|
the Clark blog. I've sent it out to a few news organizations.
I am surprised and increasingly disheartened at the dismissive coverage given by the news companies and their staff to General Wesley K. Clark's historic White House run. Based on the stories that run, as well as those that don't, I can only come to two possible conclusions:
My first theory is that the political reporters must think that admission to West Point is easy, and once in, that graduating first in your class is not an impressive accomplishment. They must think that being selected to receive a Rhodes Scholarship is nothing to write home about. They must think that receiving a silver star for courage and leadership in Vietnam is too ordinary to mention. They must think that getting shot, four times, but still leading your troop to successfully complete their mission could be done by anyone.
They must believe that the US Army is the kind of institution that has a flawed vetting and promotional process, allowing any old soldier to continue to be promoted and praised for 34 years. They must think that becoming a four star general in the United States army is a simple and easy task, one that any of us could accomplish if we really thought it was worth while.
They must think that dedicating 34 years of your life to service to our country may be cute, but not something people with real talent and drive do. They must think that leading a 19 nation coalition to successfully complete its mission in Kosovo is akin to an easy Sunday morning drive. They must think that leading the first successful intervention against organized genocide is boring. They must think that 1.5 million Albanian lives aren't worth the print space.
They must think that being responsible for the healthcare, schooling, housing, care and morale of the thousands of troops under Wesley Clark's command and their families was too easy to consider note worthy. They must think that managing an operating budget 5 times the size of Vermont's while NATO Commander beneath notice.
They must think that US Military officers don't need to show leadership, make critical decisions, or exercise executive judgment in the way a Senator would, for example. They must think that obvious signs of intelligence and thoughtfulness are boring and not really important attributes in a US President.
That's theory one.
Theory two is that Wesley Clark is the biggest threat to George Bush in a general election, and the corporations that run America's news media and pay America's reporters would just a soon knock this threat out early.
Which do you think is more likely?
This is an email that I sent to NPR:
I wanted to let you know that I very much enjoy listening to NPR. Most of the time I have my car radio tuned to your station. You do a better job of reporting the news than most media outlets, and you're vastly preferable to listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I was reminded not long ago of the reason why, as things stand right now, I will never donate any money to you. It was in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, and I heard you run a piece on Lieberman's campaigning in New Hampshire. At the time Lieberman (who has since dropped out) was polling near the bottom in NH, while Wesley Clark was surging in the polls. Yet you chose to cover Lieberman and not Clark. This is a persistent phenomenon noticed by many people including my mother and sister, both avid listeners and (former) contributors to NPR.
This is such an interesting phenomenon because there appears to be something of a concerted media blackout on covering the Clark candidacy, amongst all of the corporate media. Yes, I'm afraid that I have come to the conclusion that you are just as much a part of the corporate media as FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, and that, like them you have an agenda and do not seek to present the news in an impartial fashion.
Many people have speculated that Clark, should he get the nomination, would pose the greatest possible threat to Bush's attempt at getting elected in November, and that the corporate media has a vested interest in keeping Bush in office.
I can understand you're giving greater coverage to Dean when he was the front runner, and to Kerry now that he is the frontrunner, but I can't understand why you would consider Edwards to be more newsworthy, and I can't for the life of me see how you would consider Lieberman to be more newsworthy. The only reasonable conclusion that I can reach then is that you, along with the rest of the corporate media want to freeze out the one candidate that could really challenge Bush in the general election. If there is another explanation for the lopsided coverage, I would be very anxious to hear what it is.
I would be happy to donate to a news organization that I felt was truly independent and impartial in it's coverage, but unfortunately, I don't believe that standard applies to you so, while I will continue to enjoy listening to you while in my car, I'm afraid that you will not be seeing any contributions from me. I will also continue to pass my assessment on to other people who enjoy your station and may be contributors.
If I ever see any evidence that you are truly presenting the news in an impartial fashion, and without a hidden agenda, I would be more than happy to reconsider becoming a contributor.
I appreciate your taking the time to read my concerns, and hope that I will get a response.
Sincerely,
I hope these will be some help to you. I will be sending more stuff to the media later on, I'm too exhausted right now.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
