In one of the dirty little secrets of American democracy, journalists who are supposed to keep a watchful eye on government usually earn less money than the people politicians hire to tell them — and taxpayers — what to think. Maybe that’s why reporters so often meekly comply, at least when Democrats are in office.Perhaps that’s also why, less than a month before the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested the media “would do us all a service if they didn’t cover (terrorism) quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”To give the Vietnam War protester-turned-diplomat his due, Kerry is nothing if not consistent. During the same speech in Bangladesh he blamed atrocities committed by the Islamic State not on its self-stated religious antipathies but on the “lack of opportunities for jobs.” Clearly, the media should be reporting how ISIS will be defeated not by bombs but through the stimulus package modeled on the program that has all but eliminated urban violence and unrest in America.
Or perhaps the media would better protect the public by doing even more (if that were possible) to expose the danger of global warming . . . er, climate change. In July, remember, he insisted reducing the use of hydroflourocarbons is just as important as the fight against you-know-what.”It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself,” he told delegates to an environmental summit in Vienna.Then again, ISIS might become as meek as Methodists if only the media would stop insulting the Prophet Muhammad. After ISIS-linked terrorists killed at least 129 people in Paris late last year, it was Kerry who compared those “indiscriminate” bombings and shootings with the attack on the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo earlier in the year, leaving 12 people dead.There was “something different” about the attack on a newspaper that had published uncomplimentary depictions of Muhammad, Kerry said: “Perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘OK, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ “Kerry’s predecessor — you know, the woman who want to be our next president — also suggested blaming the media, not terrorists, when thugs who just happened to be Muslims killed the American ambassador and three other Americans. The attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, she and other Obama administration officials insisted, was a reaction to an inflammatory film called the “Innocence of Muslims.” To cement the connection, the film’s creator was arrested days later, supposedly for violating his probation on an earlier bank fraud conviction. The date of the attack — Sept. 11, 2012 — was purely coincidental.So as that date approaches again, be a good American and pay no attention.The good news in all of this is that, if Kerry’s ploy works, all those well-paid political mouthpieces in Washington, D.C., Indianapolis and even Fort Wayne will soon be out of jobs. Who needs spokespeople when the politicians themselves can control coverage with a mere suggestion? Just think of all that money that surely would be returned to the taxpayers.Crime in Fort Wayne? What crime?The bad news is that willing accomplices needn’t be manipulated, and it’s not just the press. Kerry’s see-no-evil speech was made last month at the Edward M. Kennedy Center in Dhaka, which boasts of its commitment to “open dialogue, informed action, individual and artistic expression and personal and professional development.”The audience applauded his invitation to ignorance.