Blackout & Bootlicking

A few days ago I mentioned that the American establishment press almost completely buried the stunning news of the political breakthrough in Iraq brokered by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Clearly that is not what what the hard left reportertariat wants to see, blows their anti-war agenda to bits as a matter of fact, and so they have "covered" this dramatic and heartening development as though it never happened. Not unlike how they "covered" the "Surge" up until a month ago, and the Bush speech to the American Legion yesterday.

As one would expect, this requires the war's defenders to go to the lengths of purchasing advertising in order to get that side of the debate heard outside talk radio and the blogosphere. But there's only one teensy-tiny problem with that: The Enemy Media - which is gladly and happily running a blizzard of anti-war shilling - is refusing to sell them the ad time.

More specifically, CNBC and MSNBC, to which the producers of the pro-war ads, Freedom Watch, sent the following letter:

We understand that MSNBC and CNBC (the “Networks”) are refusing to sell advertising time to Freedom’s Watch (“FW”) to air a series of educational advertisements. It is our understanding that the purported basis for the denial is a Network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance.

Given your recent history of airing such ads (see below), we must wonder if your denial to FW is a subjective decision because the network officials disagree with the FW ads’ message? If you continue to refuse to air FW’s advertisement we request an explanation of your basis in writing or station policy within two (2) days from the date above as time is of the essence.

FW has requested time on your networks to air advertisements discussing the War Against Terrorism. Your reporters and commentators discuss this issue on your programs at every hour of the day so you clearly agree this is an issue of great public importance. FW’s advertisements, to be sure, present a view of this debate that rounds out your coverage. These ads feature Iraq War Veterans and their families discussing their sacrifices in personal terms and their belief that we must allow the military time to complete its mission in Iraq and seek victory. This is a side of this issue that should not be silenced by national cable networks. We believe that rather than censor these American heroes, you should let the American public hear their story.

As noted above, it’s troubling that the Networks appear to be airing messages on issues on a selective basis. Our research indicates that your network has accepted and aired advertisements dealing with controversial issues of national importance in the recent past. For example, the Networks aired an advertisement entitled “Shameless Politicians” sponsored by Move America Forward regarding the war on terror in October 2004. In November 2006, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the American Medical Association entitled “Patient Voice” concerning the controversial issue of access to health care and coverage for the uninsured. During July 2007, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition. Your history of airing other issue advocacy advertisements makes the denial of FW advertisements troubling and raises the issue of whether your denial is based on an editorial disagreement with FW's message.

These ads are about important issues that will shape our national security policies for years to come. These ads present a point of view that your viewers are not now receiving.

Your viewers deserve to hear all sides of this issue so that they can make informed judgments about the future of their country.

This wouldn't be so odious, of course, if the EM really was honest, objective, and yes, "fair and balanced." But since they aren't, and are clearly house propaganda organs of the Democrat Party, it seems all the more egregious (though not the least bit surprising) that MSNBC and CNBC would both slant their own reporting AND deny the other side a response even if they well-pay for it. It's of a piece with the ongoing lib campaign to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and impose editorial regulations on the starboard side of the blogosphere under the guise of campaign finance laws. They want their media monopoly back, they want it back NOW, and they don't care what they have to do, or how brazenly open about it they have to be, to get it.

These two links offer illustrations of the identity of the consistent and seemingly only war-related beneficiaries of the EM's war "coverage" slant besides the elderly Woodstock crowd. Let's just say if they put up Christmas trees the ornaments they'd hang from the branches would be little sticks of dynamite.

There's a reason why I refer to them as the "Enemy" Media, after all. That they are an insatiable bottomless pit of examples is an unsolicited bonus.

Here's one of the Freedom Watch ads that CNBC and MSNBC don't want you to see. Think of it as an in-their-face public service.