I believe that it's called a Freudian slip, from The Opinion Journal:
'We Are the Only People Preventing Them From Telling the Story'
In a Memorial Day column, David Carr of the New York Times complains about a U.S. military rule requiring that embedded reporters "obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited."
Why is it so important to show images of hurt and dead Americans? A fellow Timesman gives away the game:
Hmm, we thought the job of a reporter was to tell stories, not to prevent others from doing so. Furthermore, is it even possible to imagine a Times correspondent saying his job is to prevent the enemy from telling its story?James Glanz, a Baghdad correspondent who will become bureau chief for The New York Times next month, said that although he and others had many great experiences working with the rank-and-file soldiers, some military leaders seem determined to protect something besides the privacy of their troops.
"As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important," Mr. Glanz said. "This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told."
Like I, and so many others, have been saying for so long the mainstream media is not an observer and reporter of the facts. They have become partisan players and are on the opposite side from the United States, at least as long as a Republican sits in the White House.
We need to understand that as far as anything political goes the New York Times and the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers, and cable news shows like CNN and MSNBC are no different than the Völkischer Beobachter in WWII or Pravda during the Cold War. In other words enemy propaganda.
|