Your thoughts are prohibited

An article which clearly illustrates the need for knowing the agenda of the sources you read to make your decisions.

[quote]Your thoughts are prohibited
Melanie Morgan, Posted: May 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Despite Sen. Harry Reid’s determination that the United States has lost the war in Iraq, our troops are still dug in like there’s real hope. What are these guys thinking? Do they believe America, the world’s only super power, has a real chance to beat a rag-tag group of terrorists who hide in caves and use cell-phone batteries and children’s toys in their high-tech war on the West?

If you listen to the left and their cohorts in the mainstream media, you might think we patriots who support this war on terror and our troops have given up the fight. If you do, you’re dead wrong.

Many pro-troop, pro-American and pro-defense groups are still very much alive and thriving, but the liberal media are largely ignoring our efforts. They pretend our voices don’t matter because the polls say we are in the minority. Despite their phony claims of giving voice to minority opinions, the media have turned their backs on any idea that doesn’t fit their template of this “lost” war.

As chairman of the nation’s largest pro-troop organization, Move America Forward, I have had endless opportunities to witness this basic truth. But last week an e-mail exchange with a news reporter stunned me by its blatant sabotage of the truth.

Let me re-phrase– this was evidence of the media’s decision to censor the thoughts and viewpoints of conservatives and deliberately prevent the public from hearing about an alternative point of view.

A reporter named Damien Benson, who writes for the Mirror and Guardian newspapers in the UK, recently approached my staff at Move America Forward:

[i]I am currently running an investigation into "Political extremism on both sides of the 'War on Terror,'" which will hopefully lead to a special report. … However, I have not yet been able to communicate with any group vocally supporting the war on terror. I would therefore like to request any information you could give me on your standpoint and your philosophy, a basic breakdown of your organization's functions and the reasons behind it.[/i]

– Damien Benson

Due to the fact Benson was writing for publications that reach a large segment of the British public, we wanted to make it very clear that Move America Forward and many Americans strongly support the war on terror – and we are not “extremists.” We also wanted to convey how very disappointed we were with the way the Blair regime timidly handled the British sailor hostage crisis in Iran.

We wrote, in part: “It is clear that the United Kingdom and the United States are joined in the need to respond to this threat. Imagine, then, our disappointment and dismay here at Move America Forward as we witnessed the pathetic response by your once-renowned Navy and your government after Iranian military forces took 15 of your sailors hostage. To us at Move America Forward the actions of the Blair government and your military, which previously had been exemplary in displaying a commitment to the war on terrorism, were cowardly and weak.”

Benson read our comments on his government’s actions and decided that it would be best not to include our comments.

“The message was very informative although I don’t think it would be the best idea to quote your comments on the sailor’s capture – it’s an extremely delicate situation here,” Benson said.

I think Benson is confused. We are not interested in a biased left-wing reporter cherry-picking parts of our message that are in line with his liberal political beliefs. He wanted the opinion of the other side and he got it.

While we were frustrated Benson decided he was not going to include our comments about the Brits’ languid response to Iranian aggression, we weren’t prepared for just how utterly outrageous the conduct of this reporter would become.

A week later, we received the following e-mail from Benson regarding our opposition to the efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq:

[i]I must confess my discontent after reading this message. It seems to aim to undermine the peace progress in Iraq. Although I realise your point of view, I greatly regret that I cannot in good conscience afford the press coverage I originally intended to a group which ridicules pacifism. I obviously prefer my articles to be neutral and report both sides equally, however, even I as a born political journalist, I am uncomfortable with subjecting the public to such materials. ... On a personal note, I ask you to reconsider this campaign – I don't see how it can be anything other than detrimental to the peace process.[/i]

– Damien Benson

Mr. Benson must be on crazy pills.

I could devote an entire column mocking how insanely pathetic and naïve Benson’s embrace of “pacifism” and the “peace process” in Iraq is. Apparently, Benson is trying to outflank Neville Chamberlain in the “appease-all-evil” category.

But I digress; my main point here is the issue of journalistic integrity. Benson calls himself a “born political journalist” who “prefers his articles to be neutral.” How in the world can any true journalist claim to write a neutral article and at the same time decide not to include a conservative message because he personally disagrees with it?

This isn’t the first time a reporter has said he was going to censor what views were allowed to be heard. As I wrote previously, some reporters have gone so far as to tell pro-troop organizations they are not even allowed to send them press releases.

I have a news flash for Mr. Benson and all so-called reporters like him: Your job is to get off your butt and make a concerted effort to write fair reports that truthfully investigate both sides and put your findings on paper for all to read. It’s not your job to decide what is and is not appropriate for the public to view.

As an award-winning journalist with more than 30 years experience, I find it alarming that certain reporters, their editors and others in my profession are successfully silencing one side merely because they disagree with their opinion.

In a better world, I would challenge Benson to a duel for his journalistic offense. Oh, wait! That might offend his pacifist sensibilities. We can’t have that, can we?[/quote]

Along those lines…

Michigan GOP leader wants Ron Paul barred from future debates

[quote]The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings. [/quote]

So much for the “big tent” party that welcomes all viewpoints! He said some truth! Throw the bum out!

And don’t make me dig up the umpteen news stories about anti-war groups being infiltrated by the FBI and physically evicted from public “forums” for expressing their heretical opinions (the best was the former CIA director being descended upon by black-suited bouncers when he asked Rummy why he lied about Iraq and crying out, “This is AMERICA for God’s sake!”) I’m gonna find that one and post it up here later.

