Saturday, September 11, 2010

Media censorship

I was watching with great angst the end of the Coal Bowl last night when the WVU Mountaineers lined up at scrimmage and just stood there. Then the television camera focused on a Marshall defensive player for no reason at all. And that's when the ESPN announcers explained what was happening.

A fan had run onto the turf and was playing tag with the cops. The hoard of police officers tackled him and dragged him away before play resumed, but the television cameras never showed this drunken idiot causing problems. They said they refused to show the fan so as not to encourage others to act in a similarly stupid manner.

That's very interesting. Because the media has been unrelenting in covering a similar idiot in Gainesville, Fla., who wanted to burn Korans today. That seems awfully hypocritical to me.

This so-called "Christian" pastor planned to burn 200 Islamic holy books to protest the actions of radical Muslims overseas and the proposed construction of a mosque in New York City. Day after day, the media camped outside this church of just 50 congregants and spent unnecessary time covering this extremist's idiotic plan.

Even ABC News' Jake Tapper asked President Obama yesterday why the administration elevated the story to a national level by having Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates call this pastor and request he reconsider those plans. Uh, Jake, I don't think it's the president who elevated this story. You and your media cronies did a pretty good job giving this guy all the attention he wanted.

In the end, this pastor is clearly insane. Can you imagine the reaction in America if an Islamic imam declared that the Holy Bible should be burned on Christmas Day? So why is this pastor given more than a single minute of air-time for proposing something so radical?

All things considered, I would have much rather preferred to watch that drunken fan get pummeled by police than I would watching this idiot have a weenie roast with Islam's sacred book.


  1. well, the drunk fan was just an idiot who couldnt really do much harm. the pastor was an idiot who would endanger all americans...i think that is the difference

  2. Mike, the reverse has happened in times past. Here is one link:

    No, there was not an outrage in the US when these events happened. Why? I have an idea, but will withhold comment here.

    I will have to disagree with how the Koran burning issue got elevated. Yes, it was covered by the media, but the rhetoric really changed when Pres Obama, Gen Patraues, and Sec Gates got involved. I remain confused why they chose to step into the fracas.

    In no way am I supporting the man's intention to do the burning. He was planning something that got more press and discussion than he ever supposed (I'm guessing here). One man, with 30 followers, was able to consume huge amounts of oxygen in the national discourse. This is troubling on how this could happen.

    The entire mosque location discussion has achieved a major goal, that is taking the nation's attention away from important matters. With mid-term elections, major economic and financial news, and the Afghanistan war, our national discussion was turned to the location of a building that undoubtedly will never be built. This was a major diversion, and it should not have reached the level of dialogue at this time. The Imam was successful in his goals. We let him have his way, not unlike the man in Florida.

    We have a significant problem of ADD in our country. These two men have proven the statement. Almost single-handily, they have taken control of the media.

    No, I don't have an answer. And, maybe my observations are wrong. I would sure hope somebody can show me otherwise. Are we in deep trouble when the necessary messages and discussions of the country can be so easily derailed?

  3. Regarding the president weighing in on these random issues... This seems like a trend, lately... something small and unimportant gets bounced around the media echo chamber until it becomes THE major news story in the country (and of course, is simply boiled down into a black and white, for or against, yes or no schematic type of "issue..." which essentially forces the administration to respond. If they don't respond, part of the storyline is "Why is the administration silent on this contentious issue?" If they respond, the storline is "Why did the administration feel the need to add fuel to the fire of this contentious issue?" If none of us had ever heard of this D-bag in Florida and his little cookout, then it would have been uber-surreal to know that Robert Gates spoke with him about it... but every person in America is aware of what kindling 50 idiots are using, to the point that it literally does have implications on events outside of our borders... so the administration would be remiss in NOT acknowledging it, due to those implications. The scary thing is that the media is dictating the actions, however slight, of some of the most powerful people in the world. If this non-news story remained a non-news story, Gates doesn't make that phone call. The news media basically forced the secretary of defense of the united states of america to place a phone call to a random imbecile who has no business conversing with anyone more important than the manager of the local chick fil-a. There are other examples, but this one is sufficient for today.