And Then They Came For Me

Firestorm

I did my best, I have no regrets!
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
This is actually from January but it wasn't actually covered here before. This was the last thing written by the editor of The Sunday Leader in Sri Lanka. It was published on January 11th, 2009. I thought it was some really powerful stuff, but it might be because my family is from Sri Lanka and we're Tamil.

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/20090111/editorial-.htm

And Then They Came For Me
No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.

I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.

Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.

But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.

The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.

The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.

Every newspaper has its angle, and we do not hide the fact that we have ours. Our commitment is to see Sri Lanka as a transparent, secular, liberal democracy. Think about those words, for they each has profound meaning. Transparent because government must be openly accountable to the people and never abuse their trust. Secular because in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society such as ours, secularism offers the only common ground by which we might all be united. Liberal because we recognise that all human beings are created different, and we need to accept others for what they are and not what we would like them to be. And democratic... well, if you need me to explain why that is important, you'd best stop buying this paper.

The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it, that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For example, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urged government to view Sri Lanka's ethnic strife in the context of history and not through the telescope of terrorism. We have also agitated against state terrorism in the so-called war against terror, and made no secret of our horror that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. For these views we have been labelled traitors, and if this be treachery, we wear that label proudly.

Many people suspect that The Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition it is only because we believe that - pray excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the UNP was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred. Indeed, the steady stream of embarrassing expos‚s we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.

Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tigers. The LTTE are among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations ever to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is forever called into question by this savagery, much of which is unknown to the public because of censorship.

What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the post-war era. The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful Diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my countrymen - and all of the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.

It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended. In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.

The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, Mahinda and I have been friends for more than a quarter century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining who routinely addresses him by his first name and uses the familiar Sinhala address oya when talking to him. Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.

Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the SLFP presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air. Then, through an act of folly, you got yourself involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, at the same time urging you to return the money. By the time you did so several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.

You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well that my sons and daughter do not themselves have a father.

In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life, but yours too, depends on it.

Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do. Although you are now so drunk with power that you cannot see it, you will come to regret your sons having so rich an inheritance of blood. It can only bring tragedy. As for me, it is with a clear conscience that I go to meet my Maker. I wish, when your time finally comes, you could do the same. I wish.

As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most of them are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your Presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice. I feel sorry for you, and Shiranthi will have a long time to spend on her knees when next she goes for Confession for it is not just her owns sins which she must confess, but those of her extended family that keeps you in office.

As for the readers of The Sunday Leader, what can I say but Thank You for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have now paid the price that I have long known I will one day have to pay. I am - and have always been - ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remains to be written is when.

That The Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before The Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.

People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem”ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem”ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem”ller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled. Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter. As for me, God knows I tried.

Further Reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
 
This is the difference between journalism that recognizes it's purpose and "journalism" that declares "a presidency must be successful."

No one understands the value of a free press until the press isn't free anymore. The American media has forgotten that and has instead become nothing more than the arm of a single political party who feel it is their duty only to report the malfeasance of Republicans and conservatives and not of the government.

The Sunday Leader would never stand behind a report saying it was "fake but accurate." This is why people believe the late Tim Russert was one of a kind. Tim Russert was a real journalist and the fact so few even aspire to his level is a disgrace.

Why do we only value liberty when it is obvious someone is trying to take it away? Why does our media only believe it must fight government encroachment, dig for answers, and question motive when the President has an (R)?

Do we really have to become like Sri Lanka before we get it?
 
Thats deep man,

Vancouver is a beautiful place... gotta love that Seawall..

Yeah, well it's obvious now that free speach all across the world is being surpressed. For what purpose I don't know. Perhaps control...
 
