Today, the mainstream media voluntarily behave the way the Soviet media were forced to.
In the old Soviet Union, everything was controlled by the Party, the Communist Party. Even military units each had their own party commissar, to ensure no activities took place that were not in the interest of the Party.
This, of course, was true of the media as well. The only media allowed in the old Soviet Union were institutions controlled by and devoted to the Party, and to the government run by the Party. The Soviet media would consequently slavishly repeat the government party line.
The question is, how is the so-called Mainstream Media in America today, under the new Obama Administration, any different from the media in the old Soviet Union? This American establishment media is also entirely controlled by and devoted to one Party, the Democrat party. Studies have long shown that roughly 90% of those working for these media institutions are Democrats. Already we can see with the emerging Obama Administration that this media is slavishly devoted to repeating the new government party line, extending the pattern they established during the campaign.
Of course, in the old Soviet Union, the media was forced by the government to follow the party line. In America today, the media voluntarily chooses to act the same way. That’s even sicker, isn’t it? (I am just exploring questions here.)
Today, in Russia, the Communist Party is gone, and government control of the media is less overt. But the government has still reasserted complete control over Russia’s establishment, mainstream media, through intimidation and even force. Just think about how the Russian media behaved during the campaigns when Vladimir Putin ran for president. They were still slavishly devoted to him, and ridiculed and derided any opposition.
The question is, how did the American establishment, mainstream media behave any differently towards Obama during his presidential campaign this year than the Russian media did in regard to Putin during his presidential campaigns? True, the American media voluntarily chose to behave this way, while the Russian media was still cowed by government intimidation and force. But even with this difference, the American people are still suffering under a party-controlled press, rather than enjoying a free and independent press.
MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER (MRC) President Brent Bozell summarized the Obama campaign news media travesty this way: “Everyone should be forced to admit that the publicists formerly known as the ‘news’ media have worked themselves to the bone this year to elect Barack Obama.” The MRC has carefully documented news media bias for over 20 years now, and offers a wealth of information and commentary at its website. The quotes and statistics cited below come from that source.
Here is some early tough reporting on Barack Obama from Joe Klein of Time magazine,
“Obama’s personal appeal is made manifest when he steps down from the podium and is swarmed by well-wishers of all ages and hues…. Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow — a sudden, preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy…. He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions — and answer all the impossible questions — plaguing American public life.”
NBC reporter Lee Cowan admits, “It’s almost hard to remain objective because it’s infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger.”
Then there is MSNBC co-anchor Chris Mathews, who is as objective about Obama as Juliet was about Romeo, saying, “He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great looking, and they’re cool and they’re young.”
Associated Press writer Charles Babington offered this tough political reporting on the Obama campaign last May, “Presidential campaigns have destroyed many bright and capable politicians. But there’s ample evidence that Obama is something special, a man who makes difficult tasks look easy, who seems to touch millions of diverse people with a message of hope that somehow doesn’t sound Pollyannish.”
When John McCain visited Iraq in March to check on how his ultimately victorious surge strategy was working, he got all of 10 seconds of coverage on the CBS Evening News, and two minutes on the ABC evening news broadcast. But when Obama went to the Middle East in July for the first time ever, the anchors from each of the three major networks went along with him, and gave their broadcasts from overseas with the Obama campaign. MRC’s monthly newsletter The Watchdog accurately summarized this coverage with the headline, “Liberal Media Are Nearly Worshipping Obama.”
Mark Phillips of CBS News reported on Obama’s Berlin speech during that trip:
“There is a bit of a morning-after feeling here in Berlin after what they’re calling the ‘Obama show.’ But if the intent of this trip was to raise Barack Obama’s foreign profile, it could hardly have been raised any higher…. The stage could not have been bigger. The 200,000-plus crowd confirmed his rock star status, and his more cooperative sounding rhetoric was what the crowd wanted to hear.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online