Every time we turn around it seems there is some distracting story. The media has reach the point of acknowledging it’s just a distraction and yet they continue to report and analyze it. What could be more absurd than that? If they know it’s a distraction and not worthy of actually reporting it, they should just stop reporting about it.
On top of this wouldn’t it make more sense for them to take their time covering what it is the distraction was designed to cover up?
Clearly the main stream media is not interested in real reporting and they are so caught up in their ideological goals that they don’t care that people are ignoring them now and can’t be bothered to watch them. If they really wanted to take away Fox’s #1 spot all they need to do is start reporting real news that interests people. Not dog stories and the like but actual investigative reporting that puts the heat on all of those that are in government.
The democrats know the media will cover for them and the media does so they feel free to do as they please.
Sadly even Fox News seems to regularly get caught up in the dopey stories of the day. They also admit that they’re none stories yet continue to report and analyze them. If they didn’t give them air time or take time to send reporters to look into those no brainer stories maybe they’d be able to devote more time to real reporting.
I believe Santorum was right about Fox News getting behind Romney almost from the start. One of the first stories I heard when the primaries began was already calling him the “presumptive frontrunner”. Now that they’ve got him in their constant reports are about how badly he’s doing. How the women voters don’t like him or how he’s not doing well with one demographic or another.
In many ways this was the same thing they did with McCain. They gave him all the points for being the best pick of the lot, and then he turned out to be the worst one we could have picked. It is almost as though, at least on off years that they don’t put their best forward because it is assumed they can’t win against an incumbent.
I don’t know where this is written but they all seem to accept it. Now they’re caught up in the “Likeability” index of Obama. Rush has nailed this square on the head. Just what has Obama done that makes him likeable? When asked about that person’s grandmother who had a zest for life his advise was as cold hearted as it gets. He was recommending that they should just give her some pills to help her accept her situation.
Once again it is more meaningless reporting. Instead of reporting on his accomplishments or lack thereof they report on how likeable people are. They behave as though this has no influence, but it is clear that it does. After all if you’re constantly told how likeable someone is and you’re the only person that doesn’t seem to like them you’re going to be made to feel strange that you don’t see in them the same thing everyone else does.
In Obama’s case this is especially offensive because I and many others don’t find him particularly likeable at all. He is constantly setting people and groups against each other. What is so likeable about that? He seems bitter, egotistical, megalomaniacal, and narcissistic. I find nothing likeable about any of these characteristics.
Please someone tell me the character qualities he has that make a person likeable because I sure don’t see them. He is not honest. He has told more blatant lies and continues to tell them about everything from who did what to how much oil we have and use. He doesn’t take responsibility but would rather place blame. Are any of these things likeable? Do we look for these qualities in friends of ours? Are these really the kinds of people we find likeable?
Here’s an idea media… when you report that Obama is likeable in a poll how about also asking the follow up question of what it is you like about him?
No comments:
Post a Comment