I understand what you're getting at, Deck, but if you think that the media has a liberal bias in the United States you are off base. Claiming that the news is controlled exclusively by "a single political party" (I assume you mean Dems) is laughable and not to mention impossible to prove. Reporting on and supporting a president who has an overwhelming majority of the public agreeing with him isn't "bias", it's the only news around...why would the news continue following irrelevant, outdated (R) views that are opposed by a majority of the country (their viewer base)? The entire country has a liberal bias. For some reason you think that the media is out to get Republicans and not "the government", as if Republicans have no role in the very government that you are criticizing. On one hand you are saying that the news should be reporting about how destructive Democratic policies are, then on the other you are criticizing the coverage of destructive Republican policies. Since a majority of America agrees with liberalism, wouldn't it make sense that news stories regarding the evil Republicans would become more popular? Obama has only been in office for two months...how could there even possibly be "answers" that would somehow destroy his reputation at this point? I don't understand your conspiracy theory here, its obviously more related to ratings and money than a political agenda. If Obama screws up and loses public favor, you can be damn well sure that Democrats are going directly back into the news' doghouse. Until then, it is completely unreasonable for you to expect the news to oppose Obama just for the sake of opposing him. Being a "balanced" news network doesn't imply that you spout opposing viewpoints just for the sake of having two sides, there is a responsibility to present things based on what is actually happening. Many news networks ignore this and allow a lot of ridiculous viewpoints to go unchallenged (i.e. "socialist conspiracy" "Obama is going to ban guns" etc that spark people into murderous rampages to "defend themselves"). Not only that, but the more conservative news networks are also 100% guilty of the exact same thing you described...although after setting that minor nitpick aside, I do agree with the point your post is trying to make. That link you mentioned begs the question- where was the news over the last 8 years when they could have actually helped people? Matthews is clearly using Obama's majority support and popularity for ratings. Although that is smart in a business sense, it is far from admirable for a journalist.

Honestly, the entire media is so out of touch with what is actually happening to people that it doesn't matter which side they are taking. Our press has taken freedom for granted and has turned reporting into nothing more than entertainment, a ratings contest.

Not only does this article describe how important the free press is, it also made me much more aware of the conflict being described. We can harp about incompetent former presidents eroding the constitution or how communism in the 1950s, errr....socialism in the 2000s is going to destroy this country all we want, but the fact that we don't have to deal with bloody civil war in the streets every day makes me really happy to be living where I am.

What happened to the writer of this article? Who was this person? How did they know they would be assassinated? This is an absolutely amazing article and I would like to have a bit more background information.
 
I understand what you're getting at, Deck, but if you think that the media has a liberal bias in the United States you are off base. Claiming that the news is controlled exclusively by "a single political party" (I assume you mean Dems) is laughable and not to mention impossible to prove. Reporting on and supporting a president who has an overwhelming majority of the public agreeing with him isn't "bias", it's the only news around...why would the news continue following irrelevant, outdated (R) views that are opposed by a majority of the country (their viewer base)? The entire country has a liberal bias. For some reason you think that the media is out to get Republicans and not "the government", as if Republicans have no role in the very government that you are criticizing. On one hand you are saying that the news should be reporting about how destructive Democratic policies are, then on the other you are criticizing the coverage of destructive Republican policies. Since a majority of America agrees with liberalism, wouldn't it make sense that news stories regarding the evil Republicans would become more popular? Obama has only been in office for two months...how could there even possibly be "answers" that would somehow destroy his reputation at this point? I don't understand your conspiracy theory here, its obviously more related to ratings and money than a political agenda. If Obama screws up and loses public favor, you can be damn well sure that Democrats are going directly back into the news' doghouse. Until then, it is completely unreasonable for you to expect the news to oppose Obama just for the sake of opposing him. Being a "balanced" news network doesn't imply that you spout opposing viewpoints just for the sake of having two sides, there is a responsibility to present things based on what is actually happening. Many news networks ignore this and allow a lot of ridiculous viewpoints to go unchallenged (i.e. "socialist conspiracy" "Obama is going to ban guns" etc that spark people into murderous rampages to "defend themselves"). Not only that, but the more conservative news networks are also 100% guilty of the exact same thing you described...although after setting that minor nitpick aside, I do agree with the point your post is trying to make. That link you mentioned begs the question- where was the news over the last 8 years when they could have actually helped people? Matthews is clearly using Obama's majority support and popularity for ratings. Although that is smart in a business sense, it is far from admirable for a journalist.

