|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Civilization Watch


Civilization Watch


Pages 1 2
November 08, 2012
Democracy Did Not Fail

To you newspeople at CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC. To you journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, at newspapers all over America.

You did it. You won. You were able to get Barack Obama his second term.

You knew that if you told the American people the truth, they would not have reelected this man.

Americans don't vote to reelect a commander-in-chief who abandons our soldiers and agents and ambassadors when they're under enemy fire.

But you, confident that you are much wiser than the American people, you decided we had no reason to think about this during the election.

When Romney questioned Barack Obama's statements about Benghazi, you shouted him down. He learned his lesson – if he made an issue of it, you would merely attack him and distract the public from Obama's wrongdoing.

You knew that Obama lied to cover up this culpable negligence, and then lied about lying. You had the video, CBS, which you could have aired immediately after the second debate, exposing him for the liar that he is.

Instead you held it back until two days before the election, when other stories predominated.

And all the rest of you – you gave it minimal mention, you played it down, you treated it as nothing, though you know that if you had caught Romney in such a lie two days before the election, you would have played that footage continuously and condemned his lies in tones of shocked outrage.

Barack Obama is still a liar – you didn't change that, you merely hid it.

Barack Obama is still the selfish, cowardly commander-in-chief who abandons American public servants – you didn't change him, nor did you give him any reason to change.

When Hurricane Sandy devastated a part of America, you showed Barack Obama only in a favorable light.

Even though his administration, his FEMA, did at least as badly as the Bush administration did after Katrina, and with far less excuse, you did not run endless coverage of the people's suffering, the way you did with Bush.

We have an exact comparison now. We know that you air negative video and print negative stories only when you don't like the president involved; when you support the president, when he's on your team, you downplay the negatives, you find other people to blame. You become "impartial."

Only Bush was held accountable for storm damage, as if he had godlike powers and failed to use them. Barack Obama has no accountability, not if we depend on you to call him to account.

Obama can withhold documents requested by a Republican House, and you tell the story, or refuse to mention it, as if the Republicans were mere partisans playing political games.

(But we remember: When a Republican president withholds documents from Congress under a claim of executive privilege, you treat that as a constitutional crisis and never miss an opportunity to remind your audience of how the Republican president is trying to hide things from the public and deny the public their right to know.)

There are still a few real news outlets – a few reporters, a few stations, a few newspapers, and one cable news network that remember what journalism used to mean.

You have to attack Fox News and sneer at them and accuse them of bias, don't you – because they're actually doing the job you merely pretend to do. They shame you by their genuinely balanced coverage, so you have to lie and accuse them of being what you are: ideological hacks, providing propaganda in order to advance a cause, while hiding the unhelpful truth.

So let me ask you a question, here in front of everybody. I know you won't answer it, but I also know you will have to think about it, once I lay it out. And, thinking about it, you may actually change your behavior – or get out of a profession that you have disgraced.

Here's the question, you journalists, you newspeople:

If Barack Obama had a propaganda minister with the power to shut you down if you ran stories that embarrassed him or his administration, would your station, your network, your newspaper, your magazine still be in business?

If America had a Joseph Goebbels who would arrest any journalist who reported anything that would make the administration look bad, did you write or say or report anything during this election campaign that would have put you inside a jail cell?

Everybody at Fox News would have been jailed, and Fox News would have been shut down. But you already do everything you can to get people not to listen to Fox, so the actions of such a propaganda minister would merely make official what you already try to accomplish by other means.

Don't you dare say I'm lying or exaggerating, because the Democrats did try to shut down conservative talk radio, and you supported them in that effort, allowing them to get away with calling the proposed action "fairness."

You go along with the big lie every day. You did it obviously and openly in these last weeks before the election, allowing Barack Obama to conceal, cover up, lie – all because, like good obedient party flacks, you knew that nothing was more important than keeping the Beloved Leader in power.

If Barack Obama were a dictator with the power to control the media, you would not have to change your news coverage in any way.

But hey. You won. Your Beloved Leader was reelected, and the only price you had to pay was supporting him in his lies and cover-ups, in his repeated unconstitutional refusal to provide Congress with documents they have a legal right – nay, duty – to examine.

It's all in a good cause, right? Truth means nothing to you; only keeping the Beloved Leader in power matters, right?

Now America has only two choices.

One choice is for the Republican House to investigate Benghazi, struggling to expose the truth about Barack Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors, both in his culpable negligence during the attack on our consulate, and in his repeated lies afterward to try to conceal his malfeasance.

