All one need do to conclude without doubt that the mainstream media is working on behalf of Islamic terror and against the Judeo-Christian West is to compare and contrast the story The New York Times ran in the wake of Nidal Hassan’s massacre at Ft. Hood with that of Anders Behring Breivik's carnage in Oslo. In the forty-plus paragraph story on the Muslim Hassan's murder of 13 American soldiers, the killer’s religion was not mentioned once. Not once. This despite the fact that Hassan had been well known for giving a Power Point presentations on Islam’s holy requirement to commit mass murder of infidels. It was also widely reported that he shouted the cry of Islamic terrorists -- “Allahu Akbar!!!” -- as he opened fire. He even had a business card – a business card for goodness' sake! – which identified him as a “Solider of Allah.”
How many paragraphs into the story did it take The New York Times to mention Breivik’s supposed Christianity? None. It was in the headline: “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist.”
Clearly this is a double standard. But the Times would deny that it is anything other than honest and impartial. The editorial board would swear the paper has no pro-Muslim/anti-Christian agenda. And, in a sense, they’d be telling the truth.
Yes, there are folks in the mainstream media who see their mission in life as promoting Islamic terror and helping to overthrow the Judeo-Christian West. Their purpose in covering up Hassan’s jihadist agenda while highlighting whatever links to Christianity Breivik might have had, then, is obvious: They want to tamp down hatred for the folks they want to see win and to drum up hatred for the folks they want to see destroyed.
But not everyone at the Times is a calculating America hater. Nor can we accept the notion that all the earnest journalists who followed the lead of The New York Times in how they reported this (and other related) stories are engaged in a conscious effort to tear down Western civilzation and promote a global caliphate. So why do they do it?
Much of the answer can be found in a eulogy that Barbara Walters gave on the night that her colleague Peter Jennings died in 2005. Walters said, “What made Peter great is that he knew there’s no such thing as the truth.”
To thinking people, this statement is mind-boggling. After all, isn’t the journalist’s job to report to his readers/viewers the truth about what’s happening in places the reader/viewer can’t be? It also provokes the question: If Jennings “knew” there was no such thing as the truth, then by what criterion did he select the stories he would report on or keep covered up each night and the facts he would use or reject in the telling of that story? And the answer is this:
Jennings was not an evil man. He probably didn’t want to see Islamic fascism take over the world, America turned into part of the Islamic caliphate or the Jews of Israel marched into the sea. He wanted to be a good journalist. He knew that a good journalist is someone who can convey the truth to his followers and since the truth is that there is no truth, Jennings saw his job as nothing other than to manipulate the stories to undermine the things that his viewers recognized as true.
The vast majority of folks in the mainstream media see no problem with what is obviously not only a double standard, but a pro-Islamic spin to their reporting, because they don’t believe their job as reporters is to convey the truth of any given story; it is to use these stories to convey the greater truth -- the fact that there is no truth. To do this they must cover up as much Islamic terror as possible, exaggerate (and sometimes even invent) “Christian” and “Jewish” terror until what is recognized as true by their followers is no longer recognized as the truth.
This is the mentality that leads the modern liberal (in journalism and elsewhere) to manipulate stories against the United States. The misdeeds of a handful of night guards at an obscure prison for terrorists (Abu Ghraib) -- misdeeds in which no one was killed or seriously wounded – would garner about a one-day story, perhaps an eighth-of-a-page, maybe somewhere around A-26 on its merits. But, as something that could be used to undermine the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans (i.e. that America is good and our military great), the value of the story to the modern liberal journalist jumped so that not only was it a front page story, it remained on the front page of The New York Times for forty-four days. Why? Because the purpose wasn’t to tell the truth about the wrong-doings at Abu Ghraib, it was to tell the bigger truth, that there is no truth, and to undermine the recognition of the truth by their readers and viewers.
And this is the same “thinking” that sees the Mainstream Media spin their stories against the Jews of Israel. It is hard for any decent person not to recognize that the liberal democracy of Israel, with its freedom of speech and freedom of religion, its minority rights and, of course, its accomplishments – especially in such obvious contrast to the corrupt, terrorist dictators now mowing down their own people by the thousands – that Israel is good and the Arab/Muslim world is, well, let’s say less so.
The obvious anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish spin of the Mainstream Media is not due to some double standard. They have but a single standard: if it is good, right and successful, the Modern Liberal attacks it, if it is evil, failed and wrong, the Mainstream Media works on its behalf or, as Thomas Sowell rightly recognized, “That which is held in esteem qualifies to be their target; that which is held in disdain, qualifies to be their target.” Americans rightly hold America, Christianity and Judaism in high esteem so the Mainstream Media attacks these things; we hold Islamic fascism in disdain so it has become their “mascot.”