Honestly, the entire media is so out of touch with what is actually happening to people that it doesn't matter which side they are taking. Our press has taken freedom for granted and has turned reporting into nothing more than entertainment, a ratings contest.

Not only does this article describe how important the free press is, it also made me much more aware of the conflict being described. We can harp about incompetent former presidents eroding the constitution or how communism in the 1950s, errr....socialism in the 2000s is going to destroy this country all we want, but the fact that we don't have to deal with bloody civil war in the streets every day makes me really happy to be living where I am.

What happened to the writer of this article? Who was this person? How did they know they would be assassinated? This is an absolutely amazing article and I would like to have a bit more background information.

You misinterpreted Deck Knight's quote - I don't think he's implying that the media (by which I assume he means the major national TV "news" channels) is actually controlled by the Democrats. It's irrelevant what political party they support, but as for political ideologies it's clear that with the exception of FOX that all other major broadcasts have a heavy liberal bias. On the other hand, most talk-radio shows have a conservative bias (with the exception of NPR). However, the audience base is significantly larger for TV then for radio. Now our government is trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" - but obviously not for TV. The fact that it is even being proposed shows you how far our "leaders" have gone off the deep end (or rather, how far they think the public has).
 
Just popped in to say a few words:

If Obama screws up and loses public favor, you can be damn well sure that Democrats are going directly back into the news' doghouse.
Obama will NEVER lose public favor; he's too much of a demagogue for simply being the 'face of change' by opposing Conservative viewpoints. Notice (oh wait, you won't notice, because they never tell you) how Obama had only 2 newshounds following him around while Palin has 20. Also, what ever happened to Jerimiah Wright coverage? Remember him? No you don't. Why? The media, not the people, seeing as I know, brainwashed you to forget. The media (yes, the media) makes like it never, ever happened; there is no such thing as a 'liberal doghouse.'

Until then, it is completely unreasonable for you to expect the news to oppose Obama just for the sake of opposing him. Being a "balanced" news network doesn't imply that you spout opposing viewpoints just for the sake of having two sides, there is a responsibility to present things based on what is actually happening. Many news networks ignore this and allow a lot of ridiculous viewpoints to go unchallenged (i.e. "socialist conspiracy" "Obama is going to ban guns" etc that spark people into murderous rampages to "defend themselves").
You cleary haven't done your research. Google search 'Obama' and 'New Party' and tell me about those crazy conspirisists, Still don't believe me? Do a bit more reasearch and wait! There are pictures of him in a socialist party, as well as newspaper clipings. Wow, amazing!

The part in bold indicates how well the media is doing it's job on you, becuase you are only feed one part (however fabricated it may be) and do not research the other.

I do not mean to insult you, just to show you the other half of the story.


PS: Ever heard of 'Gun control?'
 
The writer was ambushed in his vehicle by masked gunmen and shot down. He knew it was coming as all the good journalists were being taken out and he was doing something the government wasn't really fond of as you can tell from the article.

Currently, the Sri Lankan government is bombing indiscriminately in the northern part of the country as well as taking away young Tamil citizens to concentration camps where they are tortured and/or raped. Obviously not much coverage of this gets out due to the conditions of that their media operates under.

As for the journalism talk, Deck Knight, I would have agreed for you for once if it weren't for your assertion that Bush received flak because he was Republican. I do think that our media has failed us, but saying the media has a liberal bias is just your conservative bias showing.

The media outlets of the United States and Canada all operate off some different models. The only thing you have to blame for the state of journalism is the capitalism you so believe in. As soon as our media companies operate on a model to maximize profit rather than uphold their obligation to the public, we've lost a very valuable service.

