"I'm looking forward on reading your post on why it's ok for Obama to keep the White House visitor log secret.
Am I a racist for calling him out on that?
It is good to see that the same Lefties that sued Bush are now suing Obama. Guess there are a few more votes he'll lose come 2012.
Hope and change my ass."
My embittered friend WAMK is referring to this story:
MSNBC reports that the Obama administration has denied its request for the names of individuals who have visited the White House since the Inauguration. Additionally, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced today that it is suing the Department of Homeland Security after the non-partisan organization was denied a request for records of visits of “leading coal company executives.” The Obama administration’s explanation:
The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, “such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.
The Bush administration made the same arguments, which were ruled against twice in federal court.
You probably already know I'm deeply upset at this. I'm annoyed, I think it's wrong, and I hope the administration will change its policy on this very soon. The article I'm linking to points out numerous campaign statements in which Obama promises to stop exactly this kind of behavior. They should NOT continue this policy.
Here's my bright spot - as you can see, I'm getting this very damaging story from MSNBC, via the "right-wing smear site" ThinkProgress. At least I can use this ugly situation as fodder for one of my other points, which is that the vast left-wing media bias conspiracy isn't as bad as the right keeps saying. Between this and Letterman apologizing for his remarks because he had gotten criticism from Mark Shields on the PBS NewsHour - well, WAMK, believe what you want, but these are some of the reasons why I think the MSM bias isn't a problem. In fact I doubt there is a bias.
9 comments:
Good for you... though I don't know why you had to spin of into other topics. This one too hard for you to face without trying to diffuse it with other stuff?
;)
Of course it is. Duh. And despite the word "duh" there, I'm being sincere.
So because MSNBC, PBS and ThinkProgress report on these items, it proves no Left wing bias?
They've merely picked a few small ones, and have neglected the larger issues.
Like Obama firing (illegally) the Sacramento IG. Where is MSNBC, PBS, and ThinkProgress on that one? Haven't heard you say too much on that either.
How about the obvious conflict of interest of ABC turning over their Prime Time programming for a Obama UHC infomercial, with no rebuttal from Republicans? I hear crickets chirping.
How about Obama looking for expanded powers to seize key Corporations?
How about the expanded NSA powers to view all emails, etc?
How about Obama's lack of a stand in regards to the Iran situation, and the double standard when it comes to Israel? (Doesn't want to meddle in the affairs of another Country (Iran), yet has meddled plenty in the affairs of an friend in the Middle East (Israel)).
How about the Fed looking for expanded powers as well?
All things that had they been done by Bush, you (and that non-biased MSM of yours) would be screaming from the rooftops.
So feel free to pat yourself on the back for the "reporting" they have done on the two items you have mentioned, but ask yourself if the ones I have listed would be front page news at the NYTimes under Bush.
Just because they have a bias, it doesn't mean they suppress all stories that are unfavorable to the Left. They just pick and choose their battles, and offer up some small fish, but rarely go after the whale.
*Sigh*
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hR-c9qK-DfN8zbpd-kWamzFIZU-wD98RF20G3
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/06/68124423/1
All right, wait a minute. Those last 5... would you be satisfied if you saw editorials with those opinions in the New York Times, in the place of the editorials there today? I mean, on a regular basis?
In your first link, you point to an AP piece? Again, where is Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow on this IG story? The ABC White House broadcast? The increased powers of NSA?
You point to two online sources, yet remain silent on the "big" stories of the day.
You know damn well that if Bush was doing stuff like this, your Cable news talking heads would be flipping out. But not on these issues.
Then again, if the editorial staffs put the same emphasis on stories like this as you wish, would you be satisfied of a lack of bias?
When the MSM cares less about a story of Obama swatting a fly during an interview, and more about corruption in front of their noses, it will be a step in the right direction.
One editorial in the NYTimes doesn't constitute "coverage", doe it?
Are you not the least bit concerned of the situation with the Sacramento IG?
Okay okay, I'll take that as a yes. And the reason that you don't want to say it out loud is because you know, rationally, that a situation like this would simply be a rightward bias.
Which is what you want (can't blame you, I'd like a more leftward one, myself) but you can't rationally proprose because you know it will look bad.
Post a Comment