A Barking Moonbat
Caught Hugh Hewitt on CNN, along with Nic Robertson of CNN and Mike Ware of Time magazine.
Of course, Hugh's not a barking moonbat, nor is Nic Robertson, who pointed out the difficulties reporters confront in Iraq, given that they can't roam freely to report on stories at will, given the dangerous conditions.
But Time's Ware came off as absolutely dripping with hostility and contempt for the mission in Iraq -- and skirted the edge of asserting that Iraqis had been better off under Saddam, because now they had to wait in line for gas and do without electricity from time to time. He was, in fact, living proof of the relevance of the segment, which discussed the extent to which the MSM is underreporting good news in Iaraq to the point that some of its members seem positively invested in American defeat there.
Keep an eye on Radioblogger, because if there's a transcript, no doubt that's where it will be posted.
Update: Is anyone surprised to learn, according to this CNN account, that Michael Ware has served as a "go-between for anti-Western militants and the media"? They apparently picked wisely, for he asserts that "It [the war] has two sides." The linked piece makes it clear that Ware understands the propaganda value of insurgent videos, but it doesn't sound like that knowledge has deterred him -- Ware implicitly admits that he's been helping the terrorists "get their message out," and "worries" that he may have gotten "too close to the insurgents." Mr. Ware, I think your worries are justified.
According to Atrios, Ware has been a guest on the hard-left radio program "Morning Sedition". Read more about Ware's "fair and balanced" coverage here.
He's a darling of the far left, and no wonder. The only wonder is that Time would allow him to cover the war as a supposed "objective" journalist. And then they want to know why the American public doesn't trust the MSM?
Of course, Hugh's not a barking moonbat, nor is Nic Robertson, who pointed out the difficulties reporters confront in Iraq, given that they can't roam freely to report on stories at will, given the dangerous conditions.
But Time's Ware came off as absolutely dripping with hostility and contempt for the mission in Iraq -- and skirted the edge of asserting that Iraqis had been better off under Saddam, because now they had to wait in line for gas and do without electricity from time to time. He was, in fact, living proof of the relevance of the segment, which discussed the extent to which the MSM is underreporting good news in Iaraq to the point that some of its members seem positively invested in American defeat there.
Keep an eye on Radioblogger, because if there's a transcript, no doubt that's where it will be posted.
Update: Is anyone surprised to learn, according to this CNN account, that Michael Ware has served as a "go-between for anti-Western militants and the media"? They apparently picked wisely, for he asserts that "It [the war] has two sides." The linked piece makes it clear that Ware understands the propaganda value of insurgent videos, but it doesn't sound like that knowledge has deterred him -- Ware implicitly admits that he's been helping the terrorists "get their message out," and "worries" that he may have gotten "too close to the insurgents." Mr. Ware, I think your worries are justified.
According to Atrios, Ware has been a guest on the hard-left radio program "Morning Sedition". Read more about Ware's "fair and balanced" coverage here.
He's a darling of the far left, and no wonder. The only wonder is that Time would allow him to cover the war as a supposed "objective" journalist. And then they want to know why the American public doesn't trust the MSM?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home