THE TROJAN HORSE OF TELEVISION:

Filed by Pauly Fongemie May 28, 1999

INTRODUCTION
JUDITH REGAN TONIGHT
THE O'REILLY FACTOR
THE FOX REPORT WITH PAULA ZAHN
THE DRUDGE REPORT
OBSERVATIONS IN GENERAL
HANNITY AND COLMES

INTRODUCTION

To say that the mass media, in particular television news, is a vast wasteland of moral rot, anti-Christian bias, especially the anti-Catholic variety, nanny state agitprop, and sophomoric "truisms" is to state the by now obvious. So when our family heard about a new cable network that purported to present unbiased news, which sounded too good to be true, but still clinging to a tattered shred of hope, I tuned in for a few weeks of around-the-clock monitoring, from the Littleton, Colorado school massacre through to the week of May 27, 1999. That shred of hope was realistic, not expecting a fair shake for Christians, if still hoping for a little bias slanted towards the truth for a change. Apart from one most articulate and courageous Catholic [so we thought at the time] commentator, Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes, a weekly evening news hour in interview format, and the naive honesty of Brit Hume, that spark of hope quickly went out. Catholic men and women of tradition and truth, FOX News Channel is not only a den of the now clichéd clichés, liberalism, immorality and all variations of socialist propaganda to be found nightly in TV's nightmarish morass, it is actually worse, for it holds itself up as unbiased news coverage on behalf of the viewer who can decide for himself. Perhaps my monitoring almost non-stop for over a month was conducted while the network was having an atypical series of newscasts, but I seriously doubt that any network would fail to reveal its true colors in that amount of time, given human predilections, especially that unaided by grace. I say worse because a Trojan horse is insidiously more dangerous than an enemy openly facing you as such. Beware "conservatives" or "unbiased journalists" bearing gifts of "truth" or "balance". Even if FOX News were balanced, it would still be unbalanced. Truth is not balanced, it merely is. Truth is not extreme, although by one definition it can be said to be extreme as it will brook no compromise. That being said, in reality extremes are found in some viewpoints concerning what to do about the truth. Since the other networks are so solidly liberal, a balanced approach on FOX, which is pretty shallow actually, does nothing to even the situation. If balance was what FOX was after, the news there would be solidly on truth and not spinning it by so-called balance, which is the authentic sense of proportion. Liberals with their lies from bully pulpits would be absent and traditional Catholics given an equal opportunity for regular commentary on the news.

The first tip off was glaring: the same old tired liberal faces from CNN, and other networks, including Richard Morris, late of the White House instead of a network, and a degenerate pal of Clinton at one time, along with the ultra liberal Eleanor Clift, among others. These people are hired pundits for FOX. They weren't "balanced" on CNN etc., and they aren't balanced now. Musical chair liberals. The second give-away that something wasn't quite as reported, forgive the pun, was Judith Regan, lionized by Radioland's Rush Limbaugh, not exactly a moral icon with his acceptance of contraception and divorce and remarriage etc., along with his name dropping of the CFR/neoconservative gang as cronies. No real conservative of traditional beliefs would be so admired and promoted by Limbaugh. I smelled a rat or two or three as they say, but decided not to Rush to judgment, pardon not the pun, until I had spent some time viewing. Sad to say, this crowd, but for the exceptions duly noted [and they, too, were only the occasional exception] above, is overwhelmingly not only in the liberal advocacy business, it seems to exist for the sheer purpose of undermining traditional Catholic and or Christian morality, the natural law, and the abolition of the 2nd amendment, employing at least one proud, self professed Catholic as a proverbial useful dissenter to help it achieve those goals. No surprise but I still expected something  more uplifting. If you are experiencing doubt, do not adjust your monitor, just read on. Below are examples culled from a month's worth of shows.

Note: I will not include a psychologist named Georgia somebody, whose show is all of the above but in the context of gossip and therapy for the most part and no serious traditional Catholic would be interested enough to be harmed, even if scandalized. Most of the guests quickly show themselves to be incompetent for any worthwhile original thought; no matter the subject, or the professions of the guests, it seems like a Hollywood type of clan.  The host's makeup and personality shout aging starlet as if unaware that she has been bitten by the Barbie Doll bug. That is the impression she leaves the viewer with. Her rate of speech and tone is almost breathless and is uttered from a plastic surgeon's menu of acceptable lips and a vapid face. She looks like almost every blonde in the media thinks she is supposed to look like. Production line clones. Two minutes and you could not bother going back for more. It is not even remotely news, in fact it is literally "BEYOND THE NEWS," as the title suggests. Gossip, is well, gossip. I don't know if she is still on FOX, although I think BEYOND is beyond us all now.

