Posts Tagged ‘Media’
Russert’s Passing – Will It mean Dropping Any Pretense Of Objectivity?

Was Tim Russert the last of his breed?

I continue to be shocked by Tim Russert's ongoing death, and I didn't even like him either personally or as a journalist. As the latter, he was merely an intermittently objective liberal. As the former, I was dismayed that he didn't speak out when Don Imus was the victim of vile accusations because of a tasteless but insignificant remark. Of course, I don't know what transpired behind the scenes, but Russert and Imus had been friends, and I felt he was one person, perhaps the only one, who could have tempered the rabid herd.

Now that Mr. Russert is gone, most likely forever, I feel compelled to focus on the consequences of his passing, because based on the direction NBC has been going, it seems to me that Tim Russert was the lone remaining impediment. He was the most tactfully biased mainstream media man I knew. He could finesse a liberal perspective better than anyone to the point where his questions sounded absolutely reasonable until you realized that none of them ever came close to being posed from a conservative perspective.

That's what made Russert as great as he was though – he was Baby Bear's porridge, neither too hot or too cold. Conservatives and Republicans could sit down with him and have a reasonable chance of making a point. Can you think of anyone else at NBC, ABC, or CBS, forget about CNN and MSNBC, who could conduct an interview without any blatant bias and where reasonable argument gets a fair hearing? Or even a fair reception?

And now, it's not even whether Russert may have been one of a kind, it's about who would be willing, much less able, to find a replacement even close to Russert's caliber? Chris Wallace is similar in his approach, and he conceals his liberalism well enough, but he'd be miserably weak if past performance is an indication of future results. And from my admittedly limited perspective, there's no one else besides Wallace who can assume the mantle of liberally slanted impartiality.

Admit it, you wouldn't be surprised one bit if another Chris – Matthews were to become the new head of Meet The Press. And you wouldn't be even too surprised if the position were offered to Keith Olberman. It wouldn't be the first time that a smaller company took over a bigger one, but it would be the first time that, by implication, NBC management had tacitly, finally, declared that standards were now completely out the window – who needs standards anyway when you have control?

If you're wondering what I mean by that since seemingly nothing has really changed in MSMland, it's that Tim Russert may have been the one man standing between any semblance of objectivity and full-blown bias, and even if he wasn't, no one else has either his capabilities or discipline. Of course, it could be a good thing in the long run if the pretense of objectivity is eliminated from the network mix, but even if it is, the short run could be far more disgusting than things have been up to now, and I think that's really saying something.

Apart from that, Tim Russert's untimely death is a reminder that you don't have to be old to die suddenly, and that neither wealth nor standing can substitute for bad luck. I really don't know why I feel so badly about Tim Russert other than from the perspective that he died while Kennedy lives on, and I simply can't get over the idea that Russert's passing may be an omen for November and beyond…

 
Media deals fatal blow to Clinton campaign

 

Please watch this video and see if you agree with me that Keith Olbermann is a completely overly dramatic buffoon.

Hillary Clinton made a remark in reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination which raised the ire of Olbermann and at least a few of the other lefty cosmonauts. Apparently, they believe that Clinton was using the reference as justification for staying in the race for the Democratic nomination. Liberals media-wide are now claiming that when Clinton referenced the Robert Kennedy assassination, she was insinuating that Obama might get assassinated, and she, therefore, would be the logical pick for the Democratic nomination. So naturally, she's going to stay in the race. If Olbermann and his liberal pansy freaks really believe that, then they must be either stupid, or paranoid and delusional (and probably both).

But that's just a side bar. I have a few "paranoid delusions" of my own such as this one for example: we all know the real reason liberals are upset with Hillary and it ain't got nuthin ta do with her RFK gaffe. The real reason they're miffed is because she won't drop out of the race and just concede to the new Grand Mufti of neo-liberal orthodoxy, Barack al Hussein Obama.