At the very least the States has a wide variety. You have right-wing FOX and CNN along with the more left-leaning NBC. Not sure where ABC and CBS fall under as I don't pay enough attention to them. You also have the publically owned PBS. Canada, especially Vancouver, is one of the worst places in the developed world for media concentration. One company owns more than half of the media outlets in the country and follows an ownership model. They fired the left-leaning editors which caused a trickle-down effect to the reporters as well. People were slowly replaced to fit the political ideology of the company. They are also one of the largest TV stations in the country. They own both daily newspapers in my city, one of the three major TV news stations, and have a stake in one of the dailies. CanWest Global is the devil as far as I'm concerned. At least we have the CBC =/

Maybe one day the companies we have providing our news won't also be the ones with owners who are on the board of directors on topics they're covering. Maybe one day the companies we have providing our news won't also be the ones being funded by the advertising of companies they're covering. Maybe one day the companies we have providing our news won't be the ones having dinner every year with the government they're supposed to be holding accountable.

I think we're getting off track though. I'd rather concentrate on this one editorial which again, I thought was really, really powerful. It was a newspaper that seemed to be doing everything I'd want from a newspaper, but was shot down due to the way the country it was in was run.

Some recent articles on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/w...l?_r=1&scp=4&sq=Lasantha Wickramatunga&st=cse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2009/04/090407_lasantha_unesco.shtml
 
As for the journalism talk, Deck Knight, I would have agreed for you for once if it weren't for your assertion that Bush received flak because he was Republican. I do think that our media has failed us, but saying the media has a liberal bias is just your conservative bias showing.
Hey, please read this part again:
Obama will NEVER lose public favor; he's too much of a demagogue for simply being the 'face of change' by opposing Conservative viewpoints. Notice (oh wait, you won't notice, because they never tell you) how Obama had only 2 newshounds following him around while Palin has 20. Also, what ever happened to Jerimiah Wright coverage? Remember him? No you don't. Why? The media, not the people, seeing as I know, brainwashed you to forget. The media (yes, the media) makes like it never, ever happened; there is no such thing as a 'liberal doghouse.'


EDIT: You're right, we are getting off track, but his was shot for political reasons...
 
Your post went up as I was writing mine. I never read yours before posting. I'm not sure how it changes my point at all. When was this Palin/Obama thing?

Oh and Obama will lose public favour if shit goes down the wrong way. Just because he's the golden boy now doesn't mean he will be in two or three years from now.

Also, what in the world does Jerimiah Wright have to do with this?

Your points are all lost on people who don't share the same hard-right viewpoint you have. I think you should read the part of my post that you bolded again.
 
Your post went up as I was writing mine. I never read yours before posting. I'm not sure how it changes my point at all. When was this Palin/Obama thing?
During election '08. Research it, it's there.

Oh and Obama will lose public favour if $#!& goes down the wrong way. Just because he's the golden boy now doesn't mean he will be in two or three years from now.

Also, what in the world does Jerimiah Wright have to do with this?
If being a socialist (New Party) and affiliating with a racist (or racists) for twenty years doesn't put him in the doghouse (remember also he's milking his demagoguery), this proves one of two things:
1.) The media has brainwashed people to think the way they want them to think, or
2.) People are idiots

I have two questions to prove this. Answer truthfully:

1.) Who got the opposition kicked off of the ballots in order to win his/her first ever election?

2.) Who can see Russia from his/her house

Your answers will prove my point.
 
Your post went up as I was writing mine. I never read yours before posting. I'm not sure how it changes my point at all. When was this Palin/Obama thing?

Oh and Obama will lose public favour if shit goes down the wrong way. Just because he's the golden boy now doesn't mean he will be in two or three years from now.

Also, what in the world does Jerimiah Wright have to do with this?

Your points are all lost on people who don't share the same hard-right viewpoint you have. I think you should read the part of my post that you bolded again.

There are innumerable studies on the fact media reporters on the television networks vote Democrat in astonishing margins, downplay embarrassing stories when Democrats are in office, and in general leave people less informed than conservative outlets.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/wp-conten...ecutive-summary-presentation_final_081202.pdf

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

These are just a few examples I could cite.