This assessment does not include a once a week program that monitors the media for FOX. It is a tired retread of the same media watch type program on CNN with one of the same precise individuals as a panelist, who harbors hostility to Christian conservatives, so much so he exhibits no professionalism. [He has since left to be replaced by another annoying such parasitic commentator.] Rather than examine the media, he uses his panel position to rant hatred in between an occasional rational insight as window dressing. He does not fool you because he is so obvious and so distasteful. I refuse to watch while he is on. That show ought to rotate panelists and give us a break from his utter contempt.

Nor will we be analyzing the Crier Report [since moved to Court TV] except briefly here, because I was unable to to get a good read on Crier. A former judge and once a journalist for Ted Turner's CNN, she is smart, savvy in the modern sense, and very articulate. I will keep monitoring this program. Of course, if someone is in the company of the good and the true or is smart enough to know that the truth needs diligence to be defended and promoted for the sake of the common good, usually those who listen to him is aware that this is the case. For example, it is an adage that if you have to ask someone if he is pro-life, then in reality he is not. Pro-lifers, by definition, are not afraid to assert their defense of the sanctity of human life. They do not hedge their bets for the sake of expediency or caution. If you don't know he is pro-life then he isn't, period, no matter the rhetoric. It is a dead give-away. In the interest of fairness I will give Miss Crier some time, but I am not enthusiastic that her ideological blandness is just part of her personality, because she is personally vivacious it seems to me. A good host will want to sit back and let the guest speak, but guests may require a challenge from the host in the interest of truth. I am not seeing enough challenge. I want hard facts centered on public policy, not a "This Is Your Life" interview or soft ball questions. That is what the Biography channel and CNN are for. Moreover, Crier is reported to be doing a program about psychic mediums, whatever her intentions, she will serve to promote the occult. I say this because she will either have a medium on who will talk about his interest or have a panel of some sort with pros and cons. But since psychics are either frauds or terribly misguided people dabbling into the occult, and since both of these are evils, they cannot be said to have legitimate voice and merit no pro position, from the Christian perspective. FOX may not be in the business to promote Christian ethics but Christians do not need to waste their time either or to be demoralized. In this endeavor, FOX News is no different than the other networks and cable operators.

The order of the presentation is not relevant, the statements and the context of these statements are:

Judith Regan left FNC to concentrate on Regan Books, later fired for the Simpson book deal that fell through due to public outrage --- there is some decency still left in America. Given her apparent animus against fathers, the Simpson deal was a surprise, but where money deals are concerned all bets ought to be off.

FROM "JUDITH REGAN TONIGHT"

This is a weekend evening show that runs for an hour on both Saturday and Sunday nights. The host, Miss Regan, is a divorced mother who is in publishing and is fond of boasting of her children, in itself an admirable trait, but she engages in it enough times that I suspect she is displaying an opposing variant of the "my lady protests too much" kind of thing. Most people discuss their children from time to time in the professional field, but I have never known anyone to do so in such opportunistic fashion whatever the subject at hand. The show, in fact, emits a therapeutic and sentimental atmosphere, the disorder of the day on most magazine programs, with one difference, the superficially sophisticated stage set around a chic desk. The format of the show covers a wide range of current topics, with single guests or a panel of guests, mainly authors of some expertise, which is expected of a host in the publishing trade.

The most recent show consisted of a panel of experts on the Male and or Fatherhood in the context of the women's movement, that is, the rise of women in the professions and universities versus men. Miss Regan's opening introduction included the fact that women now predominate by a small margin in the universities: more women are earning degrees than men. From here the discussion evolved into the role of the man as provider, father, etc. The panel consisted of John Podhoretz, a neoconservative and divorced man with no children; Lionel Tiger, author and social researcher, I think a type of modern anthropologist and known expert on the role of men in society; Cathy Young, a researcher who had written a book calling for a ceasefire between men and women; and a woman from Harper's magazine, apologies for forgetting her name, which begins with either an E or an R. I had not intended to write about this particular show, as I had decided to write it off, pun intended, but tuned in one more time, "just in case." I was so appalled I decided to write anyway, even without notes. I recall the other names because I have seen them on other panels or interviewed by other hosts and they are thus familiar to me by name.

