Media Bias, Part II

It did not take any time. The day after the primary season opened with the Iowa caucuses, the New York Times lead editorial referred to "unforced errors and a chilling view of extremism." (January 4, 2012 Editorial.)

So their first concern had to do with the "errors" and "absurd misstatements" made by Republican candidates. The Times notes these mistakes were not made in the pressure of an interview or a debate, but simply on the campaign trail. Now, I personally adhere to the proposition that the more words that leave your mouth, the more likely you are to make misstatements. Generally understandable; and generally no big deal except for maybe a good laugh. The Times gives no examples of the misstatements made by any of the candidates. We all recall, though, how the mainstream media made a big deal of every gaffe made by Bush.

Did the mainstream media ever editorialize about any "Obamaisms?" Don't bother checking. But here are a few (which can easily be found online under "Obamaisms"). "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." (Said 9/22/11.) Was that the railroad between North America and Europe? Or this one: "The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." (Said 1/28/10.) Say what? Or, thinking he was arguing in support of government run health care, Obama said: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." (Said 8/11/09.) I could not have said it better myself.

Probably the two favorite "Obamaisms" are these. On 2/5/10, Obama referred to a Navy Corpseman, pronouncing the term as if he was speaking of a dead body. And my personal favorite: "I've now been in 57 states - I think one left to go," explaining that he was not referring to Alaska and Hawaii, where his staff did not want him to go.
(Said 5/14/08.) Who can name all 60 states?

So fine. The Times (and undoubtedly others in the mainstream media) want to make fun of the Republican candidates. Hardly a surprise. Any Republican President they did not think was stupid or dangerous or extreme since Eisenhower? More serious is what they consider to be "a chilling view of extremism." One example: opposing a "woman's right to choose." Now I get that people on both sides support a right to abortion. But even if you are "pro-choice," do you not find it disheartening that the media would refer to anyone who believes in the sanctity of human life to be described as expressing "chilling...extremism?" You will see what they think of human life under Obamacare when they start telling people that they have lived long enough and therefore it is not cost-effective to give them that hip replacement or life-saving cancer treatment.

Needless to say, a belief in traditional marriage also makes for "a chilling view of extremism." The point here, is that traditional marriage was virtually universally accepted a couple of decades ago. Bill Clinton believed in it. Even Obama believed in it. Now it is "chilling extremism" to support it. So let's be clear - you can not in good faith disagree with The New York Times. Disagree and you are a bigot and extremist.

The Times goes on to say that we can now expect the candidates to focus more on economic issues and engage in "class warfare." What? Obama is the one constantly referring to those evil millionaires and billionaires. The 99% versus the 1%. How could the Times make such a comment about the Republicans when it is Obama who plays off the middle class against the wealthy? It is a tried and true tactic of dictators and totalitarian regimes: accuse your opponents of saying and doing what you are saying and doing. And as the mainstream media acts as the media arm of the democrat party, they do so on behalf of Obama.

Not to be outdone by their east coast brethren, the Los Angeles Times posted this online commentary on 1/6/12: "I will say this for Rick Santorum - He's one of the more well-spoken bigots I've heard in a while."

And this from one Andrea Mitchell at NBC, denigrating Iowa voters by saying that "critics" say that Iowa is "too white, too evangelical, too rural." By inserting "critics say" it is a convenient mechanism for expressing your true viewpoint but attributing it to unnamed "critics." (Sort of like: I don't think you are ugly and stupid, but others have said that. I would never say that.) (Quote from an article by Michelle Malkin in the 1/5/12 Investor's Business Daily.) Or how about this doosy from The Hispanic News website: "In Diverse and Urban Nation, Time to Kick Iowa White, Racist Farmers to Curb." (Also from the Malkin article.) Was the mainstream media (which should really be called the left-wing media) complaining about Iowa being "too white, too evangelical, too rural" in 2008, when Iowans voted 828,940 for Obama and 682,379 for McCain? Was The Hipanic News complaining about racist Iowa when Iowans voted by such a large margin for Obama in 2008? Again, don't waste your time looking for it.

If you share the left-wing media's views, you are a good guy. If not, you are a bigoted, racist extremist. If you are Obama, your friends can be real racists and extremists - like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres. If you are Obama, you can be a "community organizer" and use Saul Alinsky's radical handbook "Rules for Radicals." If you are Obama you can say that you want to bring "fundamental change" to the best country on earth (not improve it, mind you, but fundamentally change it) and not be called an extremist by the left-wing media. If you are Obama you can talk and act like a socialist and not be called an extremist. ("It's a good idea to spread the wealth around;" and pass Obamacare against the country's wishes.)

And if you are Obama you can appoint countless czars outside of Senate and Congressional oversight. Obama can safely ignore Senate Rules on when a "recess" occurs in order to make appointments without the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, and not be called on it. And the Constitution Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend" can be referred to as "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do." As Obama said (after appointing Richard Cordray head of the consumer protection bureau without Senate approval): "...I refuse to take no for an answer." Did we elect a President or a King?

Finally, if you are still not convinced of the left-wing media's bias, just replace "Obama" with "Bush" in the last two paragraphs and imagine what a field day the media would have had with all of these stories.