Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!

More Serious Than Al Qaeda

Date posted - February 22, 2014

This is important. There is an extremely dangerous threat to the United States of America. This threat is a part of every adult citizen’s daily life. We encounter this threat when we walk into the coffee shop, when we turn on the TV, and when we log on the internet. Worse yet, our children hear us react to it, and this makes the damage ongoing. It’s inescapable right now, and we need to be aware of it and arm ourselves against it. No, we don’t need nukes, assault rifles, or tanks. Blowing up this enemy is not an option; this situation is more complicated than that.


Our nation has other enemies with whom we deter with the measures mentioned above. We all but write a blank check to make sure we outspend the rest of the world (combined) in defense spending to feel secure against them, but Al Qaeda and North Korea don’t hold a candle to the havoc this enemy can cause.


Our nation’s most dangerous threat is embedded in concerned citizens’ lives. Our elected officials are exposed to it daily and make decisions based on it. OUR BIGGEST NATIONAL THREAT IS OUR OWN MEDIA.


Television has changed drastically even in my short life. I remember growing up, and we had a very small fraction of the channels that are offered today. I went outside and played because nothing that interested me was on TV. Now there are hundreds of options available. I can watch stations devoted to shopping, sports, animals, hunting, and reality shows (unfortunately). Perhaps the most unfortunate type of channel created is 24-hour news.


The reason why news is the most unfortunate is because, like all of the other specialty stations, they tailor themselves to the demographics. With the advent of these specialty stations came a lot of information about what kept people watching. People WILL invest themselves in a 24-hour news station when they are emotionally invested. How do you get viewers emotionally invested? Fear and anger.


When news personalities strike fear into their viewers, they can get the viewers to watch longer. People want to watch longer to see why they are afraid and who is to blame for the world being such a scary place. Who is to blame? The answer these “news” stations provide is whichever political party opposes your views, of course.


In part, this fear/anger mongering is genius; it is especially smart if the owner of the station has a political agenda (they all do). It is genius when the goal is to garner ratings; however, when the goal of America is to move forward and do what is best for the citizens, this practice is retrograde.


My challenge to the readers of this message is to refrain from feeding the beast. I’m not saying stop watching your favorite “news” station altogether, but be cognizant of its motives. Don’t follow blindly; think for yourselves. When the media (and those who fund it) have more pull than the politicians for whom we vote, our freedom is a fallacy. When our goal is to move our country forward, these channels are a cancer in the colon of America.

Print Friendly

23 Responses to “More Serious Than Al Qaeda”

  1. been around the block says:

    I have an idea, why don’t we ask Obama’s Federal Communications Commission to send government employees into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, TV reports, internet content and commentary that meets the public’s critical information needs. Of course those needs will be defined by the Obama administration. News outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future.
    This was about to happen America until Republican leaders asked the FCC to justify the project. The project is now “on hold”.

    You talk cancer. I’ll talk First Amendment rights.

    • Jon says:

      And your comment is precisely part of the problem. You’ll note that the original poster said nothing about the solution involving the government, any more than the government had its tentacles in the media outlets available in what is largely considered the golden age of our media in the 1950s-1980s, when investigative journalism was prized over and above the mere flouting of opinion, and there was at least a modicum of integrity in the fact-gathering process that didn’t simply bow to the latest conspiracy theory, which is precisely what your comment insinuates. Was the media perfect then? Of course not. But, what it did not do was cater entire organizations to the typical belief system or political leaning of a core group of consumers, as is now the case with our media outlets. We can tailor our news to the point where we are only shown news and opinion that matches our own, and we start to believe things or the possibility of things, that are patently ridiculous, such as what you have espoused above. The precise dangers of the current climate of our news media is embodied in your comment, and why we must make demands for the truth that is not tainted by an agenda. The ironic thing is that the increase of media outlets and access to information, the less reliable that information is becoming and the more polarized the information becomes. The goal is to encourage actual rational thought and critical thinking, and not relying on mere assumption and bias to rule our conclusions.

      • Free Man says:


        The upper portion of this page is devoted to organizations that are funded directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OSI). The lower portion of the page focuses on organizations which do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSI, but which receive money from one or more groups that do get direct OSI funding.

    • Doug says:

      Looks like the Obama Machine had a very long punch list of activities to infect the Union. Hope & Change….3 more years.

    • Free Man says:

      “The FCC may have suspended its invasion into American newsrooms, but the controversial “Critical Information Needs” study also has George Soros’ fingerprints all over it. While disturbing, this should come as no surprise since Soros’ gave more than $52 million to media organizations from 2000-2010.”

