[quote=flu]It’s interesting that MSM is executing the backlash now…Bah bah…Just a bunch of fair weather fans in MSM…..[/quote]
The MSM’s been doing this for at least 15 years now. In fact, I addressed this phenomenon last night in a post on the “Sanity/Fear Rally” thread. They bought into the far right’s claim that they were biased, and they’ve been trying to prove ever since then that they’re not. To that end, they’ve soft-soaped, or completely ignored, Republican misdeeds, and blown Democratic ones way out of proportion on many occasions.
I’m sure that their executives were concerned about their shrinking numbers of readers/ viewers/ listeners, and changed their editorial policies accordingly, instead of critically analyzing the data to determine other reasons for the falling demographics. I can, perhaps, understand their attitude at the beginning of this phenomenon: shocked by the rapid rise in popularity of Fox News and other far-right slanted media outlets (namely talk radio), they panicked and responded reflexively by trying to prove that they also were fair and balanced. But it’s many years later, and they should see clearly now that, no matter what they do, die-hard right-wing consumers aren’t going to switch back.
I’m not saying that there was a complete lack of liberal bias on the part of the media prior to the 90s. There was. But it was not anywhere close to the degree that the right claims. History shows that, while reporters of that era were overwhelmingly liberal in their personal outlook, owners and publishers of media outlets (who have the final say over what is printed and broadcast) were at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
The far right’s attitude is that if media releases information about the misdeeds of one of their political figures, that’s bias. I’m not blaming them for their way of thinking. I believe it is naive and immature of them, and certainly indicative of a lack of intellect, but they’re human. But I do blame the media for abdicating their responsibility, which is to report the news. Plain and simple.
My attitude is this: I’ll have an order of facts, hold the commentary and opinion, please. If someone in Congress or the White house or on a campaign staff somewhere has fucked up, tell me about it. Again, just the facts. I’ll form my own opinion.
The media’s continuing to bend over backward to prove their lack of bias has never been more apparent than in the current election coverage. We have a cast of characters that probably shouldn’t be permitted to have driver’s licenses, much less a seat in Congress. But because of the media’s reluctance to appear as though they have a liberal bias, we have a woman in Delaware that could very possibly be their next Senator who, putting aside her questionable mental health status, has an extremely spotty employment record that demonstrates no recognizable career path, and an equally spotty record of fiscal responsibility, having issues with delinquencies on financial obligations and with repeated misuse of campaign funds. There is absolutely nothing in this woman’s background that, in the least, qualifies her for any public office, much less the one she is seeking. She’s running against a candidate with stellar educational accomplishments, a career as a corporate lawyer, election to two 4-year terms as county executive (New Castle County has 500,000 residents, 64% of Delaware’s total), and has also found time to volunteer for charities providing relief to the less fortunate. What about this woman would indicate that she is deserving of 47% of poll share? I understand that the people who support her (say they) want change in the government, more fiscal responsibility, closer adherence to constitutional law…..but why in the world would they think that this woman is, in any way, qualified and able to achieve these things?
A big part of the problem is the media. For fear of appearing to have a liberal bias, they treat these people on the same level as they do candidates who have impressive work and educational backgrounds and accomplishments, and who are intelligent and well-spoken. Every one of the crazy or outright stupid things that Christine O’Donnell has done or said has been glossed over by the mainstream media, and she is being presented as Chris Coons’ equal. I’m sorry, but that is not fulfilling their responsibility as the Fourth Estate.
My proof that this is part of a misguided effort to appear fair and balanced to the far right? Alvin Greene. He’s about on a level with Christine O’Donnell, but where’s his coverage? Has he dropped out of the race? If Alvin Greene gets any coverage at all from the MSM, it’s to further delineate his shortcomings as a candidate (as if further demonstration of this is necessary) or to provide some comic relief for a news anchor. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Alvin Greene should get the same treatment as O’Donnell. I’m saying that O’Donnell should be receiving the same treatment as Greene. Minus the humor. There’s no shortage of outlets, on all varieties of media, that will be more than happy to take care of that. The election of any public official, especially that of a United States Senator, is a serious issue, and should be treated as such by news producers, anchors, and reporters. Again, just the facts, please.