The main thrust of the debate centered on the decline of fathers in a meaningful way. Miss Regan is divorced as I said, and unfortunately the father of at least one of her children is "not involved". Regan seemed hostile against fathers, indicating that women should have the starring role and hence, custody of children. When Cathy Young attempted to disagree or offer a point for reflection that perhaps it is not quite so one-sided as Regan suggested, she was met with interruption, raised voice from Regan and aggressive tone that shouted hostility to me. No other guest was repeatedly interrupted in this manner. Lionel Tiger at one point presented the Nativity as a myth, as an example of the need for fathers [Joseph]. Regan did not, on behalf of sensitivity to Christian viewers interject to say that perhaps that the term, myth, might be misunderstood by some viewers. Does anyone seriously believe that if Tiger had instead taken the Passover narrative from the Old Testament and called it a myth, that Regan would not have inserted a clarifying point? Of course not! Now Regan and probably three of her guests on that panel, if memory serves, are pro-abortion, that is, for "choice" as they are fond of saying. In other words, their point of view is that women should have the right whether to be a mother after conception or not. Fathers, of course have no such corresponding right in their view. It never occurred to Regan and Company that evil has its own trajectory and logic; if the natural law can be violated for the "sake" of women, then sooner or later men would start opting out of fatherhood, seeing that their choice is to either refuse to pay support or just walk away. Women can hire a contract killer to slaughter their children in the womb, and they are heroines of liberation. Men, who cannot get abortions, walk away and they are scum. Of course, both are not worthy of decent men and women, but liberalism is devoid of logic and its adherents are blind to their hypocrisy. Men are not justified by abortion to refuse fatherhood and its inherent responsibilities, but given the built-in trajectory of this kind of evil, it should at least be no surprise that our human nature is so easily corrupted. The upshot of this show was that men are in decline as fathers and in their role as provider and husband. 

Regan told the panel about a friend of hers that cannot find a man to date or marry. Well, when virginity is sneered at and fornication a "right," why should a man marry for what he can get for free? Sin, if not liberalism, has its own logic. I do not suggest that the issue is not more complex, but I noted that the sexual revolution did not give either men or women any real freedom and harmed women most, and which observation was never raised among the panel except by Podhoretz who was outnumbered.

Podhoretz began to offer some valid insight but the show ended before it could be developed. He was hinting that the male as primary bread winner had declined because of social and economic policy, I think. In other words, the sin of liberalism and its sister, the nanny state with its confiscatory taxation policy created the need for women to leave their families to day care to earn a wage to maintain the family's standard of living. Then when fathers feel devalued, they are, of course, evil or irresponsible, for something they did not cause. The women's movement was instrumental in the changing dynamics of the workplace, not fathers in general. Women blame men for the divorce situation but it was women who demanded no fault divorce laws, and so forth. Talk about wanting things both ways. I could not detect any difference between Regan Tonight and any TV panel discussion on the other networks. One of the men, I think Lionel Tiger, did bring up the effect of the pill and contraception that made marriage less necessary, which was excellent, however the Harper's editor at one point had the effect of sandbagging that by counterpointing with the diminished need for population, that as a result the command in Genesis to go forth and multiply was no longer necessary. No one challenged her claim. The assertion was irrelevant because people who are willing to overlook the commandments not to kill and not to commit adultery [and fornication] would not let another command in the Bible interfere with their personal gratification. Again, a lack of intellectual examination and logic. Typical clichés passing for wisdom. And always an assault upon God and His rights. When modern presumptions, as well as the logical outcomes of the same, are dismissed or not challenged, the viewer cannot decide for himself because the truth has been left out, unless he is self educated and has the will to want to know the truth. It is not a lie to omit a cogent fact necessarily, but it is a kind of disinformation that is more dangerous. Constant omission tends to make a reality lose any relevance or meaning. If you outlaw or condemn an idea, at least you know it is something that exists, right or wrong. If it is never raised, it ceases to exist. This is human nature.

Underlying all of Regan's shows is the unstated premise that sex outside of marriage between "consenting adults" is okay as well as the contraceptive mentality. FOX News Channel is disseminating the very approval of sin that is destroying family life in America. Another irony of the having it both ways syndrome was the failure by anyone on the panel to note that if women have the burden of child care as Regan maintains, and if men are not taking responsibility, since those same men were raised by women, then it is women who are and were the deficient parents if her position is to be maintained consistently. The blind continue to lead the blind.