      • Lee Ann says:

        Only 52 million from Soros over a period of 10 years? Heck, the Koch brothers spent that much on one single election in state elections, with a candidate they liked that would follow their party line.

        • Free Man says:

          I’d really like to know more about the single state election that the Koch brothers spent more than 52 million dollars on.

          Could you give me a link to your source so I can check it out myself? Thank you in advance.

          • Doug says:

            Free Man, you know Lee Ann likes dealing in facts, so I found this for you, on her behalf. I could just post it using her name, but you also know how she feels about posers, and there’s enough of that going on already……It doesn’t exactly answer the question she can’t answer, but it’s interesting for sure. Koch Bros are listed waaaay waaaay down on the list at 59th below all those blue donkeys. Notice I took the high road and didn’t call them what they are. I think the left would to prefer to erradicate all red contributions on that list to make them completely happy.

          • Lee Ann says:

            Here’s a site that gives Koch bros and also Geo. Soros’ amount of contributions.

          • Free Man says:

            I was really wanting a link to the alleged “More than 52 Million” that the Koch brothers spent on one single state election, since it was brought up as a fact here with no link to the source of the information. I assumed the poster of said fact could back it up with a link to the information and story to back up this claim.

            I read the link to Mother Jones and saw nothing about 52 million dollars spent on one single state election.

          • Lee Ann says:

            Well, I googled “koch brothers largest campaign contributions” and that link was first on the list. I was surprised to see they are 59th on the list. But I linked to it because of the graphs showing the amount they spent, versus the amount Soros spent, Koch brothers spend much more. I couldn’t find any info on state elections. But figured I’d send this link anyway.

    • Free Man says:

      “Firm tapped for FCC media study has background in social ‘welfare,’ health – not media”

  2. Lee Ann says:

    I think, as with buying things, reading things, understanding things, its “buyer beware.” We need to pick and choose, watch and read both conservative and liberal stations, hear their ideas, and decide what is best for us and what we agree with. Due to 24/7 news, the stations have to find something to excite their listeners. they want the breaking news. They want the drama and the so called excitement. I like MSNBC (of course), but I also read several conservative newspapers online, along with BBC, Al Jazeera, NY TImes, Washington Post, Colorado Springs Gazette, Denver Post, LA Times, and several more overseas newspapers.

    Some announcers on MSNBC always correct their mistake, and apologize. Some of them don’t. I respect some announcers more than others. So I take their words as fairly honest, but still back it up by investigating by myself.

    Anybody out there that wants to hear something that they agree with can find it. Whether or not its the truth, they believe as long as it fits in to their belief system, and it either frightens or amazes them, they become wedge issue voters, believing in that one thing. We need to use our energy to discover what is the truth and what isn’t. Just as in everything we read, see, and listen to.

    • dsa says:

      How will you know truth?

      • Lee Ann says:

        There are fact check places online that are “usually” correct. There are several more reliable sites, that don’t cater to either side. There are charts and graphs that you can find that show how the Congressional Budget Office decides are accurate about how good or bad this money will be spent.

        Other than that, it is all based on our basic idealogy. Many people believe that the poor are taking their money, lazy and unwilling to work, and we should make it rough for those people. Other ideology is that the poor will always be with us, and it is up to us to help make a safety net for them, because there are just some people that are never going to do well in this society, they need our help, whether its mental illness, or whatever. I try to make this world a better place, and I don’t consider poverty a crime. Its something we must fight against, just as addiction shouldn’t be a crime.

        • Don says:

          You must realize the fact check websites are are run by left and right wingers too. So you facts will always be skewed. Trust what you see right outside your window, not the web or tv’s window.

  3. eyes open says:

    Those spouting “President Obama’ s fault” and believe this was not happening before he even thought of presidency and believe it will be all fine once he is out of office; are living proof of this article. You do not get it.

  4. Jill C. says:

    I had to read a book in college (in 1992 or 1993) that changed the way I consume media permanently. It’s called How To Watch TV News by Neil Postman.

    I’m not sure if it’s available at the public library but I still have it if anyone would like to borrow it.

  5. Just Sayin.. says:

    I get all the news I need to know from KIWA ;)

Leave a Reply

Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language.
2. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem (personal) attacks.
3. Threats are treated seriously and will be reported to law enforcement.
4. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. or its advertisers agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the selected staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email

Back to:More Serious Than Al Qaeda