Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!
Obama Is A COMMUNIST!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!



Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page





Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Mainstream Media... Biased or Not?

Several months ago, a friend and I were discussing the frustration we felt about getting decent news coverage of what was going on in Iraq. He remarked that he had seen nothing about 'the surge' or it's effectiveness. I agreed and said I felt the news we did get was so biased toward the left that it was unreliable at best.

We both sort of shrugged and said, "what can we do?" I didn't have an answer then, and I'm not sure I have one now. But that conversation got me thinking more about the news bias we seem to be experiencing. What the heck was going on with the mainstream media?

I had been hearing the conservative radio folks like Rush Limbaugh describe the mainstream media as the 'drive-by media'. The more I heard the phrase, the more the MSM was living up to their billing as 'drive-bys'.

It seamed that nearly every event was covered with a perceived degree of importance relating to your politics.

If you were conservative, your story got honorable mention on page 8.
If you were liberal(or progressive as they like to be called nowadays), your story was front page news and they would even send a stringer to get some video 'B roll' for a lead story on the late news.

Yes, I did see a bias. And so did a lot of other people. But every time I would mention this phenomena I was summarily dismissed as seeing conspiracies where there weren't any.
I was even told that I must be wearing a 'tin hat'.

For those of you in Rio Linda, wearing a tin hat is the preferred method of blocking the governments attempts to read your mind or to influence your thought process with their secret 'mind wave'.

The tin hat theory has been around a long time. If you're accused of wearing one it means you're a little wacky. That you duck for cover when you see the dreaded 'black helicopters'. That you know the car with the blacked out windows parked down the street is full of very secret CIA types.

Well, we suddenly have a concrete reference to this media bias, and it's not a theory any longer. But of course, we knew it was always true from the beginning. The way the press described The President in very unflattering terms... the way the press eagerly began to root for Obama even before he defeated Mrs. Bill Clinton... the way the press simply ignored events that didn't suit their politics! It was fairly obvious.

So now... the New Your Times has refused to print an editorial from the Republican candidate, John McCain.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'


... Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

The NYTimes wants McCain to rewrite his editorial to more closely mirror Obama's position???
Is that bias enough for you???

"The question really needs to be posed. Is this type of coverage fair?", said Eric Cantor, a Republican congressman. "This is nothing but a political stunt."

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said: "My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defence issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman.

"McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media's narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him."


McCain's piece wasn't anything controversial... It simply didn't meet the philosophical and political standards of the NY Times. Well, excuuuuse me! What a bunch of crap! Those idiots deserve all the mean, nasty, vile contempt we can bestow on them!

McCain said... In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Oh... the Times didn't like that at all!
McCain was dissing their boy! How dare he!

The Times has come out with some lame-ass excuse for their editorial policy, but it really doesn't matter.
They aren't real journalists any longer... they're just a bunch of liberal hacks jumping on the Hate Bush/Hate Republicans bandwagon.
Fine... so they support Obama. They deserve each other.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

This is going to be a real disaster for conservatives. The 'Drive-Bys' are all behind Obama and McCain doesn't seem to have an answer for combating the bias.

What's next? I wonder if McCain can win against such overwhelming odds? He's going to need something very powerful to convince voters he is the right choice. We all know that Obama has absolutely no experience, is not trustworthy and hates America.

Obama would be a very risky choice.
McCain can be a healthy check on the excesses of a Democratic Congress, but he doesn't seem to really want the office.

Can McCain win the hearts and minds of Americans?
Can McCain defeat both Obama and the bias from the mainstream media? They have already annointed, consecrated, coronated, ordained and beatified their candidate.
How do you defeat the 'chosen one'?

No comments:

Post a Comment