Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Yet More One-Sided Reporting or Am I Being Paranoid?
Is it my sense of the hypothetical getting out of control, or is the media still displaying a prejudicial disposition toward this particular President, which they did not display toward, for example, Clinton?
I'm often listening to the local radio news stations (to get traffic info -- which is always so incomplete -- so maybe all info from these stations is always so incomplete, after all, they need to have time to report on the missing white girls, etc.), and they report GW Bush's statements regarding the Patriot Act renewal and domestic spying, etc., but they don't report any response from the Democratic Congressional leadership or anyone.
Why do I suspect if that scalawag Clinton, with his carpetbagger wife (I use these terms on purpose -- remember, HR Clinton was a carpetbagger not when she went to NY but when she moved down South with WJ Clinton ... and this is the lens through which the Clintons are viewed ... as a scalawag and a carpetbagger: anyone who fails to understand that fails to understand the US as a whole and the South, which is politically ascendent now, in particular) were President, the media would give ample time to the GOP leadership for a response?
Yet, on the local news, you never hear how the Dems. filibustering the Patriot Act offered to temporarily extend it so that it could be fixed, and it is the President who's being a stubborn ass. You just hear the President and his cronies saying "if the Democrats didn't like the Patriot Act, why did they support it earlier?" and other such bull$#%* indicating the President has no concept of a temporary measure in a time of de facto war that should be reversed. So why should we trust the President to use his "war powers" (without Congress even declaring war ... an on whom? declaring war against terrorism is a little bit like that kid in the skit parodying the paranoia about D&D wanting to use "magic missile" against the darkness!) only temporarily and against real enemies? Not to mention what kind of message it sends to terrorists that they have succeeding in terrorizing us so we consider them legitimate soldiers for a cause rather than the bunch of criminals they are.
But unfortunately, most people don't think along these lines -- they hear the President and won't question him until someone else raises the questions. But the media don't give voice to those raising questions. Given how often they did so when Clinton was President (everytime Clinton fought against terrorists with military might, the media were happy to report the voices of those claiming Clinton was wagging the dog -- so why are those people now allowed to get away with saying "9/11 changed everything" without having been forced under threat of pillory to apologize for criticizing Clinton for worrying about terrorism?), that they've not done so with Bush indicates the media are still biased.
I'm often listening to the local radio news stations (to get traffic info -- which is always so incomplete -- so maybe all info from these stations is always so incomplete, after all, they need to have time to report on the missing white girls, etc.), and they report GW Bush's statements regarding the Patriot Act renewal and domestic spying, etc., but they don't report any response from the Democratic Congressional leadership or anyone.
Why do I suspect if that scalawag Clinton, with his carpetbagger wife (I use these terms on purpose -- remember, HR Clinton was a carpetbagger not when she went to NY but when she moved down South with WJ Clinton ... and this is the lens through which the Clintons are viewed ... as a scalawag and a carpetbagger: anyone who fails to understand that fails to understand the US as a whole and the South, which is politically ascendent now, in particular) were President, the media would give ample time to the GOP leadership for a response?
Yet, on the local news, you never hear how the Dems. filibustering the Patriot Act offered to temporarily extend it so that it could be fixed, and it is the President who's being a stubborn ass. You just hear the President and his cronies saying "if the Democrats didn't like the Patriot Act, why did they support it earlier?" and other such bull$#%* indicating the President has no concept of a temporary measure in a time of de facto war that should be reversed. So why should we trust the President to use his "war powers" (without Congress even declaring war ... an on whom? declaring war against terrorism is a little bit like that kid in the skit parodying the paranoia about D&D wanting to use "magic missile" against the darkness!) only temporarily and against real enemies? Not to mention what kind of message it sends to terrorists that they have succeeding in terrorizing us so we consider them legitimate soldiers for a cause rather than the bunch of criminals they are.
But unfortunately, most people don't think along these lines -- they hear the President and won't question him until someone else raises the questions. But the media don't give voice to those raising questions. Given how often they did so when Clinton was President (everytime Clinton fought against terrorists with military might, the media were happy to report the voices of those claiming Clinton was wagging the dog -- so why are those people now allowed to get away with saying "9/11 changed everything" without having been forced under threat of pillory to apologize for criticizing Clinton for worrying about terrorism?), that they've not done so with Bush indicates the media are still biased.
# posted by alberich @ 10:44 AM 