However, the intent of your thread is actually to discuss media, so let’s not forget this old nugget…

[url= biassed? Internal Fox memo proves they slant the news[/url]

Vay -
Please try to stay on topic with your responses.

  1. Ron Paul made patently false claims at the debate and certain members of the GOP have requested he be removed from future Rep National Committee sponsored debates. Thats is their prerogative, it does not halt Mr. Pauls efforts at gaining the candidacy, but it does show the public what a loose cannon wonk he really is.
  2. Keith Olberman doesn’t have a rats-ass worth of relevance to this thread. If you’re still trying to push his line of bs…find a different thread.

Again, you post without responding to the OT article.

And yet, strangely, neither the Guardian or Mirror sites have any reference whatsoever to a Damien Benson, and the only Google hit is from this same article in WorldNutDaily.


Damien Benson journalist: nope
Damien Benson reporter: nein
Damien Benson Iraq: nyet
Damien Benson War on Terror: nada

I think he sure does. He has an internal memo proving that Fox gives its reporters the foregone conclusion they’re supposed to build their stories around. How could that possibly not relate to this statement from your article:

Primary difference I see is that in your article the “filtering” is an indiscretion of an individual journalist – whereas with Fox it’s policy!

Please post those “patently false” statements in the Ron Paul thread. As of now, the only thing you said there was that he was “a putz”. Not exactly an empirically-verifiable argument!

However, if you’re referring to the “blowback” comment that Giuliani (sp?) and the rest of those knee-jerk-response-seeking, conformist posers jumped on him about, I must warn you his statement has already been backed up by numerous well-informed sources – bitter pill or not.

Ron Paul had the guts to actually tell the truth about the reasons the US was attacked. Hearing the truth created a severe case of cognitive dissonance among the neocons (who live in a world of lies), and they quickly went into “cover the ears and sing la la la” mode. (I must admit, hearing a Republican tell the truth was a shocker to me, too.) Their requests to bar Paul from debates are like saying “We will not tolerate the truth here.”

[quote=“MikeN”]And yet, strangely, neither the Guardian or Mirror sites have any reference whatsoever to a Damien Benson, and the only Google hit is from this same article in WorldNutDaily.[/quote]MikeN -
I have had the same results as you re:“Damien Benson” info via Google.

Her website has a “Contact Me” address @:

How about posing this Q to her and telling us the results?

Frankly I am curious about this also.

Good Luck and let us know what she says!

Sounds like typical Republican hypocritical nonsense to me. If “making patently false claims” is something that the GOP cares about so much, then they wouldn’t have tolerated Bush as a candidate. Keep in mind that the Republican leadership tolerated Mark Foley’s pedophilia for years, covering up for him the whole time – the GOP will do absolutely anything to get elected.

Like, Paul might do something really “crazy” like get the U.S. quagmired in another bad war? How much worse can he possibly be than Bush?

As a spectator (ie I cannot vote) I also am curious what those patently false claims are. But mostly I am interested why in a debate that featured a group of men endorsing torture and the president’s right to detain and torture without oversight or consequence, people are up in arms over Paul’s statements.

Mitt Romney wants to double Gitmo even though more than two thirds of the original inmates have been released without charges (ie they were innocent). Doubling Gitmo could not conceivably be done without even more innocent people being captured and detain, but again, Paul is the whacko.

Well, Paul may indeed by a whacko, but he was not alone that night (Guiliano anyone?). All I can say is the Republican base looks debased to the point of no return.

TC- worth a try- I sent this:

[quote]Dear Ms. Morgan
A fellow poster on a forum for ex-pats in Taiwan posted your article concerning the Guardian and Mirror reporter Damien Benson who refused to include your opinions in his story. However, checking both the Guardian and Mirror websites I could find no reference whatsoever to a Damien Benson. I tried Google searches under various combinations “Damien Benson” + “reporter” “journalist” “Iraq” “War on Terror” etc, and also got no hits.

Do you have any more information on this person? It seems possible that you were the victim of a hoaxer or “wannabe” posing as a reporter.

I note that the Guardian, while itself supporting the hostage deal, has also published opinion columns strongly critical of it i.e.

“Whatever happened to name, rank and number?” … 69,00.html

Thanks for your attention.[/quote]

It just occurred to me that it might also have been an anti-war type
trolling for an over-the-top comment to be used in a hit piece.

But…IMHO ?

WorldNetDaily is a wacky minded conspiracy site which deserves all the respect of a Supermarket tabloid screaming about Bigfoot having Elvis’s baby. :smiley:

Though of course even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then.

So who is this “Melanie Morgan” person? Your friendly, neighborhood GOP lobbyist.

[quote]Melanie Morgan gained national notoriety in the summer of 2006 when she suggested that Bill Keller, an editor of the New York Times, be killed in a “gaschamber” for the crime of “treason” after the Times’ reporting on US government spying on Americans. [1]

Morgan works with the Russo Marsh & Rogers public relations firm which specializes in electing Republican candidates; with help from the Pentagon, ran “Truth Tours” to Iraq for right-wing US media personalities; and receives funding from Iraqi Kurds to run advertisements on American television stations thanking the United States for the war. Morgan is chairwoman of the Russo Marsh & Rogers-run pro-war lobby Move America Forward.[/quote]

Here’s what she says in that excerpt from TC:

“Organization” or cheesy astro-turf front run by a PR firm? If you’re looking for somebody to help make the call about what the “truth” is, it’s never a wise idea to go straight to the PR agencies of America.