A Pig is a Pig is a Pig!

If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, and sounds like a pig....is it a pig? I think ABC News' plan to promote the President's health care agenda, without offering any opposing views, looks, smells, and sounds like a pig....or in this case, a biased media outlet. Check out the story on the Drudge Report.

On June 24th, ABC News will air from the White House, and will later broadcast a "primetime special" on health care reform from the East Room of the White House. They also plan to air segments supporting health care reform on various other ABC programs. However, ABC News will not allow any opposing views on the health care debate on any of these programs. Why not?

In my view, ABC News relinquished any claim to objectivity or bias-free reporting during the election, but this move has "sealed the deal." By refusing to allow opposing views during an all-out blitz in favor of President Obama's health care proposals, ABC News is nothing less than a mouthpiece for the Democrats and liberal special interest groups. Ken McKay, the Republican National Committee's Chief of Staff, in a letter to ABC said that he finds

"it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers. In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers."

Great suggestion! If the news is no longer objective reporting of facts, and objective analysis of those facts, it should be made clear to the public watching or listening to that news. Call a pig a pig and an infomercial an infomercial! Mr McKay goes on to make an excellent point,

"President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime."

Absolutely! If, as it appears, ABC is using it's programming as an infomercial to "sell" the President's health care reform package to it's viewers, then the President's party should pay for the airtime and it should be made clear to the viewers that the programming is a "paid political announcement." After all, if its a pig, it should be called a pig!

Obama is "sort of God"

I wonder how anyone could believe there isn't any bias in the mainstream media, what with some reporters feeling "tingly" in their legs at the mention of President Obama and other reporters so effusive with their praise of the President, his policies, and his administration that it seems any objective reporting from those reporters has gone by the wayside. Anyone who has doubts that there is a "cult of personality" around President Obama, and that many in the mainstream press are card-carrying members, should check out this video of Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas:

What? Media Agenda? No? Really?

I will probably get really sick of the Presidential election before it’s finally over. Well, maybe. For some reason being able to rant about it on this blog has helped me stay interested. But I will tell you that like many others, I’m already heartily sick of the perfidy of the media. I’ve not trusted the media for some time, that lack of trust was why I started reading blogs in the first place. I wanted to know what was really happening in the war zone, so I looked for information from people who were really there. I know that a lot of blogs are just like mine, and reflect their writer’s opinions; not first-person facts. But we all know that. The problem with the established media is that they pass off their opinions as fact (or allow their opinion to skew their objectivity) without the intellectual honesty to disclose their agenda or biases.

Case in point. Governor Palin gave her first major media interview since being nominated as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate to ABC News and Charles Gibson. When the interview was aired, ABC had edited the tape so as to totally misrepresent something Governor Palin said; in such a way that it looked like Governor Palin believed the war in Iraq was “a task that is from God.” The full text of the interview, which is posted on the internet, shows that Mr. Gibson asked Governor Palin about something she’d said in an earlier speech, and Governor Palin objected to the quote, saying it was mischaracterized. As detailed in a FoxNews article, here’s that portion of the interview:

Gibson: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”
Palin: “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

(This objection to her quote was edited from the televised version of the interview, but is found in the transcript.)

Gibson: “It’s exact words”

But Gibson’s quote did not accurately relate what Governor Palin had really said. Her exact quote in the speech at her old church was:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

ABC edited the quote so that the televised interview contained only part of the quote, but not the entire quote or the context in which it was made.

Of course the McCain/Palin campaign immediately protested ABC New’s mischaracterization. According to the campaign,

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,”

“Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

“Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,”

Nevertheless, ABC News continues to assert their agenda. On Friday, they promoted the interview by posting a promo on Yahoo! News that contained a picture of Governor Palin next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” The promo clearly implied that Governor Palin thinks so. When in reality it was Mr. Gibson’s question, mischaracterizing a previous quote and something Governor Palin objected to, that was the only part of the interview that called the Iraq War a holy war.

Using creative editing and taking snippets of quotes out of context is not a new tactic for pressing opinions and agendas. It just seems more insidious than the overt attacks that we saw earlier this month, like the attacks on Governor Palin’s family and the questions about her ability to hold national office while having a family. They are also more subtle than the outright lies and photo shopped pictures that have abounded since her nomination. Those types of “National Inquirer” tactics are easily discounted and easily refuted. It’s when the agenda is advanced under the guise of fact that things get dangerous.

