Latest reading

I keep hoping that at some point this blog will get a little more...streamlined? Cohesive? Whatever the word is, I'm not quite there. All over the proverbial map, that's me. Now you understand the subheading up top there. This whole experience is giving you just a teensy peek into my brain and the constant whirlwind in there. I guess it shouldn't surprise me when I can't sleep.

Anyway, I read A TON. Almost literally. In 2008 I read a grand total of 110 books. People go a little bug-eyed when I tell them that, it's funny. If you will glance to the left side of this page, you'll see two book lists. One is my favorites and the other is books pertaining to the political, things I'm reading specifically to educate myself. Yes, it is weighted a little heavily right - that's where my information has been lacking. But there are several left leaning things on there as well.

Most recently is George W. Bush's "Decision Points". Not a complete autobio, by any means, it highlighted the major things that happened during his administration - there is a chapter on 9/11 and one on Katrina, plus several other things.

I've come to one hardcore conclusion....the media are mostly a bunch of lying bastards. Why does he have such a rep for being dumb? Is it because he deliberates before he runs his mouth? Or because he has a tendency to misspeak? Plenty of smart people have that problem - open their mouths and out comes gobbledegook.

He acknowledges in the book where he made mistakes - hi, being voted President doesn't make you infallible. He also points out plenty of times where the mistakes were NOT his, but he was blamed anyway.

Like the Katrina thing and the "slow response from the Federal gov't". He couldn't take over until the LA governor asked for Federal assistance, and she DIDN'T.

Etc. The ridiculousness of the media makes my brain hurt.

Still have a knee high stack of books to read. Sheesh, I need to get on 'em. Next up is Palin's newest....

Tucson

I live in Arizona. Phoenix metro, not Tucson. But this is still front row seats for the insanity.

For those who live under rocks and have missed it, Jared Loughner went to an event being held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday and opened fire. He killed 6 people, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. The Congresswoman was shot in the head and is still recuperating.

I don't think the EMTs even had everyone scooped up and off to the hospital before people were blaming Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, the Tea Party, violent rhetoric, and 'this climate of hate'. Even the County Sheriff is in on it.

First of all, there has been no evidence whatsoever that he was politically motivated in any way, left, right, or middle.

Second, he's been obsessed with Gabby for years. A friend of his told the press that Jared went to another of her events and came back disillusioned because she didn't give a satisfactory answer to the crackheaded question he asked her. This was in 2007. Long before Palin's appearance in Aug of 2008. Her map of targeted districts involved a horrible coincidence and that is ALL.

Third, it would appear that the politics he espouses run from crazy left to crazy right, without any stop at "rational" in the middle. I've read (and if I'm wrong, please do correct me) that his favorite two books are 'The Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf'.

Fourth, I have a question. Y'all remember the guy that opened fire at Ft. Hood? The one shouting "Allah Akbar" while he shot at fellow soldiers? Yeah, him. Why, praytell, did everyone immediately start hollering "Don't judge! Don't jump to conclusions!" But this time, oh, it's right away the fault of the Tea Party, et al.

It's time I officially out myself. The more I read, the more I watch, the more I research, the more "Tea Party" starts to define me. If that makes you hate me, then so be it. I don't agree with the crackheads out there any more than you do.

I like Glenn Beck. I like Bill O'Reilly. I like Laura Ingraham. I even like Sarah Palin. Do I agree with everything they say? No.

And before anyone starts at me, yes, Beck is a little crazy. Doesn't make him wrong. Yes, O'Reilly interrupts people - when they try to avoid a question. What else you got?

So now there are many people calling for restriction of free speech, gun control, closing down Fox News, etc etc.

At the risk of sounding like an 8 year old...."No, you shut up!"

Quiz time!! Subject - Violent Rhetoric. I have some quotes for you. You see if you can tell me who said them. Hint: they are all from the same person.

"We will continue fighting."
"If they bring a knife, we will bring a gun."
"We're gonna punish our enemies."

What's your answer?

Beck? No.
O'Reilly? No.
Palin? No.

Obama. Yes, really. Yet the media isn't blaming him. And where are his statements about not jumping to conclusions that he was quick to jump in with after the Ft. Hood shooting?


Congresswoman Giffords is coming along nicely, last I heard. Breathing on her own and responding to doctors and moving her arms. I hope she continues to do so and regains full health. I further hope that she can move past this horrid event without blaming anyone but the single crackpot who pulled the trigger.

