I am so tired of the media. They are simply worthless. I want to curse them but they are not even worth it.

Here are three short examples from the last 24 hours:

1. Fox News Sunday
Anchor Chris Wallace, in discussing the diplomatic outreach by the new Iranian president, mentioned his sending a New Year’s wish through Twitter to the Jewish people in Iran and elsewhere. This is NOT true; it was a hoax. It was denied by his president Rouhani’s office. Why would someone who is supposed to be tuned to the news like Wallace mention it? Does he not know (which would equal lazy, ignorant, and negligent at his job), or did he decide that it serves his purpose so he will use it anyway (which would be biased, untruthful, and unethical). Which is worse? When Fareed Zakaria refers to this tweet as a fact (as he indeed did in his program yesterday), I understand it, as he is the Appeaser-in-Chief. But Fox?

2. BBC
Produced an extensive and first-class reporting on the terrible terror incident in Kenya. A group of terrorists from al-Shabaab, a Somalia-based terror group classified as such by the US (if there was any doubt), took over a large shopping mall. They killed at least sixty people and I suspect by the time this ends, it will be closer to 100 or more. It has been going on for three days and counting. Yet every time the BBC quotes a Kenyan official in the written “breaking news”-type ticker tape that accompanies the reporting, the BBC use the term “terrorists.” This means according to the BBC, these are not terrorists but alleged terrorists. How else should we interpret the quotation marks around the word terrorist? The quotation mark is used ONLY with the word terrorists. When they refer to the terrorists in the broadcast they call them “militarists.”

What is a “militarist”? If you look here, you will find three suggested interpretations, all bland and meaningless in this context. This is exactly what the BBC is trying to achieve. They don’t want to take a stand due to moral equivalency. They are “objective.” Except that if the US, UK, Israel, or others do something wrong, they would forget their caution, forget their need to be objective, and will be very clear about who is in the wrong—in the opinion of the “high priests” of the BBC. This kind of effort by major media outlets to remain “objective” and create moral equivalency between perpetrators of terror and the countries that fight them is shameful, morally corrupt, and is one of the reasons for the weakness of the western democracies.

3. ALL media outlets described this morning the “victory” of Angela Merkel in the elections that were held in Germany yesterday. Adjectives like “triumphant,” “romps to victory,” “stunning victory,” etc. abounded. Except that it is not true. As the chart enclosed here shows, the real winners of the election are the opposition SDP that were able, together with two other parties on the left, to gain MORE than 50% of the Bundestag. Merkel, while managing a very significant improvement of her own party’s (CDU) performance, did it ALL by cannibalizing her smaller right-wing coalition partner and was not able to take it all. She surrendered part of that “carcass” to the opposition SDP so that she LOST the majority in the Bundestag that the CDU and their coalition partners enjoyed for the last four years. How is THAT a win? She LOST the majority that she had in the previous Bundestag. In order to stay in power, she will need to have a coalition with one of the two large left-wing parties. Both are not keen on it and even if they end up having such a coalition, it is Merkel who will have to give up a significant portion of her conservative economic agenda. Please tell me, how is that a VICTORY?

This is the EXACT definition of a Pyrrhic victory. Yet the media are all abuzz about her achievement.