Media Sleeping in the Bed It Made for Itself

Have you seen this story?

Only 6% Rate News Media As Very Trustworthy

Gee, I wonder why?


Watergate reporter blasts Obama 'madness'...
'It makes me very uncomfortable'...
POLITICO: Exclusive Details...
Left ramps up campaign to discredit...
Will Washington Stand Up for Woodward?
Plouffe: He's getting old...

 Heck, Obama is even threatening people who are on his side:

WMAL EXCLUSIVE: Woodward’s Not Alone – Fmr. Clinton Aide Davis Says He Received White House Threat

I wonder, can you think of any other historic figures that treated the press this way?  But better yet, can you think of the last time a free press put up with this without driving the President from office for this behavior?  I can.  I can actually think of an example directly connected to this story.  Can you?  😉

12 thoughts on “Media Sleeping in the Bed It Made for Itself

  1. “Journalism”
    Anyone who thinks “Journalist” were ever impartial believes what never was, and never will be.
    No one ever put pen to paper, or breath to word without couching it to effect the outcome the originator prefers.

    It’s not that the media is not telling us what we need to know, it’s we grown so lazy, we don’t seek the answers.

    I think that most of us who complain about the media not keeping the general public informed, (myself included) are just shielding the listener from us telling them the truth, that THEY are just too damn stupid to be allowed to vote!

    • I’m going to argue that. I was a reporter once. My views were more liberal than they are today, but still right of center. I tried always to present both sides of the story and sometimes more than two sides. It is an impossibility to be completely neutral. We always bring ourselves to the party, but you can be balanced as a journalist … if you try.

    • “No one ever put pen to paper, or breath to word without couching it to effect the outcome the originator prefers.”

      Then why does not McPherson ever admit his bias? (wink — sorry, had to do it)

      “It’s not that the media is not telling us what we need to know, it’s we grown so lazy, we don’t seek the answers.”

      Correct. The media calls them “low information voters”, I call them crazy (censored) liberals regardless of party affiliation.

      “that THEY are just too damn stupid to be allowed to vote!”

      Bingo, we have a winner! You just described the 99% — the crazy (censored) liberals/free sh*t army, that is.

  2. Joe,
    Just my opinions, I am NO expert on the subject.

    A lofty goal to strive for, but will never be truly obtained.

    Truth and half truths mixed in such a manor to make the listener act in a way beneficial to the “speaker” and detrimental to the listener.

    Misinformation disseminated to the masses. to deprive one of logic, and institute the ‘mob mentality”

    These are MY definitions. The way I define these terms for my understanding.
    Use with caution, may cause side effects, If symptoms persist discontinue use and consult you dictionary.
    (Anal leakage reported in a small minority of users)

    • fjf,

      I can accept those definitions. I also accept that the goal of journalism is unobtainable, but should still be reached for (IMHO). One upon a time, our media aimed for this lofty goal — at least, much more often than today. Or would you disagree? In fact, where would you place our media today? Which one of these three definitions?

  3. Joe;
    The media of today, is the media of the last hundred years.
    As soon as the evil of communism was born, it took roots here in the U.S. the media has nurtured this poisonous weed ever since.
    What we see today is the “Flower” of a hundred years work.
    The stench is everywhere.

    • fjf,

      true, but it took time to mature. In between, we still had some people trying to be responsible in reporting the happenings in our nation and communities. I miss those honorable people. 😦

      • Joe,
        Finally got to read your post on secession.
        very good post.
        George Washington was right when he beseech ed us to never adopt a party system. I wish there was a way to abolish it. But, I don’t think it’s possible. Even if we did get rid of the parties, some bozo’s would band together to thwart the will of the others for personal gain. (Think “Survivor”) and create a defacto party. (Gang of 8)

        It well may be our only hope, Voter fraud may well be beyond repair with “early voting” I do believe there will be blood.
        the blue will to try confiscate from the solvent states. Mob rule, it’s all they know.

        To tell the truth, I’ve never hoped so much that I was wrong!

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s