Too funny! The most surprising part of that post is that the New York Times is still in business.
I cancelled my subscription to the Times Sunday edition about a year and a half ago, because I could no longer stand the bias. I've missed some of the international coverage, but the Wall Street Journal seems to be reporting many non-financial stories that used to be covered only by the Times. And the WSJ attempts to impartially report stories based on facts, unlike the Times which continually enganges in attempts at promote a particular viewpoint to the point of stretching the truth.
Maybe they'll call Jayson Blair back and make him editor....
If he were a Republican, it might have read:
Republican Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich is accused of trying to profit from his appointment of Barack Obama's successor...
Ever notice that the word "Democrat" rarely ever makes it into stories containing negative news, whereas "Republican" almost always does?
By the way, Obama was not required to resign his Senate seat so early after being elected, so in effect, he knowingly left it to a corrupt politician to appoint his successor. Lastly, does anyone think that Obama or his people were tipped off? it seems awfully convenient that his presumed choice, Valerie Jarret, withdrew. Want to bet she's going to reconsider?
rhody, I don't think anyone is claiming that Obama was personally "in" on Blago's activities (although it does appear that alot of people close to Obama might have been).
I think the point is to show that the media is trying to give Obama a pass before the details of a story even come out.
Can you imagine the media treating Nixon that way immediately after Watergate? "A break-in occured at Democratic National Committee headquarters that in no implicated the President". The media is supposed to digging deeper into stories, not create alibis.
Heck, the news that Obama's presidential campaign chair (Jesse, Jr.) was Senate Candidate #5 wasn't even broken by the media---Jackson himself came out and admitted it, because even a casual observer could tell it was him from the complaint.
Now Obama's people are deleting any post that contains a reference to Gov. Blag from his "open government" blog. It's reminiscent of banning the media from publications that endorsed McCain from his campaign plane.
I give credit to Obama for one thing. He has successfully found out a way to tame the media and make them his lap dogs(I'd use another word describing female dog in particular, but I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed on the blog).
Relax, Anthony. That same MSM will turn on Obama in a second if it gets half a chance. Look how it turned against him in March over a silly little SNL sketch.
Obama's smart enough to realize that the MSM will take even more glee in tearing him down than it did in building him up (which it only did because he was a new face, the same thing which benefitted Palin). That's why he doesn't kiss up to it.
rhody,
I have no doubt that SOME members of the MSM will hold Obama accountable. But let's face it, when you have "journalists" like Chris Matthews out there saying it is his "job" to make Obama's presidency a success, you can excuse me if I'm somewhat skeptical.
When you have major media publications that always identify the party affiliation of corrupt public officials with a (R) next to their name, but will only mention the (D) party affiliation in passing, it becomes difficult to take the MSM seriously anymore.
I share the view of the 89% of Americans that reporters' personal views shape the news coverage and the 69% of Republicans that have lost trust in the media (according to Gallup).
You want to know why newspapers are losing circulation? They've alienated half the country. I'll still read newspapers on line, but my subscription money will go to the Wall Street Journal and the Economist magazine---which publish both sides of a story.
OBAMA CAMPAIGN CHAIR LINKED TO CORRUPT ATTEMPT TO BUY SENATE SEAT
The headline as it would have been written if Obama and Jesse, Jr. were Republicans....
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Too funny! The most surprising part of that post is that the New York Times is still in business.
I cancelled my subscription to the Times Sunday edition about a year and a half ago, because I could no longer stand the bias. I've missed some of the international coverage, but the Wall Street Journal seems to be reporting many non-financial stories that used to be covered only by the Times. And the WSJ attempts to impartially report stories based on facts, unlike the Times which continually enganges in attempts at promote a particular viewpoint to the point of stretching the truth.
Maybe they'll call Jayson Blair back and make him editor....
Posted by: Anthony at December 10, 2008 9:19 PMWhat'll come first: the end of the recession and the restoration of fiscal sanity to R.I. government, or real proof that Obama was in on Blago's malfeasance?
Posted by: rhody at December 10, 2008 10:53 PMMy money's on Rhode Island's recovery.
If he were a Republican, it might have read:
Republican Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich is accused of trying to profit from his appointment of Barack Obama's successor...
Ever notice that the word "Democrat" rarely ever makes it into stories containing negative news, whereas "Republican" almost always does?
By the way, Obama was not required to resign his Senate seat so early after being elected, so in effect, he knowingly left it to a corrupt politician to appoint his successor. Lastly, does anyone think that Obama or his people were tipped off? it seems awfully convenient that his presumed choice, Valerie Jarret, withdrew. Want to bet she's going to reconsider?
Posted by: Will at December 11, 2008 12:33 AMrhody, I don't think anyone is claiming that Obama was personally "in" on Blago's activities (although it does appear that alot of people close to Obama might have been).
I think the point is to show that the media is trying to give Obama a pass before the details of a story even come out.
Can you imagine the media treating Nixon that way immediately after Watergate? "A break-in occured at Democratic National Committee headquarters that in no implicated the President". The media is supposed to digging deeper into stories, not create alibis.
Heck, the news that Obama's presidential campaign chair (Jesse, Jr.) was Senate Candidate #5 wasn't even broken by the media---Jackson himself came out and admitted it, because even a casual observer could tell it was him from the complaint.
Now Obama's people are deleting any post that contains a reference to Gov. Blag from his "open government" blog. It's reminiscent of banning the media from publications that endorsed McCain from his campaign plane.
I give credit to Obama for one thing. He has successfully found out a way to tame the media and make them his lap dogs(I'd use another word describing female dog in particular, but I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed on the blog).
Posted by: Anthony at December 11, 2008 8:08 AMRelax, Anthony. That same MSM will turn on Obama in a second if it gets half a chance. Look how it turned against him in March over a silly little SNL sketch.
Posted by: rhody at December 11, 2008 10:46 AMObama's smart enough to realize that the MSM will take even more glee in tearing him down than it did in building him up (which it only did because he was a new face, the same thing which benefitted Palin). That's why he doesn't kiss up to it.
rhody,
I have no doubt that SOME members of the MSM will hold Obama accountable. But let's face it, when you have "journalists" like Chris Matthews out there saying it is his "job" to make Obama's presidency a success, you can excuse me if I'm somewhat skeptical.
When you have major media publications that always identify the party affiliation of corrupt public officials with a (R) next to their name, but will only mention the (D) party affiliation in passing, it becomes difficult to take the MSM seriously anymore.
I share the view of the 89% of Americans that reporters' personal views shape the news coverage and the 69% of Republicans that have lost trust in the media (according to Gallup).
You want to know why newspapers are losing circulation? They've alienated half the country. I'll still read newspapers on line, but my subscription money will go to the Wall Street Journal and the Economist magazine---which publish both sides of a story.
Posted by: Anthony at December 11, 2008 11:33 AMOBAMA CAMPAIGN CHAIR LINKED TO CORRUPT ATTEMPT TO BUY SENATE SEAT
The headline as it would have been written if Obama and Jesse, Jr. were Republicans....
Posted by: Anthony at December 12, 2008 9:11 AM