Cal Thomas
www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20041025.shtml
The Big Media-by which I mean the three broascast nteworks and the most "influential newspapers" (i.e. The New York Times and the Washington Post)-have been "voting" for the next president for much of the last two years. In their news pages and on their news broadcasts, the Big Media have backed any Democrat over George W. Bush, and now the long awaited mystery of which candidtate they would officially endorse is over.
May I have the envelope, please?
The winner of the editorial endorsement of both the New York Times and the Washington Post is: John Kerry! What your not surprised?
Reading like a script from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," The New York Times claimed in it's Oct. 17 endorsement of Kerry that the Massachesettes senator is " a man with a strong moral core.
For a news papaer that recognizes no morality except that which it writes for itself, the Times might have disclosed it's" moral code" and the basis on which it can be deciphered. It certainly isn't rooted in anything related to what has been traditionally been known as morality, for th eTimes consistently backs ideas, behavior and opinions that would have scandalized the once immutable moral code that comes from an Authroity higher than it's editorial boardroom.
Regardless of who wins next Tuesday's election (and no matter how long it takes to get the results following expected lawsuits and ballots cast by ineligible voters), this may well be the last election cycle in which the Big Media are taken seriously or regarded as influential.
The Big Media (let's abbreviate and call them BM) have gone over the top with this election. They have ripped off their final layer of faux objectivity, revelaing their ideological nakedness for all to see in desperate effort to get John Kerry elected.
No good news from the Bush Administration is treated kindly by the BM. Is unemplyment up? They're not the "right kind" of jobs. Is most of Iraq pacified, and do many Iraqis speak well of the United States for ridding them of Saddam Hussein? It doesn't matter, because pockets of Iraq are unstable and Iraqis can befound who don't like the "occupation". "Any moral convictions held by anyone in this administration are dismissed as right-wing fundamentalism by the BM as if the only convictions that matter are their own.
CBS has a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon after it stood behind fake documents pertaining to George Bush's National Guard service, broadcast report Friday night by Antohony Mason questioning whether most Americans are better off financially than they were four years ago. Mason claimed that while, on average, Americans are making more money than they were in 2000, they were "in fact worse off." Mason's proof: "Median household income...is now $41,550, $30.00 lower than it was four years ago."
So while Americans have more money than they did four years ago, meidan household income is down $30, proving to the BM that Bush's economic policies are a failure?
www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20041025.shtml
The Big Media-by which I mean the three broascast nteworks and the most "influential newspapers" (i.e. The New York Times and the Washington Post)-have been "voting" for the next president for much of the last two years. In their news pages and on their news broadcasts, the Big Media have backed any Democrat over George W. Bush, and now the long awaited mystery of which candidtate they would officially endorse is over.
May I have the envelope, please?
The winner of the editorial endorsement of both the New York Times and the Washington Post is: John Kerry! What your not surprised?
Reading like a script from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," The New York Times claimed in it's Oct. 17 endorsement of Kerry that the Massachesettes senator is " a man with a strong moral core.
For a news papaer that recognizes no morality except that which it writes for itself, the Times might have disclosed it's" moral code" and the basis on which it can be deciphered. It certainly isn't rooted in anything related to what has been traditionally been known as morality, for th eTimes consistently backs ideas, behavior and opinions that would have scandalized the once immutable moral code that comes from an Authroity higher than it's editorial boardroom.
Regardless of who wins next Tuesday's election (and no matter how long it takes to get the results following expected lawsuits and ballots cast by ineligible voters), this may well be the last election cycle in which the Big Media are taken seriously or regarded as influential.
The Big Media (let's abbreviate and call them BM) have gone over the top with this election. They have ripped off their final layer of faux objectivity, revelaing their ideological nakedness for all to see in desperate effort to get John Kerry elected.
No good news from the Bush Administration is treated kindly by the BM. Is unemplyment up? They're not the "right kind" of jobs. Is most of Iraq pacified, and do many Iraqis speak well of the United States for ridding them of Saddam Hussein? It doesn't matter, because pockets of Iraq are unstable and Iraqis can befound who don't like the "occupation". "Any moral convictions held by anyone in this administration are dismissed as right-wing fundamentalism by the BM as if the only convictions that matter are their own.
CBS has a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon after it stood behind fake documents pertaining to George Bush's National Guard service, broadcast report Friday night by Antohony Mason questioning whether most Americans are better off financially than they were four years ago. Mason claimed that while, on average, Americans are making more money than they were in 2000, they were "in fact worse off." Mason's proof: "Median household income...is now $41,550, $30.00 lower than it was four years ago."
So while Americans have more money than they did four years ago, meidan household income is down $30, proving to the BM that Bush's economic policies are a failure?