THE O'REILLY FACTOR

Bill O'Reilly is a former school teacher and professed Catholic, turned writer of fiction and journalist. The show is a weekly hour interview show in the early evening, wherein current topics are highlighted by interviews with politicians and or experts. The host states he is a an independent, thus positioning himself as a moderate between the right and left. He is pro-gun control and while personally against abortion [after the first three months of gestation], he muddies the waters of clarity by also agreeing with pro-abortion pols who are "personally opposed but" for the hideous barbarity anyway. He never explains why his three months in the womb are different than your four months and my umpteenth months and so forth. This, of course, permits him to be viewed by liberals as less threatening to their agenda as he is not prepared to stand in their way by focusing on the moral corruption behind their bogus arguments. His show is a top rated show, I think the second on TV for his format, so that reveals something about the state of affairs among the TV audience and the polity. While decidedly anti-Clinton, he repeatedly cannot bring himself to admit that it is even possible for Clinton to have betrayed us with the Red Chinese, because "he is an American president." Of course he neglects to inform his audience that Murdoch, FOX owner, is heavily invested in Red China and no serious examination of the Red Chinese regime will ever be undertaken at FOX beyond the perfunctory mention. No command has been passed down but all organizations have unwritten rules that its members tacitly agree to if only at the sub-conscious level. This subtle deceit permits them to state they are not given marching orders [truthfully by a technicality] and then proceed to march in tune. Mindless. If a president can do all that this one has done, what is a little treason, or even a lot of treason, given the Congress' lack of will to checkmate the dangerous degenerate in the White House, and which lack is counted on by the wily guy from "Hope," Arkansas? The fact is that the "Factor" is too willing to discount the effects of Original Sin, particularly in light of the moral decline in our fragmented state, and which willingness is a "factor", I suspect, in his doing grave damage to confuse the issues, regardless of any honorable intention, precisely because he is so popular and skillful at packaging himself. He agrees with the enemy almost half of the time on some point. No quarter should be ceded in this all out cultural war, except to be honest when traditionlists may have overstated a case or gotten a fact wrong.

On matters concerning racial bias, he is, however, coherent, cogent, thoughtful, and articulate. He does not pander here to black racism, yet is sensitive to the genuine concerns of Black Americans and other racial minorities. At the same time I think he recognizes the valid concerns of White Americans who are sometimes the victims of Black bigotry precisely because they are White or to put it another way, because they are not Black. He does not use the term racist as a callous slur to intimidate someone he may politically disagree with. And he is most insightful on Janet Reno and her cover-up for Clinton. This was not enough, however, to redeem a traitor to our one true religion in our eyes. One who betrays the Church in public, which is what the "personally opposed but" position is, is worse than one who betrays his country, which is what Clinton seems to have done. You know, speaking about the "personally opposed but" argument on abortion, which the "Factor" says is the reasoned and right position, can you imagine anyone substituting theft, rape, genocide, slavery, racism, etc., for abortion in the above position and being allowed to get away with it? Not on your life! I would have liked to ask him what is it about abortion that he is so morally against but thinks it must be permitted and that is morally acceptable not to oppose it for others? We aren't discussing sky diving here. Do you know of one immoral practice you think should be promoted by government as an absolute right? An immoral act can be permitted passively, such as fornication or someone getting drunk in his own home, because some acts of individuals cannot be regulated by force without a greater evil ensuing. But one cannot be for it positively as a right to be protected. The former is tolerance as taught by the Church, but not the "tolerance" taught by American culture, the latter complicity in evil. Slaughtering the innocent is not one of these acts of tolerance, especially not does it merit government sanction and outright protection. I'm factoring out the Factor for now.

