Media Wars … All Sides Are Punching Back … Except Hussein
I’m reading some bloggers whining about the President and White House complaining about, and directly to, the MSM about their bias and manipulation of the news. Why, he’s a ‘lame-duck’ … what difference does it make?
Yeah, let’s continue to allow the media to misrepresent the facts and spin and contort the news it is feeding to the public.
by Jennifer Rubin - Commentary Magazine:
The White House took issue over the weekend with the New York Times’s characterization of its position on the GI bill. Hillary Clinton has had it with NBC/MSNBC. A day doesn’t pass without the McCain camp taking a shot at a mainstream media outlet. Has the coverage actually gotten worse? Or is the victimization imaginary?
Perhaps it is a little bit of both. As to the latter, with omnipresent YouTube both the media and those they cover have access to who said what to whom. The reporters’ notes of a given event are not the final say. If the media gets it factually wrong or take liberties in interpreting events, the aggrieved subject can fight back. And through the power of Google a candidate or official can easily do his own research and combat the media version of events.
But it is also true that, in the fight for news niches, some outlets have given up all pretense of objectivity. When the most rabidly partisan cable show host sits in the anchor chair to read the evening’s primary returns, it is little wonder that the “hard news” coverage is neither hard, nor news. It is frothy opinion dressed up in the guise of news. (Even other liberal outlets were bothered.) So it shouldn’t surprise anyone when, for example, Hillary Clinton’s team objects. And of course, if mainstream media figures candidly acknowledge their bias, there is every reason for those getting the short end of the coverage to object.
The media already has a confidence rating lower than Congress with the American people. So the consequence of all the pushback is likely to make the public even more skeptical of much of what they read and see. And that perhaps is the real motive of many of those pushing back so hard. It would also be nice if, as a result of all the scrutiny, the mainstream coverage actually got better–but that may be too much to ask.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
“Has the coverage actually gotten worse? Or is the victimization imaginary?”
Then goes on to say “Perhaps it is a little bit of both”
The way the media covers the “truth” is absolutely disgraceful. I watch the evening news almost every night while eating dinner and lets just say context doesnt mean a damn thing anymore. sentences are cut off short or not added at all and people are given a totally different impression of what the person is trying to say.
Example: John McCain wanting a 100 year long war in Iraq, said by Obama and then repeated by the whole MSM. they know damn well what McCain said and they know damn well what he meant. he meant keeping a presence there along with strategic US bases. Germany- 60 years, Japan- 60 years, South Korea- 50 years.
thank God some of us are smart enough to see through their “fair” coverage
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am“Example: John McCain wanting a 100 year long war in Iraq”
Some Dhimmi ’strategist’ puked that up just recently on FOX and didn’t get called on it.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 amYes we have freedom of the press. But the press today thinks they ought to decide how everything is run from the war to election of the president. Disgraceful slugs.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pm