Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, July 30, 2005

This sounds like the Andrew Sullivan I read and respected before President Bush came out in opposition to same sex marriages:
That's the title of a post at Sullivan's weblog. Actually it's a post by Judith Apter Klinghoffer who is guest hosting.

I haven't visited Sullivan's page in nearly a year, but when I read that Sullivan had a guest host who wasn't hysterical and badly in need of a sharp smack I just had to check it out.

I used to visit Sullivan's page everyday when he was resolute and confident. But then he began his worried handwringing and he also became one of those people who criticized everything that the administration did in the war on terror. The latter behavior began right at the time that President Bush came out against same sex marriage so that Sullivan's raging looked unprincipled.

I hoped Sullivan would regain his composure. I kept visiting daily, but the constant stream of negativity and defeatism was too much. Not to mention his support for John Kerry. I didn't quit visiting him because he supported Kerry. Instead I was disgusted with Sullivan because I knew that he knew that Kerry would not do the right things in regards to the war on terror. Sullivan knew better, but gay rights trumped our fight against Islamofacism. Never mind that homosexuals were hated and condemned to death by those radical Muslims. Andrew Sullivan was so angry with President Bush's position on gay marriage that he let that one issue affect his overall judgement. Sullivan supported John Kerry and began his sniping at President Bush even though he knew Kerry and the Democrats would seriously endanger our country by changing tactics and fighting the war on terror with arrest warrants and turning our national security decisions over to the French. Sullivan chose a candidate who represented a party that might support gay marriage. Gay marriage versus national security. For Andrew Sullivan the choice was easy. Gay marriage was most important. That was when I stopped visiting Sullivan's page. I was disgusted with the man and remain so to this day.

This is just delightful:
I recently wrote in TCS that the house organ of Britain's socialist chatterati, The Guardian, had hired itself a trophy terrorist sympathizer. I reported the unmasking of a "trainee journalist" who was a member of the Islamo-fascist group Hiz ut-Tahir. This is a radical organization banned throughout most of Europe and much of the Middle East, although it is legal in Britain. Trainee Dilpazier Aslam was writing features about terrorism for The Guardian with his connections to a notorious terrorist propagandist never revealed to the reader, who thought he was reading dispassionate, factual accounts.
This sort of thing happened all the time before blogs came on the scene. The MSM could get away with advocacy journalism while pretending to be non-partisan. The Guardian is busted. CBS was busted last year when it attempted to pass off a fake memo as real. The New York Times was busted last year when it tried to present an old story on a missing weapons cache in Iraq as new to try to swing the presidential election to John Kerry. CNN was busted earlier this year (Hugh Hewitt called CNN "The most busted name in news".) when it's chief news executive, Eason Jordan, verified CNN's institutional leftwing view in it's reporting by stating as fact at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that U.S. soldiers were targeting reporters.

The media could do anything they wanted. There has to be little doubt that these sort of things aren't new. What's new is that the MSM is now having a little light shined on them and it's ugly. 10 or 15 years ago they would have easily gotten away with deceiving their viewers or readers. Not anymore.