THE FOX REPORT WITH PAULA ZAHN

I have mixed inclinations about the News and other interview segments as presented by Miss Zahn. Bright and perky she was a regular on CBS in the morning before migrating to FOX. I wanted to like her because Limbaugh talked about her with the same contempt as he has done about Pat Buchanan. Zahn does not give any direct evidence of liberal bias herself, but leaves unchallenged the liberal "truisms", assumptions, and hypocrisies. The Shooting in Littleton, Colorado, is a typical case in point. We had over a week of non-stop coverage and then a slow decline to almost none over a period of another three weeks. Zahn, was no exception. This in itself is not a criticism given the horror and implications of the massacre. But the level of coverage gave the enemy, the anti-2nd amendment crowd, plenty of spots to push their agenda, exploiting the massacre cynically, especially with the help of Zahn who seemed to cover this aspect more than it was being covered by the other programs on Fox, and these were covering gun control a lot, several times a day for almost two weeks. The 2nd amendment did not fare well with Zahn, deliberately or unintentionally. Or perhaps it would be better to say that she was less effective in her coverage, or was she more? Hmmmm?

The more this subject was covered on any of the networks and her program, the more the polls reflected a lack of concern for that amendment while the pundits and polity alike remained careful to protect the 1st amendment when it comes to gore, violence, and rock music in the general media, if not on the internet as much. The having it both ways syndrome. This is not to blame Zahn for all of this, but I do question her general lack [a few exceptions were evident] of challenge to the anti-gun lobby's assertions, especially since she appeared to be discussing this issue so often. The examples could be applied somewhat to the other shows above and below, but not as intensely as Zahn's reporting. For instance, we heard repeatedly about legislation "to curtail" the availability of guns in the hands "of those who should not have them" [never delineated as to who was not included in that group while hinting at teens]. On other shows the fact was raised that in the fifties, a number of teens, mostly male, had guns as a sport. No shootings or massacres even though bullying and teasing were present as it seems to be part of growing up. I don't recall that being offered as a point by way of playing devils advocate by Zahn. Repeatedly we heard that the availability of guns was a critical factor, which of course it was but only partly because the two shooters had made almost fifty bombs as back up. Given their state of mind and hatred does anyone doubt that if guns had not been accessible that the bombs would not have been detonated? I sure don't. Yet Zahn never raised the matter, to my knowledge. I did have to sleep and to flick to the other networks momentarily, so I suppose I could have missed something, but if I did, it could not have been much on this aspect given the other non challenges. While other programs raised the matter of the potential harm of disarming the citizenry i.e., the criminals would have no trouble in acquiring weapons as the law is not a deterrent to them, this did not seem to be of much concern to Zahn or the guests she interviewed. Let's disarm American citizens and arm Red China, was the tacit theme in the background.

There was also some irony. There was a lot of discussion about internet sites that feature how to make a bomb. One of Zahn's' guests, a former law enforcement officer or bomb expert of some kind, I think, gave a precise explanation of how to construct one. No need for the internet with his help. This was utterly unnecessary and very irresponsible. What if a deranged twelve year old with no internet access [one third of youngsters do not have it as yet] tuned in to the regular news and caught that segment? I shudder to think. And on it went. Even gun control O'Reilly was more insightful. It's too bad because Zahn is no airhead or Barbie Doll; Beautiful and stylish, she does not have as much of a penchant for short skirts as too many other women hosts tend to have; her makeup and general appearance are wholesome and natural. Most of all she is smart, too smart not to do a better job of penetrating unexamined assertions. I would like to think she can do better than this and ought to. But as yet, I find myself lacking in trust and tuning her out more and more. I sent an e-mail but have no idea if she even received it. I had a problem understanding the pull down menus involved in sending e-mail at the Fox site and I don't know if I even sent it correctly so that my message would reach the proper destination. [I have since learned to navigate the site. Regan got an observation or two from me.]

THE DRUDGE REPORT

Matt Drudge of internet fame hosts a weekend half-hour interview [extended to an hour since this first report, then later dropped] which is preluded by an opening monologue by Drudge on current events. I can't get a good read on him, but as far as I can determine, Drudge is determined to get the story behind the "story" of the day or the week, expose hypocrisy and show up the biased media all in a half hour, which is an impossibility realistically speaking, even with one subject at hand. His style is what we used to describe as off-beat. He is not in a suit, sports a rumpled shirt and old tie and no viewer has ever seen his head because it is topped by a brown fifties type hat. He is always entertaining but leaves one with wanting to know more. It is unfortunate that the program is 30 minutes because I leave his show frustrated. Also, there is an element of gossip about the program that I would prefer not to listen to. However, Drudge is not afraid of not being the polished media persona, nor of what people think about his methods. These are times of great cover-ups and mendacity in government and media. Drudge wants the truth and is content to dig away until he finds it for public exposure. He is well named in that regard. 

