Thursday, October 19, 2006
Question: I have noticed that you do not speak favorably about the media of the United States. What are you referring to and do you think the media are not objective? Susan P., Napersville, Illinois.
Answer: There are several reasons, Susan, that I do not refer to America's media in a favorable light. The primary reason for this is that they have, in reality, given up any pretense of providing objective journalism. I am referring to the national media — network television and major daily newspapers. Without the support of America's national mass media, the democratic political party would not, I am convinced, have even a remote possibility of gaining any seats in Congress in the upcoming elections. Based upon pure facts, Susan, I think, on a national level, most Americans would agree that the republican political party supports concepts that are better for our nation that the ideas of the democrats. However, the media clouds the facts and bombards Americans with speculations that they present as news. The media are also excellent at ignoring facts.
Let me give you some examples. A few weeks after President Bush took office in 2001, there were numerous stories in the media about how the economy was entering a depression and it was all Bush's fault. The man had literally only been in office for a few weeks and obviously had nothing to do with the economy going sour. The media knew this. They also knew that the downward slope was a direct result of the previous administration's (Clinton's) policies. But rather than report the facts, for the next two years, the media repeatedly told Americans it was President Bush's fault. Now, after Bush's policies have been enacted and enough time has passed, the economy is booming. But the media cannot find it in themselves to give Bush credit. The market is at record highs, unemployment is way down and, in the last two years, over six and a half million new jobs have been created. This is all a direct result of Bush's tax cuts and economic policies. And if the democrats were to gain control of Congress, despite the fact that the tax cuts are working, they would repeal them. But you would never know that Bush's policies are working or that the democrats would repeal them from the media. They simply don't report it. They don't report that the democrats' plan for Iraq is surrender. But they do report that the democrats have a wonderful plan for Iraq. When gasoline prices were around $3.00 a gallon, it was all Bush's fault. It was all over the media. Now that gas prices have dropped to around $2.00 a gallon, there is no credit to Bush. It is usually not mentioned in the media. When there is a scandal involving a republican, it is all over the media for weeks and weeks. But when there is a scandal involving a democrat, it is barely mentioned.
The American media has literally become a supporter and an arm of the democratic political party. They have placed themselves in the same position as the democrats. When something bad happens to America, it is good for the democrats and the media. The media reports on the bad news extensively. When something good happens to America, it is bad for the democrats and the media. The media tends to ignore the good things and, if they do report it, it is a secondary story and only mentioned once.
I think it is clear that the media is extremely bias. They report things, global warming is a good example, that they support as though they were proven scientific facts when, in reality, they are not. The American mass media simply cannot be trusted to be either objective or accurate. I hope this explains, Susan, why I speak unfavorably about America's mass media.
3 Comments:
Man, you really don't pull any punches, do you? Why don't you tell us what you really think? The sad thing about your answer is that it is completely accurate and totally true. It is as though the mass media is an extension of the democratic party. My local daily newspaper endorsed Gore over Bush in 2000. It was a forgone conclusion that it would endorse Kerry over Bush in 2004. It did although it could not give any good reasons for such an endorsement, It has always endorsed democratic candidates for Governor and Congress. It has never once endorsed a republican.
Enough said.
I absolutely agree with your answer reagrding the media. That is so true. Like the other comment, my local daily paper has never endorsed a republican. It too endorsed Kerry in 2004. It was literally funny because they absolutely could not come up with any reasons for the endorsement. It simply boiled down to the fact that he was the democratic candidate. One thing I can do is find out who my local paper supports and vote for his opponent.
In my home state of Tennessee, we have a senate race going on. The local "big city paper" for me is the Nashville paper. I live in Murfreesboro. It is so obvious that this paper supports the democratic candidate that it is awful to see it and realize that this is supposed to be a nonpartisan objective vehicle to report the news. It is totally, as you said, a part of the democratic party. I don't think their endorsements have come out yet. But you can bet your last dollar that this paper will endorse the democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate race. He is the least qualified, both professionally and personally, but they will endorse him simply because he is a democrat. Your answer is absolutley correct. I hope most Americans realize by now the awful role that the media is playing in its total support of the democratic party. It is shameful for newspapers and television networks to be this way.
Post a Comment
<< Home