Another Write-wing Conspirator

Commentary, observations, musing, and ranting from the middle of the road (or just to the right of center. Usually.) featuring The Curmudgeon

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 42 other followers

  • Recent Posts

  • Top Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Advertisements
  • Welcome to The Curmudgeon’s lair

    Welcome to my curmudgeondom. As you’ll soon learn, your reactions to my missives here are likely to range from fear to loathing to tears to outright rage—and I just might even evoke from you an occasional sober nod or two.

    If you see a posting you like and wish to share it with others, by all means feel free to do so. I'd prefer that you send the link to your friends, but you're also welcome to reproduce anything here—as long as you retain my identity on the document. If you have a web site of your own and wish to post a link to this blog (or to a specific post), again, feel free to do so.

    The purpose of this blog is simple: to provide me a vehicle for sounding-off on whatever topic suits me at the moment. While there’s sure to be no shortage of politically-oriented palaver here, it is by no means all (nor necessarily even most) of what will be proffered to your discerning mind. You’ll also find that my personal politics, ethics, morals, and standards are pretty much “all over the map” (according to my mother-in-law)—so, don’t be surprised to see rants regarding, say, the interference of churches in politics, politically-correct anything, “nanny” laws, taxes, the United Nations, Congress, the Commissioner of Baseball, the State of Ohio’s speed limits, steroids, Jesse Jackson, the “mainstream” media, ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, the price of cigarettes, Obamarxism, regulating sales of alcohol, gasoline price manipulation, Muslim foot baths, illegal immigration, laws banning the sale of adult sex toys, cell phones, heavy-handed cops, meddlesome politicians, Hillary, Billary, our all-but-self-proclaimed uncrowned Queen Nancy, “W”, eminent domain, freedom of speech, and the designated hitter all in succession. It is, as I said, my curmudgeondom — and I have the credentials and bona fides to lay claim to the title of The Curmudgeon. So, there.

    Some of the postings you'll encounter may seem familiar—especially to those who know me personally. By way of explanation… I once had an ongoing relationship with a local newspaper, and had a number of published opinion pieces—some of which may be posted here. My arrangement was for a feature entitled An Opposing View; given that the editorial staff had a generally liberal, left-of-center view, it stands to reason that my "opposing" view would generally be perceived as coming from the right (in more ways than one, in my own humble opinion). These posts will be annotated as having been previously published.

    Comments, of course, are always welcome. You may agree or disagree with me. Doesn’t matter. Of course, I reserve the right to completely ignore you — but, feel free to let your feelings be known, anyway. And if you don't want to comment directly here, my e-mail address is: jimseeber@gmail.com .

    Oh, and…yes, I can spell. That "Write-wing" is only a play on words. So, there. Again.

    Welcome, once again. Strap in and hang on.

  • Twitter

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • About this “curmudgeon” guy…

    Armchair philosopher, politically-incorrect political commentator, raconteur, retired air traffic controller, dilettante truck driver, US Army veteran, recluse, sometime-writer, redneck convert neè Buckeye, ne'er-do-well, bon vivant, unrepentant libertine, unapologetic libertarian, and (of course) curmudgeon…

    Anything else you wanna know—just ask.

  • Blog Stats

    • 12,911 hits

Archive for the ‘media corruption’ Category

Who Would REALLY Benefit from Voter “Amnesia”?

Posted by The Curmudgeon on November 1, 2010

There’s much that Obama would have us forget, too.

Hip-deep in his perpetual campaigning, Barack Obama derisively pointed out to voters last week that Republicans were pinning their hopes on the electorate’s suddenly developing “amnesia”—then reiterated once again his oft-repeated claim that responsibility for everything currently going awry anywhere in the known universe should be laid at the GOP’s feet.

As usual, there was a modicum of validity to the manchild-in-chief’s assertion; after all, has there ever been a political candidate who didn’t wish the voters would forget about something?

Obama should keep in mind, however, that there’s also much that he would like to erase from the voters’ collective memory. Though not actually running for re-election himself, the imminent midterm election is very much a referendum on his record—and the outcome is crucial to his future plans. To a candidate who won the preceding election owing largely to voter vacuity, the continued cluelessness of the electorate is of inestimable value.

Our manchild-in-chief would much prefer, for example, that we not remember the intense pressure brought to bear by his regime to ram through his unpopular ObamaCare travesty far enough in advance of this election that we wouldn’t remember the promised transparency that turned to occlusion. We’re likewise expected to forget the behind-the-scenes deal-brokering and outright bribery that made his showcase legislation possible, notably the “Cornhusker Kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase.” It’s supposed to fade from memory that the prohibition on using federal funds for abortions was inexplicably left out of the grand health care reform legislation, a claimed oversight that Obama promised to correct via executive order (the order was in fact issued—but it now seems to have less in the way of teeth than was claimed at the time signed it).

Though Obama has stubbornly clung to his habitual hammering of his predecessor for the nation’s economic woes and rising employment, the simple fact is that his own profligate spending (you remember: the spending that he insisted was necessary to hold unemployment under eight percent) has buried us under a mountain of debt from which we may never recover—and unemployment has now crept perilously close to ten percent.

He would dearly love for us to forget all about the problem of illegal immigration and his own scandalous refusal to secure the nation’s borders. (How very curious…we haven’t heard a word about “comprehensive immigration reform” for a few weeks—have we?) He’d like us all to forget that his response to the chaotic border situation was to sic his Justice Department on the state of Arizona for daring to do what he refused to do. He wants us to forget all about the efforts to secure amnesty for some twelve million future Democrats illegal immigrants.

It’s supposed to slip our minds that our first “post-racial” chief executive has in fact fanned the flames of racism. We’re supposed to no longer recall the specter of New Black Panther Party goons convicted of intimidating voters in Philadelphia—only to be sent on their merry way by Obama’s Justice Departmant, which inexcusably declined to pursue the case. We’re supposed to conveniently forget Obama’s own rash (and obviously incorrect) berating of the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. James Crowley—who, as it turns out, hadn’t acted so “stupidly” as Obama had claimed. We’re supposed to not notice when he manages to find that “Negro dialect” that Harry Reid said he lacked—when he’s busy whipping-up support among a black crowd by creating an “us-versus-them” atmosphere.

We’re supposed to forget about the steady procession of tax cheats, avowed communists and socialists, and far left-wing whack-jobs he’s welcomed to his regime. We’re supposed to forget the blatant power grabs and attempts to exert direct government control over banking, manufacturing, communications, and the media (it’s telling when Helen Thomas — hardly a conservative icon — criticizes the administration for doing so).

He would like for many of us to forget how badly he needs to emerge from the midterm election with Democrats controlling Congress — though he’s quick to remind those who voted for him in 2008 that it’s essential for them to keep the faith, as he needs that power base “to continue with my agenda”…whatever his agenda may comprise. (His obsession with secrecy and hidden deals leaves us constantly guessing.)

We’re expected to forget all about the vacations, travel, and high living that his regime is enjoying at taxpayer expense while much of the nation struggles just to make ends meet. We’re not supposed to remember the unprecedented arrogance shown by himself and his henchmen. We’re expected to forget the tax that isn’t a tax, then is, then isn’t—depending, it seems, entirely on what our narcissistic dear leader is trying to pull at any given time. He wants us to forget the political thuggery that Democrats have freely exercised from the moment they grasped the reins of government.

Let’s hope enough of us have better memories than he gives us credit for.

__________

Advertisements

Posted in ballot, border security, budget, corruption, debt, deficit, economy, election, federal bail-out, health care reform, illegal aliens, immigration, immigration reform, manchild, media corruption, national security, obama, ObamaCare, politics, Reid, stimulus, tax, unemployment, vote, waste | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

A Little Knowledge

Posted by The Curmudgeon on August 28, 2010

It’s still dangerous—as is ignorance of history

Two of the most familiar and oft-quoted observations respectively hold that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and that failure to learn from history dooms us to repeat it.

With that, I present Chris Cuomo of ABC News.

This past week, Cuomo (seeming to echo the growing crescendo of ill-informed mainstream media figures) transmitted the following via his Twitter account: “To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics – before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades….study them”

Interesting.

Some of Cuomo’s Twitter “followers” then engaged him in a bit of back-and-forth, correctly pointing out that the Crusades were in fact preceded by an extended period of Muslim encroachment (indeed, Charles Martel and the Franks halted the Muslim invasion of Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD—long before the First Crusade of 1095-1099 AD).

Not to excuse Cuomo’s ignorance, but his misperception is a common one: that Muslims have been running around in the pissed-off-and-locked position since the Crusades, having never forgiven Christendom for such effrontery—and itching for centuries to get even.

“Get even,” hell; they started this crap.