OBSERVATIONS IN GENERAL

During the Littleton coverage, FOX News correspondents never mentioned the religious affiliation of the shooters, or their lack of one, for that matter, all the while the religion of the victims was a constant theme running in and out as a main thread in the tapestry. I thought that curious at the time as reporters tend to introduce any killer or depraved person to the audience by making sure it knows he is or was a Catholic, [former altar boy is the usual appendage], or some sort of Christian if that is the case. You would think that this would hold here as well. So I suspected that the religion of the killers was being protected or not considered germane in this one case and one case alone. But I was not certain. Then the Georgia school shooting erupted a month later and wham, you guessed it, the shooter was portrayed as a Christian, as if guilt by association was being hinted at. If the religious membership [or lack of one] of a felon is germane, it is always germane or it is never, period. It is a particular imperative if the religious tenets spurred the felony in some manner, or a lack of same propelled the incident. If the religion was incidental, and mostly this is the case, then always mentioning it when the criminal is a Christian and not so or downplaying the influence of a non-Christan religion influence, serves to prejudice for and away from. Thus, if the media considers the incidental cases ripe for fodder, then it should do so across the board. Otherwise bias and bias alone, anti-Christian and pro-Muslim [the religion of peace despite war tenets in the Koran] prevails. I could not help wonder if either one of the Colorado killers was a Jew, or a Pagan or held some other politically acceptable religious membership. I knew they were not Muslims because the religion of peace agitprop would have taken over ad infinitum. That's observation #1. Even after 9-11 this carefully crafted lie is maintained at great constraint.

During the Georgia school coverage the killer was said to be a minor and guests and reporters were quick and constant to point this out with the caution that his name could not be revealed as minors have protection. Then suddenly someone provides the name anyway and then the name is plastered every half hour several times. This is confusing to the viewer who cannot follow the rules here. It's not a "sin," but this hypocrisy does not help to convince the viewer that the network is as competent as it portrays itself. I have no problem with knowing the name of any killer, however mitigated the circumstances are, but just don't understand why in one minute it's not okay and in the next it is. If there is a legal/journalistic reason for the switch a simple statement to viewers would suffice. That's observation #2.

Observation #3 involves a corollary of #2 which was transparently evident during the coverage of both school shootings: The constant retraction and reintroduction of facts as if reluctant to let go of the hype. This curious phenomenon prevails in all tragedies now reported. At first the Littleton massacre was reported to be as high as 25 for several hours. Then it was reduced to 15, then 13, then to 15, then 13 again and this went on and on. The number of weapons involved was the same sort of thing. Now some of this can be attributed to natural human error, confusion, panic-induced misperception, etc.  But no one makes that many mistakes so often. The Georgia case was the same. I no longer believe any initial report, unless of course the culprit is a former altar boy or a Christian, then you can be sure that fact will be straight and repeated without error. It was over a week before I felt confident I understood the particulars of the basic facts in the Columbine case. That means a week of useless news coverage. So from now on, when you first hear about a major event, turn off the TV, put away the paper, and wait a week for some accurate information, if not all you are entitled to. The rest is just for ratings and related interests. Any information that is ultimately reliable will in of itself be censored anyway. The media, so afraid of government censorship and viewer boycotts are the very culprits who make a living keeping much of the real news from us day by day, year after year. As G.K. Chesterton observed so keenly it is the press that practices censorship, except where raw prurience and the grotesquely abnormal are concerned.

Observation #4 is about the judgment on the parents of the Colorado killers --- trial by press, and no one has even seen them or heard from them but there is a general anti-parent  judgment. This is not to excuse them for I know nothing of their responsibility. But I do know that at least one of the boys was being treated with medication and counseling and that law enforcement had given both of them a favorable recommendation. How many parents would say to this authority, my son is a criminal, you do not know what you are talking about? Most of us believe experts even when they are wrong, it is part of human nature. Why should these parents be exempt from this natural tendency? In all the FOX speculation on the parents not once did I hear from a commentator or expert the following:

