If you are going to settle for that, precisely because you think you will have an advantage in a fair fight, then your enemy is duty bound to mess up your plans by corrupting the press.

There are two solutions as I see it, to get Don’s end goal. Either create a censorship office to neutralize enemy propaganda, thereby balancing out the end result to be more or less neutral. Or, combat enemy propaganda by segmenting the press into pro and anti sides, allowing the audience to see who is for who, and thus amalgamating information by having more of it in more diverse contents.

The second option makes use of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy, embodied in the First Ammendment. That being, people are informed when more information is available to them, even if a lot of that information is false. It is the opposite solution to censorship and active retaliation, but the end goal is the same as censorship. To reduce the news down to the facts, by removing contaminating influences that sway things one way or another.

Being neutral isn’t about choice. People have to fight if they want neutrality, and they have to win. Being neutral between two sides means you must fight both sides equally. You can get the press to fight Islamic Jihad as hard as they fight Bush and America, by being just like Islamic Jihad in terms of execution methods and hostage taking. I presume Don does not prefer press neutrality to such an extent, that he’d go for those methods, however. So there is only the two I listed above.

Good comments. The other day I saw an ad for local news that emphasized “We’re on your side.” That’s the problem; the news shouldn’t be taking sides! I saw another news team promo that promised to give the viewers “perspective” along with their news. In other words, instead of just telling us the news, they’ll tell us what to think about the news. And they were bragging about it. Maybe they’re right. Maybe most Americans would rather not have to think for themselves.

I believe the extremists, too, but I care about the little old lady. She probably believes as she does in part because the message that the extremists are broadcasting loud and clear is not being conveyed by our press (or by any press she’s likely to come into contact with). She may not believe the threat because she is not even aware of it. Of course, she also may not believe because, as JJ suggests, optimist is a part of our national character. Either way, I sympathize with her and hope there is some way to reach her, and the millions like her, before it is too late.

It seems to me that far too few of us have accepted the differentness of this war. This is not about defeating bad guys, or even trying to defeat and eliminate an “ism.”

This is about survival. This is the clash of cultures, or civilizations, whichever you will. It’s shaping up to be a take-no-prisoners, very deadly, end-game kind of business.

I arrive at this conclusion simply by reading and paying attention to what our enemy is saying. They are saying - and saying it repeatedly - that there isn’t room for both of us on the planet. Period. They are not in the least bit coy about it, and may in fact be accused of being admirably straightforward about their goals. (We are being beyond naive.) They are saying this is the big one, this is it, everything on the table, all or nothing. We aren’t saying that - they are.

They are saying - and demonstrating - that they will baulk at nothing. They will immolate themselves cheerfully, strap bombs to their wives, mothers, children, selves - whatever it takes.

They are stating very plainly, and demonstrating every day all over the planet, that they will not co-exist withg anyone - not Judaism, not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Shinto - not anybody.

Which would seem like a very broad conclusion - except that it’s the central point they keep making. I believe it. I believe it because they keep reiterating it.

And what is genuinely fascinating about it is that we don’t seem to believe them.

I think it’s part of our national character. We are a nation of people who go to the national parks every year and, not believing the signs the rangers put up, are very disappointed when the bear takes someone’s arm off.

I don’t understand why we don’t believe the signs, or why we don’t believe the imams, but I am quite sure in my own mind they are not kidding. Muhammad Sheikh Armoff - I believe you!

Which makes this war different. And I think makes the media’s response, and job, a little different than perhaps it’s ever been before. The stakes, whether or not the body politic believes it; whether or not Pinch Sulzberger believes it; are different.

And I have no time for the little old lady.

My problem with the MSM is that they have abandoned Western basic tenets (values).
They no longer honor:
Truth, justice, protection of innocent life; sanctity of civilians; respect for family;
bedrock support for the institutions of civilisation–whether representative government, military, police, civility, culture, learning.

All of us struggle with trying to explain why the MSM have become a menace.

Actually, it’s the press’s job to be neutral. As it happens, any truly neutral presentation of America and the rest of the world will inevitably be highly favorable to America, just as any truly neutral presentation of the Middle Eastern situation would be highly favorable to Israel (at least in my humble opinion). But it is not up to the press to cheer on one side or the other. Take, for example, the reporting of the recent Lebanon situation. Israeli bombs that targeted legitimate targets which were intentionally using civilians as shields were reported as attacks on civilians. Hezbollah bombs that target civilians were given less coverage and less weight. Honest, objective, neutral reporting would have stressed that Hezbollah target civilians and hid behind them. Honest, objective, neutral reporting would have shown the displaced, wounded and dead Israeli civilians along side the displaced Lebanese civilians. Such reporting would have been quite sufficient to demonstrate to any observer who was morally superior and who America should support. Such reporting never happened.

Reporting is negative, not neutral in all sorts of areas. Not only is bad news trumpted, but good news is qualified. I read a headline the other day about how strong income growth has been in America with a subheading something like “but many American’s incomes barely keep up with inflation.” Actually, if the worst they can say is that the worst off are barely keeping up with inflation things must be pretty good, but that’s not the impression conveyed or intended. Yes, I’d definitely settle for a neutral, honest, objective press, even in the fight for America’s existence.

In the days of conquest rather than the time stasis of civilizations, there is only your enemy’s allies, your allies, and those who are available to become your allies.

Salamander had some good posts on this same subject for your perusal.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2006/09/late-summer-of-42.html

There’s also a longer post around the same subject, just below that one.

Can one be neutral in the fight for America’s existence?

Earl, you do indict the MSM effectively. What shall we Americans do with them..which we have discussed before.

Part of an answer will have to be the demand from empowered groups of Americans that we have end to MSM lies. The blogopshere plays ‘pin the tail’ on a different
MSM lie..and more.. a day.

We must inform the media bluntly that the party is up. ‘WE WANT THE FACTS.’ ‘NO POLITICS.’ and best: “WE WANT ACTION.”

HARD QUESTIONING we must force: (examples)
1-Since 2003, name ONE positive action from the DEMOCRATS ON the War on Terror (One.) Are they supporting our way of life?
2–Since 2003–with American men and women serving in harm’s way– exhibit evidence that the MSM has BOLSTERED the American mission. (”None: we’re not taking sides” is no answer. There’s only ONE side for Americans. Choose!)

3–HOw many foolish attacks on the American government that served to undermine our national interest and unity, have been perpetuated by certain elements of American society?
HOLD them accountable: OUT THEM! 4– FINAL SCRUTINY: Have the ACTIONS OF THE MSM; the recusal of the Democratic Party; the damage from those who attack groundlessly OUR SYSTEM of government, culminated in a threat to American collective security?
What actions must we, the people, assert to protect ourselves?