SubscribeThe Speech The UN Doesn’t Want You To Hear
From United Nations Watch, via YouTube:
Human Rights Nightmare
Speech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch
Mr. President,
Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?
In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?
Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.
But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.
So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.
So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?
Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.
They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.
You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.
Thank you, Mr. President.
To which came the reply:
REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA
For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you’d kindly listen to me.
I am sorry that I’m not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible.
In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.
No, the United Nations can’t have people talking like that.
It would give their whole game away.
Related Articles:
46 Responses to “The Speech The UN Doesn’t Want You To Hear”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I am afraid the USA as we know it today is gone.
I only hope the next one will be better.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
MIchelleMalkin.com posted this video last Friday - and I cut and pasted it yesterday - it is clear the recent article on the UN wanting to protect Islam and other religions, without naming other religions as SG stated yesterday was the reaction to UN Watch and their comments.
The UN is the most deviant, useless and dangerous organization the world has ever seen.
I agree with another poster - keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
I really do wonder if the average American understands what the hell is going on in the world.
Their recent “press release” calling for Iran to “stop it” takes the cake. Spineless cowards, dolled up on the east side of Manhattan. Of which was a target for radical Islam. I wonder what their response will be IF an attack is carried out on teh UN. Let me guess, Bush’s fault…
March 31st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Yep, Bush is supposed to protect them while they are stabbing him in the back.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. ”
Typical liberal response - don’t answer any of the charges, just whine about being offended.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council.”
When difference of opinion and the expression of it are no longer tolerated at the UN and one can not express dissatisfaction with its doings, it is time to go. There is no longer any point to being there. The statement here is “we are going to do as we damned well please and are not interested in hearing anyone else’s opinions”.
At that point, it is useless to even attempt to be a force for constructive change because the message here is that they have no intention of changing.
It’s time to go. Let’s pack it up, folks, the UN has now officially made themselves irrelevant.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“I really do wonder if the average American understands what the hell is going on in the world.”
Not a chance. Do the following experiment:
For two weeks (it is pretty important that you do this for two weeks, one week won’t do, a month is best) do not read any news sites or blogs on the internet save MySpace or FaceBook. No CNN.com or Foxnews.com … no blogs. Also, no newspaper since the majority of Americans no longer take a daily paper. Limit your news to the local broadcast network if you are over 50. If you are under 50, don’t even look at that. No cable TV news either. Limit your television viewing to only broadcast network channels or the various channels like Showtime, HBO, or the entertainment channels such as Bravo. Channels such as National Geographic, Discovery, Science Channel are permitted. NO NEWS CHANNELS and NO NEWS SHOWS outside of the 1/2 hour network news if you are over 50.
You are permitted to watch the 1/2 hour LOCAL news broadcast once per day and listen to the top of the hour news broadcast on the radio but NO listening to ALL NEWS stations or radio talk shows.
Now you are as informed as “well informed” Americans. For “average” americans, drop the broadcast radio news completely and use your iPod. Drop the local news tv broadcast and rent a movie, And no downloading of political podcasts unless you see them promoted on MySpace. Now you are as informed as the “average” American.
They are never, ever, going to hear about what went on at the UN.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
And this brings up an important point. I am now in favor of reinstating the FCC regulations that limited ownership of media outlets. Deregulation of the media has allowed a very few players to dominate the role of informing the public. While I am generally in favor of allowing market dynamics to be the driving force in most areas, it is clear that in the area of informing the public, having fewer options to choose from is harmful. I am in favor of re-regulating media ownership. Reinstate limits on outlet ownership so we might have a broader array of choices.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Limiting ownership will only ensure that the Left has even more control. They want to limit just about everything for the public good. In their opinion. Now we have some diversity, although one has to look for it. Marx said you have to control the press (media) and schools to control a nation. Where did all the 60’s loonies go? (hint: journalism) Ask your kids what they get in school. I don’t trust the government to regulate anything. The MSM would love more regulation. Get rid of those right-wing b——- at Fox. What we have now ain’t good. More government won’t make it better.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
OG, I am not following. The left now has TOTAL control. Look at the Tribune company:
11 leading daily newspapers, 23 television stations, cable network Superstation WGN, Chicago’s WGN-AM radio and the Chicago Cubs, plus popular news, information and entertainment websites
They own the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, KTLA-Channel 5 in Los angeles and 22 other TV stations … That’s too much for one publisher to have control of. Basically, Tribune owns all the information being fed to the people in Chicago and LA. The Times Company which owns the New York Times owns east of the mississippi …
publishes The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe and 15 other daily newspapers; owns nine network-affiliated television stations and two New York radio stations; and has approximately 35 Web sites, including NYTimes.com, Boston.com and About.com.
