... the barbaric nature of the Communist Khmer Rouge was painted over in soothing tones by much of the American press. The New York Times was the most flagrant offender. In one dispatch, its correspondent Sydney Schanberg described a ranking Khmer Rouge leader as a "French-educated intellectual" who wanted nothing more than "to fight against feudal privileges and social inequities." A bloodbath was unlikely, Schanberg reported: "since all are Cambodians, an accommodation will be found." As the last Americans were withdrawn, another upbeat article by Schanberg appeared under the headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." In short order, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to march nearly two million of their fellow Cambodians to their deaths in the killing fields. Also in short order, Schanberg went on to greater glory and a Pulitzer prize.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Killing fields then and now
Because the MSM was complicit in the genocide that took place after America was defeated in Viet Nam, it has never acknowledged its responsibility for the deaths of millions. This is a grim reminder that there are some whose consciences are not totally callused by ideology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What mind-numbing nonsense. You think the MSM bears major responsibility for what happened in Cambodia? What kind of drugs are you on? The MSM is a group of reporters. If you wish to find blame, then look to the powers that took specific action that set the stage and established the dynamic that led to the genocide.
You can start with the Nixon administration's invasion of Cambodia and overthrow of the stable government that existed there, and its replacement with a compliant military dictatorship. Which led, as day follows night, to a popular revolution.
As always happens in these tragic situations, if the people are aggrieved, and there is no political mechanism for their voice (a hallmark of military dictatorships) then opposition becomes radicalized, and the most psycho and violent members of what would otherwise be a legitimate resistance, rise to the top.
The US government created the playing field on which the Khmer Rouge was able to flourish. And once the process was started, there was nothing to do to stop it playing out (since we were not occupying Cambodia).
Trying to criticize the MSM coverage as if that had some sort of a determingn effect on the outcome is just insane.
Apparently you did not read the links I provided.
Why yes, the MSM does bear a large part of the responsibility for what happened in Cambodia, Viet Nam and South China Sea. They were the ones who reported victories like Tet as defeats. They were the ones who lied about the “peace loving freedom fighters” who eventually took over Cambodia and Viet Nam. They and their street thugs were the ones who spat on our troops returning home and become the megaphone of the pro-communist street theater that demanded we stop supporting the people fighting for their lives.
The MSM is very much more than a bunch of “reporters.” They are shapers of opinion by what they report and what they don’t report. By what they emphasize and what they don’t emphasize.
Thanks to the internet, we are no longer completely at the mercy of the little Pol Pots of the media. We can get our information without the “gatekeepers” telling us what they think we should know. Thanks to citizen reporters and citizen soldiers, the term “Reporter”, like its synonym “Liberal,” has become a dirty word.
By the way, thanks for a wonderful example of apologizing for the perpetrators of genocide.
Post a Comment