"A B C and the Washington Post are one and the same. Now we know part of the reasons that A B C will not say anything negative about Barack Hussein Obama.
Did you know these connections?
A B C News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Advisor.
C B S President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
A B C News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney.
A B C News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.
A B C President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
C N N President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
And now you know why it is no surprise the media is in Obama's pocket."
Of course this is just like the creationists who assume that these simple statements also prove that all these spouses are bound to do or say whatever they're told, even though the likes of James Carville and Mary Matalin show just how wrong that might be!
So what are the issues here? I'll save the substantive for last. First note the use of the president's middle name.
This is the "He must be a secret Muslim" card. Apparently this comes from a person who thinks he got to choose his own name. I know that if my grandfather had had such a choice he probably would not have chosen "Orion," and maybe President Obama might not have chosen Hussein either. One of the first imbeciles who played this card was Sarah Palin. I certainly hope someone pointed out that Sarah is the quintessential Hebrew name, so she must be Jewish (to my Jewish friends, I apologize).
The last comment regarding someone being in the President's pocket - really? And all you far right blogosphere morons with all your inside dope and tech wizardry have had 6 years to find the money trail? How's that working for you?
Simple truth, elaborated in the following paragraphs is that any media outlet showing bias and which lives and dies economically by selling advertisement would have to be suicidal to exhibit the least bias because doing so will lose some advertisers either way. Faux and MSNBC are both biased media outlets, no doubt, and CNN is all over the place, dependent upon topic. None of them however is truly a "News" outlet. They are 24 hour editorials. I will opine that the average IQ of MSNBC's talking heads is higher, however, but that is based on a very small sample. Rachel Maddow vs Sarah Palin - steel cage match!
What follows is my response to the principle thread, that being that no one in broadcast journalism is capable of independent thought, and that the major networks are all "the liberal media."
Let's refute immediately by pointing out that David Muir on ABC last night teased and later did a story on the "salute" fiasco. Unlike Faux, he didn't call the president disrespectful for his half salute with cup in hand. He just reported it and showed a photo of Reagan saluting (he was the first to do so.) This even , balanced approach is obvious proof of bias, I guess. It seems that to the far Rightists, bias means "refusal to smear by rumor and innuendo."
"I love this because it exposes the mindset of the Faux News crowd. This based on the assumption that impartiality and simple reporting versus blatant editorializing is impossible! Secondarily it assumes all the network spouses are the mindless meat puppet zombie slaves of their respective spouses. Well, apparently at Faux it is, so idiots of similar mindset assume it must be so everywhere. Read essentially any interview you can find from someone who left Faux News and you hear the same song, roughly along the lines of what I just said, that they were guided and pushed into a certain place with regard to what they said and how they said it as a condition of continued employment. I now defy you to find anything of a similar nature from anyone who left the big three network news staffs, even to go to Faux. It ain't there because the network news departments are a relatively non moneymaking part of the entire network's operation. In recent past years they sometimes ran at a loss.
A Harvard study from several years ago makes it fairly clear to a literate person with any business sense that if the network's least monetarily productive division even hints at favoritism or editorializing, they will be losing some portion of their viewers, and sponsors won't have it. Ask yourself honestly, if that is even possible, if an ultra conservative, high dollar ad buyer like Chik Fil A or Walmart (and we know damned well where their politics lie) would simply lie back and spend their multimillions of advertising dollars with a network which editorialized overtly or covertly against their interests. This was the conclusion of the Harvard study after lengthy evaluation of actual network news content. There was a time, during Vietnam when NBC anchor John Chancellor could barely contain himself, and Dan Rather at CBS had some moments. Of course neither died in the job, but were let go, Rather because he did just exactly what this charges, he editorially slighted George W Bush.
I would never say the same about MSNBC , which I don't watch for the same reason I don't watch Faux News . The problem is that the term Liberal media, really only applies to MSNBC, Air America, (radio) and other local radio hosts, The same is true for Faux News, except that they are also supported by such lunatics as Glenn Beck and Limbaugh the addict. The three major networks, constantly slammed by the Palinator and her coven mate Michele Bachmann as the "liberal Media" simply aren't. Why? The most basic of reasons - because they can't afford to be.
I regularly watch ABC news, anchored until very recently by Diane Sawyer (former Nixon speech writer, by the way). I am in the habit of listening assiduously for bias either way, because it is an issue I am concerned about. I can truly say I have never detected bias in reporting either way on the ABC Nightly News. I have seen several really great initiatives such as the "Made in America" segment, the sort of content totally lacking at Faux because apparently it's not negative enough. This "hate speech" isn't new, it has its origins in the newspapers sponsored by supporters of Adams and Jefferson during the months prior to the election of 1800. It was honed to an even sharper edge by the likes of father Coughlin (the radio priest, Huey Long, and Gerald L.K Smith i their violent anti FDR rants. Coughlin was finally forced off the radio by the church and the economics of hatred, Long was shot, and Smith was a hate filled Fundamentalist preaching, pre-Limbaugh until he died. So "go ahead on," Faux News: Your legacy of venality, bias and negative spin probably won't be the last, more's the pity. The real pity , however is the fact that so many Americans, apparently incapable of critical thinking, mindlessly drink the Kool Aid whenever you make a batch.
No comments:
Post a Comment