Quote:
Couldn't make the party?
Media conspicuously turning blind eye to tea party movement
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
They made a superstar of lone Iraq War protester Cindy Sheehan. They cover every G-8 protest -- involving paid protesters, by the way -- like it's the second coming of the American Revolution.
Yet, when ordinary Americans are mad enough to take to the streets -- as they will tonight at the Augusta Tea Party and other tea parties across the nation -- the mainstream media are wholly unimpressed.
On Monday, as momentum began in earnest for today's tea parties to protest runaway federal spending, CNN.com's feature story was that women over 55 are flocking to Facebook.
The other big news of the day: The Obamas name their dog.
The mainstream media seem not to want this protest to happen -- while they gleefully report on any protest pushing left-wing notions.
In the alternative, they desperately want the tea party movement to be a passing fancy.
"I'd bet my Borsalino hat that five years from now the tea party of 2009 is going to be considered little more than a fad that flopped," writes blogger John Tantillo. "In fact, it shouldn't even be compared to the monumental event that kicked our great country off with a rebellious bang."
We'll see. But why declare the movement a failure before it's even been given a chance -- unless it doesn't fit with your agenda?
Not everyone is that close-minded. As the left-wing media snore and sniff their noses at the tea partiers, an online citizen-journalist site called Pajamas TV says it has more than 200 volunteer citizen-journalists covering the tea parties.
Media critic Howard Kurtz oddly chastised Fox News Channel for covering the tea party movement too much -- but added, "On the other hand, CNN and MSNBC may have dropped the ball by all-but-ignoring the protests."
Some think this is a partisan thing. It isn't, and it can't be. George W. Bush and his Republican co-dependents in Congress outspent everyone else in U.S. history, and the Democrats under Obama are doubling down on it.
They're all to blame.
Whether this grass roots anger is a fad or not is wholly up to the people involved. If they just want to vent, then the air will escape quickly.
If, on the other hand, people truly are concerned about and willing to work to fix our country's economic future, then it will indeed be a movement.
And much of the news media will have been caught by surprise.
(The Augusta Tea Party will be from 5 to 10 p.m. today at the Jessye Norman Amphitheater on the Augusta Riverwalk downtown. )
...but it should serve as a testament to most reasonable people how they're portraying the protests of the past, and the ones today. The ones in the past were all about Bush being bad, blah, blah, the People have spoken, blah, blah, blah. Today, "They're radical white people who don't want to pay taxes".
(04-15-2009 02:49 PM)Rebel Wrote: ...but it should serve as a testament to most reasonable people how they're portraying the protests of the past, and the ones today. The ones in the past were all about Bush being bad, blah, blah, the People have spoken, blah, blah, blah. Today, "They're radical white people who don't want to pay taxes".
(04-15-2009 02:49 PM)Rebel Wrote: ...but it should serve as a testament to most reasonable people how they're portraying the protests of the past, and the ones today. The ones in the past were all about Bush being bad, blah, blah, the People have spoken, blah, blah, blah. Today, "They're radical white people who don't want to pay taxes".
Fair and Balanced from the MSM? bull****.
And you think Fox is fair and balanced?
ALL of the news sucks
Do they not have people on from both side of every topic to give opposing views. It's like fox critics have never turned it on and watched. Or they are just liars.
I know I had my rant about fox news last week, but a lot of its shows are just news just like GMA, The Today Show, etc. It's only when you get to the shows that feature an individual person that the imbalance kicks in. Same quality as anyone else.
Do they not allow commies and pinkos and socialists and every other lowlife on to express there opinions? Do they not let obamacrats on to propagandize?
(04-15-2009 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote: Do they not allow commies and pinkos and socialists and every other lowlife on to express there opinions? Do they not let obamacrats on to propagandize?
Wow, did you get your vocab from this guy?
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2009 08:57 PM by nomad2u2001.)
(04-15-2009 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote: Do they not allow commies and pinkos and socialists and every other lowlife on to express there opinions? Do they not let obamacrats on to propagandize?
Wow, did you get your vocab from this guy?
That was pretty good.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2009 09:08 PM by Paul M.)
(04-15-2009 08:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: I know I had my rant about fox news last week, but a lot of its shows are just news just like GMA, The Today Show, etc. It's only when you get to the shows that feature an individual person that the imbalance kicks in. Same quality as anyone else.
The problem with Fox (and most cable news for that matter) is the format of the programming. I dont care if a program leans slightly liberal or slightly conservative, but at least make the dialogue intelligent. Why would I want to just watch two children engage in a pissing match? Thats what it amounts to, and the "moderators" if anything encourage it, because its all about ratings, not necessarily news.
As far as analysis shows go, i stick with Jim Lehrer.
(04-15-2009 09:18 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: The problem with Fox (and most cable news for that matter) is the format of the programming.
I agree. What the hell do ratings matter when you're trying to run a business? /sarcasm
Enjoy being the Lowest Common Denominator.
I'm the lowest common denominator? It's the most successful news outlet on the air right now and you think there's a problem with their formatting.
Yeah, good luck making your point there, sport.
Milli Vanilli also sold 30 million records.
...and by all accounts, they were a success. Were they not? Tell me, do you think CNN or MSNBC is "Fair and Balanced"?
Yeah, no bias there.
First of all, if you had actually read my original post I stated that I dont watch cable news programs, period. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or otherwise. I dont even subscribe to cable.
Secondly, if your definition of "success" is making lots of money by appealing to the lowest common denominator (as well as being frauds)..then yes...Milli Vanilli were a success. If thats also your criteria for how you choose your news, then I think you proved my point.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2009 09:45 AM by niuhuskie84.)
![[Image: Bump2.gif]](http://www.conservativecave.com/Smileys/default/Bump2.gif)
![[Image: frank-burns.jpg]](http://www.huginn.com/knuth/blog/pics/frank-burns.jpg)
