Labels are often, necessary, but, at other times, labels misinform and defeat the purpose of civil discussion. Case in point: Sara Firth.

Sara Firth

20 share in first 24

strong interest

A London-based correspondent of Kremlin-funded news channel Russia Today has resigned in protest at its coverage of the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

Sara Firth, who worked at Russia Today for five years, described the channel’s reporting of the crash in which 298 people were killed, including a former BBC journalist, as the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

Russia Today, which has been criticised as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Russian government, suggested Ukraine was to blame for the crash, while most media organisations have said it was shot down by a suspected Russian-made missile  . . . .  you can read the full article at the UK Guardian,  here.  

Editorial notes:    Clearly,  this London educated journalist (Sara Firth) will have her liberal bias.  At the same time,  she is not only capable of objective news reporting,  she is personally concerned that such reporting (i.e. “the facts and nothing but the fact”) be her M.O. as a journalist. 

When you see the grave state of affairs as to the American Press,  one wonders why we do not see similar protests,  more often.  It does happen,  of course,  but not nearly as often as it should. 

Sharyl Attkisson

In the US,  Sharyl Attiksson,  was a CBS reporter until recently.  She quit her job as a network reporter,  for much of the same reason as Firth.  We all have our biases.  They come with being thoughtful human beings where “thoughtful” means “given to critical thought.”  Most of the time,  labels work.  But those of us who use labels to identify others  (“Marxists,”  “Progressives/Socialists,”  “Rightwinger,”  “moron,”  and the like)  need to careful not base this labeling solely on the political leanings of an individual in contrast to our personal positions.

Hillary,  for example,  will be tied to Obama,  in the coming two years,   as if the two are of the same mindset.  I am no fan,  but Hillary’s intellectual/political views are vastly different from those of H Obama,  and in ways that are rather profound.  As a point of fact,  I know that Hillary is not an “Alinskian” reformer.  She is big government,  but has a confirmed respect for Constitutional law.   She believes in the UN but not in a One World governance.   She respects the sovereignty of the U.S. and the notion of "American Exceptionalism" (if correctly defined).   I do not believe she is an open borders/no borders type,  but time will tell on that issue.  Most importantly, she is infinitely more intelligent than either of the Obama’s. 

Understand this: she is a politician and a Democrat.  There are issues that separate the Clinton Left and the Teaparty Right,  to be sure.  And I will work for any of a few GOP candidates in the coming presidential election cycle,  but we,  as a nation,  are coming to the end of the Progressive/Utopian Experiment as defined by the self-serving Barack Obama and his wife.  It is time to put the nation back together.  It will look somewhat different when finished,  but it will be "America" in traditional terms,  not some sort of Communal/Marxist Utopian fantasy.  THAT effort has been defeated,  in my opinion.  

My point?  Simple to argue for discretion in the use of labels,  and honesty in our (my) characterization of issues and personalities.  More than this,  I am learning to respect those who step out of their personal belief systems,  and add to the conversation in meaningful ways.  In the midst of all the national angst surrounding Obama's feckless administration,  I have been surprised at those who have partnered in their opposition to his Constitutional over-reach.   

Sharyl Attkisson (one time network reporter) ,  Prof Turly (a Democrat law professor opposed to Obama's domestic over-reach) , Bob Woodward (an Establishment Liberal often outspoken in his disappointment as to Obama's presidency) , Judith Miller (a one time NY Times journalist who stood her ground and was forced out of that news service), Tammy Bruce (a gay/conservative), Major Garrett (one time Fox reporter, a "moderate" Democrat,  now working for CBS News, ),  Rick Santelli of CNBC  (he "invented" the expression "teaparty" back in 2009, and,  occasionally is surprisingly objective in his reporting),  Al D'Amoato (a Republican liberal and GOP Senator from New York - a man willing to speak his mind regardless of consequence),  are all names that come to mind when I speak of those who are "partners," but can be unfairly labeled and/or ignored simply because they do not "fit" into our (my) "wheel house."  

Recently, I have had to admit to the fact that "big government liberals" have been with us from the very beginnings of this nation. They are part of the perennial debate this nation has had with itself,  since our founding.   Marxism is the existential enemy,  here,  not big government liberalism.  As a commentator/editor,  I intend to express my views while respecting those who are patriots AND liberals,  at the same time.  Of course,  "the opposition" of which I write,   does not include the Marxists among us.  THEY are the existential threat to this great nation,  not traditional liberalism.   

Maybe we all needed a radical Obama to make us realize that "Left and Right" can be part of the same reality,  much as the head and tail of a nickel.