You will, of course, support the Beloved Leader in his stonewalling, his refusal to supply documents. You will treat all his lies as if they were not lies; you will ignore the story as much as possible, calling it "old news."

Above all, you will attack the Republican congressmen as you attacked Kenneth Starr, making them pay such a high price for trying to do your job and uncover the truth that they may well give up. You know, the way you all fell in line to attack Romney for criticizing the administration's response to the attacks on our embassy and consulate.

On the other hand, inside the military, the CIA and the State Department, there are a lot of angry public servants who now understand that the Beloved Leader does not care about them, that he will abandon them to our enemies, that he will not protect them from terrorists if it isn't politically useful to him.

These disillusioned, angry people will make sure that the evidence is given to the Republicans in the House, and the genuine reporters at Fox News, and the real journalists scattered here and there across the country, and the bloggers on the internet who are unafraid of the truth.

...continued on page 2
Pages 1 2

printPrint
emailEmail Link
CommentFeedback
shareShare

Tags: 2012 Elections

  1. print email
    U Mad?
    November 08, 2012 | 01:54 AM

    Why U Mad?

    Barry H.
  2. print email
    Should Be Locked Up
    November 08, 2012 | 03:27 AM

    Mr Card - I read your column regularly, because I admire your fictional work, your obvious intelligence and your eloquence, but mostly because your core views differ in so many respects to my own, and I feel it is important to challenge my own assumptions and dogma.

    Sometimes you completely change my beliefs - as you have with the notion of human-caused global warming, for example; other times you force me to at least revise some of the nuances of my beliefs.

    And then there are the times when either your writings have no impact on what I believe, or even reinforce my beliefs away from your own viewpoint. Sometimes this will be because there is an insurmountable gulf between what we believe - we each find the other's viewpoint fundamentally abhorrent; but more often it is because, put bluntly, you come across as someone who has drunk a bottle of concentrated Demosthenes and is now simply frothing at the mouth. This piece was one of those times. You may well have had a valid point, but the extreme polemic, the over-emotive references to Goebbels, to Pravda, made you sound like someone I know you have little time for - Michael Moore at his very worst.

    All an article like this will do is undermine your credibility, and give borrowed ammunition to those who (for a variety of reasons) hate Obama anyway.

    I think this is a shame, for a couple of main reasons:

    - You have valid things to say, and I would not wish for people to be turned off from reading your more measured, reasoned assaults on some commonly-held beliefs.

    - I may be wrong, but I'm guessing you don't write these articles for pure fun, or simply to unburden yourself - presumably you, at some level, seek to persuade others. Of course, the only metric I have of your success in this is myself, and clearly as a single indvidual, let alone a non-American, my views hardly matter in the scheme of things - but I would (as I think the saying goes) be willing to bet a dollar to a dime that the vast majority of people who don't already share your views of Obama would be more repulsed than persuaded by the tone of this article.

    Which is a lost opportunity - I genuinely suspect that you are right to name the Banghazi affair and its subsequent treatment in the media as scandals, but I'm now less inclined to believe what you have to say about those issues, because of how you have chosen to say them. Doubtless the existing Obama haters and sceptics will applaud what you have said and how you have said it, but what has that really gained you in your mission to persuade?

    Maybe less of the Demosthenes and more of the Locke...?

    Al
  3. print email
    exactly
    November 08, 2012 | 03:42 AM

    The Benghazi incident is huge - infinitely more so than, say, the Valerie Plame incident. And I'll point out that in that incident, for all the ranting and raving from the Left, when it turned out the guy who actually leaked the name turned out to be someone they liked, he didn't receive the attacks! Amazing.

    I'm also happy to see you make the connection to Pravda. I've been referring to our media as the "Pravda media" or "Madrassa Media" for years.

    dabigkahuna
  4. print email
    Democracy Did Not Fail...
    November 08, 2012 | 08:05 AM

    It chose a measured, intelligent problem-solver over a cynical, prevaricating Etch-a-Sketch who makes John Kerry look like Lincoln. Thanks, democracy! Nice job!

    Blaming the media is always a tried and true way for a party to avoid looking seriously at its own failures. Of course, Card always finds some way to play the martyr. It's the media! It's the English professors! It's anti-Mormonism! It's the homosexual menace! Giant yawn.

    Yay Democracy
  5. print email
    November 08, 2012 | 09:37 AM

    Wow. What a temper tantrum OSC is throwing! Did you stomp around the house as you were writing this?

