Among the many disservices "news" papers perform is the dissemination of untruths, falsehoods, and inaccuracies.
During the dark days of the Clinton presidency, one of his female victims was further victimized by a sleazy ex-boyfriend, who sold the poor woman's photo (in a nude pose) to one of the porn magazines ... which magazine, of course, defended and loved Bill Clinton.
The "news" paper in Dallas published a letter to the editor in which was the statement that the poor woman had posed for the magazine, an allegation already in the news as being false. In fact, the woman had filed suit to prevent the porn rag from printing her photo, but the court -- and remember it was the Clinton era -- ruled against her.
(That poor woman sure did have bad luck in the men with whom she was acquainted, sleazebags of the worst kind.)
The paper knew -- had to have known -- the statement was false, but printed it anyway.
The Chattanooga Times has followed docilely along in that tradition, though in a less offensive matter: It published a letter, Wednesday, 28 January, from one Walter M. Benton of Signal Mountain, titled "Right-wing dogma spreads falsehoods" (boy, talk about pot calling kettle ...), in which is this paragraph:
"When asked about President Obama, Limbaugh said, 'I hope he fails!' This statement is undoubtedly the vilest line that any radio or TV 'personality' could state! Think about it! This is our country!(sic)" (And that many exclamation points indicates a limited intelligence.)
Though Rush Limbaugh is hardly our favorite political philosopher, even he deserves to be treated fairly. By an odd coincidence I happened to hear the segment of his program in which he made that comment.
The context was, if (or since) Obama's plan is to increase big government and lessen individual freedom, "I hope he fails."
And that is a perfectly rational position.
And a perfectly American position.
In the next day's paper, on the Free Press side, letter writer Ben M. Wolk, of Fort Oglethorpe, responded, his letter being titled "Limbaugh comment taken out of context."
Mr. Wolk made two statements I want to repeat: "If President Obama ever promotes individual freedoms and marketplace solutions, I will happily support him" and "Secondhand information is seldom reliable."
The so-called "news" media have made a scarecrow and strawman out of Rush, using and mis-using him to scare their lock-step followers (who must be dying off or getting intelligent, since newspaper circulation is falling steeply) and trying to portray him as some kind of bell-wether, at least for the Republican Party or the conservative bloc.
Rush might not be, despite his book title, always, or even often, right, but he is at least as honest and reliable as the "news" media, and probably much more so than the Times Free Press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why do you assume that women who slept with Clinton were his "victims"?
ReplyDeleteGosh, this would deserve a lot more respect if it were signed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I, unlike Bill Clinton, will act like a gentleman and respond in a gentlemanly manner.
Even a voluntary sex partner of Bill Clinton might properly be considered a victim if she were tricked or pressured into the act.
However, the victims I referred to were those who were not voluntary.
Now I must ask why you assume I meant anything else?
but why do you think women needed to be tricked or pressured to have sex with bill clinton? i think there are many more women who wanted to sleep with him than there are women who he "took advantage" of. women like men who have power.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, there are many women, and maybe even some men, who aren't eager or even willing to hop in the sack with just anybody, perhaps especially with some sleazy guy whose only attraction might be power.
ReplyDeleteI mean, even a guy as cute as I am would need to establish a relationship first.
Clinton was accused of, among other things, exposing himself to unwilling viewers, forcibly fondling some, and at least one forcible rape.
That he is, or at least was, a sexual predator, a drug abuser, serial liar, and had other very unattractive characteristics would surely turn off most women ... unless I am just naive.
Those qualities should turn off all except the most hopelessly addicted to basking in an aura of power, which is a sickness in itself.
Therefore, at least some women who had minimal vestiges or taste or morals would need to be pressured or tricked.
Those with more than minimal vestiges would just say no and flee.