In this era when phrases like "liberal bias" and "right-wing conspiracy" are continually hurled across the political landscape, one would think any media outlet would be extra careful about it's coverage by at least pretending to be balanced. One would think they'd, in the least, mount their high horse and declare themselves orators of objectivity.*
But no. Many newspapers just out-and-out say "Hey, we like this politician," which is in essence the same as saying "Hey, we think this way politically." We hear it year after year. The New York Times endorses Kerry, the New York Post endorses Bush, and it's just accepted as a fact of life.
Am I the only one confounded by a seeming contradiction? Are the Internets not filled with disgruntled bloggers bemoaning how CNN is liberal, Fox News is conservative, and MSNBC is just retarded? Would they not have a field day if James Earl Jones's disembodied voiced declared: "This is CNN. We endorse Claire McCaskill." Would CNN not then be declared an absolute joke of a network? Well how come newspapers get a free pass on this?
Furthermore, would it then be totally hypocritical if Locke & Load endorsed Michael Steele, just cause his political positions frighteningly mirror my own? Yes? Darn.
---------------------------------
*my Legal Methods prof said to get rid of "flowery language" in my memos. You think this is what she had in mind? :-P
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, "mount their high horse" is definitely flowery. And oh so darling!
I think the "unbiased" networks are just maintaining an illusion. I wouldn't be surprised if CNN endorsed Democrats. I would be slightly surprised if Fox News endorsed Republicans, but only because I find them more neutral than conservative.
You ought to run your blog like mine. I let people have a piece of my mind and throw objectivity out the window.
Post a Comment