How would today’s media report D-Day?

SMITH: Rich, there is a growing sense of apprehension here about 40 miles away from what we assume will be the point of attack on the beaches of Normandy either tomorrow or the next day. Mayor Jacque Capituler is with me. Mayor, tell our viewers how you feel about the coming invasion.

CAPITULER: We don’t want to be liberated. We don’t need to be liberated. The Germans have established a perfectly workable government, here. The Americans should go liberate someone else, somewhere else.

RUNDLING: The thorny issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage brought onto our living room screens from right there in France, Thank you Christianne. To … where? Ok, to Edward Smith with the forces of General George Patton in Britain. Edward.

SMITH: Rich, I am here in Kent, England opposite the Pas de Calais just across the English Channel which, if the weather were better, you could see behind me. MCN can now confirm that the activity here in Kent, which has been named “Operation Fortitude” is, for want of a better phrase: A complete fake!

RUNDLING: Fake? Explain, please, for our viewers.

SMITH: MCN can now report that Patton has constructed, literally, a phony army here. The tanks are cardboard. The planes are rubber. The radio traffic is faked. Reports of troop movements are completely fabricated. This operation, clearly, is designed to fool the Germans in Europe and Americans back home into falsely believing that the attack — which we now think will come tomorrow if the weather lets up — will be aimed at Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.

RUNDLING: Excellent reporting, Edward. MCN’s Senior Ethics Advisor Emma Smith will be joining me in the studio to dicuss: What does it mean to the American way of life when their very own government engages in this kind of deliberately false and misleading information? Emma is the author of an exciting new book: “The Soviet Experience; Success, Solidarity, and Stalin.”

[Update at 2 PM EDT]

Here’s a related article: Journalists, you’re in the army now, like it or not.

What if the Israelis had kidnapped a BBC journalist?

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.

If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.

But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been “asked” to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an “ask”, why did he not say no?

Throughout Mr Johnston’s captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave “a voice” to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

[Update a few minutes later]

And how bad are things in Iraq? Why, they’re almost as bad as they were under Saddam? What, you mean the kids aren’t flying kites? Did Michael Moore lie to us? Surely that can’t be…

What if the Israelis had kidnapped a BBC journalist?

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.

If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.

But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been “asked” to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an “ask”, why did he not say no?

Throughout Mr Johnston’s captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave “a voice” to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

[Update a few minutes later]

And how bad are things in Iraq? Why, they’re almost as bad as they were under Saddam? What, you mean the kids aren’t flying kites? Did Michael Moore lie to us? Surely that can’t be…

What if the Israelis had kidnapped a BBC journalist?

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.

If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.

But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been “asked” to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an “ask”, why did he not say no?

Throughout Mr Johnston’s captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave “a voice” to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

[Update a few minutes later]

And how bad are things in Iraq? Why, they’re almost as bad as they were under Saddam? What, you mean the kids aren’t flying kites? Did Michael Moore lie to us? Surely that can’t be…

Even when we don’t. Don Surber, on continuing self immolation of the New York Times.

[Update in the afternoon]

OK, I don’t have a lot of time for this, but I’m seeing a lot of nonsense being spouted in the comments section.

Yes, perhaps it isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news that Al Qaeda tortures people. But many people seem to not know that, or have forgotten it, particularly when the major thrust of the news coverage is how awful America is.

Yes, we are supposed to be the good guys. And you know what? We are. When an Abu Ghraib happens, we investigate it, and we try people, and we punish them, and that happens even without the New York Times running it on the front page for weeks on end. When Al Qaeda does it, as prescribed by their training manuals, they, and millions of their supporters in the Muslim world, ululate and cheer.

But somehow, the New York Times and the other enablers of the enemy in what is fundamentally an information war, can’t be bothered to point that out, or point out the differences, instead descending into hand wringing and moral equivalence, in an apparent effort to cast doubt on the goodness of our own society and values, and even whether or not they’re worth defending.

[Saturday morning update]

Follow-up post here.

Even when we don’t. Don Surber, on continuing self immolation of the New York Times.

[Update in the afternoon]

OK, I don’t have a lot of time for this, but I’m seeing a lot of nonsense being spouted in the comments section.

Yes, perhaps it isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news that Al Qaeda tortures people. But many people seem to not know that, or have forgotten it, particularly when the major thrust of the news coverage is how awful America is.

Yes, we are supposed to be the good guys. And you know what? We are. When an Abu Ghraib happens, we investigate it, and we try people, and we punish them, and that happens even without the New York Times running it on the front page for weeks on end. When Al Qaeda does it, as prescribed by their training manuals, they, and millions of their supporters in the Muslim world, ululate and cheer.

But somehow, the New York Times and the other enablers of the enemy in what is fundamentally an information war, can’t be bothered to point that out, or point out the differences, instead descending into hand wringing and moral equivalence, in an apparent effort to cast doubt on the goodness of our own society and values, and even whether or not they’re worth defending.

[Saturday morning update]

Follow-up post here.

Even when we don’t. Don Surber, on continuing self immolation of the New York Times.

[Update in the afternoon]

OK, I don’t have a lot of time for this, but I’m seeing a lot of nonsense being spouted in the comments section.

Yes, perhaps it isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news that Al Qaeda tortures people. But many people seem to not know that, or have forgotten it, particularly when the major thrust of the news coverage is how awful America is.

Yes, we are supposed to be the good guys. And you know what? We are. When an Abu Ghraib happens, we investigate it, and we try people, and we punish them, and that happens even without the New York Times running it on the front page for weeks on end. When Al Qaeda does it, as prescribed by their training manuals, they, and millions of their supporters in the Muslim world, ululate and cheer.

But somehow, the New York Times and the other enablers of the enemy in what is fundamentally an information war, can’t be bothered to point that out, or point out the differences, instead descending into hand wringing and moral equivalence, in an apparent effort to cast doubt on the goodness of our own society and values, and even whether or not they’re worth defending.

[Saturday morning update]

Follow-up post here.

Lorie Byrd has an article about how Al Qaeda has made allies, witting or not, of the western press.

…when I read this:

“In every war, there’s conflict between hawks and doves. O’Donnell and Hasselbeck’s fight harkens back to a Vietnam-era exchange between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William Buckley.”

Did someone at ABC News really write that with a straight face?

[Update a few minutes later]

You know, I can’t figure out which comparison is more ludicrous–Rosie and Gore Vidal (well, at least they’re both gay), or William Buckley and Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Somehow, when I think Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the word “sesquipedalian” is not the first one that comes to mind. Actually, over the last couple days, I would probably associate her with fatwas.

There’s an old saying that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Well, when it comes to reporting on Al Qaeda, the MSM seems only interested in their successes, and not their failures.

But isn’t that the way any good propagandist works?