| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 59° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
July 13, 2005
Of course it's the fault of America's 'liberal' media
In denying Judith Miller's position of keeping an information source secret, the court stated she must adhere to the laws of the land just like any other individual who may have aided the commission of a crime. This is precisely what newspaper and television reporters were crying for when they thought it was Bob Novak, a conservative journalist, and not one of the liberal elites who might face prosecution. The court maintains that even a journalist must comply with a valid court order. Refusing to obey a court order will get you put into jail. That is the way it is for everyone else in the country. The liberal press would have us believe protecting their sources is a right above the law. And for good reason. In recent years the standing of journalists in public polls has dropped to the level of politicians and paycheck loan salespeople. Once considered a bulwark protecting truth, justice and the American way, the press has come to be regarded as mere conduits for replaying every bad condition and aspect of our society. In some cases, desiring to tell a tale has become more important than obtaining facts, and therein lays the problem. In Sacramento, a reporter recently resigned before being fired after it was discovered that on at least 32 occasions she cited anonymous sources as the basis for stories that didn't exist. To say this was merely creative license would do an injustice, because more than one of these stories was used to disparage the position of a person with no means of demonstrating the falsity of the claim made in the most widely read publication in the area. The New York Times had to fire a reporter and eventually an editor because for several years, when the reporter was having a hard time getting the news, he simply made it up and the editor covered it up. In the name of justice, the extremist liberal Dan Rather went out of his way to aid and abet the concocting of a story against the President of the United States because he didn't like the man's politics. The press understands the power it wields and doesn't want anyone messing with it. Through the power of the pen, they can trivialize the momentous and make mountains out of molehills. Stories on the current status of World War III, civilization versus radical terrorists, are one example. For most of this year, Americans have been told our country is now in a quagmire similar to our experience in Vietnam. We are told we are losing the war and need to set a time to get out. We are told how rotten our troops have behaved and how our government lied to us to get us into an unjust war. And in every case, an anonymous source in the government is quoted to substantiate the claim, thereby infusing credibility to the story and removing it from scrutiny in one swipe of the pen. Another example is the continuous stream of stories on global warming and the environment. Despite the fact more scientists now agree man has very little to do with any real or perceived climate change, the media, who bought into the theory hook, line and sinker, will not let it go. After all, it is easier to sell fear and trepidation about the destructiveness on man than to explain in common sense his obvious limitations in this regard. Does anyone really believe wings of a butterfly in China cause windstorms across the Pacific? When all is said and done, those complaining about violation of their First Amendment rights might take this opportunity to look at the rest of the Bill of Rights, including the entire First Amendment. For those who don't know, it begins by forbidding government to prohibit the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Where were they when Hugo Black erected the wall of separation in 1947 or when campaign finance law restricted political speech within 60 days of an election? Where were they when the State of Nevada sued to render a petition for redress of grievances moot in 2003? Or when the right of the people to keep and bear arms was infringed? And where are they today when the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is ignored in order to try to develop evidence to make a charge against a conservative talk radio host who had his medical files seized without notice of a crime? Where were they when the court decided to amend the Constitution to read "nor shall private property be taken for public" purpose rather than "use?" Or for those who supposedly committed a crime, "to be confronted with witnesses against him" and not just an anonymous source. One by one, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been removed by a liberal activist court and the press has either stood idly by or even heralded the forward thinking of the court. Now, much like the Catholic priest who watched as the Gypsies, Jews, non-Aryans and Protestants were successively taken by the Nazis and then wondered why there was no one to turn to for help when they came for him, they cry foul. Well, welcome to our world. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
|
