The Republic of Georgia isn’t the only entity to have come under attack recently. It appears that the institution of journalism has also been invaded by an authoritarian one-party force.
That’s right, folks. The likes of Charles Gibson, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, ABC, and the rest have launched a full scale war on fair and balanced, non-partisan and accountable hard news journalism. They have dispatched their assault in full force in an unabashedly obvious ploy to establish a one-party—the Democrat Party—rule over the United States.
Coming off the wake of Olbermann’s and Gibson’s demotion at MSNBC for less-than-fair anchoring, one would think Charles Gibson at ABC would exercise some restraint in the manner in which he interviewed Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. Think again.
One aspect of the interview in particular that ABC and other media outlets have touted as breaking news is gaining considerable attention—although quite erroneously. Here is the segment of the interview in which Gibson questioned Palin with regard to the Russian-Georgian conflict and the core principles of NATO membership:
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia. Let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak the other day and giving my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we have to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have asserted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. And we have to keep …
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked?
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked. And we have to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there…
GIBSON: You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine definitely yes. Yes. And Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.
GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.
And now ABC and other news outlets energetically trumpet Palin’s foreign policy naiveté and proclaim in their headlines that the Alaska Governor desires war with Russia!
First of all, the only naïve participant in this interview had to be Charles Gibson based on his less-than-knowledgeable understanding of what it means to be in NATO. Any given college freshman taking a basic international politics course could offer more insight into NATO than Mr. Gibson.
In case you slept through that course—which Mr. Gibson quite possibly is guilty of—the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 after World War II on the principles of collective defense. If one member state was attacked, the other NATO members are obligated to step in and defend the attacked state. An attack on one is viewed as an attack on all.
That being said, Mr. Gibson, ABC, and the mainstream media’s reactions to Governor Palin’s comments are completely out of line. Of course the United States should step in to help a NATO ally. That’s why NATO was established—to check Russian aggression—for crying out loud.
The most irritating aspect of this mess, however, is that while Governor Palin is being criticized for her “hard-line, warmongering” stance regarding Georgia and Russia, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama have all taken the same exact stance. All three of these individuals have advocated Georgia’s joining of NATO—and all the baggage and responsibilities that entails.
On August 11th, Barack Obama had the following to say:
“I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.”
So why is Sarah Palin’s stance news? Well, because it’s Sarah Palin. She’s not supposed to know anything about foreign policy, they say. Governor Palin got her first passport last year, they say. She’s an international neophyte, they say. Certainly her views on international issues must be uninformed and naive. And that’s exactly what segments of the news media want you to think.
While we’re on the subject of Georgia and unprovoked and reprehensible assaults, Charles Gibson’s entire interview seemed engineered around forcing Governor Palin into a corner. By virtue of his questions and acrobatic linguistic maneuverings, Mr. Gibson was practically fishing for gaffes or verbal missteps.
Despite the questionable journalism and Charles Gibson’s condescending and unenthusiastic stare-downs, Governor Palin managed to keep her cool and remain reserved—at least, much more cool and reserved than Barack Obama has been lately. Consider the following exchange in which Mr. Gibson questioned—or, more appropriately, skewered—Mrs. Palin regarding her selection as the Vice Presidential nominee:
GIBSON: When McCain asked you to take the spot on the ticket, for a moment, did you think no?
PALIN: I did not. I thought yes, right off the bat. When he offered me the position, as his running mate, the first thing I said to him was, if you really think that I can help the ticket, if you really think that I can help this country, absolutely, I want to do this with you.
GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, am I experienced enough? Am I ready?
PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Doesn’t that take some hubris?
Excuse us for a moment, Mr. Gibson, but how does Governor Palin’s obliging to Senator John McCain’s wishes qualify as hubris (also known as extreme pride)?
Surely what really takes some hubris is declaring and subsequently running for President as a first-term senator with a tissue paper-thin resume and further dubious qualifications. Oh, and then there’s the mock-up Presidential Seal, the Greek temple, and the President of the World overseas tour. That is true hubris.
But don’t expect for a minute that Charles Gibson or any other “journalist” would question Barack Obama on his hubris. It’s not going to happen. You can expect lipstick covered pigs to fly before Barack Obama is forced to answer questions—or attacks—like these.
The outrage, however, does not end with Mrs. Palin’s hubris. According to Mr. Gibson, she’s also a holy crusader bent on religious conquest:
GIBSON: You said recently in your old church our national leaders are sending US soldiers “on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote…
GIBSON: It’s the exact words.
Actually, Mr. Gibson, here are Palin’s exact words—and, more importantly, the exact context—from that day at her church:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God…That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Governor Palin was in no way declaring that the Iraq War was a task from God. She was merely urging her listeners to pray that the soldiers would be acting in God’s will and that their task would be God’s will. During the interview, Governor Palin tried to articulate that her statements at the church were in the same vein as Abraham Lincoln’s in which he prayed not that God would be on our side, but rather that we would be on God’s side. To quote his exact words, Lincoln said:
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
Nevertheless, Charles Gibson and ABC do not care to present the truth. In their eyes, it’s far more valuable to their cause and agenda to hack up the Governor’s words and portray her as something she is not. Fiction is clearly better than reality for these folks. And the only plausible explanation is that he was forwarding a political agenda.
Although Americans need to be concerned about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its international implications, the one-party authoritarian rule of the mainstream American media presents the graver threat to this nation. How should we expect freedom of speech to flourish if one-sided discourse dominates the news?
This Orwellian domination of national dialogue is troubling and ominous. Much like America may one day be obligated to act in defense of Georgia, Americans all across the nation are currently obligated to rise up and resist the mainstream media’s total war and unrelenting assault on fair and balanced journalism.
