Likely all of the pertinent comments have been made on the Eason Jordan slander of the US military at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, but as a retired military member, I can only say what I’ve been saying for months: The most of the mainstream media *hates* the military.
It’s no big surprise to most of us. The only surprise is that someone who is as prominent as CNN’s Mr. Jordan would feel free to vent his hatred for the troops in such a public forum and would figure—in this age of warp-speed information exchange—that no one would notice.
NEW YORK - CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.Those who serve in the military have been despised by most leftists since the days of the Vietnam War, of course, and they are just as reviled today. However, that hatred had taken on a schizophrenic quality since 9/11, simply because the leftists aren’t as easily able to lead the American public with them.
Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.
During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.
He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong place where a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.
"I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise," Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.
Thirty-five years ago, two things facilitated turning a large portion of the American public against the Vietnam War and its agents: the draft and the chokehold that the leftists mainstream media had on the dissemination of information.
Neither advantage exists anymore for the opponents of the War on Terrorists.
Since the US military is all-volunteer, the opponents of all things (and people) martial have had to change their tactics in opposing the latest war. There’s no draft to oppose—other than the one proposed by the Democrats and shot down by the Republicans--and, at first, they surmised that calling military members “baby-killers” or the like wouldn’t wash. (The sentiments of these mental midgets notwithstanding. These are the less cunning types.)
So they had to turn to a different tactic: making military members out to be duped, stupid victims. Talk about a short-sighted, un-researched approach! Likely, the opponents of the present-day war figured that the military had the same standards that it did some thirty-five years ago: one could join as an enlisted person without having a high school diploma or even being literate back then. One could also join as an alternative to going to prison for a misdemeanor.
Well, the military has evolved—it had done so even back in 1981, when I joined—though the perception of its members by many of its opponents hasn’t; even in 2005. The Air Force no longer allows even those who have GEDs--and no higher academic achievement--to join.
I guess that when your perceptions are so near and dear to you and serve your stated purpose, doing your research is a little too much to expect.
Simply said, now the US Armed Forces only allow those who can read, write and compute to join its ranks. Those are the basic requirements, but what the Armed Forces also receive as a bonus for these minimum standards are those who can think, i.e. those who can figure out when to attack and when not to; to figure out who is an enemy and who is a friend. That applies both in deed (battle) and in word (rhetoric).
So the military-as-idiot/victim message back-fired on the opponents of war, simply because the latter did not understand their target audience: an audience who, for the most part, prides itself in duty, honor and country; an audience who isn’t as stupid as its enemies would believe and prefer; and an audience who can tell--at warp speed--when it’s being condescended to.
Most military members understand what the adjective ‘military’ means: “belonging to, engaged in, or appropriate to the affairs of war.” Since our Armed Forces are composed of entirely volunteers, for a person to volunteer believing that he/she will never have to fight in a war—and perhaps one in which he/she does not entirely agree—would be the height of stupidity. Additionally, one signs a contract to fight such wars and to follow the orders of those appointed over them. It isn’t rocket science. You do what you’re ordered to do until you’ve been ordered not to, or until your contract expires (unlawful orders aren’t included here).
Most veterans know this well, and for the few that don’t, harsh penalties are meted out, not the least of which is the unyielding scorn of their former comrades-in-arms. (I wouldn’t spit on such a creature if he were on fire.) Don’t want to fight, don’t join.
With all of these facts and factors in mind, the leftist portion mainstream media—meaning darn near all of them—blundered into pushing more of the presidential votes of military members and veterans into the R column than would be so normally. Of course, not everyone in the military is a Republican or a Bush fan. I’m talking percentages, however.
After the American presidential election results came in, however, those who oppose the war saw that they couldn’t separate the president from one of his most reliable constituencies. Even if only sixty percent of veterans voted for President Bush, the perception remained that the military is his stronghold. Mainstream media arrogance couldn’t put an appreciable dent in that, so all the mincing nuance, all the class warfare memes—somebody send Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) the memo—were for naught.
So they dropped the mask. Now the military--whether individual members are for or against the president and his policies—are an acknowledged enemy.
Eason Jordan was merely lobbing one of the post (American) election un-disguised volleys at the hated military—albeit in what he thought was safe company. He simply forgot about two other audiences: those bloggers and those members of the American civilian public who support the war and support its protagonists.
Much of the mainstream media continues not to understand that they no longer have a monopoly on information gathering and exchange. That the Eason Jordan flap—along with all too many other stories—got its legs nearly exclusively via bloggers demonstrates this.
See Easongate for a thorough roundup on the timeline of events.
(Thanks to Protein Wisdom)