Home › Blogs › FlyingScot's blog ›

Inequity in coverage?

Submitted by FlyingScot on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 08:31
in

Fox News made a good point this morning: there is an inordinate amount of coverage of the murder of late term abortion Doctor George Tiller by Scott Roeder (politically motivated) in comparision to the news coverage of the murder of Army recruiter Pvt. William Long in front of an Army - Navy recruting station in Little Rock by the Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (politically motived).

Both were politically motivated, although for differing reasons. One dealt with the murder of an doctor who had committed 60,000 late term abortions and the other was the murder of a military recruiting officer for what the alleged shooter Muhammad said was  "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."

Could it be that media bias is showing it's ugly head once again, highlighting ( accompanied by various commentary from NOW and NARAL) of Dr. Tiller's murder and under covering Long's, especially in the light of the fact that the President is now in the Middle East and is making a major speech in an attempt to assuage Muslims?

For the record, I condemn both acts. Murder is murder, no matter how it is done or to whom.

As a post script,  I predict a movie coming out of Hollywood in the next few years of the "herioc" efforts and "martyrdom" of Dr. Tiller.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

You don't think that maybe, possibly, the previous

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 08:44.

The death of Private Long is horrible and tragic and I join you in condemning the act outright with no reservation.

However - regarding media coverage - you don't think that maybe, possibly, the previous attempts on Tiller's life, the fact that he was a quasi-public figure "worthy" of 29 mentions on the O'Reilly show, the President's Notre Dame speech, that nature of the abortion debate as a hot-button issue, the connection between the victim and the HHS Secretary, and the fact that his happened on a Sunday in a church makes it a bigger story?

 

Flying Scot, maybe NextRightNannie makes some sense?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 09:54.

I think you're absolutley correct, Flying Scot, about the lack of coverage by the MSM on either the murderously cold-blooded and unprovoked assassination of  Private WIlliam Long and the brutally heinous attempted slaughter of Long's peer, Private Quinton Ezeagwula, by an IslamicFascist radical clearly shows an anti-military bias by the MSM.  It's there; it's always been there since the days of MSM icon Dan Rather reporting from the jungles of VietNam and undermining our military and diplomatic interests abroad.

Further, the MSM is horrified that someone they considered courageous and heroic in the face of unremitting farRight extremist hatred dominated by religious zealots could have been killed by a lone, mentally unstable and deranged man.

But our local TNRNannie makes it clear with this telling tail wagging his behind: "(Tiller's death) is a bigger story".  Of course it is, cries our farLeft defender of all that's liberal!

And isn't that the very point?  The MSM thinks it's bigger and by God they'll cover what they think the public ought to know... rather than what the public wants to know.  Or is it something else at play?

Ask any liberal who Dr Tiller is and they can tell you at least a paragraph long description of their poster boi "hero" who battled back alley butchers to preserve the right of women to kill off future Americans no matter what the reason... ask any liberal to name the two military enlistees slaughtered by the Islamic farLeft domestic terrorist, Carlos Bledsoe, and they'll look at you like you're asking the impossible on Final Jeopardy.

And if needed any better proof, MSM BDS expert Keith Oblermann takes it from there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyrm4iQehu0&feature=related

Why the media bias of "heroic, courageous Dr Tiller"?  Ratings.  And to beat up FoxNews.  It's sickening the way the liberal media has debased America.

 

MM, I'd be interesting in reading your analysis of why the

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:11.

MM, I'd be interesting in reading your analysis of why the media should not consider the Tiller murder to be the bigger story.

BTW, I wonder if Homeland Czarina Napolitano...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:04.

is editing the DHS's report about farLeft domestic terrorist groups targeting innocent, unpresuming military personnel serving their Nation stateside?

My hunch is that Czarina Napolitano would agree with most farLeft liberals that military personnel are "fair game" for terrorists since George Bush made it a worldwide War on Terror and first targeted Islamic jihadists "innocently" studying and training in rural camps in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan of BillClinton's era.

I mean, that's the lesson of Bill Ayres, no?  Isn't that the lesson of the Sex&Drugs generation who grew up amid the glorification of VietNam War era protests?

Former Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick had it right: When the Sex&Drugs college kids bombing military installations grew up and settled into middle age, America would be screwed by their latent anti-military, anti-authority, Blame-America-First mentality.

The bias shown by the MSM is more proof of the same.

I would be interested in seeing your citations and support

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 11:40.

