One gets tired of saying so, but the mainstream media (MSM) are increasingly acting not just unwittingly, but deliberately, as the front men for the American left.
By “front man,” I mean the generally accepted connotation for that phrase, as given by WordNet: “a person used as a cover for some questionable activity.”
Ask just about anybody at random (I did so), and the answer will be the same: The expression has a negative connotation. In effect, it means the person in question is knowingly carrying out a fraud of some sort.
Now look at the headline of the lead story on the front page of the Feb. 7 Washington Post: “General Is Front Man For Bush’s Iraq Plan.” Subhead: “Petraeus Making Hard Sell to Congress.”
Not a bit of bias there, right? No attempt to cast aspersions on the general’s character at all. A slanted storyline from the Post? Perish the thought.
The story itself, by the estimable Peter Baker, was a reasonably balanced account of how Gen. Petraeus is increasingly being called upon, because of Petraeus’ own sterling reputation, to defend Bush’s troop surge. And yes, Baker did begin paragraph 10 thusly: “Instead, Petraeus has become the front man of sorts.” But the “of sorts” itself was an indication that the phrase was used in a certain context — a context which in and of itself did not call the general’s integrity into question.
In isolation, the apparently pejorative headline then could be written off as an example of sloppiness by a headline writer. But the slanted headline did not occur in isolation. It came within a week of the Post headline that all but yelled that Republicans had blocked debate in the Senate in Iraq. Supposedly, they did so by refusing to vote for cloture on a move by Democratic Leader Harry Reid that would have excluded a popular Republican alternative from being considered.
Memo to Post: If you vote against cloture, you are by very definition voting to extend debate, not block it. Of course, when Democrats were breaking 214 years of precedent by voting against cloture on a series of Bush’s judicial nominees, all the papers back then credited the Democrats with extending a debate that Republicans wanted to — you guessed it — block.
So no matter whether Republicans are against cloture or for it, and no matter what the actual definition of the word, it is the Republicans who get accused of stifling debate.
In the days that followed, Post news story after news story and column after column repeated the lie that the Republicans had blocked debate. Think about it: Reid, not Republicans, would not even allow a proposal to be discussed on the floor of the Senate. How, again, was it Reid who was painted as the champion of debate?
Post reporter Shailagh Murray might somehow plead confusion on Senate procedure. But in her front-page story on Feb. 8, she veered into what can only be described as deliberate dishonesty, a la Maureen Dowd, by monkeying around with a quote.
Consider the actual testimony the previous day by Gen. Peter Pace: “There’s also no doubt in my mind that just like we look out to our potential enemies to see division in their ranks and take comfort from division in their ranks, that others, who don’t have a clue how democracy works, who are our enemies, would seek to take comfort from their misunderstanding of the dialogue in this country.”
Note that the main point is that American enemies in Iraq are heartened by the tenor of the debate here in the United States.
Now see how Murray splices several quotes and badly inverts the one about a “clue” in a way that makes not having a clue the main point rather than the explanation of why the enemies are heartened. From Murray: “‘There’s no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.’ Marine Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they “don’t have a clue how democracy works.’”
Despite Murray’s portrayal of the testimony, Pace wasn’t dismissing the enemies’ comfort because they didn’t have a clue, he was explaining that because they don’t have a clue, they gain a boost in morale that is dangerous to American troops.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?