In other words, those two companies own the information that is fed to over 50% of the US population. It’s just too much.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
As you probably know, CP, the FCC only regulates (or regulated) broadcast media, such as radio and television.
They had no control over newspapers per se, except only insofar as newspapers were not allowed to own radio or TV outlets in the same market.
And now those restrictions have been almost entirely removed.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I’m just glad they let that brave man finish speaking- at about 1:50 I was afraid they would turn off his microphone and shout him down.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I would be interested in being reminded of precisely why we continue to host the UN in the USA.
- Is it a “Friends close - enemies closer” reason?
- The usual “follow the money” reasoning i.e. its a big boost in NY economics?
- It gets us a “one up” on the visiters?
- It enables and extends the US’ influence?
- The simplistic and shallow “status” argument?
The organization is essentially useless, and deeply corrupt. It does not serve the US’ purposes, and often operates and cross-purposes to decent nations endeavors.
Besides, many of the members blatently abuse our hospitality and laws.
Anyone?
March 31st, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“They had no control over newspapers per se, except only insofar as newspapers were not allowed to own radio or TV outlets in the same market.”
That’s kinda my point. When the same individual controls the news you read in the paper, see on the tv, and hear on the radio in your city, it doesn’t strengthen our country. People should be exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints and reach their own conclusion. This saturation of only one viewpoint in our information sources isn’t a good thing.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:43 pm
And while one might be tempted to say that people have things like this site available, I would say that it is true but less than 1% of the population has ever read a blog like this. When I am driving to work, the radio station doesn’t take a break to read me the latest stories from Sweetness and Light. Blogs are “pull” media in that people have to go looking for it. Radio and TV news are “push” media in that the news is shoved at the user in the course of the user listening to other content (music, traffic reports, whatever).
While newspapers might be considered a “pull” media, that isn’t really the case anymore because most major cities have only one major paper. There is really only one item you can “pull”. So it them becomes “push”. If you buy the paper for the sports scores, you get the latest left-wing propaganda along with it. In the old days cities had two or more papers.; There was more diversity of viewpoints in the news. When I was a kid, we got both papers … the Republican and the Democrat paper. Dad said you had to get both in order to figure out what was really going on because neither one by themselves was going to give you the whole picture. I agree.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:43 pm
The Top Ten UN slogans:
10. If an impotent, bloated bureaucracy can’t solve it, then it’s best left festering.
9. You can’t spell “unethical” without U.N..
8. Genocidal dictators, beware our non-binding resolutions.
7. Bringing peace to our world (actual results may vary).
6. Tomorrow’s corruption today.
5. Raising pointless squabbling to an art form.
4. We take bribes – so you don’t have to.
3. Try our world famous cheesy fries.
2. If troubles abound, we’ll be nearby. . . doing nothing.
1. If this is an actual emergency, please hang up and dial America.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Oh, and having two papers prevents either one from getting too stupid. With all the papers these days having the same content, they can walk way out into left field as they breathe their own exhaust.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
How would the US go about quiting the UN?
March 31st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Stop paying dues and don’t appoint an ambassador. Then send them a bill for the HQ building in NY and remove diplomatic immunity from their members.
