Snapshots

Remember the Don Imus/"Natty-headed ho's" flap? Remember how Imus was hounded off the air and out of his gigs at CBS and MS-NBC over it by the PC lynch mobs?

Guess who got a lawyer, has filed suit, and has got a case:

A draft copy of Imus’s lawsuit says that the network expected him to be controversial and irreverent under the terms of his contract. And he claims Imus’s show was on a five second delay that allowed the network to censor him if they wanted.

The draft points out that Imus wasn’t fired for two weeks after the remarks were made.

Meanwhile, four former FCC commissioners contacted by ABC News say they do not believe that the speech was actionable under current federal guidelines that prohibit profanity or indecency on public airwaves. …

He cited a section of his client’s employment contract today that says Imus’ “services to be rendered & are of a unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial and personal character & and & these components are desired by Company and are consistent with Company rules and policies.”

Makes ya wonder if anybody at the time thought to dig out Imus' contract and actually READ the bloody thing before acting so precipitously. Perhaps, subjectively, some comments are more "unique, extraordinary, irrevernt, intellectual, topical, and controversial" than others, but the contract language doesn't appear to make such distinctions.

Or, put another way, you lay down with swine, yer gonna get muddy. And, in CBS' case, a considerable degree poorer as well.

~ ~ ~

Remember the M. Zuhdi Jasser piece on how the American media are blatant Islamist facilitators? Oh, wait, I hadn't posted that link yet - here 'tis.

Well, anyway, here's a prime example of it:

al-Qaida in Iraq released a recording Saturday purportedly of its leader, who had been reported killed in recent fighting, criticizing the country's largest Sunni party and branding its chief, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a "criminal" for participating in the government.

The statement by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was seen as a warning to Sunnis not to take part in the political process that could legitimize the Shiite-led government and its U.S. backers...

D'ya note the orientation of this "news" story? Completely from the point of view of our sworn and declared enemies in the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism. Did the World War II-era American press give similar credence to "correspondents" like Lord Haw-Haw or Tokyo Rose? Does the AP believe their audience gives a frog's fat leg what the leader of AQI thinks about anything? Do they believe they HAVE an audience?

This, FWIW, is the AP's idea of "balance":

U.S. and some Iraqi officials suspect the Iranians may be stoking a growing power struggle among Shiite factions and political parties — despite the Tehran government's insistence that it is working to help bring stability to its neighbor Iraq.

No bleep; sheesh, what was your FIRST guess? Or first clue? The confirmed Iranian IEDs used against U.S. troops? The Iranian capture of fifteen British sailors and marines a month ago after we dragneted a bunch of Iranian operatives in Iraq? Yet it's "U.S. and Iraqi officials" who are cast as suspect, and the mullahgarchy as unfairly maligned.

We all know that a democracy cannot be victorious in war without public support for the war effort. With a media completely in the tank for America's enemies (for its own myriad but universally contemptable reasons), is it any wonder why we are being propelled toward defeat in the current conflict - a defeat that we absolutely cannot afford, and which will bring about that same media's demise as well?

But boy, it'll sure make a great story, though, won't it?