I don't view Jeremiah Wright as a legit example of the press covering for Obama. The fact is it went viral on YouTube and served the purposes of the 24 hour news cycle.

That being said, Republicans get lambasted for saying the word "macaca" or wishing a dying Strom Thurmond well. Sit in a church with a clearly deranged, hateful preacher for 20 years and let him betroth you and baptize your children? Well, nobody's perfect...

The Woods Fund non-coverage is a much more relevant example since it has to do with Obama's prowess as an executive, not with his abysmally poor judgment in selecting friends, allies, and acquaintances.

The consolidation of all media is disconcerting though. Soon we will all have Rupert Murdoch Broadcasting Company.
 
During election '08. Research it, it's there.

If being a socialist (New Party) and affiliating with a racist (or racists) for twenty years doesn't put him in the doghouse (remember also he's milking his demagoguery), this proves one of two things:
1.) The media has brainwashed people to think the way they want them to think, or
2.) People are idiots

I have two questions to prove this. Answer truthfully:

1.) Who got the opposition kicked off of the ballots in order to win his/her first ever election?

2.) Who can see Russia from his/her house

Your answers will prove my point.
So you were talking about the election. I think that furthers the point of the media failing the people. They went after the easily marketable crazy lady rather than focus on the two people that actually mattered, McCain and Obama. How many people did McCain have hounding him? It's a little odd that you compared Obama to Palin rather than the man that he was actually running against.

And no, I don't believe that the fact that his pastor was a bigot should have any effect on the election. The fact that it was as big a deal as it was already struck me as the American public being collectively stupid. I had to wiki his name as I didn't know who he was when you mentioned him, but I do remember the event and people who hold onto it as important should find something more worthwhile to complain about.

As for your two questions, my answer is: I neither know nor care as a Canadian citizen.

Also, I love your use of the "socialist" buzzword. It seems it's you who has been brainwashed by the media. Start questioning what you read a bit more rather than trusting every bit of drivel you hear. What media sources do you use?

There are innumerable studies on the fact media reporters on the television networks vote Democrat in astonishing margins, downplay embarrassing stories when Democrats are in office, and in general leave people less informed than conservative outlets.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/wp-conten...ecutive-summary-presentation_final_081202.pdf

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

These are just a few examples I could cite.
You should also look at your sources before posting them in support of your arguments.

WRS said:
Over the past few years, WRS has become one of the top two Republican polling firms in America. This success has aided our ability to serve our corporate and public affairs clients with aggresive and innovative methodologies; the same approach that has led to the success for our GOP candidates for public office.
MRC said:
The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

Right-wing research group "proves" that the media has a liberal bias? You don't say. The only one of your sources that's valid is the word document you linked to. And that's not conclusive at all.

My assessment was geared more towards Canadian media, but the US follows similar models as the Canadian media. You just have more companies in the game which gives at least more variety in biases.

Edit: Hm, looks like the document you linked to might not have been very valid in its methodology. Not to mention that more digging seems to point to Milyo as having received grant money from the Bush administration.
 
If being a socialist (New Party) and affiliating with a racist (or racists) for twenty years doesn't put him in the doghouse (remember also he's milking his demagoguery), this proves one of two things:

1) Obama is a Democrat, not a socialist. Please provide proof before you make a claim, nobody here is going to fall for that ridiculous propaganda.

2) Obama's priest said something bad for the first time since Obama knew him. How is that even remotely related to how he will act as President?

Your posts attempting to highlight Mr. Wright's relation to Obama ironically proves your point about how the news takes trivial things and "brainwashes" people by turning them into a big deal. Nothing you listed is even remotely true or relevant.

Notice (oh wait, you won't notice, because they never tell you) how Obama had only 2 newshounds following him around while Palin has 20. Also, what ever happened to Jerimiah Wright coverage? Remember him? No you don't. Why? The media, not the people, seeing as I know, brainwashed you to forget. The media (yes, the media) makes like it never, ever happened; there is no such thing as a 'liberal doghouse.'