But things are about to change as our former ambassador to Iraq takes up residence. It is going to be interesting how the UN leadership stays politically correct when a US ambassador who is a Muslim condemns the UN for not paying attention to other problems and spends too much time concentrating on Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad
Pretty smart move on the part of Bush to appoint a Muslim as our ambassador to the UN.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
The left hates him, by the way … you can tell by what they write about him on the anti-right sites like this one:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1249
March 31st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
In other words, those two companies own the information that is fed to over 50% of the US population. It’s just too much.!! Funny, but if you stop to think about it….the democrats won by just over 50% of the vote. Makes you say, hmmmmmmmmmm. No media bias? No stump dumb idiots being spoon fed misinformation? That percentage howls volumes about how the dems have successfully subjugated the masses. The other half of that percentage reads S&L. We are smarter, after all.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Sj, less than 1% of the population of america reads ANY blog, left or right. I think someone recently posted a poll that showed that something like 6% of registered voters read blogs, but everyone thought that was too high. I agree. I would be shocked if more than 1% read political blogs regularly (once a month or more).
The vast, vast majority only know what they hear on the radio or read on their friends MySpace page.
Also, if you add the McClatchy papers and the Cox papers, you are getting near 70% of the population with only 4 companies. Most cities are one-paper towns these days. If NewsCorp would publish a national paper to compete with USA Today using the same philosophy as they use on the Fox News channel, they would have a wildly successful paper. The reason why the newspapers are going broke is they all publish the same thing. Doesn’t matter which paper I buy, they will all have the same story on the front page and chances are good it will be the same article … either an AP story that all the papers publish, or a NY Times story that the AP picked up and everyone else publishes. There is no reason to buy one paper over another at this point in time when it comes to national/world news because they all have exactly the same stories. It is like every single fast food joint only serving Whoppers. No matter which one you go to, all they have is Whoppers … sometimes you get tired of the Whoppers and want something else but they don’t have anything else so you just quit going into any of them.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:52 pm
The US wouldn’t have to quit the UN - just declare that we will no longer host it. Give ‘em a year (or whatever) to vacate, and let some other country construct a bldg, and diplomat ad nauseum housing.
The UN wants a new one anyway. Put it in Zimbabwe, for all I care. Better yet - Israel! Can you imagine the howls?
(Not that I’m recommending any course of action.)
March 31st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
When I’m on the road, and that’s the majority of the time, I do buy the USAToday, but only because of the sports and business sections. The rest of it sits on the booth seat in the b’fast place of the day without ever getting wrinkled. My hard news comes from either the internet or Fox. Fox, however, is starting to get sillier and sillier. It’s disgusting that a hard news channel would carry 24/7 hour coverage of some blond, drug induced, attention whore bimbo dying.
That being said, I also believe regulating news sources, no matter how bad or biased they may be is going down a very slippery slope. As someone else said earlier, I really don’t want government regulating or controlling anything that should be in the free market. Not only does that open it up to dirty politics, government, no matter how good their intentions, are just crappy business people/regulators that get caught up in red tape and bureaucracy. When you say they should be regulated to ensure fairness, what happens when you have a dhimmi congress and president that get to appoint all the regulators? Not a good idea at all.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
War _Inf,
Same here. I (used to) travel. I (used to) breakfast with USA-T. I, too, left the same sections untouched. I, too, use Fox and the Net for my news needs.
I, too, am sceptical of regulation of the news. Even the biased crappy sort.
Just sayin’.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Cheese_Tensor….GMTA.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
A part of me was yellin, “AMEN!” to Hillel Neuer’s speach, but another part of me was sad, wondering why our leaders are not passionate about honesty. Bush, I believe is very honest, but obviosly he is not passionate about the truth, not like Mr. Neuer. Sad.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Since Amber refuses to read my posts any longer, could someone please enlighten me. How can you be very honest but not be passionate about the truth? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?
March 31st, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I hate to say it, but probably due to the wimp factor. GWB tries to be a nice guy, but does some dumb things. Like keeping Minetta on at Trans. And not firing his ass as soon as he opposed allowing pilots to carry guns, or giving middle eastern types extra scrutiny. I think the UN might have been useful 40 or 50 years ago, not much since. Throw the bums out. Think of all the parking spaces opening up in the Big Apple, I’m a bit surprized Hillel wasn’t executed on the spot. Telling the truth at the UN? Blasphemy. But we won’t do a thing. 1st was right, we’re going down the tubes.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
War-Inf,
Thanks.
I’m sure you’ve had the opportunity to compare news sources on the same subject/issue/story. It’s pretty pathetic how the MSM filters information. That being said - and assuming your BS-detectors are as finely tuned as I believe mine are - the Net is the best source for fast facts. Ya jes gotta filter ‘em some, i.e. “consider the source”.
