Saturday, March 25, 2006

Grumpy Old Men.

The ripple effects from Laura Ingraham’s appearance on The Today Show earlier this week just don’t seem to end. Ingraham, who returned last month from a week-long trip to Iraq, expressed her frustration with the Mainstream Media not reporting some of the positive aspects of the Iraq war. During her interview on Tuesday’s show, Ingraham felt that too many negative stories about the conflict are being perpetuated by media types who have never even been to Iraq.

Jack Cafferty was, as usual, in “Grumpy Old Man” mode in his Thursday appearance on CNN’s “The Situation Room.” When asked of the perceived negative coverage of the Iraq war, Cafferty had this to say:

“This is nonsense. ‘It’s the media’s fault and the news isn’t good in Iraq.’ The news isn’t good in Iraq. There’s violence in Iraq. People are found dead every day in the streets of Baghdad. This didn’t turn out the way the politicians told us it would. And it’s our fault? I beg to differ.”

Again, no one is portraying Iraq as some peaceful oasis (unless you count the time Michael Moore did so in his film “Fahrenheit 9/11”. The scene with Iraqi kids flying kites just prior to the first air strikes). And certainly no one is blaming the media for the violence. The point Laura Ingraham was making is that if you go out and talk to the soldiers on the ground, the Iraqi military and the villagers (like she did), they certainly will not concur with the MSM that all hope is lost.

Last month, “60 Minutes” correspondent Mike Wallace, 87, was promoting a story he did on four severely wounded veterans of the Iraq war. You can imagine the shock experienced by this Grumpy Old Man when he was told by the wounded soldiers that they actually support the mission in Iraq.

“I was astonished: Almost all of them support the war, despite the fact that it’s taken such a toll on them. We asked them flat out: Should we be there? And the ones that are the most severely hit believe yes, we should have been there. They are not angry at the President, they’re not angry at the establishment.”

However, the same can not be said for Mr. Wallace. Apparently still bitter over the fact President Bush has declined his repeated interview requests, Wallace told the Boston Globe in December what he would ask the President if given a chance.

“What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?”

Yes, these are just two examples of some of the pompous windbags working in the media. All of a sudden they should be exempt from criticism? And just because Wallace has interviewed every U.S. President since Kennedy, that’s supposed to mean something to President Bush?

The MSM no longer has a monopoly on the news.

And that has them downright grumpy.

No comments: