Mobius Shtick
   by Lo Phat Ham

 Treading a seemingly endless road of circular logic, the media at large
 has reached a point where it must begin eating its own tail and devouring itself.
 The Bush administration assured us the weapons of mass destruction were
 there and that Saddam was poised to use them. The media at large became
 the cheerleader for the war and printed everything they were told to print.
 Now it turns out that there are serious questions surrounding the "truth" supplied
 by the Bush administration and the press must now decide whether it goes down
 with the ship of state... or whether they make their way towards the lifeboats.
 I actually saw several commentators nodding their heads when Donald Rumsfeld
 came up with THIS gem - "People are saying there are no weapons of mass
 destruction just because we can't find them. Well, we can't find Saddam Hussein
 either but I don't see anyone saying he never existed."

 Then he produced one of those death's head grins he's so famous for and
 the assembled media actually laughed along with him.
 How long can anyone with a functioning brain go along with this drek?
 How long can journalists whore themselves out to the highest bidder before
 they realize they've built a house of cards... with a hurricane on the horizon?
 So, the question I pose it this:
 How long will it be before the media at large turns on its own?
 Think about it...
 Do they ride the mercurial, ever-changing river of rhetoric that flows
 from this administration or do they make the choice to wake up to
 Reality and begin asking intelligent questions?
 Their decision is going to determine their fate.
 If they stay tethered to the Bush administration and keep changing their story
 along with him they run the risk of being seen as nothing more than the mouthpiece
 of a deceitful organization... instead of a source of real information.
 Either they let themselves be swallowed by the whale... or they choose
 to hold the harpoon.
 I've seen the beginnings of a story that seems about to be whelped by
 the Bush apologists and it basically goes - "Bush was lied to about the
 weapons of mass destruction". Of course, we all know that it will be
 watered down to the same excuse he used for the 9/11 attacks. It will
 turn into an "intelligence failure" with no one specific that can be blamed.
 Or will it?
 The press can still redeem themselves to some degree by asking some tough
 questions and I've even seen Fox News begin to turn into the wind and show
 a little survival instinct. Even they have tentatively begun to question what this
 nation was told regarding the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
 I use the term "survival instinct" for good reason. If the media at large lets
 themselves be "fooled" like Bush seems poised to claim HE was... then how
 can we ever trust them not to be "fooled" again? If the media at large is to
 survive as a body that can be trusted to give us real information supported
 by strong investigative journalism then they MUST distance themselves from
 the people who were so easily and totally "fooled".
 They can always claim that they were duped by a masterful campaign of
 disinformation but they can regain a measure of respect for finally
 realizing their mistake. The longer they stay shackled to the Bush
 administration the more chance there is that they will share its fate.
 What is the fate of the Bush administration if evidence shows that they, in fact,
 DID deliberately mislead not only this nation, but also the "coalition of the willing"
 (which the rest of the world calls England and Spain)?
 Well, they impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Is lying about the necessity
 for war considered a "high crime"? Is a lie that caused the death of 160
 American soldiers (so far) something worthy of investigation?
 Or does the end truly justify the means?
 Even if there is no actual end in sight?
 I'm just askin'...

 Lo Phat Ham, rogue reporter

  back to

Privacy Policy
. .