What I really get a kick out of is a reliable Net source stating quite frankly: “This is the latest info I have, and may be horse-product, but its all I got now. If its wrong, I’ll say so immediately. Stay tuned…”
That’s good reporting, IMHO.
BTW: Perhaps Amber meant that W is honest - but doesn’t always tell ALL the facts. While this may have the appearance of honesty, it is not, IMO. But so what?
How do you know a politician is lying?
‘Cause his mouth is moving.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
“Oh, and having two papers prevents either one from getting too stupid. With all the papers these days having the same content, they can walk way out into left field as they breathe their own exhaust.”
But there is no way that the FCC or any other government body could impose two parties of opposing viewpoints for each town.
It’s all economics. And sadly, too many people were fooled by the (rather recent claim) of objectivity. Which was one of the early and somewhat unique claims of the New York Times. And yes papers run pretty much the same stories.
But, in case you don’t know, the Associated Press isn’t so much a single company as it is really a cooperative of newspapers and other news outlets. They both contribute and use the stories gathered. So not all of the stories from the AP are really coming from one company — but from anywhere in the network of newspapers and TV and radio outlets.
The real problem is gathering news is labor intensive and expensive. So very few people are willing to do it.
For instance, Fox News, doesn’t really gather news. They mostly just pass along the wire service material and do a little “analysis.”
But, to their credit, they have been known to even pick up stories from sites like S&L.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
If we pulled our funding of the UN it would all crumble, but it will not happen, too bad.
I believe President Bush is an honest man, but to be passionate about the truth you have to fight for the truth, it is not enough to speak the truth when it affects you, GWB so far has not fought for the truth, he is willing to let Fitzgerald run wild and more recently let Gonzales be under fire. He has sat down on so many issues when, if he was passionate about truth and what is right, he would be standing.
WI, it is not that I do not like you, it is that every time I type, you take issue with the smallest thing and twist it, and sometimes I do not even comment and you make snide remarks about me. That is disrespectful, that is why I do not read your comments about me anymore, after I saw one random refrance to me written by you after an article I had not commented on, I decided you crossed my line and chose not to argue with you anymore. That is all, that is my explanation. Again, it is not out of dislike for you, it is out of respect for myself. Now, let’s not waste everyone else’s time with this.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
This is one of my favorite “speaches” it was spoken by Minister Jonathan Mayhew in 1750.
“When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution-when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare-they imediately cease to be the ordinance and minister of God and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen. If magistrates are unrighteous,…the main end of civil government will be frustrated.
But it is equally evident that those in authority may abuse their power to such a degree that neither the law of reason nor of religion requires that any obedience or submission should be payed to them; but on the contrary, that they should be totally discarded, the authority which they were before vested transfered to others, who may exercize it to those good purposes for which it is given.”
March 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
When it comes to the media, I highly recommend reading two of Bernie Goldberg’s excellent books, “Bias” and “Arrogance”. The biggest thing that stuck with me in “Arrogance” was his proposed SOLUTION (you don’t see much of that these days) with the MSM. He basically says that the alphabet networks and cable should relocate to different parts of the country. I agree, because it is painfully obvious how these dorks think that there is no world out there except Manhattan… pitiful. He suggested that they should try moving to places like Oklahoma City and the like (he even went as far as to list the various five star restaurants in those towns… because, you know, they have a lifestyle to maintain). And, most importantly, have a lot more diversity of opinion in the news room. Hire reporters and editors with a diverse background as well as opinion. Have reporters that are veterans, graduates of community college, gifted high school grads, etc… not just Colombia J-School grads. There is no MSM conspiracy, it is just that these libtards all literally think alike. If there are any journalists that read this blog, I have a message for you: You are not as smart as you think you are, and you are not all that gifted. A newspaper reporter has to write at a 6th or 7th grade level, it isn’t that hard to do. It is also not very complicated to ask, “who, what, where, why, when, how much etc…”. When you can collectively separate your opinion from fact and report said FACTS then I’ll start having some respect for your profession. I see on TV, read in the papers and hear on the radio the STUPID questions you ask and distorted facts that you report….. YOU ALL SUCK!!!! (end rant) Sorry that hit a nerve….
