from this administration or do they make
the choice to wake up to
Reality and begin asking intelligent questions?
Their decision is going to determine their
fate.
If they stay tethered to the Bush administration
and keep changing their story
along with him they run the risk of being
seen as nothing more than the mouthpiece
of a deceitful organization... instead
of a source of real information.
Either they let themselves be swallowed
by the whale... or they choose
to hold the harpoon.
I've seen the beginnings of a story that
seems about to be whelped by
the Bush apologists and it basically goes
- "Bush was lied to about the
weapons of mass destruction". Of course,
we all know that it will be
watered down to the same excuse he used
for the 9/11 attacks. It will
turn into an "intelligence failure" with
no one specific that can be blamed.
Or will it?
The press can still redeem themselves to
some degree by asking some tough
questions and I've even seen Fox News begin
to turn into the wind and show
a little survival instinct. Even they have
tentatively begun to question what this
nation was told regarding the real reasons
for the invasion of Iraq.
I use the term "survival instinct" for
good reason. If the media at large lets
themselves be "fooled" like Bush seems
poised to claim HE was... then how
can we ever trust them not to be "fooled"
again? If the media at large is to
survive as a body that can be trusted to
give us real information supported
by strong investigative journalism then
they MUST distance themselves from
the people who were so easily and totally
"fooled".
They can always claim that they were duped
by a masterful campaign of
disinformation but they can regain a measure
of respect for finally
realizing their mistake. The longer they
stay shackled to the Bush
administration the more chance there is
that they will share its fate.
What is the fate of the Bush administration
if evidence shows that they, in fact,
DID deliberately mislead not only this
nation, but also the "coalition of the willing"
(which the rest of the world calls England
and Spain)?
Well, they impeached Clinton for lying
about sex. Is lying about the necessity
for war considered a "high crime"? Is a
lie that caused the death of 160
American soldiers (so far) something worthy
of investigation?
Or does the end truly justify the means?
Even if there is no actual end in sight?
I'm just askin'...
Lo Phat Ham, rogue reporter