How do you like the look of enableate?

Why is this not a top story on CNN. All im asking for is neutrality in reporting. Is that to much to ask for?

This evening I pulled this headline from CNN.

The blurb, actually acknowledges that some might think this militant group is using CNN as an agent of propaganda. However, CNN assures us that the story is so important that it must be shown (the word they use is ‘told’ but it’s a video) even if it is propaganda for one of our military’s enemy. Do you know what story was not important enough to be shown?

The Mohammad Cartoons

CNN will happily accept propaganda from our enemies that shows their militant snipers killing US troops, but refuses to show six rather poorly drawn cartoons depicting Mohammad

Wow…..I’m not sure there are words to characterize this.

This arouses strong emotions in me. It makes me angry and sad at the same time. Angry because you have a news organization that is complicity working with the enemy of our military just to show a story they have arbitrarily determined to be of importance. Please excuse the language, but who the fuck are they to make this determination?

As the anger wears off I feel sadness from a perceived sense of betrayal from those Americans working at CNN deciding to show our enemy’s propaganda of their snipers killing American soldiers while at the same time refusing to show cartoons of Mohammad. Some question their patriotism and while I have never been a great advocator of that position, its really hard not to when these Americans find cartoons to be more sacred then American soldiers.

CNN’s zeal to use enemy propaganda to show American soldiers being killed coupled with their refusal to show those cartoons implies that the editors responsible for these decisions gives greater value to Muslims over American citizens. I say greater because while they protect Muslim victims of a potential backlash from militant fundamentalist outraged by showing these cartoons, the same editors show no concern for the effect their sniper story could potentially have on emboldening insurgents. Furthermore, it could play a role in weakening the political will of this country to complete the work in Iraq. The US pulling out of Iraq before the nascent government has stabilized the country is most certainly a victory for those that provided this piece of propaganda to CNN. Stated this way, charging those responsible with treason just doesn’t seem that unreasonable. At the very least, it will force the MSM to be more judicious about what they should and shouldn’t show when the US is actively engaged in war.

I can respect a news organization so committed to publishing an accurate story that they are willing to endure intense criticism when they use controversial material to make their reports faithful to the story. Thus, in principle, I don’t object to the editors of CNN deciding to use our enemy’s propaganda to tell a story about how strategies in Iraq are changing. What I do object to is variation in commitment to accuracy as a function of the editor’s political beliefs. It seems very clear that CNN’s commitment to accuracy relies heavily on the editor’s political beliefs.

Their lack of commitment to ruthlessly covering Iraq accurately leads to incessantly covering the death of soldiers and civilians during the conflict. Its caused them to overplay the coverage of the few American soldiers who have committed crimes while in Iraq. They cover only the destruction of markets, houses, and mosques. They publish reports of US officials anonymously reporting that things are going poorly in Iraq. They disproportionately use experts unsympathetic to the war effort as definitive authorities on its inevitable failure. They summarize congressional hearings to emphasize the possibility of civil war. They grant strong coverage to a mother speaking out against the war when her son was killed in action.

If CNN is committed to ruthlessly covering the war accurately they would most certainly have all the stories above, but also included are stories about the transformation of Iraq from despot to democracy. They would have strong coverage of individual soldiers performing great acts of heroism to protect fellow soldiers and Iraq civilians. They would show stories on the reconstruction of power plants, schools and hospitals. They would find US officials anonymously reporting on positive developments on the war. They would counter balance expert testimony by bringing in experts that argue in support of the war. Reports on congressional hearings would give coverage commensurate with the attention given to each topic discussed. They would enable parents of fallen soldiers in support of war to speak about it.

Alas, CNN has no interest in pursuing an accurate portrait of Iraq. For this reason, their decision to use some controversial material while censoring other material undermines their claims of neutrality. Clearly those making decisions about what stories to pursue and publish reveals their political disposition regarding the war. I’m tempted to aver that these editors are attempting to get their political will expressed by influencing political opinion of the war. In this way, they are using a kind of coercion independent of the state to force their will on others. However, it’s more likely they are unaware of their bias and have no overarching schemes to circumvent the political will of the majority.

It’s an open question how one manages a press hostile to what was at one point the people’s political will. Making this more complicated is the fact that our current enemy is very familiar with our political process and seeks to exploit into it by getting a sympathetic press to favor their position. For while I doubt most editors wish to see the insurgents win, its hard to deny the fact that victory is defined for both the editors and the insurgents as getting enough political will to get our military to leave Iraq. In this way, editors and insurgents share a common goal. Coverage sympathetic to the editor’s views necessarily favors the terrorist strategy by convincing the public that the war cannot be won.

I would probably favor legal action in cases where it can be proven that editors choose to shape their coverage of the war for the explicit purpose of benefiting the insurgents. However, on the whole I reject government regulation of the press even when the press seems hell bent on supporting anti-American forces when they cover the war in such a partisan way. A government with the power to censor the media is probably much more dangerous than a press easily manipulated by hostile forces because they share similar goals. My libertarian disposition would even forbid legislation granting the government the power to even investigate editors that might be intentionally shaping news to favor the insurgents.

Since using the government as a censor is out of the question we must, as citizens, convince the press that it’s their job to cover this war as neutral as possible. We must remind them that always covering the war in unfavorable terms only helps those we wish to defeat. They should be assured that reporting the ugliness of war will not be bring about condemnation so long as there is even handed commitment to accuracy in the coverage. The press should acknowledge it bias and work hard to minimize its impact on its coverage of the news. Press members should be convinced that the most important virtue in covering a story should be neutrality not supporting their political disposition.