My hunch is that Czarina Napolitano would agree with most farLeft liberals that military personnel are "fair game" for terrorists

I would be interested in seeing your citations and support for this assertion of yours - the idea that anyone on the left supports attacks on our military.

A question for Matt

Submitted by gunthestops on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:49.

 

So are you saying that the conservatives do not promote a terrorist net work against women’s clinics and doctors’ that deal in legal birth control and abortion services? It sure appears that fear and terror is one of your primary tools.     

 

Please help me understand, are you saying that Vietnam would have been a success had it not been for reporting and protests.   So are you saying that more than 50k lives was not enough? Could you go into that further, are you saying that if we would have stuck it out, maybe we could still be there today? Maybe we could have a 51st state in the Far East?

 

And an answer for the rhetorical & ideological Leftie...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 08:47.

It's the province of the weakest minds to try to label "conservative" onto the shoulders of those who are Pro-Life and actually engaged in actions to correct societal immorality.  Are they still "conservative" when they usually argue against the death penalty, too?  Are they "conservative" when they are in favor of seniors being able to make end-of-life decisions with a preserved decency, humanity and compassion?  Are they still "conservative" when many of them argue in favor of lifitng 3rd World Debt or restorative justice? 

I can't speak for all Pro-Life people, but the 12-18 couples that I know from my Church who are active in the Pro-Life movement voted for Obama... they are fairly liberal Catholics... they sup at the trough of anti-death penalty, social justice, felon rights and other normally "liberal" political policy positions.  And they are Pro-Life?  Are they your famed "terrorist network"?  No.

Of course, to label the Pro-Life Movement as a terrorist network makes sense if you're bedtime reading is Homeland Security Czarina Napolitano's hatchet job on vets, Pro-Lifers and other non-Democrat Party activists.  I guess for Democrats, if the group doesn't willingly engage in voter fraud and electoral corruption, it can't be worthwhile to Democrats?

So please help me understand why you want to indirectly label a mentally unstable, clearly deranged man driven by deeply and profoundly mental defects as "conservative"? It appears to me that your best tool is to slander all conservatives by trying to label Pro-Life activists as "conservative".  Are many?  Maybe, depending on how one defines "conservative".  Are many liberal?  Yep, again depending on which issues one uses to define a liberal mindset.

I think one character trait that defines "liberal" is that they have a weak mind capable of being driven by overwhelmingly emotive reactions to simplistic remedies for complex problems... please see AlGore generally or, like you try to do here, label Pro-Life as being "conservative" rather than skipping those misdirecting and highly suspect labels for a more accurate one: social justice activists.  Because, to defend against the slaughter of our most innocent citizens, Pro-Life activists have to believe deeply in the most basic social justice: the right of the living to continue living and the obligation of society to protect that right above all others.

Now, as for your attempt to turn my point about the liberal anti-military bias of the MSM into some plaudit for the war effort, I'd say you're still doing exactly what good liberal, anti-military, anti-draft Democrats do most days: try to find solace and validation in their choice to undercut America, to abandon millions of SE asians to genocide and despair while clucking loudly about the folly of that war effort.  Afterall, those were defining moments for guys like you.

A "51st State" you say?  Right, tip that hand of yours open and lay it out on the table, eh, my liberal friend?

"50k lives not enough" you say.  Umm, my bleeding hearted friend, get it right and honor our American troops --it was 58,159 troops.  Of course, you couldn't be bothered with 3-4m VietNamese who died, or the 1.5-2m Laotians and Cambodians... for you, it's all about parroting liberal talking points. "50k lives not enough" you say?  How about at least getting the number right if you want to climb up on that shakey little horse of yours and cluck about the folly of the VietNam War.  I'd rather honor those who served, thank you very much.

Look, I'll gladly admit that the farLeft and liberals in this Country "won" the anti-War effort.  We exited that era disgraced mostly thanks to liberals.  We exited that era with a entrenched view that military actions are ALWAYS wrong even, as in the case of 9-11 and Afghanistan and Iraq, we respond to provocations -as is the attitude at DNC-Central and the WH today. We exited that era with a dark underbelly of anti-military sentiments that will remain until the last of the Sex&Drugs Generation is quieted by their grave.

Kissinger and Nixon had it right.  We should have started bombing more vigorously in 1969, not waited until 1972.  The liberal's greatest hope for change was the Paris Peace Talks and those, in hindsight and by history's judgment, were just fake holding actions by the communists intent on allowing the American Left enough time to destroy American interests in SE Asia.

And just looked what happened. 