Or as Princeton University Professor Emeritus Bernard Lewis put it: “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

However, let’s set aside that issue for just a moment to allow me to digress (it is my blog, after all).

Many years ago, there was a war fought in a place known (then) as South Vietnam. Some of you may recall it. Some of you were too young (or still a gleam in your daddy’s eye) at the time. For those who recall that period, there are also distant memories of widespread unrest, anti-war demonstrations, riots, draft resisters, and so forth. It was a long and costly war, and it resulted in deep divisions among the citizenry.

Being in high school at the height of the war (and rapidly approaching draft-able age), I had more than a passing interest in the matter. Personally, I had mixed feelings about this nation’s involvement in Southeast Asia; however, my ambivalence was spawned by my own research.

The same could not necessarily be said of the majority of my peers.

Oh, they could regurgitate the rhetoric on cue. They had all the chants down pat.

But did they really understand what was going on?

I clearly recall a class discussion during that time. I pretty much hung back and listened for a time, noting the by-then familiar rhetoric being offered. Then, I posed a few questions to some of the more vocal critics of the war.

“You say the war is ‘illegal.’ Based on what?”

I was immediately bombarded with cries that the war was an undeclared one, and that Congress hadn’t approved our involvement there. In reply, I reminded them of the “power of the purse” that Congress wields, and noted that Congress itself had appropriated the funds necessary to conduct the war.

No answers to that one.

I then asked them whether they were familiar with the USS Maddox or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The “domino theory,” perhaps?

Again, no answers.

Now, I relate this vignette not in an effort to revive the decades-old debate over U.S. involvement in the war, but to illustrate my point that many during that era formed their opinions based not on what they’d discovered through examination of facts but on whatever input (we frequently call them “talking points,” these days) they’d heard from others. It was often a lemming-like acceptance of whatever they’d been fed by commentators via evening news broadcasts—sources known even then for their biased interpretation of events (and reporting thereof).

Which brings us back to the present day, where we are currently assailed by recitals of the current rhetoric. For example, how many times have we heard various sources use the precise phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” in recent months? (This, by the way, is the Democrats’ and illegal aliens’ euphemism for “amnesty and pathway to citizenship to which they have no valid claim since they’re in the country illegally to begin with.”) The phrase’s use seemed to spread overnight, as if by a hidden network (and with the “outing” of the JournoList cabal, the scenario seems quite plausible). Political organizers plant the current phraseology among their minions to go and spread the word far and wide.

Cries of “racism” are also a staple—particularly for anyone with the audacity to criticize anything that Barack Obama says or does.

And then there are the “phobes.” After years of being attacked for being “homophobes,” for example, some are finally (and correctly) pointing out that a phobia is by definition “an irrational fear”—and resistance to the concerted presentation of the homosexual agenda has nothing to do with fear, at all.

Now we’re suddenly dismissed as “Islamophobic” for daring to object to the construction of a mosque where many believe it doesn’t belong, expressing dismay at what seems an insidious transformation of our legal system to a Shariah-compliant state, or pointing out the obvious lie that mass-murder committed by a Muslim officer in the U.S. Army who considers himself a “soldier of Allah” is anything but an act of terrorism. We wonder how there can be a Ramadan observance at the White House while prominent symbols of Christianity are under attack. We question why Uncle Sam foots the bill for repairs to mosques in foreign countries while court challenges halt the restoration of a mission (listed as a national historic landmark) in California based on assertions that the use of taxpayer funds implies endorsement of a religion. We’re aghast that the Obama regime would send an imam (at taxpayers’ expense) through the Muslim world as a sort of emissary and troubleshooter—then have it revealed that this same imam basically said that we brought on the 9/11 attacks ourselves. We’re alarmed and outraged that this imam insists on erecting a mosque at Ground Zero with funds of murky origin, and puzzled that others fail to see the symbolic significance of such a structure to a movement with a history of building mosques to commemorate victories.

Oh, and Cuomo’s response to a Twitter “follower” who challenged his claim? He tweeted: “not sure how pointing out muslim wrongs erases christian wrongs…more defense by attack? proof of bias?”

As Nathan Burchfiel of Newsbusters summed up Cuomo’s response: “So pointing out Muslim wrongs doesn’t erase Christian wrongs — but pointing out Christian wrongs justifies Muslim wrongs?”

