04/06/2009 (12:25 pm)
In a remarkable effort to maintain the illusion that George W. Bush ruined the US’ reputation around the world but Our Savior Obama has restored it, the New York Times produced a truly remarkable story over the weekend about riots accompanying the 60th anniversary NATO summit in Strasbourg, France.
Notice the title: “Riots Erupt Near Bridge That Links Two Countries.” What an attention-grabber, eh? Who’s rioting? Where? Why? Who Cares?
Notice the page on which it appears: front of the Europe section, so it will not garner much attention in the US.
Notice the day on which it gets published: Saturday, lowest ebb for newspapers. It’s gone by Monday, even from the Global Edition.
And if you read it, pay attention to the fact that it does not mention at all: US President Barack Obama was there, apparently attempting to drum up support for the US mission in Afghanistan. The Times story was unclear, but these are probably the same anti-war protesters that used to show up wherever President Bush appeared in Europe. Some 30,000 protesters gathered outside the NATO summit conference in Strasbourg, France and across the river in Germany. Arsonists among the protesters set fire to at least two hotels; this was a very serious riot. Chinese news services covered it. The only indication we received was from local testimony published on milblog Mudville Gazette, which noted that President Obama did not divert his team for the five minute drive it would have taken him to reach the Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany and visit wounded American GIs there.
President Obama’s presence was also protested explicitly in Turkey. The Associated Press reported on his speech, which was not very well received, and Yahoo News dutifully buried the photo of the protesters among news photos in a separate location.
Apparently The Magic Obama has not solved our image overseas after all. Maybe it wasn’t ever really about how stupid George W. Bush was. What a surprise.
Hat tip to Instapundit.
1 Comment »
Comment by RM
A week ago I compared the situation we were in when Reagan took office with the one we are heading into now, mentioning a monolithic liberal press.
One of the main reasons we may face more difficult problems now than then is the media. Then it was uniformly liberal, true and George Will and William Buckley were lonely voices in the wilderness.
However, I believe there was at least some sort of sense of effort on the media’s part to get to the facts and present them, and an acknowledgement that reporting the facts was their primary mission. The liberal spin was more of a natural selection process, they tended to favor stories that favored leftists.
I am convinced that now, reporting the facts has become secondary to a more activist agenda: to recast our society in a leftist mold and to do everything they can to further this agenda. Stories that further this template are given wide coverage with full collusion and knowledge of how they will impact readers’ perceptions, stories that do not are spiked or deliberately buried with the same cynicism.
And notwithstanding the rise of the internet, I think this is a large part of why so many print media are failing. They have abrogated their mission and have become little more than house organs for the Democrat party since it is the vehicle for radical change and their worldview.