Sunday, January 4, 2009

The Biased Nature Of The Media, Indeed

Last week, a story started to circulate among the media outlets, in which Laura Bush defended her husband and tried to argue he really was a good president. Condoleezza Rice also chipped in her two cents worth, defending her boss, and herself, for the decisions and policies of the last eight years.

At the time, I didn't think too much about it, and just considered it to be a fluff piece. After all, did anyone really expect Laura Bush to come out and state that her husband was a bungling fool? Or that Condoleezza Rice would admit that she and her boss lied about WMDs to invade Iraq? Or that either one of them would condemn Bush for trampling the Constitution, failing to act in New Orleans after Katrina, or setting the country, and the world, on a path to economic ruin? I highly doubt it.

I didn't expect anyone to really write about the piece, given its obvious fatuousness. I should have known better than to underestimate the absurdity of some right wingers.

There is a blogsite called The Right View Wisconsin, which has more contributors than it does non-contributing readers. Some of the eccentrics that post there include WISN's Jay Webber and Kevin Fischer, and these are some of the more tolerable ones, to give you an idea of what it's like there.

One of their approximately 33 contributors took this story and ran with it. She lamented how the "main stream media" should have been reporting how wonderful Bush really was as a president. She felt it a crying shame that it took these two wonderfully unbiased women to have the nerve to tell what she perceives to be the truth about Bush:

Liberals, many of them suffering from severe cases of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", are probably cringing by now. However, within this article are several key accomplishments that Americans rarely are told. Why only Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice are the only two sources to provide such information speaks to the biased nature of our media. How much they hate our president, and have shown their contempt by ignoring the accomplishments of the Bush Administration, while touting what they perceive to be the major failures.

[...]

How eloquent and to the point! What is disheartening about this entire article is that it had to be written from the point of views from the two most important women in President Bush's life. Why couldn't the media have shown just a small bit of journalistic integrity and come to the same conclusions that Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice have reached? Why couldn't the media have reported on all the good Bush has accomplished? - how the United States has stayed safe since 9/11? Instead, our media chose to decry the war (remember all the stories on how badly the U.S. was doing? then after the surge worked, we heard nothing). Why did the media chose to write story upon story about the less than 1% of U.S. soldiers who behaved badly in regards to treating terrorists in U.S. custody, and never write about the good, brave 99% of our U.S. soldiers who accomplish great things and fight to protect us all? Why did the media seem to delight in reporting the bad and ignoring the good? And why are we hearing story after story about shoes getting thrown at our President - and portraying the shoe-thrower as a hero? Do you think our mainstream media will print only the bad about Barack Obama once he becomes President? (Oh, that's right, I forgot! The Messiah - Mr. Obama - can do no wrong!)
Talk about cognitive dissonance! (Not to be confused with Cognitive Dissidence, by the way.)

It was the main stream media that did follow Bush's folderol unquestioningly, that helped get us into the mess that we're in now.

The MSM did not question Bush when he said Iraq was involved in 9/11. They did not report about the evidence that Bush's claims of nuclear weapons and other WMDs were so much garbage. At least they didn't question those claims in time to keep us out of Iraq and keep thousands of our soldiers alive, much less making the surge and everything else moot points.

The media did not question Bush as he trampled the Constitution, fearing they would be labeled unAmerican by the same people that are now attacking them for their lack of support. They glossed over the economic downfall that was looming and as was predicted.

Even now, the MSM is not reporting about how Bush is AWOL as the economy continues to flounder and Israel and Palestine are bound and determined to destroy each other, taking the rest of the world with them.

Just think, if the MSM had done their jobs, instead of letting the right wing bully them around, we may not have gone to Iraq, and all those people would still be alive and all that money would still be around to bolster the economy. If the MSM had done their jobs, we may not be in this recession. Maybe New Orleans would have recovered better from Katrina, like Houston is doing from Rita. There are a lot of bad things that might have been prevented, or at least the damage might have been minimized, if the MSM hadn't been afraid to report the full truth about Bush and his administration.

Oh, the media is biased all right. Just not in the way the right wingers would have you to believe they are.

1 comment:

  1. Come on capper, I think you can say at least 1 or 2 things Bush did that you liked.

    ReplyDelete