Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
When Dan Rather notes the media is biased in favor of the Obama campaign, how can you continue to deny it? (My emphasis throughout)
Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather says there is a huge double-standard in the media when it comes to coverage the Barack Obama campaign receives, which is clearly made evident in the lack of scrutiny given to comments Obama’s vice presidential running mate Sen. Joe Biden made earlier this week. [Re: international crisis]
... if Sarah Palin had said this, the newspapers would have jumped all over it, and so would the major television outlets.”
Journalist Michael Malone wrote a great piece about this subject in Media's Presidential Bias and Decline, Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why. It is long, 5 pages, but very much worth the read. Here are a few highlights:
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
Reporting bias, pg 2:
But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth...
Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments... were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
The Presidential Campaign, pg 3:
But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.
...If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
Joe the Plumber, pg 4:
The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.
Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man...
...Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes … and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.
So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?
The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.
Malone concludes his piece discussing the editor's role in biased media.
Just this week I heard Newt Gingrich refer to the media as being "Pravda like" and Mark Levin characterized the biased media as being "open and brazen" when it comes to the outcome of this election.
I can hear some of you defending the media's coverage of this election, but when even Dan Rather sees the bias, I know it has become too huge a problem to ignore any longer.
The part I can't figure out is why come out with this now? Conservatives and even Hillary Clinton during the primary have been saying this all along. Are they worried that Obama won't close the deal? Or is it just that they want to feel blameless after the damage has been done.
Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin, Vicki Mckenna