  6. print email
    November 08, 2012 | 10:24 AM

    Hey Rhino Times. How about a Crazy Uncle Alert next time you publish something like this. The melodramatic ranting is hilarious. I thought Mr. Card had hit an all time low with his Amendment One post but he's topped his self with this one. Everyone please place make sure your tin foil had is securely attached before reading. The mother ship will be here soon.

  7. print email
    November 08, 2012 | 11:13 AM

    One of my fav moments watching Fox on election night was seeing karl rove lose his mind.

    In a rare moment of lucidity, Megyn Kelly nailed it when she asked Rove: "Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?"

    Can't wait to watch Newsroom next season.

  8. print email
    November 08, 2012 | 11:29 AM

    Karl Rove, Fred Barnes, Michael Barone, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto all said Romney would win and win definitively.

    And yet OSC still believes Fox and scolds the other news organizations?

    Oh yeah. don't forget Card is a DEMOCRAT!

  9. print email
    Wha?
    November 08, 2012 | 03:59 PM

    The "mainstream media" in the US does, to be honest, stinks. But they at least make an effort to report facts and real data. Fox News, not to mention the entire Romney campaign, lied and lied and lied and lied ... like an entire warehouse full of rugs. "Made in Persia"? I really, really don't understand how our respected Brother Card has been sucked into that fact-free bubble. (I prefer CBC and BBC for news myself. %-)

    Robert Slaven
  10. print email
    Ignoring the message and attacking the messenger.
    November 08, 2012 | 05:30 PM

    All I see are attacks against OSC and no opposing facts.

    OSC - Excellent and accurate post dismantling of the corrupt state of our so-called media. We didn't witness the death of "conservatism" this year. We witnessed the death of journalism.

    I am embarrassed atthe amount of group think out there today. So sad.

    TC
  11. print email
    OSC delivers
    November 08, 2012 | 06:21 PM

    I expected a whining, bitter, rambling column that would make Obama's re-election even sweeter, and he didn't disappoint. As the electorate demographics continue to change and the aging, angry white man vote he so well represents becomes even less relevant, I an sure his future rants will surpass even this classic essay.

    Phil
  12. print email
    Did someone call me?
    November 09, 2012 | 01:54 AM

    Need a Kleenex?

    Waaahhhhhmmmbulance
  13. print email
    November 09, 2012 | 01:57 AM

    Yeah, I often can't believe the same person who wrote "Ender's Game", also writes this type of stuff. Like, intelligent, reasoned arguments against Obama is one thing; this drivel is just crazy.

    And to anyone who asks why no opposing facts to combat this (I hate to use the word essay, and I actually think OSC, who teaches English, should be ashamed of himself for calling it such) is offered, well, it's hard to argue crazy. There's not much to do except shake your head and hope the person ranting doesn't do anything violent.

  14. print email
    November 09, 2012 | 04:51 AM

    Great post keep up the good work. It's stuff like this that will surely bring the GOP back to the White House in 2016. This country would be lucky to have someone like you running for president.

  15. print email
    November 09, 2012 | 08:10 AM

    This is the actually the first I'm hearing of this Benghazi thing. It sounds pretty bad, and I think Mr. Card's point is pretty well-proven in that I never heard of THIS but I heard about the "47%" thing and the "dog on the roof" thing and the "he bullied a kid who turned out to be gay" thing at least once a week.

    And you know what? I didn't even VOTE for Romney. Can't accuse me of bias now, can you? Unless it's a bias against Mitt. . . .

    Charlie Ward
  16. print email
    Bizarro world
    November 09, 2012 | 09:55 AM

    OSC claims to be a Democrat yet rants against Obama, a fellow Democrat, for what happened in Benghazi but still defends Bush, a Republican, from people who criticize Bush's decision to invade Iraq, a decision which cost far more, both in lives and treasure, then Benghazi has and ever will. This is to say nothing about how Bush's decision was based on bad intelligence (at best)and then Bush rewarded the person who oversaw the intelligence gathering, George Tenet, with the nation's highest civilian medal. I can only conclude that OSC seems to live in a bizarro world.

    Robert
  17. print email
    November 09, 2012 | 10:13 AM

    Charlie I find it hard to believe that this is the first your hearing about Benghazi. Contrary to the spin from Card ALL of the major networks have talked about it. CNN has lead with the story many nights. Fox News has a giant chip on their shoulders simultaneously bashing the "main stream media" for not covering this story while reminding us that they are number 1 in ratings. Doesn't that make them main stream? I'm embarrassed for Republicans today. Time to get rid of the crazies.

