A Long Irrelevant News Slant Rant (a must skip read)

Now that the election is over I've had time to examine just how much influence the press has in this country and on the world. From my point of view and from the evidence I've seen, the press cheated this country and the world out of an honest debate about what the candidates had to offer. I doubt anyone will care but I feel I need to chronicle the way I felt the press influenced the pick of the 44TH president of The United States. This has nothing to do with Obama. I don't blame him for what the press did. I'm sure any candidate would have been happy to have the press on their side.

I don't think it's a secret that the press favors the left and therefor the Democrats. They have for a long time. Over the years, I believe, they have tried to maintain some sort of professionalism and balance but that changed in 2004. During President Bush's first term in office it was hard for the press to find much real fault. He had led us out of a recession, placed some regulations on public companies cooking their books, helped us deal with the 911 attacks and started a successful campaign against the terrorist of the world. He was popular with the people and supported by even most of thr Democrats.

Then in 2004 Bush made a huge miscalculation. After defeating the Iraqi army the president thought the Iraqi people would embrace democracy, they didn't. Because of this mistake, Bush didn't have a plan to handle a country that was use to being governed with an iron fist by Saddam. Bush scrambled to secure the country.

During this time the press realized Bush was vulnerable. Then Abu Ghraib came to light. While the extremist were struggling for control of Iraq, the press found out that some of the suspected terrorist being held at Abu Ghraib prison had been miss treated. Now some may read this and wonder why I didn't use the word 'torture' here. I didn't on purpose. While I don't condone what was done at Abu Ghraib, it's nothing that doesn't happen in almost every prison, in every country, every day. It was still better treatment than Saddam would have given them and it happened at a time when the terrorist were taking innocent people hostage and cutting off their heads. That's no excuse for doing wrong but what happened at Abu Ghraib must be kept in perspective with what was going on in Iraq.

The press seized on this opportunity. They reported the story to world as if the US was running concentration camps in Iraq. It was a 24/7 news feast of how bad America is. They were more outraged over naked prisoners than innocent people being decapitated. The story was over reported in an effort to hurt Bush's image to the world and discredit our military's efforts in Iraq. It did but it also had many other side effects. The story fueled the terrorist and had to help them in their recruiting efforts. Because the story was blown so out of proportion, or made public at all, the President's hands became tied. Now a country full of people who were use to being governed by a heavy hand saw that the American people didn't have the stomach to deal with terrorist. The President had lost his ability to assure the Iraqi people he had the strength and might to secure their country. More chaos ensued.

The press saw how much this one story had effected people's opinions and realized two things. One they needed to expose more government and military secrets and missteps. Two, they could turn Iraq into their very own Vietnam. A blue print for shaping public opinion had already been drawn during that war. Now this generation of reporters could use it to push their liberal agenda.

When the 2004 Presidential elections were held, to the shock and dismay of the mainstream press, Bush was reelected. I believe it was at this point the press decided that no matter what it took they were going to get a Democrat elected in 2008.

They spent the next four years demonizing President Bush to America and the world. They exposed national security secrets in an effort to bring down the president. They printed and promoted every lie, conspiracy and accusation that surfaced. Facts and the country's best interest be damned. They made big plans to use the now unpopular war against any 2006 and 2008 Republican candidate. They wanted us to lose in Iraq to hurt Bush and the republican party. Only, the surge worked and Iraq started working. Immediately news about Iraq dried up. If Iraq couldn't be used to hurt the right it was off the table.

During the primaries the press heavily influenced the pick of both nominees. They highlighted the strong republicans candidates weaknesses and played down the weakness of the person they wanted to win. Mitt Romney -spotlight- he's a Mormon, might be a cult. Mike Huckabee -spotlight- he's too religious, may govern from the bible. Rudolf Giuliani -spotlight- has a lot of personal baggage, as does Newt Gingrich. Senator McCain, being a moderate was left alone. They even turned their backs on Hillary Clinton when they realized Obama was more liberal and a better story.

As soon as the primaries were over they turned the spotlight on the once ignored McCain. They focused on his age, his temper and his 90% voting record with President Bush. Even though McCain had been a thorn in Bush's side throughout his eight years in office, the press linked the two as if they were the same. This lie would hurt McCain through out the whole election process.

The skilled fund raisers, strategist, and advisers that helped Bush get elected were now off limits to McCain out of fear of proving the press right about a connection. Had he used someone like Carl Rove, the press would have pointed to it as more proof that McCain and Bush were in fact the same people. The press had effectively cut McCain off from the very people he need to get elected.

All Obama had to do was repeat the lie that voting for McCain was the same as giving Bush another four years, that's just what he did. That might have been enough in itself but combined with the lack reporting the press did on Obama's background and the election shouldn't have ever been close. Anyone who surfaced to threaten Obama was destroyed by the press. Obama never had to counter people like Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber. The press did the dirty work so Obama could stay on a positive message. McCain on the other hand was forced to try and expose Obama's lack of experience and his questionable past associates. This made McCain come across as a mean spirited, negative person. He never had a chance. And sad to say, I don't think the American people nor the world had a fair chance to form an educated opinion with all the facts.

I could bombard you with lots of data supporting my theory but I won't. I'll just show the numbers that sum up what I'm talking about. These numbers come from independent sources.

Stories about Obama & Biden on the major networks:
65% positive / 35% negative

Stories about McCain & Palin on the major networks:
31% positive /69% negative

Anyone watching the major news outlets, other than Fox, would have concluded that it was better to vote for Obama than McCain. And they did.

I think the press has grabbed to much power during these last four years. They should not be able to decide who we elect. They should not want to influence public opinion about any situation. They are suppose to report the facts and let the public draw their own conclusions. Apparently they didn't trust the American people to make the right choice, their choice, in this past election.

If you think things are going to change anytime soon don't hold your breath. Now that the election is over several reporters and newspapers are admitting they favored Obama. Imagine that. I will leave you with this video clip. NBC's Chris Mathews, who is suppose to be a unbiased journalist, is being interviewed after the election. About halfway through the interview he states that, "I want to do everything I can to make this Presidency (Obama) work." because, "America needs a successful President." To which I have to wonder, "where were you the last eight years Chris?"

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.carter.html
http://journalism.org/node/13307
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6pq_Pwjwc0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html