You know the sad thing is that there is a bias of the media, but it is usually one that supports hypocrites like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Constantly the mainstream media focuses on these nutcases and actually gives the American people the idea that they might know what they are talking about.
Public reaction turns against Sarah Palin for making an ass out of herself, and it’s the fault of the media? Please tell me how it’s the media’s fault that Sarah immediately tried to gain sympathy from Americans because she supposedly thought that her child had been insulted in a Family Guy episode, although she obviously didn’t care enough to research the episode, or for that fact even take the context of the full episode into account?
Even if she felt that she couldn’t be bothered to take a good look before mouthing off, as a person trying to get people to believe that she’s a professional politician that does not needlessly overreact, she probably has a large room full of people that would have been more than willing to do the
research for her and feed her the information in the small digestible parts that she could have easily and quickly comprehend.
But she didn’t. She saw a quick and easy way to possibly gain the sympathy of a majority of Americans, and now her quick overreaction is what’s making her look like an ass.
No liberal biased media conspiracy, just the stupidity and overreaction of Sarah Palin.
If Obama had made such a political blunder, the media would be all over it. Mainstream media wouldn’t hesitate for a split second to show that Obama
was being a hypocritical ass. Obama is a Democrat and somewhat liberal President.
Look back at the Presidents we have had in the last forty years, Republican and Democrat. And each time you will see that constantly the blunders of the Democratic Presidents were blwon way out of proportion by the mainstream media, while the Republican Presidents could make multiple major blunders and seldom did the media go after them anywhere near the level that they went after the Democratic Presidents.
Clinton tried to argue the exact definition of the word “sex” in a legal case about a sexual scandal involving him getting oral sex from a woman that he wasn’t married to, in the Oval office. And the media tore into him with the wild abandon of a rabid dog.
Ronald Reagan sold a large number of F-16’s to the #2 enemy of America at the time, Iran. There was even video footage of Reagan hypocritically stating
that he would not negotiate with terrorists, when he was in negotiations with Iran (A country that was known to help finance and support terrorists.) to sell them our most advanced fighter planes.
Reagan appeared in court and his defense, even though those F-16’s could not
have been sold to Iran without his personal Presidential approval, was that he couldn’t remember whether he had actually given approval or not.
Either he lied, and by lying perjured himself (A much better grounds for impeachment, especially when if his action aided and abetted an enemy of the United States, which selling F-16’s to Iran is, but its very definition treason.
Or he really couldn’t remember whether he had given approval or not, which would mean that he was impaired, and not competent enough to continue
But tell me. Which President did the liberal media conspiracy go after more viciously? Ronald Reagan for a treasonable offense, or Bill Clinton for a bit of infidelity that didn’t even put his marriage into jeopardy?
And which offense had more potential to hurt Americans, or possibly innocents from other countries?
Yes there’s a bias in the media, but take a good solid look at the news being reported and focused on, and you’ll quickly see that the wind is actually blowing the other way…