Obama had gone through the entire Democratic Primary process. He had been followed by the news literally for years before Mrs. Palin burst onto the scene. The fact that Sarah Palin was a complete idiot did not help her case (Africa is a country, being able to see other countries makes me good at foreign policy, etc). It is completely unreasonable for you to think that the media would ignore someone who was as influential to the election as Sarah Palin was, especially after hearing the same platform from the Obama camps over and over during his run against Hilary Clinton. Yeah Obama we get it, change, now what does this newcomer have to say?

And nothing ever came from the Jeremiah Wright coverage because it was completely irrelevant to the Presidential campaign and is still irrelevant to this day. If Obama had come out and said "I agree with him, God DAMN America", then yes it would have been an issue. However, in reality Obama publicly spoke out against Wright, saying that he was both "outraged" and "saddened" by the comments. Can you please make sure that you aren't being a blatant hypocrite while accusing someone else of doing the same thing :(

You cleary haven't done your research. Google search 'Obama' and 'New Party' and tell me about those crazy conspirisists, Still don't believe me? Do a bit more reasearch and wait! There are pictures of him in a socialist party, as well as newspaper clipings. Wow, amazing!

Wow, Obama reaching out to people who would likely vote for him. Amazing, unprecedented, totally news. I don't know how "some of his supporters are socialist" = "obama is a socialist" but tbh I wasn't actually expecting you to give any solid evidence to your insane claim. Obama won and ran on the Democratic platform, obviously he is not a member of "the New Party". Give me a break. It's one thing to not support him ideologically, but its something dangerous to make up lies like this.

PS: Ever heard of 'Gun control?'

Yes, I have heard of gun control. "Gun control" != "banning guns". Last week in PA, a man murdered 3 police officers because the media produced a lie about Obama's supposed intent on banning guns. He claimed that he was defending himself before they came for his guns. Gee, I wonder who had a helping hand in that mess? Promoting responsibility with guns is not the same as banning them. The United States has an exponentially higher murder rate than every other industrialized nation, it is something that is completely baffling in today's world.
 
Right-wing research group "proves" that the media has a liberal bias? You don't say. The only one of your sources that's valid is the word document you linked to. And that's not conclusive at all.

Is it a coincindence that George Mason University recieves large grants from the corporate lobbying Charles G. Koch Foundation and is affiliated with a libertarian think tank? I wouldn't say that this professor is any more trustworthy than his other sources (who, incidentally, define media bias along the lines of 'rooting for the homosexual revolution') in this regard.
 
The standard tactic of the person who doesn't like the results is to question the researchers.

The KKK could commission a poll on the negative effects of black gangs in inner cities and the study could be completely valid. Studies should be judged by the strength of their methodology not the beliefs of their commissioners.

Come back when you have something that addresses the methodology, not the messenger.
 
The standard tactic of the person who doesn't like the results is to question the researchers.

The KKK could commission a poll on the negative effects of black gangs in inner cities and the study could be completely valid. Studies should be judged by the strength of their methodology not the beliefs of their commissioners.

Come back when you have something that addresses the methodology, not the messenger.

So, you would have no problem with me directing you to Media Matters?
 
The standard tactic of the person who doesn't like the results is to question the researchers.

The KKK could commission a poll on the negative effects of black gangs in inner cities and the study could be completely valid. Studies should be judged by the strength of their methodology not the beliefs of their commissioners.

Come back when you have something that addresses the methodology, not the messenger.
That's absolutely disgusting. We should definitely be questioning our sources for absolutely everything. Think tanks provide selective research to further their own agenda as laid out quite plainly in their mission statements. Come back to me when you have a source that is trying to further knowledge rather than prove something for their sponsors.

Oh and I love the selective questioning used WRS paper XD
 
So, you would have no problem with me directing you to Media Matters?

I always assumed Media Matters was a leftist political satire site, given they conduct themselves with all the seriousness of one.