Converting the skeptical press of the virtues of the Iraq war should not be executed through government coercion, but cogent argumentation for the restoration of neutrality in press coverage. It may be the case that the Iraq war has no virtue, but that’s for the American people to decide only after the press frees itself from its partisan bondage, and exercises our sacred right to free press by providing us citizens with the vital information we need to make such an important decision.

Mary Katharine Ham compares Harvard and Columbia liberal students arbitrary application of free speech. At Columbia a conservative group’s free speech was stifled while the previous president of Iran, Khatami was allowed to openly speak about the execution of homosexuals in his country. In comparing the school papers she writes:

The Crimson refers to Khatami in somewhat more gentle terms than the Daily Spectator used for the Minutemen. The editorial page editors concede that he has a “twisted” world view, but refer to him in the headline as only “objectionable.” They called the event “remarkable” in that it sparked debate on an important issue.

The headline is extremely polite to the Iranian guest: “Khatami Deserved a Forum.”

Would that we could see such an unequivocal headline from a campus paper when referring to fellow American citizens who wish to patrol the Southern border and have immigration laws enforced. Of course, those views are “repugnant.”

The free speech of heads of state that refuse to give those rights to their own people must be respected while citizens that hold a dissenting view to your postion must be squelched. What kind of idiotic logic is that? For that record neither voice should be censored but if you have to censor its a no brainer who gets muted.

Seriously, when was the last time a conservative student body booed off a liberal while throwing things at him. I hope my kids learn to be tolerant like liberals.

The board of trustees at Dartmouth disliked several potential board member candidates that were threatening to uphold freedom of speech and high academic standards. To remedy the problem they completely changed the rules granting the board much stronger control over determining the potential candidates. One of the radical candidates, you know the ones in favor of free speech, that thanks to the new rules finds himself shut out, argues that the near absolute power of a University’s board is weakening. These members have much power because they control much of what the alumni knows about the university. This power is being drained by technology at is provides alumni members accesses to information about their university independent of the board members. He writes:

The new model is still taking shape, but a couple of its features have already become clear. One is the ease with which technology now makes it possible for alumni to circumvent the clumsy propaganda in alumni magazines to gather reliable, first-hand information about the state of affairs on their campuses. Perform a Google search on “Dartmouth,” for example, and you’ll discover that all the student newspapers appear online and that blogs cover every aspect of life in Hanover–sports, campus politics, and even college architecture.

The second feature of the new model follows irresistibly from the first. If alumni are able to learn as much about their alma maters as can administrators, then why shouldn’t they have a say in running the places?

The democraticization of information has begun and will continue to play a crucial role in enabling individuals to make informed decsions at the local level. In this case, what’s wrong with letting informed contributors have some say in the policy and procedures of that institute? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seriously.

Look here to see their other kick ass comerical.

Any immigrant with this attitude regarding welfare understands the spirit of this country and will be gladly welecomed by me.

Other immigrants say they were simply embarrassed.

“The Mexican man is macho. He doesn’t want to come to this country and beg,” said Alfonso Chavez, the Community Action Partnership’s outreach coordinator. “I tell them this is a program that will help the children. The kids are American-born, and they have a right to this program.”

God Bless those with a strong work ethic. Its their fruits that support those that lack one.

Something about this movie strikes me as being very life affirming.

This article is completely objective.

Instapundit links to an essay by Edmund Phelps.

One of the things he writes is about one of the possible reasons Old Europe is so opposed to capitalism:

Why, then, if the “downside” is so exaggerated, is capitalism so reviled in Western Continental Europe? It may be that elements of capitalism are seen by some in Europe as morally wrong in the same way that birth control or nuclear power or sweatshops are seen by some as simply wrong in spite of the consequences of barring them. And it appears that the recent street protesters associate business with established wealth; in their minds, giving greater latitude to businesses would increase the privileges of old wealth. By an “entrepreneur” they appear to mean a rich owner of a bank or factory, while for Schumpeter and Knight it meant a newcomer, a parvenu who is an outsider. A tremendous confusion is created by associating “capitalism” with entrenched wealth and power. The textbook capitalism of Schumpeter and Hayek means opening up the economy to new industries, opening industries to start-up companies, and opening existing companies to new owners and new managers. It is inseparable from an adequate degree of competition. Monopolies like Microsoft are a deviation from the model.

This seems to be a great explanation as to why and Darwin disagre often about capitalism. I have in mind the entrepenuer while he has in mind the fat cat.

Phelps ends up arguing that:

I conclude that capitalism is justified–normally by the expectable benefits to the lowest-paid workers but, failing that, by the injustice of depriving entrepreneurial types (as well as other creative people) of opportunities for their self-expression.

This very much is an argument I have been tyring to make. He argues that a Rawlian sense of social justice can be analyzed in two ways. The traditional sense asks each person to imagine not knowing their socio-economic place and then asks them what socio-economic status they would prefer. Since no one would like to be placed in socio-economic status of poverty there is justification for redistribution. The idea is that when we become ignorant of our status in society we prefer the fairest placement Thus redistribution is justified as it acts as means to bring fairness to those born to a lower socio-economic status, the state we would all prefer we when we are not benefiting from our higher status.

Phelps argues that if we take the same idea but instead of talk about in terms of self realization you come out with a very different outcome. Let’s say now you are ignorant of how motivated and capable you are accomplishing your goals. That being the case, if you assume you were quite capable you would want the least amount of restrictions on preventing you from realizing your goals. Thus in the same way redistribution is justified, one can argue capitalism is justified.