Beat the Press
By Chris Weinkopf
American Enterprise
All the News That Fits Their Spin
Fake National Guard documents. Missing explosives. The draft. During the 2004 campaign, no story that made the President look bad was too petty, too contrived, or too false to command the attention of the establishment media.
Yet there was a key, last-minute development that reflected none too kindly on John Kerry. And it aroused almost no press attention whatsoever.
In the video he released just before the election, Osama bin Laden was rather clear about which candidate he wanted to lead the free world. It sure wasn't George W. Bush, whom he savaged personally and at great length. According to some experts, OBL even threatened red states with attacks should they back the President.
But the establishment media that swooned over the warnings of Michael Moore, and celebrated Bruce Springsteen's endorsement of Kerry, did its utmost to ignore these warnings and deny this endorsement by the world's premier terrorist. It was almost as though ABC's Mark Halperin--author of the infamous we-don't-need-to-be-objective-because-Bush-is-a-bigger-liar-than-Kerry memo--issued another advisory, this one directed to all the Fourth Estate: If anyone asks, Osama has no preference in this race. He's an "undecided."
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was one of many journalists who seemed to get that memo. "There is...a new Osama bin Laden videotape," Olbermann told viewers. "And in it, he does not apparently take sides in the Presidential election."
Sure. Bin Laden, who harbors strong feelings about the 1187 Battle of Hattin, has no opinion as to who will spend the next four years waging war against him. That's why he risked life and limb to put his video out four days before the election. That's why he spoke directly to the American public and not, as is his usual approach, to other Islamist fanatics.
That's why bin Laden's rant picked up every DNC talking point that could possibly make its way to the caves of Pakistan--the Patriot Act squashes civil liberties, Bush stole the Florida election, Republicans are greedy, Iraq was invaded for oil, Bush is a liar, U.N. inspections were working so the war was unjustified, Halliburton is profiteering, even the Fahrenheit 9/11 claim that in continuing to read My Pet Goat to schoolchildren for a few minutes after the World Trade Center was hit, Bush proved he is an inadequate Commander in Chief.
The world's leading terrorist recited a stunningly complete list of the John Kerry/Michael Moore/Howard Dean mantras. And he was neutral? Sure. Just like the League of Women Voters, Rock the Vote, or the mainline media itself.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute quickly offered a differing translation of bin Laden's speech. It noted that he warned very specifically that "Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.... A rational man would not neglect his security, property, or home for the sake of the liar in the White House."
A follow-up on bin Laden's climactic warning sentence appeared on the al-Qaeda-linked Web site Al-Qal'a: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately.... It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as President has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy.... Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people."
Big news, no? America's No. 1 enemy threatens violence to affect the election. Talk about voter intimidation!
So why did nearly all media outlets look the other way? The New York Post gave MEMRI's scoop a short story, but otherwise bin Laden's crude attempt to shape the election was given almost no attention.
America is not Spain. Americans don't capitulate to threats; we like leaders who engender fear and loathing in terrorists; we're skeptical of those supported by our enemies. Sensing this, the media establishment suppressed bin Laden's true message. In doing so, they ultimately did his bidding--depressing the Bush vote, albeit not enough to make a difference.
But their real purpose was only to do Kerry's bidding, whether by reporting bogus news stories, or burying real ones. |
