Media Aims to Shoot Sarah Palin Like Rabid Dog
The news media has aligned itself with extreme leftist websites in the attempt to destroy Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and her family if needs be. Three high-powered reporters on terrorism have been deflected from covering the nation's enemies, to digging up dirt on Sarah Palin.
Editors in the print media are shifting terrorism experts on their staffs towards investigations of political candidates. At least three such reporters at three major papers are now chasing Sarah Palin stories... _Counter-TerrorismEven the "queen of American media", Oprah Winfrey, has taken a stand against Palin--refusing to bring Palin on her show. It seems she has already committed her resources and reputation to getting Barak Obama elected. Sorry, sister Sarah. You're just not "the one" in Opra's eye.
It is disingenuous to now pretend Oprah is not a big story this campaign season. Oprah has a perfect right to act in a partisan way, but please stop with the whining when that is pointed out. Oprah injected herself into the political campaign. And now she has to take her lumps for it, as would any other media figure who did what Oprah has done. _TalkLeftRoughly 90% of American journalists and media personalities support the Democratic Party candidate, so one naturally expects their bias to shine through--as it so frequently does. But there is more than a little outright sexism and blatant double standard in how the media is looking at the second woman candidate for US Vice President. And this undeniable and outspoken bias by the media is just about ready to turn around and bite---the media itself!
Rasmussen has a new poll out that suggests that piling on Mrs. Palin may do more to harm the media's own image than hers.Even feminists--long die-hard supporters of the party--are starting to notice that the Democratic Party / Media Industrial Complex has jumped the shark, into the tank for Obama--and against women.
According to Rasmussen, fully 68% of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." And -- no surprise -- 49% of those surveyed believe reporters are backing Barack Obama, while just 14% think the media is in the tank for Sen. McCain. _WSJ
The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so. _SFGateUntil now, there has always been at least a thin veil of deniability protecting the media from full-out exposure as partisan, biased mouthpieces for the DP, DNC, and George Soros. Now that veil has been dropped by both the news media and the popular media.
We are soon to see something the media never dreamed could happen--a full-fledged backlash against know-nothing partisan "journalists." Because now, there are millions of news outlets where before there were only 3 or 4 for broadcast and 2 or 3 of record, for print. Old media interests are beginning to lose advertising revenue and readers/viewers to the new media. This is a new age for media, and the blood-letting in the old media has just begun.
More on Sarah Palin and the media here and here and here
Update: Cyber-vermin are busy vandalising Palin's Wikipedia page
Leftist media "is disgusted" at little Piper Palin's loving care of her baby brother
The Washington Post uses propaganda tactics in an attempt to turn a non-story into a scandal about Palin
And even Steve Sailer--who early on took gratuitous potshots at Palin's fertility--has begun to notice the ultra left bias of media coverage of Palin
Is Palin a form of "locoweed" for the media--driving them viscerally insane? Or does the media still have time to recover from its quasi-suicidal anti-Palin insanity, and attempt to portray itself as objective again?
posted by al fin at 8:05 am
7 Comments:
Look, I'm a reluctant Obama supporter so maybe my view of the thing is somewhat skewed, but what surprises me isn't the MSM doubts regarding Palin but rather the rush of support that's come from the hitherto skeptical right.
There are just so so SO many reasons to be unhappy with the Palin choice from the right (a good many of which I enumerated here
) that it's been terrifically disappointing to read so very very little of this nature actually coming from the many intelligent independent right wingers whom I so enjoy reading. Aside for the various matters I've mentioned in the above link, how is it that so one I've read yet has taken the time to notice that Palin is a female version of George Bush? She's uneducated, arrogant in her beliefs, non-curious and has demonstrated no ability whatsoever to think serious issues through in a serious open-minded way.
Eh - this comment sucks. I'm blogging here crouched in a hotel hallway as I await the promised room, after having been awake and harried for some 36 hours. Whatev. I hope my basic point regarding my disappointment with the Independent Right comes across and that my sloppy sentence structure and daft wording is overlooked.
mnuez
Yes, your comment sucks, but mainly because it is almost entirely opinion without objective facts. Even your sole link goes to a blogger who is clearly in the process of finding things to like about Palin.
The left is incredibly panicked about McCain's VP selection, for some odd reason.
Please, commenters, try to include more than just your "feelings" when you comment. Otherwise, the comment may not be included.
Dominionists in high political office scare the fucking shit out of me. Bush was bad enough, do we //really// need to put someone through with the charisma of a cult leader and the moral certitude of a "pit bull with lipstick" after him?
Conrad, are you referring to Obama or McCain? Because those are the only two presidential candidates in the race with a chance of winning.
Everyone has a right to his opinion, and if a US citizen has the right to vote for the candidate of his choice. That is how it should be.
But does anyone truly believe that the frantic "scandal-seeking" behaviour of the media in its reaction to Sarah Palin, is balanced by any similar eagerness for thorough reporting on Obama or Biden?
Clearly the media is on a highly targeted rampage. I will let individual readers judge whether such focused bias by a media claiming to be objective serves the public.
Neither McCain nor Obama are Dominionists; they are both political opportunists, with differing degrees of hard-on status for military and economic interventionism. I //may// just hold my nose and vote Barr this year. At least his ideology is moving in the right direction. (Even if it isn't there yet.)
No, by Dominionist I refer to Palin. I have heard some people -- without any backing whatsoever, mind you -- reference the idea that Dominionist extremists might just be willing to "off" McCain in order to get Palin into office. Not that they'd need to. Assuming McCain gets elected and the incumbent effect kicks in, he'd be past the 80 year mark before getting out of office. The average white american male's life expectancy is less than 80. Ergo... there's a real chance, should McCain be elected, that Palin would wind up with control. (Even if it would only be temporarily while McCain was out on "medical leave" -- senescence does raise that rate, after all.)
So, while Obama disgusts me with his political pandering and overwhelmingly overt ambition to fuck the economy of our nation up "but good", at this point I am, *personally*, much more disturbed by Palin, on a visceral level.
As to the media rampage... I haven't so much as looked at mainstream media in years. So, I'm not qualified to speak on that.
Disturbed by Palin . . . . . on a visceral level? That would explain why your comment is not very clear or convincing.
As I tried to explain above in response to mnuez, a person's "feelings" or "visceral level logic" may be quite compelling to the individual himself, but on blog comments they seem to lack communicable substance.
Having worked many long shifts in psychiatry wards, I can relate many fascinating and intricate delusions which were quite convincing to the person experiencing them--on a visceral level. That did not stop me from prescribing psychotropic medication. ;-)
Oh, I'm aware that what I spoke of was a personal reaction and in no way to be taken as anything other than anecdotal -- that's why I qualified it as such.
That being said, however, I also know that within my circle of politically motivated individuals, I am far from alone in that response; which of course is the result of having watched her nomination speech most strongly in my case.
As to her Dominionist ties...well, while certainly from biased sources there has been an extensive amount of digging which has yielded some fairly conclusive -- if perhaps tenuous -- results as to her being quite strongly within the political sphere that is occupied by Dominionists, even if she is perhaps "only a soft dominionist" herself.
Such sites as, yes, the DailyKos and the Huffington Post have people who have been doing their homework on this one.
And, while I cannot say that Dominionism qualifies as an existential threat for civilization, it //certainly// does for this 'heathen soul'.
So *I*, at least, have perfect justification to be deeply disturbed by her and what she represents.
No medication required.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home