HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 3, 2004 Given the nature of a good percentage of email I received after my last posting to this website, it is apparent a number of those who took a few moments to read what I had to say simply did not understand the point that was being made. I was told I "didn't have my facts straight," when I really presented no facts in that column that had to be gotten straight, other than those used by Zell Miller in his speech. As I understand it, Chris Matthews is a very highly-paid news professional who was placed in an anchor position at the Republican National Convention. Mr. Matthews could not think of anything intelligent to say or ask in response to Miller's speech. The very point of my writing was that Chris Matthews, in his haste to come to the aid of John Kerry, offered nothing of value for his audience. The political Left needs to understand you don't win debates by yelling louder than your opponent or making ridiculous references to obvious metaphorical references (spitballs). Chris Matthews is certainly smart enough to know this. He was playing to the crowd and cameras and it failed. One question though to those who question my facts: Why exactly am I being held to a higher standard of journalistic professionalism than Chris Matthews? Zell Miller's political affiliation has also been questioned. A "closet Republican" working for Karl Rove was the desciption provided by one e:mailer. The truth is, Mr. Zell Miller is a lifelong Democrat as were his parents and pretty much all of his extended family. His roots stem from a time, though, when Democrats stood for a strong military, low taxes and preservation of the family. Democrats of old were far more like Republicans of today. I would hazard to guess, if he were still around, John F. Kennedy would fit more into the current Republican party than within what passes as the modern Democrats. No, Zell Miller did not abandon his party. His party abandoned him while he held to his principles. And, isn't that rare in this day and age? Another common comment was that I had used only one example of media bias and how can I possibly conclude that the media tilts to the Left with only one example. To this, I say, you are absolutely right. It is really impossible to establish any kind of trend with one example, like trying to draw a line with one dot. In truth, I could write endlessly about media bias, using so many examples I'm sure any average reader would quickly tune it out (I would). People who deny the existence of a Leftward media bias are either driven by emotional partisanship (and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that) or they simply are not paying attention. When NBC places an obvious partisan such as Chris Matthews in an anchor position at the Republican National Convention, and the wisdom of this is not questioned in the least, that is an example of media bias. When endless news stories out of Iraq and Afghanistan cover only the negative, the casualties and what is going wrong, while avoiding even the slightest mention of the accomplishments, that is an example of media bias. When the press questions the intelligence of virtually every prominent Republican for decades, from Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan is questionedWhen the press questions the integrity and funding of 254 Swift Boat Veterans who served in Vietnam with John Kerry, and have come forward to tell us he is unfit for command, while not questioning the motivation of fifteen veterans who support John Kerry, that is an example of media bias. When the Washington press stands up before the President of the United States, and no less than five journalists attempt to extract an apology from George W. Bush for ANYTHING, that is an example of media bias. (Why exactly would the so-called objective independent press feel the need to garner an apology from our president? Of what service is this to anyone, other than Democrats and John Kerry.) The media demand for a presidential apology is particularly irresponsible as we have soldiers fighting on the ground in two nations overseas. Do members of the press understand the impact of the Commander in Chief apologizing for wars while soldiers are fighting in those wars? Or, perhaps, the media's objectives supercede the objectives of the nation overall and those of our soldiers on the ground. The existence of the popular media's predisposition towards the causes of Democrats over those of Republicans is clear. Liberal members of the media themselves admit to this. Read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg (a lifelong Democrat) or his followup book "Arrogance," and you will be provided all the examples you want to see or, for you liberals, what you might not want to see. ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
