Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
(Post 2915210)
First we had the NBC edited 911 tape. If you believe it was an honest error, or done to fit a time slot, I have a bridge to sell you.
Second, CBS said the police video did not support Zimmerman's claim that he had been injured. Then the looked at it again, and saw that Zimmerman had injuries.
Now CNN is saying that their report that Zimmerman used a racial slur is incorrect.
In all three cases, the errors fit the "white-on-black racial crime" stereotype. In all three cases, the networks were wrong.
Anyone care to calculate the probability of all of them being innocent mistakes?
Yes, I admit this is another slam at the Main Stream Media. Maybe I should explain why I am so irritated by this.....
I grew up during the Vietnam war, watching "uncle " Walter Cronkite--that paragon of American News reporting telling me about the war. About how the Tet offensive was an overwhelming disaster for US forces and complete victory for the Viet Cong. Years later, I learned that Tet was a military disaster for the Cong. Walter had lied--had lied to me--to advance his personal view. It was my first exposure to agenda journalism, and I felt manipulated by it. It had trusted that CBS News would tell me all the news, and the truth. Maybe I was naive, but at that time, there was an expectation that news reporting was straight, and true journalists took great care to avoid selecting words or photos that would bias a story.
When the news is manipulated, the citizens in a free society no longer have the facts required to hold their government accountable. That's where, IMO, we find ourselves today. All those people who went into Journalism because " they wanted to make a difference" have graduated to positions of power, and now control what we see and hear as "news".
As is becoming increasingly obvious, the MSM can not be trusted to deliver the news. What a shame.
|
What did Walter Cronkite say?
WALTER CRONKITE'S "WE ARE MIRED IN STALEMATE" BROADCAST, FEBRUARY 27, 1968
Quote:
Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.
|
Sounds relatively accurate. Khe Sanh did almost fall, the US wasn't defeated. Were the optimistic generals and politicians to be believed?
What happened in Tet? As I've posted here before, I've studied the Vietnam War. The NVA staged a large, unexpected attack using largely conventional forces combined with VC guerrila tactics in Saigon. It was unexpected in size and strategy. US politicians and military leaders had been presenting the public with an image of a weak adversary incapable of large scale offensive operations. Then the North attacked during an ceasefire, exacerbating the shock and surprise. US and ARVN forces were pushed back, then counterattacked. It was a tactical military defeat for the North, with a destruction of significant portions of their conventional forces. However, it also fit into their strategy as a major effort prior to the 1968 peace talks: go into the talks from a position of strength. Nixon did the same thing with Linebacker II prior to the peace talks in '73
Fast forward to now and whether we should trust the optimists or the pessimists in their strategic assessments, which is the heart of what Cronkite was talking about. Apply his words to our current wars and political testimony. When Petraeus testified about Iraq, what was said by whom? Yeah, the left and MoveOn.org, "General Betray Us." Okay, what did Rep Ryan and the right just say to General Dempsey and the budget "You generals are lying to support your boss." You get partisanship from all sides.
If you think 'media bias' lost the Vietnam War, then you've bought in to a fictional version of history.
My opinion is that the public can't be relied upon to pay attention to the news. What a shame. |