"Let's accept that it was mainly the fault of the parents, and since parents can be blamed for the behavior of their children who are adults or older teens, then these Colorado parents are bad parents because they had bad parents. What parent wakes up and says, today I want to be a bad parent or negligent parent? He doesn't. If he is, it is because he does not know how to be a good parent and that, in keeping with the lack of burden of proof to condemn, means his mom and dad are to blame for his bad parenting. After all fair is fair." Of course this sort of argumentation would necessarily bring us back to Adam and Eve and Original Sin is out these days, so we do not have to worry much that will ever be the case. These parents may have been negligent, I have no idea. But I know one thing, making the parents legally responsible for older teens, unless directly aiding and abetting, given the anti-traditional parent mentality of the predominant culture that tells kids they do not have to follow their parents is a recipe for cruel injustice and the undermining of family security. We have all heard [here in Maine at least] of the teenage girl incensed by mom and dad's rules for dating and then in a moment of extreme reaction reports her dad to child welfare for [false] abuse and then she is taken out of a loving home and placed in foster care without any proof. Dad and mom spend all their savings for over a year battling a prejudiced system. Finally the girl has an attack of righteous conscience and 'fesses up. Maine alone has had two cases recently like this. Can you imagine what would happen if an alienated older teen decided to get even with mom and dad, whom in his sick mind is evil, even if loving, after he committed suicide? Of course, he would commit a monstrous crime and let them take the fall. The culture war has only begun! Parents are so badly outnumbered in cultural assistance these days, except the child welfare-educational system which is in truth more anti-parent than pro-parent, that it is a miracle of grace that any child can be raised in a traditional home without outside interference. If your parents make you do your homework and stay in on most school nights, why the culture tells them that they can declare themselves "emancipated minors" at 16 and receive welfare and get their own place, all the while having all the benefits of youth. If Dad won't let Jane date until she is 16, she only has to say he is an abuser, and Jane gets her way of sorts. If Jane escapes through a window after being grounded, and the parent restrains her forcefully, but not in a harmful manner, in Maine and in Florida, the parent can be prosecuted for abuse just on the word of the kid. In the case of the child welfare action, dad is ruined for life even after being cleared. If a parent refuses to pay for an expensive European vacation or insists that children come on vacations, some jurisdictions now permit the aggrieved child to sue for the right to the vacation or the right to remain behind. This sort of suit is usually thrown out after getting on the docket at the moment but the mere threat is intimidating, because it is actually possible. And so on. If mom and dad complain about sex-ed and new age spirituality --- religion --- being taught with their tax dollars they are belittled and dismissed by the educrats, who at the national level have issued parent proof kits to teachers/school boards and administrators who want them. This is a packet informing them how to "handle" traditional parents. If parents have raised their children to be kind to persons who are tempted by homosexual inclinations, but they cannot legally be given the right to "marriage," with another of the same gender these same parents are labeled as bigots at school and the child made to feel ashamed and so forth. And it is getting worse. Some parents just don't know want to do anymore, but they struggle on heroically against impossible odds. Blaming parents alone without any facts is a cheap shot, while not including others who may also have been at least as strong a responsible factor is unfair.

Observation #5 concerns the tolerance doctrine as promoted by the media and strongly hinted at by FOX. The process consists of the proverbial, damned if you do and damned if you don't mode of expression. It goes something like this, using the Columbine shooting as good example:

The student killers were reportedly teased and harassed and may have turned to other outlets on the internet and computer games for validation or emotional support. They somehow became susceptible to the messages of hatred, violence and nihilism acquired from this experience and became monsters. This seemed to be the general consensus, loosely stated.  A couple of commentators said that it was possible for someone to "be born that way." FOX interviewed for over two weeks some of the students from the Litttleton high school. A repeated refrain was that the kids were tormented or teased because they were not jocks. Another repeated factoid was that the particular teen guest doing the speaking, never saw the two being teased nor knew of any, that Columbine was an exceptionally good school. Then right after this sort of statement one would hear a call for more tolerance; but why more tolerance if no teasing or tormenting occurred? Then the next teen [almost always referred to by the FOX people, especially, Paula Zahn and Shep Smith, as "children," the same children they supposedly support sex-ed for] would say that the two teens stuck out for being different, referring to their manner of dress, also adding that most people knew about it and tolerated it. Another self-contradiction. I mean it sounds as if there was too much tolerance, not enough. Another student would come on and talk about the fact that he never saw them in black trench coats, then another saying that the school administration knew all about it and could have done something if it had wanted to. In the same breath almost either the same student or another following the first would assert that the school was great and could not do enough to help the students.  A student would say how nice and or quiet the killer was then another would say how weird he was. More contradiction, perhaps hypocrisy, when coupled with the reference to the parents as the bad guys --- they may or may not be --- but there was a double standard applied. Some of the students admitted that they had and could lie successfully to their parents and or hide things from them.  Now which is it in all of the above? The teens were not tolerant and contributed to the alienation of the killers. The school tolerated the attire and hate speech, the school being so cool, you know and perhaps there was need for less tolerance but also a need for more tolerance, while there was no teasing in the first place. And so forth. 