But I mean, I guess if insanely long bulleted lists with no executive summary and no disclosure of methodology (other than the words "baseless and ominous" + Media Matters' claim) is your idea of a study then have at it.
 
Can we stop going off on the tangent of whether the media has a liberal or conservative or whatever ideology bias?
 
@ DK: I've always noticed that reality has a profound and largely visible liberal bias. It is only the role of conservatives to check this reality via a largely incomprehensible method of communication known to the populace as "whining" and "incessantly complaining about non-issues".

@ Firestorm: sorry the thread got so off-topic. I don't believe it was your intent to give people a stage to grandstand, and I feel bad that I was tempted to do so above because the subject matter in the original post does make an excellent point. The Sri Lankan Civil War is one of those conflicts which is never explosive enough to attract the attention of the Western Media other than a passing mention, and I found the editorial by the editor of the Leader was incredibly insightful. A singularly good read. Thank you. :)
 
@ DK: I've always noticed that reality has a profound and largely visible liberal bias. It is only the role of conservatives to check this reality via a largely incomprehensible method of communication known to the populace as "whining" and "incessantly complaining about non-issues".

Indeed. I agree: Where liberals rule, civilization prospers. For instance, inner cities, a rapidly dying Old World Europe that can neither repopulate without Muslim immigrants nor defend itself without calling in America, and the magnificently efficient, transparent, and productive United Nations.

Current reality (for no liberal reality is modern, only post-modern) may have a profound and largely visible bias. This is probably why reality as currently constituted treats adults like children incapable of making their own financial or social decisions. Every one wants to be the nanny. Liberal governments are not implements for justice, only a narrowly defined flavor-of-the-day mercy.

Now why does everyone assume that media bias is off topic? "Oh don't talk about that, it's off topic." This man died because he supported a free press and did the job a free press is supposed to do. A press is only free when it is independent at all times, and willing to challenge both the government and the opposition parties. The fact is our mainstream media is at once the largest source of news, the most liberal source of news, and the one that leaves its consumers the least informed. It would appear when people are informed with a bias towards "reality" they have no conception of it.

I suppose you could fault the education system. After all: anyone who reads or hears "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)" should be able to determine the following: Harry Reid is a Democrat from Nevada in the senate, and that senate is majority Democrat. As we all know, public education and universities are simply crawling with conservatives.

In summary: Discussion of media bias is not off topic except to those who have no problem with biased news as long as that news has their bias. This man who died for his beliefs in Sri Lanka is the perfect example for all Western Journalists to follow, a man willing to bear his burden with all its weight. We don't have such people any more in Western Civilization because we have grown weak and fat off of liberalism's promise of prosperity without work, thought, or effort. Protecting that lie is now more important to us than protecting the values that founded America: life, liberty, and property.

Finally, to summarize your post in short form again:

First they came for the conservatives,
and I did not speak out because I hate whiners messing with my liberal reality.


If you want the discussion to focus on the Sri Lankan Civil War, what would you have us talk about? I have no conception of either the Sri Lankan government or the LTTE. Generally I don't comment on conflicts in support of a specific side because I don't have enough information about their actions. This isn't clean cut like Hamas whose charter demands the extermination of Jews or Darfur where a corrupt government hires 7th century mercenaries to kill their own people to ensure their own political power.

The central message of the the title is the societal warning of letting an all-powerful government take out unpopular minorities one-by-one. Specifically, when the press becomes an arm of the government like Stalin's Pravda, persecution of unpopular minorities becomes exponentially easier.

Otherwise this is nothing more that a reiteration of a basic truth which should not be forgotten (yet has), and should be left uncommented on.
 
Um, what's wrong with Muslims having children? I don't mind if muslims/blacks/gays/the swedish have more kids than I do, or even end up forming the majority of the country.
I guess it's a patriotic thing.


I'm probably totally missing the point here but I think a privately-owned press a hell of a lot less 'independent' (read; reliable and unbiased) than a publicly owned service (<3 the BBC).
 
1) Obama is a Democrat, not a socialist. Please provide proof before you make a claim, nobody here is going to fall for that ridiculous propaganda.