Swell. Cuomo’s little bit of knowledge brings us full circle, repeating history once again. The blind leading the blind who refuse to think for themselves, whipped-up by scores of Cuomo’s ilk who have little understanding of history (my wife cites a Biblical reference calling this “zeal without knowledge”) but are intent on shaping the public debate to their liking.

As alleged “Islamophobes,” we’re assailed for having “an irrational fear” about a purported religion of peace that in fact has a long history of extreme violence and repression…a religion that often appears less a religion and more a politically-driven cult with a sinister agenda.

Well, the pundits got the “fear” part right; 9/11 frightened the bejesus out of us. There’s nothing irrational about it, though.

And the current “Islamophobia” label has no validity. What we’re feeling now has little to do with fear.

But we are mad as hell.

________

.

Posted in 9/11, corruption, crusade, ground zero, hate crimes, hate speech, health care reform, illegal aliens, immigration, immigration reform, islam, islamofascist, islamophobia, JournoList, media corruption, media establishment, mosque, national security, obama, political correctness, politics, terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Manchild in PresidentLand

Posted by The Curmudgeon on August 2, 2010

The difference between men and boys isn’t their toys; it’s their tantrums.

Much has been said and written (though not so much in the mainstream lamestream media) about Barack Hussein Obama’s behavior. The most commonly-accepted assertions suggest that he’s a megalomaniac or that he’s a narcissist—or both.

An old friend of mine, however, blazed a new and promising trail a few months ago when he characterized Obama as a “manchild.”

Bull’s-eye. That summed things up quite nicely. (Thanks, Bob.)

Consider, for example, the spectacle presented to the nation with The Great Blair House Health Care Overhaul Summit of only a few months ago. Faced with a Republican opposition clearly dug-in for the long haul and a constituency that was just as succinct in its disapproval of his grand scheme, Obama responded with what was purported to be a negotiating session to iron-out differences and reach an acceptable agreement; it didn’t take long, however, to see through the facade.

There never was the slightest intent to compromise, nor to even present more than a thin veneer of reconciliation. Obama accurately summarized his position with one statement when he addressed the disparity of speaking time allotted with his blithe “Because I’m the President” dismissal. In a sneak-preview showing of what has come to be his signature strategy, he made a token attempt to present an appearance of good-faith negotiation, offered nothing in the way of giving ground, then seized the public podium to decry the intransigence of those who opposed him. Citing the obstructionist politics of his adversaries, he angrily rationalized his authoritarian ramming-through of the package he wanted.

As planned.

At the first hint of criticism (or even genuine analysis), Obama immediately lashes-out at anyone with the audacity to question him on anything. Time and time again, he has faithfully followed a familiar script—even to the point of attacking the very news media largely responsible for his political success. (For a Democrat — especially Obama — this can be most closely likened to a shark arbitrarily attacking the scavenging pilot fish that accompanies it and provides a cleaning service by devouring the ever-present parasites and scraps. It should be noted that in the shark world, this is practically unheard of; sharks know better.) This initial gambit will typically be followed by a deflection, attempting to shift blame to someone else (though George W. Bush remains his favorite scapegoat, any Republican—or group of Republicans—will do) or claim that his plan is necessary to offset damage done by someone else’s misdeeds. In the event this isn’t immediately successful, bribery and threats may be added to the mix. For the really stubborn resistance, he offers a reconciliation of sorts; however, it never actually materializes. Instead, he simply re-hashes his own proposal—then appears before the television cameras to angrily denounce his opposition for refusing to negotiate and compromise.

This Manchild-in-Chief has repeatedly thrust himself into matters not lying within his purview (e.g., building cars, running banks, interfering in state politics), consistently seeking to expand his sphere of control—all the while either ignoring problems that are his responsibility or attempting to manipulate events for the sake of his own political gain (the most glaring example, of course, being border security). His promises of “transparency” and “the most ethical administration in history” have long since proved hollow. His frequent savaging of rivals reveals a flawed and dark personality, the manchild bent on crushing his opposition in his quest for a government by fiat—his. His pressuring of New York Governor David Paterson to abandon re-election efforts was merely improper; the alleged inducements offered to Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff — if proven true — are patently illegal, while his suggested involvement in the ongoing Rod Blagojevich melodrama hints at some of the seamiest of dirty politics to emanate from the nether world of Chicago chicanery.