Your side, with the help of the NorthVietNamese and PolPot, won.  Genocide ensued.  Russia was emboldened.  Communism marched through SE Asia unmolested for 20 yrs.  Nice job there, gunthestops.  Why don't you stick to Stock Picks; domestic politics and geo-global influence aren't your strong suit.

We were out of Vietnam by Ford administration

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 02:09.

The abandonment of Vietnam by the Congress elected in 1974 was a matter of failure to send guns; the soldiers were long gone, taken home by Republicans.

Another question for Matt

Submitted by gunthestops on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 12:34.

 

Matt, what is your military background? The reason I ask is that the right likes to wrap themselves in God and Country and have created a delusional belief that Republicans are the only ones who serve in the military. But the fact is that more than 95% of those serving come from families making less than $100k a year and many of them are democrats who have sons and daughters that did not make it back from the battle field.  And for those of us who have been there we know it is not about God and Country or Republican or Democrat, it is about your troops and the man next to you that you are hunkered down with.

 

So if that young solder or his family voted for Obama would you then call him a dirt bag like you do the other military heroes who are Democrats?  Or maybe your psychosis is in such a state that you believe that only Republicans can serve in the military. 

 

gunthestops, your 3rd mistaken assumption for the day

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 09:21.

I'm not of the 'right"; if you read anything written previously you'd know that I'm one of the few moderate-progressive GOPers here... in fact, my guess is, most here would identify me as a RINO.  I think this makes your 3rd mistaken assumption of the day, gunthestops.  You should go back to second guessing stock picks, dude.  Well, you weren't too good at that, either.

As far as anyone wrapping anything up --you do a great job of wrapping up military service in some sticking, fish-stained newspaper.  Your point about military personnel not being GOP or Democrat, just that they come from families making less the $100k/yr?

Well, gunthestops, most GOPers I know make a Hell of lot less than $100k/yr.  Of course soldiers can be GOPers and Democrats and Independents... but you got that pesky, troubling problem with statistics and voter trends, don't you?  As you know, in 2000 and 2004 and 2008, military personnel voted about 2/3rds GOP to less than 10% Democrat and the balance not voting.

In a terrible year of GOP bad-branding by the press, military personnel stayed with McCain and the GOP and he actually picked up more votes from them and vets than either Bush 43, Dole, Bush 41 or Reagan did.  Ouch.

What were you saying about Democrats serving in the military?  I grew up in an era when the sons of Democrats either helped McCarthy or ran to Canada and Mexico if their numbers came up at the local draft board... military personnel and veterans still vote overwhelmingly for GOPers, gunthestops.  That won't stop no matter how often our Charcoaled-Kennedy-Camelot-Obamas say they care about the troops --while proposing deep cuts to military weapons, tech improvements for the battlefield or VA benefits.

Even if you can't absorb reality.

A recent survey of voting in the military

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 10:07.

military personnel and veterans still vote overwhelmingly for GOPers

Could you supply a citation for that assertion?

Jason Dempsey:

In addition to its ideological moderation, the Army is not as partisan as popularly portrayed. Whereas 65 percent of Americans think of themselves as either Republican or Democrat, according to the Annenberg survey, my study shows that only 43 percent of the military identifies with one of the two major political parties. Two out of three officers consider themselves either Republican or Democrat, but only 37 percent of enlisted personnel do so.

Officers tend to be not only more partisan, but also more Republican, with GOP affinity strongest among the highest ranks. While I was unable to fully parse the reason for this, the evidence strongly suggests the pattern is generational. Today's senior officers entered the Army during the late 1970s and 1980s, a time when the Republican Party had a strong advantage on issues of national defense and the Democratic Party was seen as antiwar if not anti-military. By contrast, junior officers who joined the Army after 2001 are almost as likely to be Democrats as they are Republicans, foreshadowing a possible shift in officer attitudes. . . .

 

Doctoer Tiller

Submitted by Repack Rider on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 06:37.

Was a prominent and controversial figure who had survived several assaults on his life, and died in his church and in front of his friends and family, allegedly at the hands of a man who had stalked him for years, and who had multiple previous incidents of federal violations WRT women's clinics..

Pvt. Long was unknown to his assailant, who was a nutcase religious radical not unlike Roeder, but who did not have anything personal against his victim and did not have a long history of stalking soldiers in general and Pvt. Long in particular and getting away with it.

Famous person stalked and killed IN CHURCH over controversial issue by nutcase with a lengthy history of slaps on the wrist for his crimes v. not famous person randomly shot by a Muslim terrorist, and it doesn't take much imagination to figure out which is the bigger story.