I know… another shocking portrayal of the media as being liberal. ::gasp!::
I began to notice pre-event press coverage of the upcoming Stewart/Colbert “Restoring Sanity” and wondered how much coverage Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally received in advance. After all, Glenn Beck is a media sensation, he is the new Oprah when it comes to book endorsements, and his non-political rally was attended by roughly 300,000 people, if not more. The press all but ignored it until the day of the event, and after that most of the coverage was mockery, just like that of the Tea Party. “Dude, you are just paranoid. There is no collusion in the press. Relax, Obama has it under control.”
I beg to differ. Since I don’t have access to Lexus/Nexus I visited several popular news outlet web sites and searched. Here are my results:
Pre-Event Media Press Coverage |
|
| Search: Restoring Honor Beck (date range of Aug 1 – Aug 27) |
Search: Restoring Sanity Stewart (date range of Oct 1 – Oct 29) |
| Ny Times = 0 Washington Post = 0 Associated Press = 0 Reuters = 0 LA Times = 3 (all negative) NPR = 6 |
Ny Times = 2 Washington Times = 33 Associated Press = 1 Reuters = 1 La Times = 8 NPR = 30 |
No bias, nothing to see here. /sarc
I wonder how the attendance figures will compare. My guess is “Glenn Beck only had 67,000, Ed Schultz had more than that, and Stewart/Colbert easily had 500,000.”
Take a look at the image below and tell me what you see.
This is an unedited picture. You can see the original thumbnail for the time being at Newsweek. Why would they print this? I’ve got a few ideas:
- The magazine is so liberal they think mainstreaming Marx is a great idea.
- Subscribers have declined so much that Newsweek has to resort to sensationalism to get people to buy the magazine.
- It’s not really Karl Marx, its Orson Welles. We all know how much the Obamas love a good movie. Just ask Gordon Brown.
My initial thought was that the first lady was certainly unaware of the imagery. But the thought of the first lady appering on a national magazine cover without approval made no sense. This must have been approved by her or someone that she completely trusts. There’s no way she doesn’t know about this.
So, my guess is that they are doing this on purpose to get the right all wee-wee’d up, just to make fun of us later. Just like Glenn Beck did when he “misspelled” oligarchy. (try searching “Genn Beck and Oligarch” and see how many liberals went crazy over his setup). Hook. LIne. Sinker. Is the Marx Apple the same thing from the left?
Once upon a time reporters actually lived up to their title. They “reported” news. Their goal was to get the elusive “scoop” before those bastards from the competing newspaper got it first. They developed a network of dependable contacts and insiders to help find leads and verify data. The goal was to dig, dig, dig… get to the bottom of the story.
But then something happened. Television became a huge business. Advertising revenue became massive. A television evolved media entities became more powerful and ratings wars became fierce. The reality we have now is that mainstream media outlets are concerned more about ratings than they are about the truth. And this, combined with the massively disproportionate amount of liberal employees and executives, makes our current media environment toxic. Dangerous. A Tyrannosaurus Rex out for nothing but its next meal, to hell with any collateral damage.
The ferocious and hate-driven smear fest aimed at Sarah Palin last year is a fine example of this. But it is just an example of swarm-like activity focused on assumptions based on political hatred, not on relevance or substance. On the opposite side of the spectrum we have investigative apathy. You see, when you are in love with a political leader, there is no negative story about said leader worth pursuing. Instead you will attack those that question your chosen Messiah.
Case in point: The Obama Administration has taken control of American auto giants. In an effort to “save” the company it is directing the closure of hundreds of dealerships. The criteria behind these closings have yet to be made public, but initial data suggests that profitability has little to do with whether or not a dealership survives. What does matter? It looks like political affiliation and race are important factors.
“No.” you say. “It can’t be so.” An old fashioned journalist would look at the evidence and decide if this story was worth researching. If true, it could be a huge story. if false, the discrediting of the accusers could be a huge story. A win-win for the reporter, right? Not today. You see, the Obama-loving, kool-ade drinking media dares not question its savior. Instead it mocks any accusers. (see any Man-Made Global Warming or Intelligent Design stories for recent examples). The Washington Post offered this response yesterday:
“…have you or anyone at the Post investigated this? Chrysler dealers shut down in Obama bankruptcy are mostly Republican? It seems a crosscheck of dealerships to be closed versus donations shows almost all the dealers to be closed donated to Republicans.
Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein: “Oh, please. What percent of all auto dealers are Republican? I bet its (sic) pretty high.”
Sounds like a hard-hitting reporter to me, huh? Scoff at the accusation, forget about taking a moment to research it. Could it be true that most dealership owners are Republican by their entrepreneurial nature, therefore skewing the statistics? Or, could it be true that minority ownerships are being given preference to meet our liberal president’s personal agenda? Either way, this story merits more attention, not just disdain.
I suggest to the mental midgets in the media the following scenario: If, as you blindly feel, Obama is innocent of bias or wrongdoing, why not expend the minimal energy required to prove the neo-con haters wrong and then have Matthews, Olbermann and Stewart publicly lambaste them ad nauseum for the next month? Wouldn’t that be fun? C’mon hippy, you know you love a good neo-con train wreck. Fire up Google and have at it!
I think commenter Tre sums it up nicely: The MSM is too busy following those important, hard-hitting, vital stories like, what other pictures did Miss California pose for? What else “enchants” Duh One about the Presidency? Just how high is Duh One’s approval rating among illegal aliens? How will Colin Powell beat Rush Limbaugh in this war of words?