Double Standard

Double Standard? You bet! I’ve been watching the media frenzy of manufactured news in response to Senator McCain’s selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Crazy! First there was the “she’s an unknown” reporting, followed by the “is she really qualified” stories. Then there was the totally irresponsible, far-left blog speculation that Governor Palin’s youngest son was really her grandson and that Governor Palin had “faked” a pregnancy to cover for her 17-year-old daughter. Amazing! Particularly when the speculation had absolutely no basis in fact! But what really blows me away is the media-manufactured debate over whether Governor Palin is a good mother for exposing her children to the sensationalism and scrutiny that is par-for-the-course in today’s politics; or whether she could possibly balance the demands of motherhood with the demands of the Vice Presidency (or even God-forbid, the Presidency).

Why the debate over her choice to enter politics and still have a family? That’s her choice, based on her circumstances. It may not be the best decision for other women, in different circumstances; but it is her decision. So why isn’t it respected? Was there any debate over Senator Obama’s decision to enter the Presidential race when he has two small children and his wife has a career? No! Was Senator Pelosi’s motherhood questioned when she decided to seek and accept the position of Speaker of the House? No! So why the manufactured debate over Governor Palin’s ability to mother her children? Is it because she’s only the second woman to appear on a ticket for a national political office? Or is it because she appears on the Republican ticket. In my opinion, there is a double standard in how Senator Palin’s being treated and it shows just how far we still have to go to achieve gender equality, and the media is making it worse with their manufactured news and debates.

UPDATE The Editors of the National Review Online have written a great article that makes my point better than I ever could! In it they talk about the mainstream media's feeding frenzy to end Governor Palin's candidacy. They describe how

The New York Time's webpate on Tuesday led with no fewer than three stories about Bristol Palin's pregnancy. CNN has tried to exploit Miss Palin as a laboratory specimen for a high-profile examination of sex-education. MSNBC and the Huffington Post are titillating viewers with exposes on Miss Palin's boyfriend. Slate, owned by the Washington Post, is running a "Name Bristol Palin's Baby" contest. US Weekly has "Babies, Lies, and Scandal" on its cover.

Crazy, isn't it? And chock full of double standards. As the National Review Online article notes

This shameful but predictable media performance stands in marked contrast to the rigorous "hands-off" privacy policy dutifully honored by the press throughout the Clinton years for the then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. Indeed earlier this year, though Miss Clinton was now well into her twenties and an impressively poised surrogate for her mother's campaign, NBC News suspended reporter David Shuster for asserting that Sen. Clinton's campaign was "pimping" her daughter -- a classless formulation, to be sure. But where's the hyper-sensitivity about a candidate's child now?

When Al Gore's son was arrested on narcotics and speeding charges in 2007, moreover, the national press was a model of sympathetic restraint. The muted coverage was devoid of calls for a national "teaching moment" on drug abuse or responsible driving. The message was plain and correct: No news here, move along.

Amazing, isn't it? This level of double standard should be readily apparent to everyone.

Disparity at the Washington Post

Deborah Howell, an ombudsman at the Washington Post, has recognized (and documented) the wide difference in how her paper covers the two Presidential candidates. It's interesting. According to Ms Howell, presumptive Democrat nominee Senator Obama "has a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post page 1 stories" since June 4th. Although trying to justify the disparity by noting that Senator Obama's Presidential run is historic because he's the first black man to be his party's presumptive nominee; but she does admit "the disparity is so wide it doesn't look good." In what seems remarkably similar to the "but everyone's doing it" mantra that my kids tried to use to get out of trouble, Ms Howell also acknowledges that the Washington Post is not alone in its less-than-balanced coverage of the two candidates. The Washington Post's assistant managing editor for politics apparently thinks there's nothing wrong with the disparate coverage. As he explains it,

"We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard."

The assistant managing editor for politics at the Washington Post obviously thinks that the Post's readers want to think the same way he does, and will find the same things "newsworthy." (Perhaps this type of "group-think" is why I refuse to buy the Post.) Ms Howell does "get it" in the end. She concludes, "Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates." Amen! I do not believe in the "fairness doctrine," but I do think that editors should consider the "other point of view" when deciding what is, or is not, newsworthy.