Obama recently demanded that British Petroleum establish an escrow fund of $20 billion to cover costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon disaster—a step assailed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) as a “shakedown.” Though he retracted the charge under pressure from his own party, Barton was pretty much on the money—and Obama knows it. As a (supposed) Constitutional scholar, Obama knows full well that such matters rightly belong in the courts; for him to effectively establish his own set of rules is manifestly improper—if not downright illegal. (The Obama regime, of course, was ecstatic over Barton’s comments and the chance they provided for the White House to portray Obama as being on the side of those who’d sustained losses as a result of the spill—and the obvious opportunity to condemn Republicans as friends of the evil oil industry…yes, that very same oil industry whose money Obama was more than happy to accept in the form of campaign contributions.) Ironically, this little end-run around the Constitution came at almost exactly the same time that Obama directed his Justice Department to threaten legal action against the state of Arizona for (you’ve gotta love this) allegedly trying an end-run around the Constitution with its SB 1070 immigration law.

Several weeks ago, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) revealed that in the course of a one-on-one conversation Obama reiterated his refusal to address the issue of border security, insisting that it would be remedied only as part of his sought-after “comprehensive immigration reform” package. According to Kyl, Obama’s worry is that his version of “reform” would fall by the wayside without the pressure of border security concerns to keep it alive—and The Manchild-in-Chief considers his trusted tool (extortion) appropriate to the occasion. Not surprisingly, the White House denies the claim (though the denial sounded suspiciously like a pitch for Obama’s “reform” effort)—but Kyl stands by his statement. (At this point, who would you believe?) Given more recent events (specifically, Obama directing his Justice Department to bring suit against Arizona to block enforcement of SB 1070—enacted in an attempt to fill the void resulting from the federal government’s refusal to stem the flow of intruders), Kyl’s version rings far more true; indeed, note that Obama himself didn’t directly deny the claim — relegating that duty to underlings who weren’t even present at the time of the exchange — and his subsequent actions serve only to lend credence to Kyl’s story.

Perhaps Joe Sestak could shed some light on the matter. Or maybe David Paterson. Or Andrew Romanoff. Or even Rod Blagojevich. (It’s very telling when your credibility is less certain than Blago’s.)

On a more positive note, at least, our manchild stops just short of the archetypal childish act of threatening to take his baseball bat and go home. So far.

__________

Posted in health care reform, illegal aliens, immigration reform, manchild, media corruption, obama, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Media Madness

Posted by The Curmudgeon on July 24, 2010

Why mainstream media sources are on the ropes

Some thirty years ago, I had an interesting conversation with a teacher. He’d recently chaperoned his students during a field trip, touring the operations of the local newspaper. He surprised me when he pointed out that what he’d found most interesting were the newswire reports lying around, enlightening me about a few stories I hadn’t heard. When I expressed dismay at how I’d somehow missed these little gems, he explained: “You didn’t miss anything. They were never printed.”

He then asked me if I knew the identity of the newspaper’s publisher. Editor-in-chief? News editor? Opinion page editor? Who they are—and their views?

I confessed that I had no idea.

He said: “You should. They decide what news you get—and the news you don’t get.”

Sobering thought, that.

I’d always taken pains to keep abreast of the news. Of course, back in those days my usual news sources consisted of one major newspaper (for a city of about a quarter-million), radio news broadcasts while driving (imparted during brief interruptions to music and advertising), and broadcast television news furnished by the three major networks, recently augmented by the then-fledgling CNN. And, of course, there were the larger news magazines (e.g., Time, Newsweek, and U.S.News and World Report). Internet news sources lay far in the future. “The web” didn’t yet exist. Personal computers, for that matter, were an extreme rarity—and didn’t have modems (there wasn’t anything out there to connect with, anyway).

I gave much consideration to what the teacher had said. I thought of stories that had languished — the My Lai massacre came to mind — simply because nobody considered them to be newsworthy. (For the too-young-to-remember…the My Lai story was initially ignored by all the major news outlets; it eventually came to light not owing to a dedicated journalist, but to a disgruntled soldier—who finally managed to attract interest in the story long after the fact.) I recalled a vignette of someone once giving Walter Cronkite a transcript of the previous evening’s entire CBS newscast pasted onto the front page of a newspaper; it didn’t even cover that one page completely—a graphic commentary if ever there was one.

I also wondered what else the local newspaper editor had deemed not worthy of passing on to his readers. What had the major wire services chosen to ignore—or bury? How did the major broadcast news executives decide which stories to bombard us with during the thirty precious minutes (minus advertising time) they alloted to their evening broadcasts? What criteria did they use in making these decisions?