FOX flunked on this exercise, which I suspect was not about truth, but catharsis. Therapy, not news. The school officials should have been interviewed as thoroughly as the students, although I can understand why the parents of the killers would not exactly want to be media friendly. A lot of unanswered questions that were asked of the wrong people, unformed teenagers still struggling with coming into adulthood, full of contradictions and mixed emotions, and probably, if my teen years are recalled correctly, with some old fashion boast thrown in, and even an opportunity to sound smarter than they may have been and or promote their own agenda, self promotion, 15 minutes of fame. No one is as perfect as they made themselves out to be for the most part. Saints do not advertise it, in fact never consider themselves to be. If they are, we missed a few canonization ceremonies in Rome. No school is that wonderful, given the state of government schools today. How could a video projecting the massacre in miniature be taken as a teen fantasy and allowed to merit credit for course work? How could the "intolerant" school have been any more tolerant? Yet the call for more tolerance. Total irrationality, the same kind that occupied the minds of the killers. One teen had some insight, that the parents should not be blamed without more facts, because he knew that he could have fooled his own parents, whom  he said were good parents, involved and caring.

If I hear the cry for "tolerance" one more time I will scream, most of all because I know it is device for excluding the politically incorrect, who are never to be tolerated. People who are tolerant do not have to proclaim it, they just are and people know this about them. When they preach it or describe it in reference to themselves, in comparison to others who are supposedly less tolerant, that is when I know that they aren't. Not speaking well of oneself in regards to tolerance is a function of the act of toleration itself. It cannot be taught although is is learned by example and reflection. The only way toleration can be actively taught is to imply that someone else is not tolerant, thus the need to teach it. Tolerance is not a commandment given by God and can not be taught as morality can be. In order to teach tolerance as modern America defines it, the teacher must be intolerant of those branded intolerant, which is not a tolerant act, or else there would be no need to teach if everyone is tolerant. So by definition it must be an exercise of exclusion and hypocrisy.

HANNITY AND COLMES

Among all the regular programs run by FOX this is the best and most worthwhile, in fact it is head and shoulders above all debate type programs on the air at this time. Both hosts, Sean Hannity a proud Irish Catholic whom we regarded as unabashedly pro-life at the time --- we later discovered he is for contraception and abortion exceptions --- and "conservative", and Alan Colmes, a proud liberal, bring to their show a dynamic and lively approach with no holds barred, without crossing the line between sharp probing questions and ad hominem characterizations. While most of the media hosts pretend to not have a bias, which is humanly impossible, unless the person is devoid of any reasoning and feeling powers, these two make no such pretensions. It is refreshing to have discovered this team. Interestingly, the more the other hosts [Brett Hume excepted] above deny their bias, the more self-evident it becomes and then one looses any sense of confidence that the truth is of any value on those shows. With Hannity and Colmes, whether you agree with one or the other is not as important as knowing that the shoddy lies we are used to hearing from our leaders and rulers will be exposed and that unproved claims will at least be challenged. The viewer may not have every answer immediately, but he knows what to pursue further in the effort to learn the truth.

Both Hannity and Colmes are bright, witty, and as I have indicated, hard-hitting but always gentlemen. I find most media liberals, which include supposed moderates in disguise, unable to respond to reason and thus descend to the ad hominem attack either by insulting the guest using terms meant to exclude, such as "Christian right wing," a code word for bigot in media speak, or apply guilt by some loose association. As a result of the relentless slurs in lieu of examination of the facts, I have come to have disdain for most of the media crowd, period. Alan Colmes has earned my respect, even when I know he is wrong, because of his respect for those he may disagree with very strongly.

Their program, which airs 9 PM EST weekday evenings and at other special times is a must for any thinking Christian interested in public policy and foreign affairs, and most especially national identity and sovereignty. The show is not done from the Christian perspective, it just does not exclude it or write it off as a non serious and legitimate viewpoint. In my opinion it is the best show in the nation with no close competition except for a few programs on C-Span.

Continued forward.

E-MAIL

MEDIA WATCH ARCHIVES----------SOUND-OFF