I highly agree, the government should stay out of the regulation of most anything. This comes down to the likes of SanFranNan (or worse, one of her dipshit libtard minions) determining who should own what paper, TV station or radio station in a market. Or even worse, that would open the door to regulating web-sites like this one. No thanks, I am a student of Economics, and IMHO the free market is “perfect”. It is just all the socialist tinkering that screws up the market.
To Mr. Neuer, you are wise beyond your years. There is not a single thing that I would dispute with your speech. The UN is completely useless, I say we bail out, kick those dirty rat bastards out of my country. If we need an international institution, I say start one with ONLY free nations. Watch how all of these despots and dictators do without us, our money, and troops in the same forum as they are.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I agree too that the news should not be regulated…to a certain extent. I would like to see a breakdown of money paid to the news stations and who the money is from. When I watch the nightly news, 1/3 of the commercials are from the teacher’s union. So, if 1/3 of their dollars is comming from the teacher’s union, are they giving something in return and then passing it off to us as news? I remember on particular news segment they were demonstrating some home improvment things we can do to increase the value of our houses and right after the segment a commercial for Home Depot aired that had the exact same tile as the news story. It makes me wonder if some good bloggers could expose this hypocracy, hmmmmmmmmmm.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
SinCity….that’s the smartest, best written post I’ve seen here in a long time. Congratulations for you have summed it up perfectly. I happen to agree with everything you say, especially about reporters asking stupid or inappropriate questions at inappropriate times and then getting a simple yes or no answer completely bassackwards when reporting it. I’ve been there in the worst of circumstances having to deal with these idiots. However, I still don’t want them regulated for all the same reasons you have stated.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:37 am
SinCity,
Like W-I, I agree with you. You present some of the arguments (about the media) I could assert about moving the UN.
The UN delegates have gotten used to all the comforts NYC (Sin City for sure) can provide and are complacent - even decadent.
Move the UN to somewhere where they are not so comfortable, and they’ll get a different view of things and - perhaps - get something done for a change. Make it a hardship post. I bet it’ll save some money, too.
I am reminded of General Grove’s speech to the scientists working in NM on the the Manhatten Project:
“Gentlemen - you are not here to be comfortable!”
Diplomats shouldn’t be comfortable. Mild discomfort and inconvenience will keep them focused.
That’s why I suggested Zimbabwe.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:21 am
What would happen if the US kicked them out of the country and left the UN? What good does the UN do? Name just one thing! The UN was created to prevent wars. Since WWII how many wars has the U.S alone been in? How many throughout the world? It is a racist, bloated group of do nothings and we waste our time. money and resources on them. I’d even bet that without U.S sponsorship and funds they would be unable to operate. I’ll also bet that a good many other nations would leave as well.
I don’t wanna keep my “enemys close”. Too close and I can’t use nukes.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
“It’s disgusting that a hard news channel would carry 24/7 hour coverage of some blond, drug induced, attention whore bimbo dying.”
That is the Gretta thing. Waste of perfectly good airtime. Before that it was “All Aruba, all the time” and before that the Scott Peterson thing.
“I also believe regulating news sources, no matter how bad or biased they may be is going down a very slippery slope”
I don’t see it as regulation of news as much as limiting how many news outlets one person can own in a single market. For example, we have one company who owns the only newspaper and the highest rated TV station and several radio stations in the same city. People don’t have a choice. They change the radio to a different station and they are still listening to that person’s viewpoint.
I believe in competition. I believe in allowing people to have a choice. I am NOT for mandating things like the “fairness doctrine” but I am for preventing one person from owning too many media outlets *in the same market*.
You can own 10 radio stations … but they have to be in different markets. You shouldn’t be able to own 10 stations in the LA area or the SF Bay area along with several TV stations, the newspaper and a movie studio.
That basically allows you to control the population. If you control what they see in movies and entertainment, what they read in the newspaper, what they see on the TV news, what they hear on the radio news … you are able to control their decisions at the voting booth. People can only base their decisions on the information they receive. If you control all of the information they receive, you can control their decision making process.