Bias in media

Here it is, not only FRIDAY (yay!), but the 1st of a new month. And my sister's birthday! Happy Birthday, Rachel! It's actually starting to be autumnal here in OMGHOT Arizona, which is nice. Kids are thrilled that trick or treating will likely not even involve a jacket, much less a parka like it did in Idaho. I've informed them that I went t-n-t barefoot here once and they are very excited.

Anyway, today's subject is something I've been thinking about for a couple of weeks now, and that is bias in the media. People get all freaked out about Fox News being "ultra-conservative", etc, and I've come to the conclusion that this reaction is silly.

Now, wait, hear me out.

Yes, Fox tends toward conservative hosted news shows. Couple points - news "shows". Not hard news. Opinion/entertainment/analyst shows. Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. They are not news, though they do talk about politics and other things that ARE the news. They also have liberal guests, etc, that usually are allowed to have their say without being shouted down. In fact, O'Reilly over this past year actually had MORE liberal guests than conservatives. I don't mean his usual commentators, I mean guest speakers.

Here's the other side of the spectrum. Regular hard news and newspapers have a heavy bias left. They claim to be "middle-of-the-road" and blame Fox for being too far right, when in fact all that is going on is that they are ALL left, hence see it as the norm.

So check this out-based on a wide variety of polls and studies, here is how journalists in general have voted, going back 40 years....

• In 1968, 86 percent of journalists voted for the Dem, Hubert Humphrey, over the Rep, Richard Nixon.
• In 1972, 81 percent of journalists voted for Dem George McGovern over incumbent Richard Nixon.
• In 1980, twice as many journalists voted for Jimmy Carter than for Ronald Reagan.
• In 1984, 58 percent of journalists supported Dem Walter Mondale, who lost to Ronald Reagan in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services voted for Dem Michael Dukakis over Rep George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12 to 1.
• In 1992, Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents supported Bill Clinton over incumbent George Bush 89 percent to 9 percent.
• In 2004, a poll of campaign journalists based outside of Washington, D.C., showed they supported the Dem candidate, John Kerry, over the Rep George W. Bush by a ratio of 3 to 1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a ratio of 12 to 1.
• In 2008, a study by Investor's Business Daily put the campaign donation ratio of journalists at more than 11 to 1 in favor of Democrats.

"But so what, " some people say. "So the journalists lean left! That doesn't mean the NEWS does! That is their personal feelings!"

This assumes that they keep their personal feelings out of it, to which I cry "Au contraire! They do no such thing!"

To wit: the executive summary of an extensive study done by the Media Research Center of media coverage of Barack Obama from the time of his debut on the national stage up through his victory in the Democratic primaries. This is only an example and I am NOT picking on Obama specifically, ok? Don't get all silly.

These are the key findings of the MRC's exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama - every story, every sound bite, every mention - from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks' coverage - particularly prior to the formal start of Obama's presidential campaign - bordered on giddy celebration of a political "rock star" rather than objective newsgathering.

Key Findings:

• The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.
• NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).
• Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.
• The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.
• While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.
• The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.
• In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.

Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier. (source: A Slobbering Love Affair by Bernard Goldberg and http://www.mrc.org/)

Now, lest you think I am picking on the president, I'm not. The MRC is a watchdog group that has a huge archive of anti-conservative media action. And by "anti" I mean "flaming, flailing, frothing at the mouth type of 'against'". The general vibe from a huge portion of the media, whether it's newspapers or tv, is "How dare you be right-wing???" Even if you're only a half-step right of center, HOW BLOODY DARE YOU. Why is this ok? Why was it ok for Obama to sidestep questions about Rev. Wright and his association with Bill Ayers, while the media slammed Sarah Palin all over the mat for her wardrobe during the campaign, a wardrobe she didn't pick out and then gave back when the elections were over?

You tell me.

The press has constitutional protections for only one reason: to keep watch over a powerful government. It is THEIR JOB to look out for the American people, to call politicians on their crap, to keep us informed of what is being messed with on Capitol Hill.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I would much rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers."

What happens when the news starts shilling for one angle of government or the other? Corruption starts to take over and we are SCREWED.

Have a great weekend everyone...I hope you can sleep. Not sure I can.