Obama is getting a pass that no other candidate has ever received.
Suppose that John McCain had belonged to a church for 20 years that advocated white supremacy. The pastor of the church preached racist propaganda using a twisted interpretation of the Bible. These sermons were then made public by video. What would the media do?
Suppose McCain's acquaintances included people guilty of bombing abortion clinics and police stations. How would the media handle that?
Suppose McCain had associated with a professor (*1) with ties to neo-Nazi groups in Berlin. Where would the media be on that important fact?
Suppose McCain taught workshops in radical revolutionary methods (*2). Would we care?
(*1) Rashid Khalidi today is a professor at Columbia University and is a close associate of Obama
(*2) Obama taught workshops in the Alinksky method, which argues that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends.
4 comments:
I did not know he could sing. I guess he can dance because I saw him on "Ellen".
1- The Jeremiah Wright stuff was on all news channels constantly. Obama was forced to dump his pastor.
I don't see that as a pass. He was forced to face the Wright controversy by the very media you say gave him a pass. I am not sure what you mean by this.
2-I have heard this somewhat on TV, but not a lot.
However, I must say that the few times I have listened to right wing media, the pounding that Obama is receiving on this has been incessant. That counts. He is getting pounded by the right wing media.
3-I don't know anything about Mr. Khalidi. Is it because the media is supporting Obama or is it because the story is feeble and not very germane?
4- I wouldn't and don't care a wit. I suppose your concern lies in some notion of murder and mayhem as it applies to the the word 'whatever'. I don't know what you mean by 'whatever'. In education, I have often heard 'use whatever method works', but I have not overanalyzed what 'whatever' might mean. I certainly have not assumed anything negative.
I know that it has long been a complaint from the right that the media is elitist, left-leaning, unfair to Republicans, etc. IF it is true as claimed, a really good question might be, WHY is it this way? That is the really interesting question. Any reasons you might like to offer? Cause the reasons are what the right ought to be evaluating if it want things to be different.
The main point that I am trying to make is that McCain, or any other candidate for that matter, would not have made it through two or three state primaries with such a background.
Your last question "Why is it that way?" is a very good one. I have several ideas, but one of them is that those with liberal leanings tend to choose journalism as a profession because they want to make a difference in society, and the most rapid way to have a lot of influence is to be a journalist. Those with rightward leanings are interested in contributing to society, but don't see journalism as the way to do that. Therefore, the MSM will likely not change in those terms, but media is changing rapidly in that MSM newspapers and TV losing readers and viewers. Such readers and viewers are going to the Internet because it's more interesting and there is more choice.
I might also add that the sharp divide in the electorate occurred gradually over time, but what really divided the electorate asunder was the advent of the Internet.
At any rate, no matter who wins, I am always greatly relieved when the election is over. I grow weary of politics in October every two years.
I would add that the advent of radio attack dogs even before blogger dogs fueled the fire terribly. I lay a lot of it at their feet, they use indignation and anger in such manipulative ways.
Post a Comment