What we need are some people with a conservative viewpoint to get into the media business. So far that isn’t happening. There isn’t a single major US city newspaper that I know of that would have a conservative viewpoint or even a balanced viewpoint.
If you change the regulations so one individual can’t “own” a city, that gets more people in the mix and increases the chances that you are going to have a station that gives a different viewpoint.
At this point, they are all in lockstep. They are basically a propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
cp….no matter what you call it, it’s regulation of the media and I really don’t see it that as a good thing. What you are actually advocating is affirmative action for conservative news views.
“There isn’t a single major US city newspaper that I know of that would have a conservative viewpoint or even a balanced viewpoint.”
New York Post and Washington Times for two. There are others, but I didn’t even have to think about those two and I don’t live anywhere near them.
As to controlling the population, I don’t think anyone controls the population from the airwaves. If anything, since the most popular (by far) talk radio stations are ALL conservative, you could make the argument that Rush and Sean and Bill control the population. It just isn’t so. If it were and the libs actually controlled the population, how did we have a conservative congress and POTUS at the same time for so long?
And I really think this whole media thing is a bit mute anymore anyway. Those people who are interested (and like you said before, there aren’t than many) will do the research and find out the facts from a combination of broadcast, cable, print and internet sources. Those that don’t give a crap or are too stupid to care…it doesn’t matter what you feed them. When it comes to government, they are going to vote for the person, program or party that promises them the most freebies anyway.
As to the blonde bimbo thing, it wasn’t only Greta. I was sick for a couple of days in a hotel room in LA and FOX literally ran with it for about 48 hours on all their shows, news included. Of course every other news outlet did the same but I just expected more discretion from FOX. What a dummy I am.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:44 pm
The normal intelligent person can see through media bias easily. The media plays to the moron sector of our population, and the election of democrats is living proof of that. Whatever the media says, I cant really comment because it has been so long since I watched any other than Fox. When Fox gets on one of those 24/7 coverages of any news, I turn it off. Getting snookered by the media is almost an art form….and if I have real serious questions about something happening…..I come to S&L. This site usually covers it two days before it becomes “breaking news” on the television. And, it is covered here with such detail that I honestly believe the news people should read this first, then report the story. The reason they cant and dont is….this site doesnt change stories to suit the editor, this site doesnt lie, omit, or factually misinform the readers. Our posters do a superb job of digging out literally every facet of a story, and it is refreshing to have this source as a place to find out what is “really going on”. Kudos to everyone for the superb job they do….and up yours to the snag, because that leather faced, pot bellied, cottage cheese thighed hate filled socialist still is a rotten good for nothing chunk of dead carp bloated and festering on a boat landing in the mid day sun. Not that I am biased or anything.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
sj……damn. I actually cooked a small turkey today because I had a craving for turkey sandwiches of the home made variety. I just finished boneing the carcass, filling my belly with test tastes and bitter ale chasers and then I read that…..now I lost it…lol. The chunck of dead carp bloated and festering was just too much!
April 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I’ve worked at three newspapers — two of them very large metro dailies…. I’ve sat in HUNDREDS of daily news meetings. Long and short of it: These people are absolutely awful.
They talk and talk about diversity and being “smart” and approaching things “differently.”
But, all they ever do is go back into their ruts of covering things as they have since 1968 to 1974 — the Vietnam and Watergate era.
Here are the main problems:
1) Every journalist is DYING to be the next Woodward/Bernstein. Their whole M.O. is to “bring down” something so they can get their next promotion — to a larger paper. It’s sadly all about career advancement — and that happens by skewering someone/something. But, the problem is …
2) Their bosses generally only want to see certain kinds of people/things skewered. If it doesn’t fit into their view of what “deserves” to be brought down, then a free pass is given. Given just about every 50-55 year old editor at a newspaper is part of the “worst generation” of hippies and “free thinkers” we know what gets promoted.
