If there's one thing that was demonstrated by the media during the last presidential election season, it was that newly minted President Barack Obama could do no wrong.
Whether it was digressing on inquiries about his father's citizenship or deflecting questions regarding the length of his term in the Senate, the majority of news media outlets chose not to pursue these potential angles, instead they embraced the message of hope and change that Obama promised to bring. Well it seems like the change train is indeed rolling down the tracks, but likely not in the way that most people are anticipating. For the first time in the age of the Internet we have a president with overwhelming support from the media in a decidedly non-objective stance. You don't have to look far for the sort of aggrandizing I'm talking about -- this very paper said in a controversially constructed editorial that, "Now, new hope for the people came, But the president and his administration don't trust his name," obviously referring to our new president.
I am not saying that it's wrong for people to be placing hope in a public figure, much less a president; I'm saying it's wrong for a supposedly unbiased newspaper to be taking such a stance. I can type whatever I please into this column because there's room enough in the paper for fundamental liberals to counter my fundamentally conservative viewpoints. Take heart, however, that there's not just one paper clinging to the Kool Aid pitcher; news media all around the country are jumping to drink it up as well. I don't claim to be a seasoned journalist compared to the writers and editors at these papers, but unless I'm wrong, the core belief of a journalist in reporting is one of unbiased objectivity. My simple request is that the vast majority of media pay the same amount of scrutiny to the president entering office as they did to the president who threw us headlong into Iraq.
The real litmus test of objectivity, or rather demonstrated subjectivity in this case, was throughout the entirety of the Governor Blagojevich affair. I couldn't believe the sheer amount of leads that were being passed by media outlets in what seemed to be a thought-out attempt to put as much distance as possible between President Obama and the exposed corruption of the governor of Illinois.
In this case, it was enough for the connection of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's meetings with Blagojevich to be practically ignored by the above-mentioned outlets. Though I do commend the Obama transition team for being able to smooth over such kinks easily with the public, the newspapers should be deeply considering their standard of objectivity.
Leave a comment 8 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I don't understand the implication concerning Carol Browner. Are you suggesting she is going to impose socialist ideals on the country via environmental regulation? Is this even plausible?
Reply to this Top
All it takes for socialist ideals to infect the country are more taxes. More money for the government to take away from the people and then re allocate for whatever program they wish. I direct your attention to Oregon where they are trying to enact a 'gas mileage tax'. And haven't you even heard of the Kyoto Treaty?
Reply to this Top
When Bush came into office, many rejoiced; when he left office, his approval rating was 22%. Sadly, most of this is due to media spin/bias, but some of it is justified. The point is that, as the article says, its ok to be proud of making history, but NEVER let your gov't escape your critique. Even if you got 100 friends to vote for Obama, you should now step up, be American, and use your education and your First Amendment rights to carefully evaluate everything he does. Division in the country is actually good - lively debate is what keeps us thinking critically (just like we are right now in the article!).
Reply to this Top
You wrote all that to conclude? "In the event that the media fails to inform the people and hold a presidential administration accountable, it then becomes the job of the people to inform themselves." If you just wanted to make that conclusion, you didn't have to convey your seeping dislike for Obama so much, most people would've just agreed with you if you just said that.
Reply to this Top
A 'gas mileage tax' has absolutely nothing to do with the EPA or any environmental agency. In fact, that tax more or less 'punishes' the environmentally aware. EPA automobile regulations would actually lower the amount of gas tax a person pays through better gas mileage, which is exactly why Oregon is looking into the gas mileage tax. And if you are trying to imply that the Kyoto Protocol has an underlying socialist agenda, you've lost me again.
Reply to this Top
The entire concept of an editorial is to allow for expression of opinion. Many newspaper do this for lots of topics. These articles have been clearly indicated that they are not attempts at objective news by virtue of being published as editorials. Bush made reporters submit questions in advance. Filtering like this has occurred by both parties long before Obama and Bush. What evidence do you have for implying Obama was involved in the Blagojevich scandal? Because no, Emanuel's meeting with him is not enough. And if the media made a report for every time two politicians met, it would be the only thing on the news. Now, if the media isn't publishing Obama's actions are for the greater good, then they are not telling us to think that Obama's actions are for the greater good. That's right, they are leaving it up to the reader to decide! Yes there may be slants, but true objectivity is impossible. With the Browner thing, are you trying to suggest that socialists should not be allowed in American politics? Socialism and capitalism are economic in nature, neither one of which is intrinsically inherent in democracy. That's right, you can be a socialist and still love American democracy. Or were you just trying to subtle references to campaign tactics used by some Republicans that juxtaposed symbols of Islam and the USSR to suggest Obama was an anti-American terrorist?
Reply to this Top
While in an open society, it is important for the press to be investigative and citizens to think for themselves, it is also important to deal with one another in a trusting and trustworthy way. Obama has given us every reason to believe he agrees with that. As for the Greater Good, I would suggest that Greater Good Thinking is based on the idea that "it's not just about me"--a way of approaching life that embraces Big Picture ideas, a long range view, inclusion, community, compassion, creativity, and collaboration. Obama seems to be doing just that; we can insure his sucess and America's by using Greater Good Thinking ourselves in our families, communities, workplaces and governments.
Reply to this Top
From what I can tell, not one MSM source (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost and the other liberal news sources) have reported on this. If this is indeed the case, then I would say that it's more proof of their bias.
Reply to this Top