Sirs,
Tam, blogging at ViewFromThePorch, seems pretty level-headed. She does own and shoots, for recreation, several firearms. In some matters, including history of shooting and firearms, she is fairly well respected.
So, I have to wonder how you respond to her comment on the blatant bias of the Today show, and NBC in general?
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/11/monday-morning-potpourri.html
"What is up with the Democrat Party [..] at NBC? The peacock is green all week to celebrate Al Gore's guest spot on 30 Rock, and half the Today Show this morning was dedicated to reminding us that [..] Sarah Palin eats her young and is known to sacrifice kittens to Cthulhu. It's getting to the point that I wouldn't believe these %&*$ers if they told me Palin woke up in the morning."
[Editing marks are my own.]
There are several issues that seriously divide communities today. Guns is one - where blind "get rid of guns" gun control says if there weren't any guns, no one would get shot. Didn't happen in England, Canda. On the other side is the observation that mass shootings only take place in gun free, excuse me, *disarmed victim*, zones. And then there is the embarrassing statistic that communities that have mandated every head of household own and possess a firearm - violent crime has gone down.
Sarah Palin might be as naive and inept as she appears. That holds nothing to the background Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to politics. Need I mention Al Franken, or that guy that played Gopher on the Love Boat TV show - and governed very successfully in Iowa [Fred Grandy].
Whatever Palin's views and capability, she has stirred a lot of attention in some circles. Al Gore, for all his winning ways with the Nobel Peace Prize, garners less respect for the *content* of his message each day. As I recall, by hook or by crook, he *lost* his bid for the Presidency. As a bare minimum, he did *not* command overwhelming respect and support. That hasn't changed that much.
President Obama's administration looks shabbier, ethically, each week. The mainstream media is *not* calling the administration on faked numbers of jobs "saved" - including practices of counting pay raises, for whatever reason, as a job "saved", as well as requiring people, like shoe store owner Bud Moore [You Can Officially Ignore All Future Administration Jobs Numbers] to *invent* a number, to avoid "assistance" in arriving at a number, for an order for 9 pairs of shoes["nine pairs of work boots"] for the Army Corps of Engineers. ["sent in her answer: nine jobs, because her father helped nine members of the Corps to work"]
There is too little notice being given to the impact on job losses due to proposed legislation - such as the oncoming ObamaCare and the Food Safety Enhancement Act, S.521. In addition, as the jobless rate remains high, the ballast effect of reduced productivity has to be exerting greater and greater pressure on the economy, creating more inertia to turn the story around.
There has been too little attention paid to the number of new, permanent Federal jobs, from border patrol officers to the proposed Food Safety Administration (intended to audit and receive reports from everyone producing or handling food for people or animals, and to enforce reporting and process control regulations), and administrators and staff for whatever ObamaCare and other regulations like Cap And Tax will require.
Washington News Observer tends to acquire interesting, short interviews that address issues that NBC seems to not want ignore away.
KGB Analyst Igor Panarin's forecast of the demise of the US - beginning with rebellion against punitive federal taxes by cash-strapped California and New York - in June/July 2010 continue to seem more likely, as President Obama continues to alienate those that don't adore him, and alienate those that won't overlook his actions. President Obama's reliance on unlimited government handouts is appallingly naive, even compared to Sarah Palin.
I fear the time is now, to heal the breech between those relying on the Constitution, and those favoring President Obama. Will MSNBC polarize the contending elements, join the President in calling (and causing to become true) loyals citizens of the United States "potential terrorists"? Or will MSNBC examine the issues, and *convince* their audience, including me, about what is true and lawful?
So, how does Daily Nightly, MSNBC, and NBC respond to the bias that Tam, and I, see in what news is presented and what is not? And the wording and editorial bias as to what is respected and what is disparaged?
Thanks for the impetus, Tam.
No comments:
Post a Comment