Select Page

“Bias? What bias? We don’t see any bias.”

Since the savaging of Sarah Palin began in the press last Friday, the party line of Obama’s media camarilla (the Matthews/Olbermann wing in particular) has been one of blithe — or feigned — innocence.

“What is this bias you speak of?”

Some readers of my blog have told me I’m a whiner for complaining about media bias, but I’m so frustrated right now that I don’t care. It doesn’t upset me that people have opinions that diverge from my own — I’m not so naive as to expect that everyone is going to agree with me. If you don’t, that’s fine. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to champion your pet ideology, worldview, or political doctrine. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. It’s a free country, thank God.

What bothers me is when journalists pretend to be impartial when they are obviously, palpably, unashamedly in the tank for modern political liberalism and all it entails. Either they think they can get away with it because they believe the public is entirely populated with dim-witted dullards and dolts, or they are so extremely self-deluded that they genuinely don’t see it.

Most of the media’s high inquisitors have united in the snide, boorish, public deprecation of Palin’s fitness as a mother while touting her as a lightweight (do you Obama supporters really want to go down this road?). Greta van Susteren, on the other hand, is the only mainstream media personality I’ve seen who actually took the time to talk to some people who know Palin, have worked alongside her, and personally observed her work as Alaska’s governor.

Since the lion’s share of the media seems content to cast aspersions, I thought it worthwhile to post the video of Susteren’s interviews here:

In other news, I stumbled across a blog run by someone who attended the same conservatory I did for my undergraduate studies; he started there when I was in my second year. This gentleman (I’ll henceforth refer to him pseudonymously as “Archie”) had harsh words after Sarah Palin’s speech on Wednesday:

I knew I wasn’t going to like her (with my personal Turn-Ons [sic] being “smart chicks,” and my Turn-Offs [sic] being “hockey, bad hair, and people who don’t believe global warming has any human cause”), but I was still a little stunned by the sarcastic nastiness of statements like, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer’ — except that you have actual responsibilities.” Wow. Dissing Obama for working on antipoverty programs. This chick is a d**k.

Where does a Hungry MonT-SteR start with this? Sorry, Archie, but I gotta politely take issue with you for a moment:

  • The entire comment is self-stultifying in the extreme. One of its main premises is that Palin should be opposed (or disliked) because of her “sarcastic nastiness.” Then Archie proceeds to make fun of her hair, imply that she is stupid, deride her for being a hockey mom, and label her with a crude expletive. Okay, based on his own logic, I hereby dismiss Archie’s comments in toto and with prejudice because of his own “sarcastic nastiness.” Fair’s fair, dude.
  • Ugh, the climate change canard. I wonder how many devotees of pop global warming theory have paused to consider that climate change is nothing new, that it predates humanity itself, and that the natural forces that cause it (like the sun or volcanic activity) are ancient, more powerful than the collective carbon footprint of mankind, and completely outside the purview of our influence or control. Does climate change exist? Most certainly. But don’t accuse me or anyone else of stupidity or ignorance because we doubt that anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact — especially when recent global temperature data suggests the very opposite.
  • It’s doubtful that Obama’s work as a “community organizer” was simply an anti-poverty program. This has been little explored by the press, but Obama’s community organizer days were largely in partnership with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) — a radical national network of local-level activists with a history of engaging in voter fraud, political intimidation, and economically deleterious policies (go here and here for more). These policies include a Marx-inspired attempt to “break the system” by actively flooding the welfare rolls, with a view toward inciting socio-political upheaval and revolution. ACORN markets itself as an anti-poverty organization, but I fail to see how encouraging dependency on the state could ever reverse the fortunes of the impoverished. I’m not appealing to guilt by association here, but it is noteworthy that Obama partnered with this organization and even trained some of its leadership in Chicago. What is clear is that he has a longstanding relationship with ACORN, and that in some measure he is beholden to them politically to this day.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that it really was just an anti-poverty program. We might call that laudable, but does it necessarily follow that it amounts to a presidential resumé? Given that Obama’s legislative experience consists of voting “present” an inordinate number of times at the state level and has little to commend itself in terms of leadership, reform, or innovation at the federal level (the guy hasn’t even finished ONE TERM as a U.S. senator), is it really “sarcastic nastiness” to question his qualifications? Is it “sarcastic nastiness” to humorously juxtapose the experience and responsibilities of an ACORN-style community organizer with those of a city mayor? Keep in mind that it was Obama and his campaign/media surrogates who first denigrated Palin’s mayoral experience. I suppose I could be persuaded to grant that the rhetorical force of Palin’s one-liner was unkind, but it hardly rises to the level of “sarcastic nastiness.” Certainly, its substance has merit.


aka The MonT-SteR