Only days after Obama’s inauguration, CBS launched Hillary Clinton on a magic carpet ride with a gracious interview between her and her boss Barack Obama. There appeared to be a lot of backslapping, high fives, and innuendos about Hillary’s political future. The only thing missing was a chest bump and a bumper sticker—Hillary 2016. Most viewers failed to understand the significance of that meet and greet, and were unaware of the bias. Instead, most will be following the crumbs—just like the siblings in the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale—and they will meander their way to the gingerbread house to be eaten. Not by a wicked witch, but by a well-intended government.
A presidential journey would be near impossible for anyone—Hillary Clinton included—without a number of dominoes suitably arranged and then falling in place. If you ask a conservative, the task of electing Hillary has already been self-assigned by the media, and other social groups, e.g., Hollywood actors and movie directors, PETA, Moveon.org, Sierra Club…
Political Coup of the Decades
That prediction sounds like a long stretch. Especially given Hillary’s recent exit from her position as Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the media has big cheese to slice and it will be epic in proportion—as—back-to-back elections of minorities.
In spite of the political blows Hillary has taken during botched hype blaming an anti-Muslim video for the Benghazi attack, she is re-emerging as the latest “darling” for the media. It’s not that the media intend to dump Obama; they will simply move him to second page or arrange him as garnish on Hill’s political voyage. With the election 4 years out, it seems to me they have already began pressing her clothes, smoothing her wrinkles, and catching the flattering pose. Case in point; Benghazi—and the medias’ attempt to transform it into a non-issue. When challenged about whether the Embassy attack was by protesters or terrorists Hillary said, “What difference does it make?” The media didn’t blink, they nodded.
However, not everyone believes the media is biased—but Obama does. The following quote is from a recent interview with Barack by Franklin Foer and Chris Hughes from The New Republic.
“One of the factors is going to be how media shapes debate. If a republican member of congress is not punished on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh for working with Democrats, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”
Greta Van Susteren from Fox News fired back on her blog Gretawire.
“Apparently President Obama wants his usual pass and Fox challenges his polices—which happens to be the media’s job.”
In my opinion the media is already in Hillary’s front pocket—imbued with the same journalistic watermark and ink-stained fingerprints that Barack enjoyed during his presidency and his reelection. The media’s greatest asset is their ability to shift public opinion by not only what they report, but by what they chose to ignore. Media bias studies suggest the media reports less frequently on substantive events that may shed negative news on their favored politician. This political bias is based on two concepts; an effect of party affiliation, of which journalists are 80% democrats; and what is known as kennel blindness. That, by definition, is a psychological condition that renders one incapable of seeing faults in their own backyard. Those inflected with these biases tend to twist and distort information to favor their candidate or agenda.
For instance, biased individuals would not have noticed that during Bush’s presidency the focus on negative world events were heightened, Military deaths were reported more frequently, and the price of gas and the cost of inflation were center stage. In fact, the media, and others, were relentless in their accusation that the high cost of fuel ($1.87) was due to Bush’s repaying a debt to his oil buddies.
In addition, while Bush was in office, Dan Rather began each broadcast featuring the death of a soldier. Rather’s hyped political ideology and inventive journalism failed to disseminate information without bias, which eventually lead to his being ousted from CBS. Many journalists, like Dan Rather, have spent most of their careers unchallenged in their political views, and they began “spinning” out of control. This created fertile ground for a perspective that wasn’t being voiced.
Eventually, conservative viewers began tuning out and searching for news that was less biased or at least more in line with their political views. By the late 80’s early 90’s media bias became so void in balanced ideology and information that oppositional talk shows began cropping up—most notably Rush Limbaugh. Soon, the conservative news show, Fox News, would become the dominate source for an information starved public. Even though Fox is not as “balanced” as they self-report, they have become the Watch Dog in a field of Carnival Barker’s for liberal news and views.
I’ll end this article with a quote by George Santayana “By nature’s kindly disposition, most questions, which it is beyond a man’s power to answer, do not occur to him at all.”