|
2008 Soap Box Archives Bias Run Amuck When is a newspaper not a newspaper and a newscast not a newscast? It's when they are so unabashedly partial to an issue or a political candidate that they don't really report the news, but instead print or broadcast puff pieces slanted in a direction, which happens to be their pet cause du jour. The one-sided coverage of the major presidential candidates should convince even the most avid media apologist that the mainstream media in this country has its own agenda and is pursuing it with vim and vigor. John McCain's many recent visits to Iraq to observe and have meaningful meetings with our military leaders have largely gone unnoticed on the nation's network newscasts and basically relegated to boilerplate status in the major newspapers. But when Barack Obama makes the trip, the media turns it into a Barnum & Bailey, Olympic Super Bowl of political trips as all three network anchors get on board and every photographer and reporter who could find space on an airplane went to cover Barack's Iraq trip as if it was the most important thing that's happened in the last ten years. And I'm sure you heard about the New York Times refusing to publish an op-ed piece written by McCain after publishing one by Obama. They say they would publish a piece by McCain if it mirrored what Obama said in his piece. In other words the New York Times doesn't want to have two opinions on its editorial page. They are totally sold out to Obama, and these are the people who support diversity. The major media's fawning over Obama makes me sick, after all, the man is running for the leader of the free world and protecting him from hardball questions and differing opinions is totally unfair to the American people. When we put the nuclear codes in someone's hands we should know everything there is to know about that person, his beliefs, his background, his experience and his past associations. To wait until after an election to discover the flaws and blemishes on a candidate is not only unwise it's downright dangerous. And to deny one candidate access to the press while giving the other free reign only goes to show just how far the media in America has fallen. I can understand Obama's handlers wanting him shielded from the hard questions, as he doesn't seem to handle spontaneity very well, some of his answers just don't make a lot of sense when he's thinking on his feet, sans teleprompters or notes. For instance, after admitting that things were better in Iraq, he was asked if knowing what he knows now, would he have voted for the surge. He said no. Now can someone please explain to me how after admitting that the surge has worked, even if he had that foreknowledge he would have voted against it? It makes no sense at all to me, of course I'm just one of those typical, Middle American redneck lowlifes, clinging to my faith and my guns, maybe I'm not supposed to understand. What do you think? Pray for our troops God Bless America Charlie Daniels July 25, 2008
|
