JUNE 4, 2001
Seeing what is plain
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

It recently struck me that more and more, fewer and fewer people seem prepared to accept as gospel the "official" government story of almost anything. What once upon a time was minority cynicism seems to have become epidemic -- and with good cause.

Why is it that Americans (at least those with multiple brain cells and not totally dumbed down by government programs, outcome-based everything, MTV, and politically-correct sitcoms ad nauseum) eschew the "official" government version of high-profile issues and incidents?

A listener in New Oxford, Pennsylvania recently wrote: "You brought up on your Friday show about going back to Kennedy and Foster deaths. Doesn't it seem strange that there is only one person responsible for all these crimes? With Kennedy, it was Oswald -- who was found immediately in a theater. Richard Jewel was found immediately and McVeigh was found immediately. Strange ain't it. But every time it happens there is only one person found. There has been a lot of criticism of J. Edgar Hoover on how he ran the FBI but I felt safer with him than I do now."

In the second column I wrote for WorldNetDaily back in January 1998 entitled "Selective reporting and the state of the nation," I noted: "Aubrey T. DeVera once observed, 'Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is plain.'" Notwithstanding the obvious liberal bias of the mainstream media, many of us continue to wonder at what point will either embarrassment or territorial imperative compel the dominant media to return to the journalistic foundation of actually reporting Who, What, When and Where, rather than obfuscating the Why and the How, and/or committing mortal sins of omission.

A chronic discussion I have had with callers to my radio talk show concerns fairness, and the ability (or inability) of people to "... not want to be confused with facts which contradict their preconceived opinions." People incorrectly assume that the mainstream is reporting objectively. They are not. Hell, just look at the debacle of Election 2000 and the caffeine-induced babbling of Dan Rather, and first person ("we" referring to Democrats) slip of Tom Browkaw. I recall in 1997, the California EPA actually had the unbridled audacity to order scientists to destroy data which contradicted or did not conform to policy.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Regime defenders of the indefensible, critics of those who had reported and commented on the myriad Clinton administration "problems" claimed there was "nothing to these unwarranted charges." And still revelations from the Gore-Chernomyrdin finesse to Pardongate continue to unravel. Yet another example of failing to acknowledge the voluminous abundance of facts, which contradict the partisan, preconceived opinion.

Indictments, jail sentences, and the ever-popular game of "Name the UNindicted conspirator" (second in popularity only to "Name the indicted Cabinet member").

WorldNetDaily has been sued for $165-million basically for a series written by Tony Hays & Charles Thompson which arguably (although I don't think it is even debatable any longer) cost Al Gore the presidency.

In 1998, I asked when "some" Democrat would rise and reject defense of the indefensible. Well with Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and the rest of the usual suspects anxious to muck up the U.S. Senate, there ain't no way, nohow that is likely to happen. The Senate is completing the transition from "Camelot" to "The Sopranos."

Again in 1998, I asked, "When will the presumed keepers of the Fourth Estate acknowledge their responsibility and report a full and complete journal of the facts, and permit the people the luxury of making their own fully informed decisions?"

Fox News gives some indication they are at least inclined to not only use the tag line "Fair and Balanced" but also actually walk the walk. Time and performance will tell if they become champions of a free press or co-conspirators with their corporatzi colleagues. I am moderately encouraged (almost optimistic) that O'Reilly, Gibson, et al. will continue to compel or shame their masters into doing it right.

A recurring theme on my radio talk show for over a decade has been the malfeasance of journalists who symbiotically join themselves at the hip of some "source" only to become agents for whatever department, agency or office they have been assigned to cover. "Leaks," which include the invariable attribution of "... according to an official source reporting on condition of anonymity," reduce the reporter to the status of house organ writer.

Ambrose Bierce was right when he said "Politics is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Hell, the last administration/regime raised that axiom to an art form. However, I hope and continue to pray that journalism has not regressed to the point where it has been reduced to reporting selective facts for private advantage.

What did David Rockefeller mean in 1991 at the Baden Baden, Germany, Bilderberger meeting when he said, "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"? Was he referring to discretion or complicity in editing the news?