It wasn’t what you said, it’s what you didn’t say

It’s been awhile since I’ve used the “oh, THAT liberal bias” tag.  It’s not been for a lack of ample evidence that the Fourth Estate skews consistently to the left.  Hell, they don’t even really try and hide it much these days.  Still, I came across a couple of glaring examples this morning and for what it is worth (nothing I suppose) I felt compelled to point them out.

The first case deals with Wisconsin governor and potential presidential candidate Scott Walker.  Now, Walker has done some pretty amazing things as the Republican governor of a blue state.  Naturally, this makes him a threat to be neutralized.  A Democrat prosecutor has been trying unsuccessfully to bring an indictment on campaign funding issues for a couple of years now, but two different judges have deemed the charges bogus and chastised the prosecutor for abusing the system.  What, you didn’t read about that?   Ah well, I suppose that news was a local issue unworthy of the attention of the national media.  Now, the prosecutor’s office has unsealed the repudiated indictment and guess what–it’s big news!  Except the news didn’t report that the charges were found to be without basis by two judges.  They are reporting the unfounded accusations as if those charges had some merit.  The politics of personal destruction would not be possible without the complicity of the liberal media.  More details on this fiasco at Althouse.

The other example is less obnoxious but just as telling.  Those virtuous folks at CNN (home to the infamous Candy Crowley) hosted a Town Hall with Hillary Clinton featuring star reporter Christiane Amanpour.  Now, this was billed as a straightforward news event.  So, why was the audience coached on when and where to cheer?  A small thing perhaps, but another indication that the media is in the agenda-setting business.  Making news as opposed to reporting it.

Maybe we’ll have a Republican in office come 2017 and the press can once again return to its role as government watchdog.

Bully pulpit


I’ve mostly been confining my political rants to Facebook, but a recent issue had a (slight) Korean angle, so I’m going to run with it here at LTG.

It starts with the Washington Post running an expose hit piece on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.  Yes, the paper that brought you Watergate used all the powers of investigative reporting to discover that Romney may have been a bit of a prick.  In 1965.  In high school.

The other night at darts, a friend’s Korean wife who is just about as apolitical as you can be, expressed outrage that anyone could be held accountable for adolescent behavior occurring half a century in the past.  Her husband, who doesn’t like to talk politics but leans well to the left, was equally nonplussed, saying “That is just wrong.  If people are going to be judged based on how they acted in high school, no one will be qualified to be president.”

Of course, their anger at this smear job is understandable.  They have the good fortune to be living in Korea where they are not subjected to “news” stories that read like press releases from the Democratic National Committee on a daily basis.  Otherwise they might not have been so surprised at just how low the Fourth Estate has fallen.  The press cannot fulfill its historical watchdog role when it is in the tank for the party in power.  Jennifer Rubin, the token conservative blogger at the Post, has a nice column up showing just how one sided “reporting” has become.

What always gets to me though is the blatant hypocrisy.  It was just days ago that presidential adviser David Axlerod was making the rounds saying how outrageous it was for Obama to be criticized for eating dog.  After all, Axlerod reminded us, he was just a child.

But it is worse than that really.  See, it turns out that Obama has some bullying in his past to account for as well.  In his so called autobiography Dreams of my Father, Obama recounts how he shoved a girl because he was being teased by his classmates that he was her boyfriend.  Hey, I’m all in favor of what happens on the playground, stays on the playground.  But it’s got to cut both ways.  That’s just basic fairness.

Anyway, the latest attempt to demonize Romney was not particularly well received.  Even the leftist left leaning Time magazine felt compelled to offer a lukewarm defense of Romney, noting that Obama wasn’t disqualified from office based on his admitted pot-smoking, coke-snorting past.

Anyway, I think bullying is bad and wrong and that it has been a part of the socialization of children since the beginning of time.  So I’m not attempting to condone the behavior of either man when I say that of the two, Obama comes off worse in my view.  It sounds like Romney was a smart ass instigator.  Obama was pushed into his abusive behavior by peer pressure.  To the extent it matters (and of course, it doesn’t), I know who I would rather see as the leader of the free world.

In the end the Post failed in its attempt to change focus from the abysmal Obama economy to Romney’s alleged bad character as a high school boy.  You can’t really blame them for trying, because after four years of utter destruction, Obama has nothing else to run on.

UPDATE: A musical accompaniment.

Reviews of election night news coverage are in…

…and it turns out Fox News is, well, fair and balanced.

Who knew?

If you believe that the cable news landscape is symptomatic of our two-party political system, then you also probably, and predictably, saw a different tone in last nights election results. Fox News presented its coverage with a patina of celebration, while MSNBC’s took a more gloom and doom approach. But there was one important distinction between the two outlets: Fox News offered a far more balanced set of analysts for the election coverage than did MSNBC.

Read the rest at the link…