3) In the rush to cover things as a scandal, the kind of coverage (neighborhood and “good news”) that was famous in the 50s and early 60s doesn’t get done anymore. Who wants to cover the chicken dinner for the Volunteer of the Year? No one. You can’t get promoted covering that. It’s lame. Therefore, the newspaper is full of city council process stories, national wire stories about the latest “investigation” OR some trend story about a liberal movement — gay marriage is one that comes to mind…
Other random thoughts:
Because newspapers have such a large employed population at them that are not like one would find from their possible customers (readers) they are incredibly out of touch. I DOZENS of times sat in news meetings where the managing editor was a lesbian — and nearly everday she would pitch and suggest some coverage of a lesbian or gay issue. It was truly incredible.
Everyone at newspapers — and I mean everyone — has no problem making liberal points in a news meeting. No problem at all. But, if anyone plays “devil’s advocate” they first announce it as such and say “not that I agree” or “I personally think the guy is an idiot, but has anyone thought of….” It happens whenever the conservative viewpoint is brought up — which is (surprise) very infrequent.
Lastly, newspapers are irrelevant, but they are killing themsevles even faster because of what they are TRYING to do to stay relevant. Here is what I mean: a big thing happens in Iraq or wherever. Big news. The newspaper editors (and I have been in HUNDREDS of meetings where this happens) then decide to cover it, but can’t really because it will be 12 -20 hours old by the time it gets in the newpaper. So, they actually say (REAL QUOTE): “How can we spin this forward and make a smart story out of it that doesn’t just rehash what happened?” Well, here is how (and exactly what they do): They end up writing about what MIGHT happen next OR get into analyzing what it all means — mind you as a NEWS story.
So, instead of just covering the news, they are trying to slant it. Now, they might not mean to do that (although I think they do), but the effect is that they end up with COMMENTARY as a news story.
In the end, we will never get the MSM to change unless they start hiring different people — or unless they completely go out of business and a whole new daily paper emerges in a city…
April 1st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Everything you say makes perfect sense to me jimwilson. And that’s precisely why regulating them is a bad idea. They are slowly bleeding themselves to death anyway. Someone stated more conservatives need to get in the news business. It occurred to me that they don’t because it is bad business…you lose money in it, at least in print news.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 am
jimwilson -
I have seen the other side of newspapers, primarily from the communications end - on getting storries published, not PR mind you. A daunting task to say the least. Ad contributors get a pass, namely if and when another “competitor” or opposite end of an ideology tries to get press - no way. The best part is - they love to state “we don’t favor those who advertise with us” - yeah…
The New York Sun does come to mind, of a newspaper relaunched as a reaction to the ultra left drivel that dominates MRM today. Of course, they are backed by some deep conservative pockets who aren’t in it for the profit, but more for the content and ironically cover both ends of the spectrum - knowing they aren’t printing “all the news for a small but vocal minority to print”, like their neighbor.
The dirty little secret regarding print based newspapers - is they actually still maintain profitability, while readers are declining. Mark Cuban and a few others have made pitches and are buying newspapers due to their profitability only, and of course the left slant to them. They maintain a strict profit margin - and sacrifice other elements of news, including staff, inferior paper, etc - yet dont understand they could reap higher profits if they just stop alienating a large group of people. But, they clearly have decided to marginalize their commodity, while keeping profits.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Great post, JW! And I especially appreciated this part:
“Lastly, newspapers are irrelevant, but they are killing themsevles even faster because of what they are TRYING to do to stay relevant. Here is what I mean: a big thing happens in Iraq or wherever. Big news. The newspaper editors (and I have been in HUNDREDS of meetings where this happens) then decide to cover it, but can’t really because it will be 12 -20 hours old by the time it gets in the newpaper. So, they actually say (REAL QUOTE): “How can we spin this forward and make a smart story out of it that doesn’t just rehash what happened?” Well, here is how (and exactly what they do): They end up writing about what MIGHT happen next OR get into analyzing what it all means — mind you as a NEWS story.”
Yes, you see this all the time in the New York Times and Washington Post stories especially. And it is laughable how often they get it wrong. They can’t even predict the immediate future.
And their errors are so often a clear indication of their predispositions and biases. It’s how they hope things will go.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Mr. Wilson,
Thank you very much for the terrific insight into, I am guessing, what we all had an inkling of going on “behind the scenes”.
You sound some what conservative….you must have had your work cut out for you to say the least.
Thanks again for the sobering look at “all the news thats FIT to print”
VoR