Jewish World Review August 5, 2002 / 27 Menachem-Av, 5762
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Washington is all atwitter about plans to rescue Wall Street from its dishonesty, corruptibility and greed. Am I the only one to find this hilariously ironic?
No business on earth could survive using the phantasmagorical accounting gimmicks Congress uses to balance its books, and no business can come close to matching the government's record for breaking promises, squandering investors' money and refusing to adjust to changing times. When politicians rush to fix things, it's a sure sign that either the intended patient is dead or fully healed.
That's why everybody in the nation's capital ought to take a chill pill, and resolve to do nothing for at least a month. This includes the president, who seems as eager as anyone for quick action -- regardless of its merits. Markets punish bad actors ruthlessly and swiftly -- just ask Martha Stewart.
If lawmakers really want justice, they should leave market discipline to the pros -- on Wall Street, not Capitol Hill.
My fellow journalists get miffed when someone accuses them of letting ideology taint their judgment, but media bias is a fact. Consider global warming.
The New York Times tried to bolster the case for warming with a recent piece headlined, Alaska, no longer so frigid, begins to crack, burn and sag.
The piece asserted that mean temperatures in Alaska had soared an incredible 7 degrees over the last 30 years. A later correction suggested the change was smaller 5.4 degrees. But tellingly, nobody has been able to find a single scientific paper citing either figure. Gerd Wendler of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks notes the actual number is about 2.4 degrees and all of that warming took place in the 1970s.
In other words if you look at the last 20 years there hasn't been any global warming at all. None! Of course a troublesome fact like that would make it difficult to argue that Alaska is becoming the Sahara of the Arctic.
Folks today I bring you proof positive of bias in the mainstream press. Consider the case of Larry Klayman, who heads an outfit called Judicial Watch.
The press treated him one way when he was suing Bill Clinton and an entirely different way now that he is suing Dick Cheney. Here's what I mean. When Klayman was suing Bill Clinton, Brooks Jackson referred to Klayman's outfit, Judicial Watch as "a conservative watchdog group." Now, he calls the outfit merely "a Washington watchdog group." Judy Woodruff also of CNN: Before, "the conservative group." After: "a watchdog group." ABC News: Before: "the conservative legal foundation." Now, "a legal activist group." CBS: "a conservative watchdog group," now "a watchdog group." And NBC: "a conservative advocacy group," but now, "a watchdog group" and "a legal group."
So this raises a question: When do news networks not have to identify the ideology's of organizations?
Answer: When they're
attacking conservatives or Republicans
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.