[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: The censorship of Jimmy Carter by American media Jimmy Carter was the darling of the media when he ran for and won the presidency in 1976. The media couldn’t say enough good things about him at the time. He was described as “honest," “genuine" and “friendly" to name a few choice words. A mild mannered peanut farmer that wanted to lead the world in a peaceful direction. Unfortunately during his term, the economy tanked, he gave away the Panama Canal, and the long Iran hostage crisis started. All these events ruined his popularity ratings and made it next to impossible for him to have any positive impact. The economy was out of his control, though all sitting presidents rightly or wrongly will be blamed for a bad economy. The Iran hostage crisis was mostly out his control too, although he didn’t help matters by not taking a firmer stance against Iran. However, giving away the Panama Canal was totally in his control and also the totally wrong thing to do. Nevertheless, he was still revered by most in the media because he was a liberal and the media was and is even today, mostly liberal. The mass media’s love affair with Carter is now over though. He recently gave a speech to the Atlantic Bridge meeting in Atlanta, Georgia and not even one American media outlet bothered to cover it. Der Spiegel, a German weekly news magazine, did cover it though thankfully. Amazingly though the contents of their report were still not covered by the American press, even though what he has to say is highly relevant to what is going on in America today. Now I know a former president doesn’t have the influence of a current president, but they still should have much more influence than your average Joe does. The American media though seems to be censoring Jimmy Carter for some reason. What could possibly make the established American press that likes to talk about anything that is remotely newsworthy ignore what a former president has to say about the current scandals rocking the nation and world? Jimmy Carter wrote a book recently entitled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" in which he is very critical of Israel occupying Palestinian land and violating their civil rights. Since he has wrote this best selling book many in the media have no longer cared to interview him or report on much of anything he has to say. This is pure censorship and should not be tolerated by a free press in the “land of the free." Thankfully though, Der Spiegel did cover and report on his recent speech to the Atlantic Bridge meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, or we may not have heard a word about his views on one of the biggest scandals this nation has ever seen. Which of course is the NSA mass surveillance of basically everyone’s telephone communications in America and their backdoor server access to private email and data from companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype, and Apple under a secret program called “PRISM." Jimmy Carter in his speech not only praised the actions of whistle-blower Edward Snowden in reporting the NSA’s blatant violations of the US Constitution to the American people, he also said “America does not have a functioning democracy at this point in time." For a former president of the USA to say what he said about America in that speech to the Atlantic Bridge meeting, you would think that it would be headline news on all news outlets and every paper in this land by at very least the next day if not sooner. However there were only a few alternate news outlets on the Internet that even bothered reporting on it at all! The only reasonable conclusion here is that a former president is being actively censored by major media outlets in America because they don’t like what he is saying! If they can censor a former president because they don’t like what he says, think how much easier they can censor anyone else. A free press is suppose to report the news, not censor it! Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: RickyJ (#0)
Why was it wrong to give the canal back to Panama.? Were we supposed to permanently occupy part of another country just because we had a treaty saying we could get away with it? (that is essentially what we are doing with Guantanemo but I don't think that is right either)
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||