Are you F _ _ _ _ _ G kidding me???

So, I've been thinking about the role of media on election issues and the specific light through which candidates are evaluated. We all know that old saying that media frames the issues and this defines part of the agenda. We all know how gov't uses that to connect un-connectable dots (like Al Qaeda and Saddam for instance). We all know that main newspapers here, there and un China are the most important source of information, not because they are trust worthy but because everybody else is reading them.

I don't consider myself to be a Unabomber in the making, on the contrary, all my left-winger friends think of me as a neoliberal piece of crap, while, of course, my right-winger friends think I am an inch from becoming a Maoist guerrilla member. I am, well, a political liberal and that goes from trade to sex. But, I have to just say how sick I am of American newspapers and the coverage of the 2008 pre-pre-pre-campaigns.

I mean, most of those guys and girls writing in mainstream media are just waiting for the coffee meeting with the boss to know what to write about and how to do it, I guess that is what they train you for these days in the most prestigious Journalism schools. It makes me sick, I haven't seen a single piece on the Democratic primary that is worth pausing for.

Today, the NYT published two of those pieces. One, talks about Hillary's BANK OF MONEY, you know the story, she is presented like a mercyless wife collecting millions left and right (Literally), closer to Martha Stewart than to Bill Clinton...(which she might be, I guess)

But then, the prime crap is this thing written about the writing of 2 bloggers hired by John Edwards campaign...called, yeah, Edward's Blogger Bloooper, haha, so funny, this Kate Phillips is so creative and fun. So, Mrs Phillips seems to think there is a controversy over the bloggers entries, which use nasty words and she adds "On top of the pair’s vulgar language in some posts, Bill Donohue of the conservative Catholic League called on Tuesday for their ouster from the campaign’s nascent Internet foray, complaining about their anti-Catholic rants."

Vulgar...do I even need to comment on that??

Personally, I find vulgar to validate the views of a religious fanatic on and make them sound like they are representing a sensible chunk of the public opinion. I do think is vulgar to present opinions as facts and do it in such a cowardly/fun manner. I do find vulgar to make a synthesis of people's statements and present it as journalism, omitting in the meantime the content of right-wing bloggers, you know, the ones that begin with 'Jesus hates faggots', for instance.

But hey, there is some decency out there:

Example 1, the comments on that Phillips piece:

"So, Kate Phillips, do you honestly think Bill Donohue is a reasonable man?

Bill Donohue, who said: “The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done” and “People don’t trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty.”

The guy manufactures controversies, and you just play along as if you didn’t have access to Google to check out who this guy is.

— Posted by Joel Patterson"

"[...]Stop getting led around by the nose and do some real reporting.

— Posted by NaR"

"I missed this in the last one. How in the heck can you provide a link to Michelle Malkin in a piece attacking bloggers for being profane? This is a woman who said that we should bomb the middle east and convert them all to Christianity, that it was a GOOD THING that we interred Japanese Americans in World War II AND THAT WE SHOULD DO IT NOW TO ALL MUSLIM-AMERICANS.

If you want hate speech, profane speech then Michelle Malkin is your girl. That you use here positively in this post is an indication of where you are really coming from.

— Posted by NaR"

Example 2. That the media is biased? well, yeah, that is to say that the sky is blue. David Sirota linked to this cool entry on the anti-Edwards bias, like this headline from the Chicago Tribute: "Edwards puts tax hike in mix for health care; Universal plan's cost could hit $120 billion"...well yeah, but how they forgot to menction that Universal plan would cost HALF OF WHAT BUSH WANTS TO SPEND IN IRAQ...am I the only one getting confussed here?

Example 3: this amussing description of Mr Donahue...the main source for that piece in the NYT, who has said things like "Hollywood likes anal sex"...(sublime!)

Example 4: This entry in Unclaimed Territory on John McCain's blogger consultant...the kind of thing you won't find anywhere in the main media...


No hay comentarios.: