Earlier this month, a Sacred Heart University Poll found that an increasing percentage of Americans do not trust the reporting of the major news media. Less than 20 percent of those surveyed were able to say they believed all or most of what the media reports—down from 27 percent in 2003. According to the report,

The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion—from 79.3 percent strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6 percent in 2007.And, 86 percent agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the news media attempts to influence public policies—up from 76.7 percent in 2003.Americans surveyed provided poor ratings for the national news media on six different characteristics measured. The average overall positive rating across all six characteristics measured was 33.4 percent. The highest positive rating, 40.7 percent, was recorded for quality of reporting followed by accuracy of reporting at 36.9 percent and keeping any personal bias out of stories (33.3 percent).Other low positive ratings included: fairness (31.3 percent), presenting an even balance of views (30.4 percent) and presenting negative and positive news equally (27.5 percent).

The study also exposed the widening gap between the public’s perception of the war in Iraq compared with media coverage. Seventy percent of those surveyed believe negative news reporting adversely affects troop morale. According to the report, “Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8 percent, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1 percent, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media portrays.”

To see how far news organizations will go to politicize acts of war, read what we wrote here.

Prevailing Spirit of Pacifism

Seventy-five years ago the prestigious British debating club Oxford Union, debated the following question: “That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.” The motion passed, 275 votes to 153.

“The spirit of the Oxford Union lives on,” says Clifford May in the Washington Times, “not least on America’s campuses.” And Professor Ward Churchill’s notorious characterization of 9/11 victims as “little Eichmanns” is the tip of the iceberg.

Here’s one more recent: This month, five Iranian swift boats threatened U.S. Navy war ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan and former president of the Middle East Studies Association (mesa), was livid. “This episode is just about the most pitiful thing I have seen since Bush came to power, and believe me I’ve seen plenty,” he wrote.”The Iranian Revolutionary Guards issued their own video and audio of the encounter, which shows a routine identity check ….”

What made Professor Cole livid? It wasn’t Iran’s aggressive, trouble-making threats; rather, it was what he believed to be America’s overly aggressive handling of the situation. Across the board, media elites, intellectuals and left-leaning reporters have adopted the Oxford Union approach to national security, says May.

Last Sunday, for example, the New York Times ran a piece insinuating that the wars in Iran and Afghanistan were “transforming nice young men into crazed killing machines.” But as May notes, the Times, blinded by bias, conveniently neglected to make some simple comparisons:

Just hours after the papers landed on doorsteps, the Powerline blog’s John Hinderaker was asking why the Times had not bothered to compare the murder rate among veterans to the murder rate for young American men generally. Mr. Hinderaker and others crunched the numbers themselves and found the murder rate much higher for young men who stayed home. Columnist Ralph Peters estimates that recent war vets are about one-fifth as likely to be implicated in a homicide as the average 18- to 34-year-old man.

Later, May writes,

In what other hearts does the Oxford Union spirit dwell? A group of Muslim scholars recently wrote a letter to Christian leaders asserting the need for “peace and justice” between these two great religious communities. Good for them. But the Christian leaders responded with a letter asking “forgiveness” for Christian sins against Muslims “in the past (e.g., in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g., in excesses of the ‘war on terror’).” Note the quotes around that last phrase. Note that sins committed by extremist Muslims against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and moderate Muslims were not mentioned.

Seventy-five years ago, when Oxford Union arrived at its pacifist conclusion, Winston Churchill called it a “disgusting symptom” that would breed “contempt”—not least in Germany, where Hitler had already devised plans to redraw the map of Europe.

Read more about today’s pacifist media here. Mark Steyn makes a similar comparison between the Oxford Union debate and today’s media here.

Europe Waking to the Iranian Threat

While the U.S. might be waffling on Iran, European Union states are calling for stronger opposition against the Islamic republic. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, has repeatedly insisted that Iran be prevented from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Sarkozy’s rhetoric prompted Ahmadinejad to write him an “acrimonious letter” in November, according toLe Monde.

Last Thursday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency that the international community had to get tougher on Iran. “The problem is not solved,” he said. “The conflict over Iran’s nuclear program remains.” According to Friday’s Asia Times, “Germany was until this year Iran’s largest trading partner (China is currently first) and has been reluctant in the past to adopt a hard line against the regime in Tehran. But in a clear sign of disengagement, German exports to Iran fell 16 percent in 2007 and German banks have cut lots of ties with Iranian clients.”

The article pointed out that the EU has taken two UN resolutions against Iran and actually advanced the sanctions a step further. Because of this, the Times wrote,

Iran could use the terrorism weapon to punish European nations. For example, the Ahmadinejad letter was also a warning to French soldiers present among the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon contingent in southern Lebanon. Also, it is very likely that Iran could use its proxy, Hezbollah, to orchestrate a terror campaign in Europe or against European interests around the world, as it did in 1986 in the streets of Paris. At the end of November, British authorities confirmed that some Hezbollah sleeper cells disseminated throughout the United Kingdom were threatening to strike in case of attacks against Iran. Iran financed the Hezbollah cells at the onset of its nuclear program, expecting an armed conflict. These cells are just awaiting Tehran’s orders to strike. And Europe might well be the first target.

This aggressive posture on both sides will soon erupt into a full-scale military clash between Europe and the Iranian-led Islamic power. It’s prophesied in Daniel 11:40.

Foreign Investment in U.S. at Record Level

Over the past year, we have reported often about the foreign corporate invasion of America. (Read what we wrote here and here.) Today’sNew York Times crunches the numbers from 2007 and reveals some shocking figures (emphasis mine):

For much of the world, the United States is now on sale at discount prices. With credit tight, unemployment growing and worries mounting about a potential recession, American business and government leaders are courting foreign money to keep the economy growing. Foreign investors are buying aggressively, taking advantage of American duress and a weak dollar to snap up what many see as bargains, while making inroads to the world’s largest market.Last year, foreign investors poured a record $414 billion into securing stakes in American companies, factories and other properties through private deals and purchases of publicly traded stock, according to Thomson Financial, a research firm. That was up 90 percent from the previous year and more than double the average for the last decade. It amounted to more than one-fourth of all announced deals for the year, Thomson said.

Early reports on foreign investment in 2008 suggest that this trend will not turn around any time soon. “During the first two weeks of this year, foreign businesses agreed to invest another $22.6 billion for stakes in American companies—more than half the value of all announced deals,” the Times reports. “If a recession now unfolds and the dollar drops further, the pace could accelerate, economists say.”

The Times, though, is quick to brush aside any cause we might have for concern:

The surge of foreign money has injected fresh tension into a running debate about America’s place in the global economy. It has supplied state governors with a new development strategy—attracting foreign money. And it has reinvigorated sometimes jingoistic worries about foreigners securing control of America’s fortunes, a narrative last heard in the 1980s as Americans bought up Hondas and Rockefeller Center landed in Japanese hands.

The same thing happened during the 1980s (under a Republican administration, the writer must have been dying to add). So don’t fall for jingoistic worries. Just vote Democrat.

Miserable Marriages in the UK

Every weekend, it seems, British newspapers shine additional light on the worsening condition of family life in the UK. India Knight’s column in today’s Sunday Times is loaded with statistics about the state of misery in marriage:

An amazing 59 percent of married women said they would leave their husbands tomorrow if they could be assured of economic stability. Half of the husbands questioned defined their marriage as “loveless.”More than 10 percent of men and women said they wished they had married someone else; 12 percent said they would stay in an unhappy relationship for an easy life; 30 percent said they were staying in a doomed marriage to save themselves the hassle of an upheaval; 37 percent said they were staying put for the sake of the children; 42 percent worried about losing their home if they broke up; a third of those polled were worried they would be left with nothing if they walked away; and 30 percent of men said they were scared of leaving their children behind.