  18. print email
    Mr. Card, you are trapped.
    November 09, 2012 | 10:26 AM

    You are exactly the same as the liberals you so apparently disdain. You belittle yourself and your writings with tirades like this one.

    A fan.
  19. print email
    Card's Column
    November 09, 2012 | 03:05 PM

    Once again if an election doesn't go a particular way, suppose journalists get angry and decry foul against the news media for a coverup. Where was this ranting and raving when former President Bush lied to the American people to get a war in Iraq. Where was the ranting and raving when former President Bush sat, idly by as the Twin Towers, fell. Let's get real. Monday morning quarterbacks, such as Mr. Card can always have an answer, but fail to provide any thing other than calling our elected President, Mr. Obama, a liar. Strange, only Mr. Obama and former President Bill Clinton, suffered this indignity. Why? Because they did not fit the image of being from the "Good Ole Boys" club.

    Bernie Douglas
  20. print email
    November 09, 2012 | 03:07 PM

    I just figured it out. This is all parody. Genius Mr. Card!

  21. print email
    Do you still pretend to be a Democrat?
    November 09, 2012 | 04:22 PM

    Cause if so, could you please stop? You'd fit in with the Democratic party of the late 19th century. Not this one. We moved on. It's time for you.

    Joseph
  22. print email
    article
    November 09, 2012 | 08:26 PM

    A lot of people dont like the truth the media double crossed Hillary and put a comunity organizer in the white house Mr. Obama is a child of the media and predujuiced voters who care less about the country and more about thier personal gain. Mike

    Mike
  23. print email
    Obama ben ghazi
    November 09, 2012 | 09:00 PM

    Petraeus may be about to do to our secretive president what he did to his biographer; all in.
    You go, boy.

    Observer
  24. print email
    November 09, 2012 | 09:37 PM

    I read Earth Unaware yesterday. It was brilliant, like just about everything which Mr Card has a hand in publishing.

    Except politics. Year by year he sounds more and more like Donald Trump. That makes me sad.

  25. print email
    Thanks for your courage
    November 11, 2012 | 05:55 PM

    I spent 17 years in the news business and the most frequent discussions and even arguments were about ethics and fairness. We took our responsibilities seriously.

    I doubt that the present day so-called "journalists" can spell the word much less define it.

    These clowns don't seem to be able to understand, as you point out, that the first thing to go in a dictatorship is the truth and the first industry to be controlled is the press.

    The comments above are the proof in the pudding. When you tell the truth the liberals call you names.
    One even admits to not have heard of the murders in Benghazi. Obama's Watergate.

    Keep up the good work.

    Jim
  26. print email
    Card
    November 11, 2012 | 09:53 PM

    Card has a legitimate argument against the mainstream news media. We only get what they think we should hear. We pretty much lost them during the "I feel your pain" Clinton years.

    David
  27. print email
    Card
    November 11, 2012 | 10:08 PM

    Card is a fantastic scifi author as well as fantasy. I would say that makes him an expert on the make believe " reporting" of the mainstream media. The 19th century democrat remark was too true. The " moved on democrats" are in my opinion scarily close to socialists.

    Doc
  28. print email
    November 12, 2012 | 01:13 PM

    I for one am highly insulted that Card would make these accusations against the President of the United States. Mr. Card is unAmerican for doing so. Shame on him.

  29. print email
    Card
    November 19, 2012 | 08:34 PM

    I doubt this will change Mr. Card's mind, but we actually now know that the White House recited the very talking points provided by the intelligence community after Benghazi. In other words, there was no scandal.

    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/

    And here's the Economist - arguably the most respected news cource in the world, and no Obama sock puppet (they actually lean right-of-center and have been quite critical of the Obama administration):

    "At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging."

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/susan-rice



    M.G.
  30. print email
    November 23, 2012 | 07:29 PM

    I love OSC's column and I have found so many good movies and books based on his recommendation that I faithfully read all of his essays. Our religions, while not the same, are similar in most practical aspects. I agree with many of his previous political points, especially after following them up.

    But not this one. This screed was embarrassing, and I will not follow it up simply because I would risk reading other such juvenile attempts at emotional manipulation.

    Mjinga
Reader Feedback Submission
Use this form to submit Reader Feedback. Your submission will be reviewed by our staff before appearing on the Web site.
* required value
Your Name

Subject

Comment*

Verification*


PharmQuest
Rhino Search