For a while it seemed obvious that the mainstream media was in
the tank for Hillary Clinton. As early as 2005, ABC rolled out its "Commander
In Chief" series, as if preparing, in true Orwellian style, the American
mind for the concept of a woman president. And the what-passes-for-news
media followed suit, maxing out their company credit cards as they bought
heavily into the inevitability of Hillary Clinton.
Then there was spawned Obamamania, which provoked comparisons
to John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, among others, as
well as awe, reverence, wonder, and a well-documented tingle wending its
provocative way up Chris Matthews's leg.
Throughout the last year, as the media swung, giggling and
panting, from one Democrat to the other, it maintained its staunch adoration of
the heroic, straight-talking John McCain. From time to time, the good
Senator from Arizona would say something questionable, inaccurate, outlandish,
or just plain bizarre; the media would dutifully report it, smile serenely, and
then move on, as if to say, 'But he's a hero, so it's OK.' When John
McCain made his now famous pronouncement, often repeated by Democrats, that
the United States may have troops in Iraq for as long as a hundred years, the
MSM
could have at least said, "Well, he fought in the first
Hundred Years' War, so he probably knows what he's talking about."
Recently, it appears clear that the mainstream media has
decided to hedge its bets. On one hand, they have enhanced Hillary's
sympathy factor by occasionally spitting out factually based commentary in
politically incorrect language that bolstered the resolve of Hillary's
COWW constituency.
Two MSNBC reporters have apologized profusely for commentary
concerning Hillary that, truth to tell, was not inaccurate. David Shuster
was suspended for two weeks because he asked if it seemed odd that Hillary
seemed to be pimping out Chelsea, and Hillary responded as if this was an attack
on her daughter! Duh, Hill, Chelsea was being portrayed as the semi-innocent
victim of a pimp, you. And before that, Chris Matthews pronounced his
mea culpas for having said that Bill Clinton's mismanagement of the Monica
Lewinsky affair had the unintended effect of benefitting Hillary Clinton's
political career inasmuch as it provided a crisis that revealed strong aspects
of her character that the public appreciate. If you are wondering why he
apologized for having said this, it is because his expression was impolitic and
crude.
On the other hand, reporters
frequently insinuate that Barack Obama has lied about what he has heard in
the pews of his favorite church. It is common for them to observe
profoundly that the Jeremiah Wright affair will of course return, during
the general election campaign, if not sooner, and that Obama will have to
account to America for the question of why he sat in the pew all those
years and did not object to Wright's "hateful" and anti-American speech.
In fact, Obama has repeatedly said that he never heard such objectionable
statements when he attended church. Well, mainstream media, which is
it? Did Obama hear anti-American speech when he attended church, as
you imply? Or did he not hear anti-American speech, as he has
repeatedly said? Your implication requires that his statement is a
falsehood, which is fine by me, so long as you display some intestinal
fortitude and professionalism, i.e., call him a liar outright
― and document it.
And speaking of Jeremiah Wright, could we get a couple of
things straight, mainstream media?
