By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
November 8, 2001
Tuesday, in a press conference, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said of his recent trip:
"We had, really, two principal objectives. First was to meet with the Russian leadership in connection with President Bush's meetings later this month with President Putin. And second, to visit a number of the countries on the periphery of Afghanistan that have joined in the campaign against terrorism, and to hear from their leaders and consider future steps."One thing is clear from our meetings, and that is that the events of September 11th have changed and are changing the world in ways that we really can't fully know yet. Nations are rethinking relationships, they are reorienting policies, and they are realigning priorities.
"For example, the president's decision to waive certain military and economic sanctions on both India and Pakistan will likely have an impact in that region well beyond the anti-terror campaign in Afghanistan.
"Regarding the military campaign, it was -- I found it gratifying to hear during our trip from the leaders of countries that are not always in agreement with each other, but who all agree on the basic principle that terrorism has to be rooted out, and that Afghanistan is indeed the right place to begin doing that. Of course there are going to be differences in views along the way, but the objective is clear, the principle is sound, and I would say that need is great; indeed, it is urgent."
Certainly, it is also obvious to most observers that the "events of September 11th" have changed and are changing the way most Americans view their role as citizens. There has been a rising wave of patriotism and an outpouring of concern for others, shown in the outpouring of financial aid and donated blood to help organizations like the Red Cross and the United Way help the victims of the "events of September 11th."
One group that appears to be quite slow in recognizing the dynamic change that has, and is, taking place, however, seems to be the American media, especially those of us who make our living writing and commenting on the events of the day.
Certainly prior to the "events of September 11th"even the most casual observer could easily see that the competition among news sources in America seems based on a notion that the public reads or listens only when the media can find an extremely negative story to concentrate on. The pre-September 11 concentration on every move, real or imagined, made by California Congressman Gary Condit is an example. In recent weeks, of course, we have had the same kind of overwhelming, minute-by-minute reporting on the anthrax scare. Anthrax, which resulted in 4 deaths, has been given longer and more intensive coverage that the problems surrounding the destruction of the World Trade Center, which killed nearly 6000 people. With anthrax becoming less of a story, it appears that the next negative story is the attack on the Red Cross and other charities who have collected money to help the victims of the last terrorist attack.
My article yesterday questioning the basis for Bill O'Reilly's attacks on the Red Cross brought a flurry of e-mail, pro and con. While there are too many of them to print, they seem to divide into two large groups: Those who believe that the Red Cross is a villain to be forever shunned, and those who believe that the attacks are prompted primarily by Bill O'Reilly's desire to build his ratings.
The O'Reilly attacks quite definitely have done to the Red Cross exactly what the attacks on the Boy Scouts of America have done to the Scout program. It has caused a sizeable, vocal minority group that seems determined to destroy both organizations.
Some of the comments included:
* Bill O'Reilly is right. Since I cannot trust money I send to Red Cross to be spent where it was designated to be spent, I will never again contribute money to the Red Cross. They have lost all creditability.
* You are a fool. As far as the United Way and Red Cross...they need someone to keep an eye on them and where the money goes. I don't think people were donating money for it to go to some "community outreach" programs. As I recall the head of the United Way was caught using funds for his own personal use a few years ago. God Bless O'Reilly for being that watch dog.
* (Bill O'Reilly's) impressed me as a loose cannon for entirely too long, and there are no doubt more worthy rascals at which to tilt than the Red Cross. Have you noticed how O'Rah seems to swipe at both target and ally alike?
* I enjoy his show occasionally for what it is...more entertainment. Lately, the last year or so, he has gone from no nonsense hard hitter to something not too much different from Geraldo. It is sad when no spinners start spinning.
What, actually, are the facts? Well, there are apparently 140 different organizations that are trying to help the families of those who died, or those who have lost their jobs and their homes. From what I understand, the Red Cross and the United Way is helping to fund those other groups - for example, - the daily feeding of workers at ground zero who are working 12 hour shifts.
Is that a legitimate use of the donated money or, as Bill O'Reilly has said on the air, should ALL the donated money be going to the "families of those who died" And, if the Red Cross is obligated to spend 100% of the $1.4 billion collected, for the families of those who died, who is going to help those who are now homeless in the vicinity of the World Trade Center?
Should Bill O'Reilly, or the American public, vote on every check written by the Red Cross and the United Way, since, as Bill O'Reilly says, we "can't trust" them? Can we trust Bill O'Reilly to do a better job, and if so, why?
What we have here is a new bit of contention, isn't it? Why? If there really WERE problems to be worked out, and undoubtedly there are - for the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups - is launching a public attack that convinces people they should no longer contribute to the Red Cross or United Way the proper and most useful approach? Is encouraging division among the people, which this attack on the Red Cross has done, a useful way to solve a problem and unite the people?
I don't think so. I think what is needed here is less attacking and more effort to understand WHAT the Red Cross is doing first and, if it needs to be changed, to discuss the issue while giving the Red Cross at least SOME credit for its efforts. Instead, last night O'Reilly was demanding that the Red Cross and other groups take the time, and presumably the money, to make a video to tell the public how to reach the Red Cross.
At the risk of sounding like a radical, if the families need help, couldn't they just look the telephone number of the Red Cross up in their local phone directory? Do they really need Bill O'Reilly and a video to tell them the obvious?
I think one of the things the "events of September 11th" needs to change is attack and burn journalism which divides the American public. Perhaps if there is less attack journalism and more factual news about issues of the day we could solve problems, rather than just argue about them.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com