Posts Tagged 'Liberal media'

Something About Bush…

I’m not a morning person, so I wasn’t very alert when I heard one of the folks on the outstandingly liberal Joe Scarborough show on the overwhelmingly liberal MSNBC (Why does having two truly liberal hours on one 24-hour-per-day network get a network branded as liberal?) when I heard one of the crazy liberal guests say something like There’s something about Bush that’s made people passionate about this election. That’s a paraphrase, not a quote–it was very early to be listening to a lunatic liberal like Joe Scarborough.

That quote got me thinking: What could it have been about Bush that has resulted in such a passionate electorate? It’s clearly something that has just sort of happened, not something that he provoked, right?  That’s clearly what this lunatic liberal was saying.

What could it possibly have been? Just thinking out loud here, but could it have been his politics of division—to the point of firing judges who wouldn’t go along with his partisan fights? No, that couldn’t have been it. Bush is a uniter, not a divider! Could it possibly have been waging an invasion on a country that had nothing to do with an attack on us? No, who would get upset about that? Could it possibly have been forcing deregulation of financial institutions down our throats to the point that we are on the brink of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? No, who cares about whether they can pay their mortgages or retire on time? Could it have been the abandonment of some of our basic rights, such as habeus corpus and the right to have telephone conversations without being spied on by the government? I doubt it—caring about the Constitution is so 1776.

I know what it is—it’s that’s liberal bias of the media.

Media Bias Against McCain

Talk of a media bias against McCain has been all the rage in recent days (here is just one of many links on the topic, from politico.com), and much of the basis of this alleged bias stems from reports that the media has filed unfavorable reports about McCain much more frequently than Obama.

I have no doubt that these statisitics are true. The media, however, has no responsibility to balance coverage of candidates based on whether they each receive the same number of negative and positve reports. It has the responsibility to accurately report what is going on, and based on that, it’s clear why McCain is receiving more negative reports–he and his campaign are almost exclusively focusing on the negative.

When McCain and Palin spend an entire day of campaigning saying that Obama is a socialist or that he hangs around with terrorists or that he lacks experience or that he, in combination with Pelosi, are “dangerous,” what are reporters supposed to report? Are they supposed to report that McCain has a great plan to save the economy? Are they supposed to report that Sarah Palin has a spectacular new plan to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? Of course not; the reporters are going to report on how McCain is attacking Obama, which is then viewed as a negative report.

If McCain wants some positive press, then he should try focusing on something positive.