Since then, the world of news-reporting has changed dramatically. The “major” television networks have seen their news bureaus steadily lose market share to Fox News, while the explosion of web news sources and the blogosphere have placed a severe strain on even old, storied publishing empires.

Perhaps with that in mind, Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger recently advanced the sensationally idiotic idea that the federal government should help fund troubled news organizations—and, implicitly, to regulate them.

The reader might blanch at my characterization, wondering what could possibly be wrong with government controlling the news; after all, it worked so well for Hitler, Communist China, the former Soviet Union, and North Korea. The ruling clerics in Iran no doubt swear by the idea. Hugo Chavez has embraced it.

One can almost feel the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves, aghast at the mere notion of blithely surrendering hard-won freedoms that they and generations of their successors fought to preserve—particularly given that it involves those who traditionally have so ardently cloaked themselves in the First Amendment for protection.

Set aside for the moment the temptation to merely ask whether Bollinger is out of his mind, and consider how the news organizations came to find themselves in their current state; while he’s partly correct in attributing the media establishment’s woes to the advent of internet news sources, the wounds are mostly self-inflicted.

The oligopoly enjoyed until only a few years ago by the established media giants couldn’t have been broken simply by a few upstart news sources elbowing them aside; they were all too big and too powerful for that to happen. Had the public at large been content with the services provided by the existing news giants, there would have been no motivation to seek other sources. The big news sources themselves drove away their own audience as growing numbers of readers and viewers became increasingly dissatisfied with a perceived (and steadily worsening) liberal bias in the news being presented (or not presented). Those who abandoned the “mainstream media” sources in droves, however, didn’t simply unplug altogether; as the established news giants have seen their influence decline, Fox and other sources have seen the ranks of their followers swell commensurately.

Reporters have long taken refuge in the old saw that “We don’t make the news; we just report it” in the face of criticism; given that they’ve become increasingly fond of selecting what to report and how it’s reported, this disingenuous claim is more ludicrous now than ever before. If thirty minutes of enduring the evening news isn’t enough to convince the skeptics, the ongoing revelations of groupthink news-planning via the JournoList listserv certainly should raise concerns. There’s mounting evidence of widespread collusion to not only abdicate the media’s traditional role of equally vetting Presidential candidates, but to collectively become Barack Hussein Obama’s most devoted advocate—and launch a concerted attack against his opponent’s running mate. More recently, the squelching of the story about voter intimidation by New Black Panther Party goons in Philadelphia (and elsewhere, as it’s now been revealed) was so egregious that even The Washington Post‘s own ombudsman took the newspaper to task over the matter. Throughout CBS News commentator Bob Schieffer’s recent interview with Attorney General Eric Holder, he failed to address the issue. Schieffer’s explanation? He’d been on vacation and hadn’t heard about the story.

Great. Schieffer’s on vacation, and the rest of establishment media’s been out to lunch the past few decades.

…and now Bollinger expresses his heartfelt concern that the federal government’s failing to prop-up the establishment media would result in our not getting the news we should have—as if establishment media has already been providing us with such news. (Indeed, had they done so all along — which is how they became established — they wouldn’t be dining at the rear nipple today.) Bottom line? He’s urging the government to subsidize establishment media’s continued pursuit of what got it into trouble in the first place—under the guise of keeping us informed.

His concerns are misplaced, at best. As the need — or market — developed owing to establishment media’s shortcomings, others ably filled the void. Having largely supplanted the “major” networks’ news broadcasts, Fox News is doing quite well, in fact—as are numerous web-based organizations.

Are these emerging media forces perfect? Hardly. Notwithstanding Fox’s claims of “fair and balanced” reporting, some perceive a conservative slant to its presentations. I tend to agree—but hasten to add that any such tilt in no way approaches the degree of liberal bias found within the media establishment. Moreover, Fox’s coverage at least seems to be more extensive; though it clearly emphasizes certain stories, it doesn’t seem to be filtering-out as much as its competitors. Similarly, web sources like The Drudge Report, NewsBusters, PajamasMedia, and the Media Research Center have developed their own prodigious followings.

They’re doing what the establishment media mainstays did to get established, but later eschewed as they became more politicized: informing the public—and they are in no need of a government bail-out.

__________

Posted in blogosphere, Bollinger, corruption, federal bail-out, Fox News, JournoList, mainstream media, media corruption, media establishment, obama, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »