I participated in a conference over the weekend, which included Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Maj. Gen. Jack Singlaub, constitutional champion, John de la Brown, former member of Parliament, and a group of other distinguished experts. During one of the breaks, an audience member approached me with one of those questions to which there is no simple answer. It has been a re-occurring topic on my radio talk show: "Why doesn't the main stream media report important significant news?" I have asked that question myself ... often. However, depending the day of the week, the phase of the moon and a gaggle of other variables, the answers vary.
Last week, Senator Inhofe noted, "On March 15, I began my speech by asking the American people to listen as I told them 'a story of espionage, conspiracy, deception, and cover-up -- a story with life and death implications for millions of Americans -- a story about national security and a President and an administration that deliberately chose to put national security at risk, while telling the people everything was fine.' In the three months since I made these statements, none has been refuted."
So why isn't ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the others all over this stuff like white on rice? Why has the same industry that was relentless in exploiting charges against Judge Clarence Thomas and Sen. Bob Packwood, failed to follow up on credible rape allegations against an elected official with a documented history of sexual impropriety and chronic lying?
Some claim the mainstream malfeasance is a direct function of a grand socialist conspiracy. I don't buy that. I really don't believe the failures of American reportage is organized, manipulated, and managed -- at least not directly. There is a quote attributed to David Rockefeller, which may be apocryphal or real. Allegedly, it was transcribed from a Bilderberg meeting in June 1991 in Baden-Baden, Germany. Several years ago, I even heard a tape of the infamous quote, and I'm still reluctant to accept its authenticity. However, in the patriot, Constitutionalists, and Libertarian communities it is legend.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years." He went on to explain: "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
I don't know ... it makes for good talk show fodder, and it sure sounds consistent with the actions of the mainstream. It offers a capsulated "reasonable" rationalization for what many believe and/or want to believe. I just have difficulty accepting David would actually say it ... much less believe it. Besides, the world is not more sophisticated, and is not prepared to march united toward anything let alone "world government." Sure the "controllers" want that ultimate control. However, globalist's wannabe control is diminishing, not consolidating. "Supernational sovereignty"? The globalists don't care Jack-spit about any kind of sovereignty. Control to manipulate profits ... sure. As for the alleged "national autodetermination practices in past centuries," the international bankers know better than anyone else, that there hasn't been "autodetermination" since civilization moved beyond autonomous villages.
Management of the mainstream media are my contemporaries. We went to college in the '60s. A lot of the boomer news managers suffer from the same moral, philosophic, and ethical flaws of this administration that would gag a maggot. Although Bill Clinton may be the epitome of moral, ethical, and narcissistic excesses, in varying degrees those who decide what to report -- and not report -- share a kindred spirit.
It has been widely reported that most of the beltway media types voted for Clinton. The personal support for the president arguably has tainted professional judgment. Support for the president and defense of the president kinda validates their own closely guarded sense of self worth. Maybe ... .
Last week Senator Inhofe said, "I fully realize that the majority of Americans will not believe me. They have continued to believe our president even after he has demonstrated over and over that he has no regard for the truth." Why does he say that? Because the only critical voices are positioned as partisan. Gutless politicians who KNOW and are privately appalled by the conduct of their "leader" maintain the code of silence. They protect and give sustenance to the criminal for fear of being tainted by his crimes. In so doing, they are actually compounding their own crimes.
The Cox report has revealed the Clinton administration has in fact helped China in its technology acquisition efforts or made it easier for them to commit thefts and espionage.
Although the news nabobs have been AWOL, the Cox Report and, more recently, the Rudman Report have revealed a data dump of information on how the Clinton administration has eviscerated national security in order to follow its delinquent foreign policies and egocentric domestic political agendas.
Inhofe notes that "on the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies -- relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China's violation of arms control agreements, and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others -- thus harming U.S. national security." That decision was Clinton's Rubicon. AND it should have been the red flag (or starting flag) for the media defenders of the indefensible. The deliberate and arrogant policy decision to remove oversight from both the Defense Department and State Department and transfer authority to his Commerce Department bagman SHOULD have fired up ANY alleged newsperson. Even a self-absorbed fraud like Jerry Rivers (a.k.a. Geraldo Rivera) could have smelled the stink of that decision.
Meanwhile, there is the continuing cover-up. Pick a euphemism: disingenuous, duplicitous, less than forthcoming, selective memory loss. Excrement by any other name is ... well, you know what it is. This ongoing campaign to hide from Congress and the American people the real and significant damage that has been (and allegedly continues to be) done to national security, and the Clinton administration's central role in allowing the volume of it to happen on their watch, is obstruction.
Back in March when Inhofe started speaking out so aggressively (and before his airplane mysteriously lost a prop in flight) he spoke of "six proven incontrovertible facts." They bear repeating:
The media monopoly is either going to have to fill the vacuum they created, or allow the Internet and talk radio to flourish unchallenged. Ultimately (to the media mavens), money talks and BS walks. When some network bean counter has his or her epiphany and realizes that the erosion of their market share is not the function of demographics, but rather the mainstream's arrogant myopia and self-serving subjectivity, "maybe" they will fix what needs fixing.
the mainstream acknowledges their diminishing return is a direct function
of lousy news judgment and an abandonment of objectivity, Talk radio, WorldNetDaily,
and other online services offering what is ignored by the networks -- will
continue to grow.