The Media’s Adoration of That One
I’ve been getting hit pretty hard recently about my negative portrayal of Barack Obama and his supporters.
And that’s fine.
I fully understand that not all Democrats are the mindless ignoramuses that I make them all to be, but in my personal experience, many of them are exactly that. And those people are the ones that are targeted in my notes. Know that I’m sure Barack Obama is a intelligent and gifted man, but that I do not agree with his view for our country.
I feel that the media is intensely biased in its coverage of the two candidates this year, and I feel that not enough people realize it. So I aim to balance things out as best I can, by brining to people’s attention things that the media conveniently overlooks about Barack Obama.
Don’t believe me?
The Project For Media Excellence in Journalism broke down the news coverage of both candidates into positive coverage and negative coverage. I suppose a study of this nature could be somewhat subjective, although I think that positive/negative is about as black and white as one can get.
The Project For Media Excellence in Journalism found that in print and broadcast news that 57% of McCain coverage was negative while 29% was negative for Obama. In addition to that, 69% of all print coverage was negative toward McCain while 28% of print was negative for Obama.
NBC provided audiences with 54% negative coverage to McCain as opposed to 21% to Obama. MSNBC is truly pathetic, as their coverage is 73% negative for McCain and 14% negative to Obama.
Apparently, FOX News’ pledge of “fair and balanced” doesn’t look so bad according to statistics. In fact, it the perfect slogan for the station this election as 40% of their McCain coverage is negative, and 40% of their Obama coverage is negative. Many people confuse commentators with objective journalism. Commentators are not supposed to be that, but rather the opinion of someone. Just like my commentary is.
ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC all claim to be objective journalism, but the truth is, they’re nothing close to that standard.
One of America’s best system of checks and balances is the freedom of the press. Obama has already proven that if the press dares to ask tough questions, he’ll go right ahead and deny them any future access to him.
The NY Post, Washington Times and the Dallas Morning News have all endorsed John McCain, and have all been subsequently been denied access to Senator Obama. That seems like a great plan – if you can’t beat ’em, simply don’t let them play. A Saturday Evening Post writer was banned from the Obama plane because of a story that dared question Obama’s qualifications.
If Obama wins, the media will already be in bed with him and any source that isn’t will be denied their First Amendment rights (Throw in the Second Amendment and that’s two Rights in the Bill of Rights that Obama doesn’t agree with).
I know that I’m guilty of unbalanced coverage of 2008 Presidential candidates, probably even more so than many of the national outlets. But I admit to the bias and don’t claim to be objective. I’ve railed on Barack Obama and called out his supporters. Maybe it seems as if I’m stereotyping those people, but I’m not.
The media would have you to believe that every Barack Obama supporter is conceptually perfect and farts rainbows. The media chooses not to show the type of people that I deal with every day, and those people certainly have flatulence of the non-rainbow variety.
The Republicans have some awful and racist supporters. We all know that because we see the videos and read the stories. But we don’t see their counterparts from the Democratic party because the media refuses to show them to us, or Barack Obama won’t let them.
Either way, I’m here to let you see the other side of this election.