So now at last we come to it. The Keith Olbermann's of the media aren't as upset that Clinton made this remark as they are that she won't lay down. She won't quit. She won't just go quietly and let them have their summer fling with Obama. They've been trying to write Clinton off for the last few months now, and her RFK remark is exactly what they needed. It was made to order; something they could read between the lines; something they could twist, spin, and distort. Something they could milk for all it was worth until Clinton was “safely” dead and buried in some long lost God forsaken cemetery plot sans the grave marker. “Clinton who?” they’ll be saying. I think my neighbor had a dog named Clinton (or maybe it was a cow; I can’t remember). Anyway, she wouldn’t go away, so we had to put her down. It took a long time, though. We just kept feeding her poison until she got so disoriented she wondered out in front of my gasoline electric hybrid. That seems to me an apt description for what I have witnessed in the media’s treatment of Clinton.

This is nothing like when Obama made his gaffes, or when he refused to disassociate himself from the sinister minister Jeremiah Wright and later, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. In these cases, the media was only too happy to forgive Obama and forget his "indiscretions." They couldn't wait to give him the benefit of the doubt. They can’t help it; Cosmo’s moon has risen and love is in the air. This is just another example of blind, militant, hypocritical liberals wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Someone said that when “Obo” doesn’t deliver on his grand promises of deliverance I can say, “Eat your heart out neo-liberals.” But that quip will give me no comfort after four years of Wacky Baracky and his on the fringe policies. My only comfort then will be if liberals are still wearing their hearts on their sleeves and heart eating is really on the table, as it were. In that case, one can only hope that liberals’ sleeves are edible and they’re wearing cufflinks, really big ones made from low grade metals and embedded with large CZ stones. Then, perhaps, when all this passes, the sudden pain emanating from their hind quarters will remind them of the foolishness of not respecting cause and effect.

 
Obama Gump defends his national security credentials…with a little help from the media

He's not a smawt man, but
he knows what a terrorist is

The top story today from the AP has Barack Obama saying that the president’s comments on the appeasement of terrorists is "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.”

Uh…no, Barack. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric that alienates us further from the terrorists. And you’d have to be a complete imbecile to not know that. Clearly, Obama has confused terrorists with the rest of the world. That would explain his stupid remarks. It also explains yet another reason why he isn’t qualified to be president.

Beyond that, there’s the issue of the media which is trying overly hard to help the American public come to the same conclusion they have—that Barack Obama was targeted by Bush Jr. The prez gave a speech in which he uttered something to the effect of, “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals.” This was in reference to those who would sit down and attempt to bargain with bloodthirsty murderous thugs. Since Obama has said he would be willing to do just that, he took offense at Bush’s comments, claiming they were aimed at him. Unfortunately, the media is only to happy to jettison neutrality and objectivity in favor of helping Obama get his message out.

From the AP:

Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for 'dishonest, divisive' attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.”

Did you see it? No??? That’s because it wasn’t there. The paragraph was missing one little adverb: “allegedly.”

“…Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in [allegedly] hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists…”

And we all know why that little neutral word wasn’t used don’t we? It’s because the AP took a side when they did this story (surprise!). As a former newspaper editor and journalist it amazes even me what passes for news these days. As far as I’m concerned, these publications will never be anything more than substandard birdcage liner as long as they continue taking sides and inserting their opinions into “news” stories.

Then there’s the matter of Obama’s “national security credentials,” which the article I referenced for this piece said he had to “staunchly defend.” Another article (also from the AP) said that Obama’s “national security credentials have been challenged.” To which I ask, since when did he ever have any? In order to have national security credentials you must first marshal the experience of handling national security matters. What national security experience does Barack Hussein Obama have? To date…he has exactly zero experience in the national security arena. Therefore, he has nothing to defend and nothing has been challenged, except maybe his elitist, overinflated, Ivy League ego.

Editor's Note: The image of Obama Gump courtesy of MTW contributor, T.R. Oglodad.