Like I said, google search Obama and New Party, and if you go to images, it's the first link you find:
http://www.globalnewsdaily.com/New%20Party/images/Obama%20and%20his%20New%20Party%20fellow%20members.JPG

Proving also that liberals don't do research, even when provided what to look up.

2) Obama's priest said something bad for the first time since Obama knew him. How is that even remotely related to how he will act as President?
Stop, and realize what you are saying. Not, the first time; but in fact for twenty years. That's like a million first times. Now ask yourself, why not leave once he said it the first time? Because he must like it. Google search again (although I'm sure you won't) some of Jeremiah's speechs and listen to what he says. Some of them even mention Obama.

Your posts attempting to highlight Mr. Wright's relation to Obama ironically proves your point about how the news takes trivial things and "brainwashes" people by turning them into a big deal. Nothing you listed is even remotely true or relevant.
Really? So if you, for twenty years, regularly go to skinhead meeting, that doesn't making you a skinhead? You can just say, I was only there for the food. No. No, you can't. 'Trivial things' includes his racism and his hatred for white people. And also, the media stoped coverage of it after like one day, so they didn't want it to be a big deal. Remember coverage of him taking off his America pin? No, you don't. Why? Minuscule media coverage.


Obama had gone through the entire Democratic Primary process. He had been followed by the news literally for years before Mrs. Palin burst onto the scene. The fact that Sarah Palin was a complete idiot did not help her case (Africa is a country, being able to see other countries makes me good at foreign policy, etc). It is completely unreasonable for you to think that the media would ignore someone who was as influential to the election as Sarah Palin was, especially after hearing the same platform from the Obama camps over and over during his run against Hilary Clinton. Yeah Obama we get it, change, now what does this newcomer have to say?
My turn: Please provide proof before you make a claim, nobody here is going to fall for that ridiculous propaganda.

And nothing ever came from the Jeremiah Wright coverage because it was completely irrelevant to the Presidential campaign and is still irrelevant to this day. If Obama had come out and said "I agree with him, God DAMN America", then yes it would have been an issue. However, in reality Obama publicly spoke out against Wright, saying that he was both "outraged" and "saddened" by the comments. Can you please make sure that you aren't being a blatant hypocrite while accusing someone else of doing the same thing :(
Read the first thing I said; twenty years is more than enough time to realized you've been listening to a blasphemer.


Wow, Obama reaching out to people who would likely vote for him. Amazing, unprecedented, totally news. I don't know how "some of his supporters are socialist" = "obama is a socialist" but tbh I wasn't actually expecting you to give any solid evidence to your insane claim. Obama won and ran on the Democratic platform, obviously he is not a member of "the New Party". Give me a break. It's one thing to not support him ideologically, but its something dangerous to make up lies like this.
Look at the pretty picture I gave you and deny that, lol.

Yes, I have heard of gun control. "Gun control" != "banning guns". Last week in PA, a man murdered 3 police officers because the media produced a lie about Obama's supposed intent on banning guns. He claimed that he was defending himself before they came for his guns. Gee, I wonder who had a helping hand in that mess? Promoting responsibility with guns is not the same as banning them. The United States has an exponentially higher murder rate than every other industrialized nation, it is something that is completely baffling in today's world.
You said it yourself, the media. Thank you for proving my point :) And Obama is banning guns.



EDIT: Also, more proof for you :)
http://brianakira.files.wordpress.c...c-socialists-of-americas-new-party-1996-a.jpg
 
proof. yes. because a wordpress blog is, ultimately, conclusive.

if you're such a Christian, why the hell are you complaining about wealth redistribution (easier for camel to go through needle than rich man to get into heaven etc), and seem pissed off about the prospect of banning guns (which he's not doing, but I'd love him if he did) seeing as you know, life is special and sacred and holy and guns, well, kill people.

I appear to be more into peace, love, and the value of human life than yourself - and that's not good, because I hate people.
 
Back
Top