Knight’s predictable, feminist-driven response is for women to put their careers before family in order to obtain enough financial independence to get out of an unhappy marriage, if necessary. “I’m all for families,” writes Knight,

and for children being brought up in secure, loving environments—who isn’t?—BUT I get tremendously irritated when it is suggested, as it so often is, that having two parents under the same roof somehow magically guarantees a Janet and John kind of childhood, free of risk or trauma, and that having just the one parent is a recipe for impending hoodie-druggie-gun disaster.

Forget about staying together for children—or even decrying the sorry state of the traditional family. Just teach your daughters to earn their own money, “lots of it,” Knight says. “That may not be good news for the nuclear family, but it’s always good news for women, for their children and for the people who love them—and that’s family enough for me.”

Inspiring, isn’t it?

Youth Crime in the UK

A report in today’sSunday Telegraph says violent crime among teenagers in the UK has increased 37 percent in just three years.

The youth crime statistics, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph within Ministry of Justice reports, relate to offenders aged 10 to 17 who were either convicted in court or issued with a police caution. Total offences climbed steadily from 184,474 in 2003 to 222,750 in 2006, the last year for which figures are available—a rise of 21 percent. But the increase in violent offending was steeper, while robberies rose even more dramatically, up 43 per cent over the three years. By contrast, adult convictions and cautions increased by less than one per cent.More than half of young offenders were let off with cautions, whereby they admitted their offence but were spared a court appearance and were not punished.

Families are a wreck and the system of justice won’t even punish the hoodlums. What a frightening combination.

Romans 13:1-4 unapologetically says that evildoers ought to be afraid of governing authorities. No human being will automatically turn into a kind, considerate and responsible adult without first being correctly taught. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, New King James Version). God provides the teaching, instruction and correction we need, if only we would heed it and do it!

Elsewhere on the Web

Edmund Stoiber, appointed anti-bureaucracy adviser to the European Commission in November, is proposing “courageous” policy revisions that will help limit bureaucracy in Europe. He recently said, “The motto of administrative burden reduction has to be: As little legislation as possible. Europe has to give priority to ideas and innovation without bureaucratic stop signs.”

During his first year as New York’s governor, Eliot Spitzer has granted parole for 215 murderers, according to the New York Post. “We’re not just seeing violent felons released, we’re seeing murderers get out-of-jail-free cards,” says one political opponent.

The New York Times reported yesterday about how North Korea may be backing out of its agreement to disarm its nuclear arsenal. “It’s like groundhog day,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “We’ve lived through this before.”

And Finally …

Several commentators are noting an ironic development in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination—how one of liberals’ most potent weapons is being turned against themselves. That weapon is political correctness.

The new Weekly Standard cover story talks about the troubles the Democratic Party finds itself in as it tries to survive a traditional presidential campaign season—which always involves nasty accusations, denigration and mud-slinging—where the top two candidates belong to two “protected minority groups.”

Now … in its campaign season from hell, the party of sensitivity has found itself in a head-banging brawl between a black man and white woman, each of them visibly loathing the other, in a situation in which anything said in opposing one of the candidates can be defined as hateful, insensitive, hurtful, demeaning, not to say bigoted, and, worst of all, mean.

In a truly bizarre twist, comments from Camp Clinton—in the past, hugely popular with American blacks—about Barack Obama have been branded as insensitive to former President Clinton’s black supporters. And feminists—again, very bizarrely—have tried to tar Obama with the insensitivity label for being condescending to a woman candidate.

Ever since she endorsed Obama in Iowa, Oprah Winfrey has been deluged with letters from irate female viewers who accuse her of betraying her sex.

The irony couldn’t be richer.

Charles Krauthammer wrote in his column this week about how shocked the Clintons have been at the accusations of racism being leveled against them.

But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil-rights-era agenda.Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action, only to be accused of racism, knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item—hate-crime legislation—on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous preelection ad run by the naacp in 2000 implying that George W. Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate-crime legislation?The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but “our first black president” (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them. …Who says there’s no justice in this world?