The price is right for our package and we even added our Internet hook up to this service provider….

Ernie Pyle’s style of reporting would seem strange to modern-day Americans, because Ernie Pyle made it clear which side he was on. Ernie Pyle was on the battlefield, risking his own life, so that the American people back home would “know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful” to the soldiers who fought for them.

Ernie Pyle was one of America’s most famous and beloved war correspondents. Pyle set a new journalistic standard during World War II by moving among the soldiers on the front lines. His reporting gave the American people a closeness to war that they had never experienced before. Pyle never glorified war, but he explained combat in terms of the sacrifices that American soldiers made on behalf of the people back home. Pyle wrote of the American warrior with a “heart-of-gold,” of the American soldier fighting the “good fight” against evil, and of the American soldier fighting for a “just and moral cause.” Ernie Pyle died on April 18, 1945, while reporting on the Battle of Okinawa in the Pacific.

Today, America is once again locked in a great struggle between good and evil. Brave Americans are fighting a new World War that pits the forces of freedom and democracy against the forces of Islamic tyranny: The War on Terror.

In the new World War, many Americans wonder where the loyalties of some journalists lie. Some journalists follow American soldiers into battle only to report on what goes wrong, to focus attention on mistakes that are made, to get the story from the enemy’s point of view, and to weaken American resolve: they blame America for evil deeds and seem to want America to lose the war.

When was the last time you read a newspaper article telling you about the bravery, courage, or success of our troops in battle? Can you imagine a TV news anchor closing a news broadcast with the words: “Godspeed to our troops and our prayers for the swift defeat of the enemy.”

Even worse, some journalists actually help the enemy by revealing top secret programs designed to protect America from enemy attack. In June 2006, the New York Times proudly published details of a top secret program designed to trace and cut-off the funding of Islamic terrorist groups. It was not the first time the New York Times chose to betray the American people by revealing top secret programs that have been keeping them safe since 9/11: The New York Times revealed top secret plans to adjust troop levels in Iraq; The New York Times revealed a top secret program to trace phone calls between terrorists in the U.S. and other countries.

Americans have good reason to ask: “Why are there no reporters like Ernie Pyle in my time?”

But Americans really should not be shocked by the anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists. It’s not new. The anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists was on full public display almost immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many journalists in America’s “mainstream media” have been on the wrong side of the war since “Day One.”

After the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, journalists from the Reuters international news service refused to describe Osama bin Laden and his murderous disciples as “terrorists.” The journalists pointed to the official Reuters editorial policy, which stated: “As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like terrorist.” But the definition of the word “terrorist” is: “A person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.” The term is clearly descriptive, not “emotive.”

In the United States, ABC News barred its journalists from wearing American flag lapel pins because it didn’t want to be seen taking sides in the War on Terror. An ABC News spokesman said: “We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol.”

In February 2003, just before the American invasion and liberation of Iraq, CBS News aired an interview with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the despicable mass murderer, torturer of women and children, and supporter of international terrorism. Many Americans scratched their heads during the televised interview, wondering what could possibly be learned about Saddam that wasn’t already known, and why they should believe anything that Saddam had to say. At the end of the interview, CBS News anchorman Dan Rather told Saddam: “I would very much like to see you in the future, Mr. President.”

On April 13, 2004, during a nationally televised presidential press conference, viewers across the country were astonished to hear members of the American press corps ask repeatedly whether or not President George W. Bush thought he should apologize for the tragedy of 9/11. The questions included: “Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11, 2001?” and “Do you believe the American people deserve an apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?” The president responded: “Here’s what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That’s who’s responsible for killing Americans.”

Modern-day American journalists seem to have difficulty choosing the side of right over the side of wrong, the side of good over the side of evil: They even have difficulty showing loyalty to their own countrymen. During World War II, American journalists understood the meaning of “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” Today, many American journalists don’t. INCLUDING THE SEATTLE PI.

“Ernie Pyle, we miss you!”

I’m still staying super busy trying to get the Old War Dogs site ready to launch and I have a couple of great Russ Vaughn pieces to post after bit but I can’t let the day slide by without recommending…

You think the NY Times didn’t know they were wrong when they broke the money-tracking story?  Give me a break.  Of course they did.  Think back to any childhood jerk you knew.  Sometimes they were initially received as cool, but eventually their…

Enough said.

Good catch from a reader at Power Line, posted by Scott Johnson: Reader Douglas Rose has drawn our attention to this September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial (”Finances of Terror”) (access limited to TimesSelect): Organizing the hijacking of the…..

I bet if they’re confronted with this, they would simply explain it away by going off on some BDS rant about how reckless Bush is and that, well, times have changes since Chimpy McHitlerburton launched his illegal war for oil.