Thursday, May 26, 2005

ANTI-CHRENKOFF CIRCLE OF JERKS

Lefty Australian academic bloggers Tim Dunlop, John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have formed a circle of jerks aiming to make Chrenkoff look bad. Quiggin and Lambert hope to embarrass Chrenkoff by cherry-picking bad news items to counter the good news as presented by Chrenkoff. Tim Dunlop takes a much more direct route, launching a frontal assault on a recent Chrenkoff post. Here's the entire Dunlop post:

Dr Feelgood [Chrenkoff] has a brilliant suggestion. He notes the following report from Matt Drudge:
One year since honoring the American service men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ted Koppel and ABC News "Nightline" will again pay tribute to the fallen by devoting an extended broadcast to reading the names and showing the photographs of more than 900 service members who have been killed in those countries over the last year. Entitled "The Fallen," the special "Nightline" broadcast will air Memorial Day, Monday, May 30, 2005 at 11:35 p.m. ET on the ABC Television Network. ABC News Radio will air excerpts of the program.
And comes up with this response:
I've got a modest proposal to Ted Koppel and "Nightline": why don't you read one day the names and show the pictures of the 170,000 or so American servicemen and women stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan who every day are working their hardest to ensure that democracy takes root, terrorists are defeated, and these two countries have a chance to build a better future for their people.
A commenration of fallen soldiers by ignoring them. Good idea. Let's also have a show and accompanying DVD about the countries America didn't invade in March 2003. If only someone had thought of this idea earlier, we could've had an inauguration ceremony for John Kerry, you know, the guy who didn't win the election. Hallmark are gong to be thrilled: a whole new range of cards for events that didn't happen. The possibilities are endless. What about ANZAC Day? What a drag that is! Let's celebrate all the days that aren't ANZAC day. That whole fallen soldier thing is just a liberal media ploy to make us forget the good things that happened. Incidentally, tomorrow isn't my wedding anniversary so, of course, my wife and I will be having a special dinner. You're all not invited. Please send a gift.

Honestly, could there be a bigger insult to those who have died than to want to pretend that they didn't? I know Arthur says he thinks remembering the fallen is very worthy, the trouble is, he doesn't want to do it. He justifies his proposed censorship by saying that he doubts the sincerity of the media, but that's his usual bluff: they are not to be trusted, only my culling of their news stories should be. In fact, this tribute is one of the seriously good services the network provides, doing what we should always do: remind ourselves of the costs of actions such as that taken in Iraq. But Arthur wants to deprive the families of the fallen, not to mention the rest of us, of this brief tribute because it doesn't fit with his political agenda.

His entire project is to ignore the complex reality and highlight what he considers to be the positive. This latest suggested piece of culling is the "good news" theme taken to its absurdist conclusion. RIP.

ALSO: Saint puts it well in comments:
It's strange that Chrenkoff doesn't want to honour so many men and women - many if not most who were far younger than him - who have died to bring him his good news.
The problem is, Dunlop edited Chrenkoff's post to remove a critical paragraph:
Make no mistake, tributes and remembrance of the ultimate sacrifice paid by the troops to bring freedom and democracy to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan are all very worthy things, but - call me cynical - coming from the mouths of the mainstream media they ring neither true nor sincere. Since the MSM as a general rule doesn't believe in our mission in Iraq (less so in case of Afghanistan), its remembrance then is at best that of a futile sacrifice, at worst of a criminal one.
With this paragraph included, Dunlop's three paragraphs of attack prove to be nothing more than spiteful, lying bullshit. I'm guessing his hit-count is down.

1 Comments:

Anonymous The Brute said...

Do you think Dunlop would use violence to oppose violence? Say, for example, someone were to punch him in the face without alerting him to the intent? Would he respond with force, or would he turn the other cheek for another shot?

4:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home