Excerpt:
Bernard Goldberg, renowned author and commentator on media bias (based on his 20+ years as a journalist) once wrote:
"Bias in the media isn't just about what they cover; it's also about what they don't cover. Sherlock Holmes once solved a particularly thorny crime using as his key piece of evidence the dog that didn't bark. It's the same with the news media. What they don't make noise about also tells us a lot about their preconceived notions and their biases."
Well surely Bernie must be feeling vindicated this day. For if there is ever a perfect example of the silence of the media dogs it is in the story of Tina Richards. I recently wrote here about the mother of a Marine and her efforts to meet with Democrats to urge them to end the war. Her tactics were not unlike Cindy Sheehan but instead aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whereas Sheehan focused her PR effort on President Bush. I wrote that first article as much to bench mark media reporting as to provide the content. I wanted all to note that Pelosi has her own Sheehan and let's see were the media goes with it by way of comparison.
The result of my little experiment surprised even me, with my calloused eye towards the state of American journalism. Here is what is going on. It appears Tina Richards has been released from the big-house after being arrested for her sit-in at the Speaker's office and is continuing her activism. If you follow the desperately scant media reports on her you can find Richards' own website.
There she posts her thoughts in writing and video. Currently, Richards is organizing a political action called "Swarm on Congress". It doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that this is basically an assault on the mechanisms of government to call attention to her cause. You might think a planned congressional sit-in by an aggrieved military mother might qualify as news as it did in Sheehan's case. How wrong you are!
Source
There is also a well documented article here on how the media covers up for Obama's gaffes. Any Republican who got treatment like that would think he was in Heaven.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Perhaps they are not reporting on this woman because she is not as articulate and photogenic as Cindy Sheehan.
ReplyDeletebwhahahaha!
ReplyDeletecindy and michael moore's physical beauty explain a lot.
it matters not how attractive one is, or how untruthful - as long as one's schpeel attacks the Right.
the gramscian agenda rules.
remember: moore prtaryed himself AT FIRST in roger and me as a victim. just like cindy.
roger and me was wrong about everything.
as wrong about manufacturing cars in the usa as perot was about nafta leading to massive unemployment.
there are MORE car-workers in the usa today than the day roger & me came out.
the truth matters not to this crowd.
how could it: it ain't on their side!
BTW: love your bloggin' at planck, bern' & thanks fo' stopping by.
wanna cross-post occasionally?
it can be arranged.