Obama's Plan to Bomb Russia?
by Shesk
Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:40:23 AM PDT
I'm speechless, I'm without speech. I receive my Philadelphia Inquirer today, turn to the Currents (Op-Eds) section and see four headlines that, in light of all of the lies about McCain/Plain that have been revealed this past week, were just unbelieveable to me. Here's the lead story of the section:
While GOP candidates touted themselves as Reaganlike, his real alter ego was in Alaska: Palin, Reagan Share Much
http://www.philly.com/... Wow, just wow. Now, since the Inquirer does tend to lean Democratic, I gave 'em the benefit of the doubt and chalked it up to an attempt to energize anti-Reagan Democrats.
Shesk's diary :: ::
Then I saw this headline:
Obama's change could cost big bucks: A few tax cuts? Negligible effect. Bigger government? Bad Idea.
Is anyone at the Inquirer paying attention to all of the lies being disseminated? If so, How could this opinion piece be placed up front?
And if that wasn't enough, there was another headline:
Don't cry racism if Obama loses
The gist of this delightful opinion piece? White people voted for Obama in the Democratic primaries, so racism could not be a factor in the election. And don't forget, the Republicans ran a Black candidate, Lynn Swan, for governor, and he...lost. The writer rounds it off with a paragraph about Reverend Wright, and the other talking points that racists hide behind: he's inexperienced, he lacks experience, he's Black
Well, at least Trudy Rubin, one of the more objective and credible journalists on foreign affairs, would come through. Her headline?
Query for McCain: When is force OK?
Query? Query? WTF? And even worse, she opens with this gem:
Sarah Palin says we might go to war with Russia over Georgia.
I don't really hold her responsible for this astonishing remark.(emphasis mine)
Jesus H. Christ. What is going on with the Inquirer, I thought. And when I turned the page to continue with Ms. Rubin's column, I saw the answer in the headline of the continuation of her piece: somebody on the staff is pushing "fair and balanced" coverage by its contributors; that is, if "fair and balanced" means that all negative pieces about Obama should be reserved for Obama, all positive pieces for Plain/McCain should be reserved for Palin/McCain, and any piece that negatively targets McCain should assign equal responsibility to the Democrats. Here's the second page header of the piece:
GOP, and Democrats, must be clearer on use of force. (emphasis mine)
Folks, there was almost not reference to Democrats in this piece, except for a parenthetical that followed a question as to whether the US should go to war over Tblisi:"(The Democrats should clarify their thinking on this issue), and the obligatory reference to Obama's lipstick comment."
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but when the co-founder of Toll Brothers became chairman of the Inquirer, I was worried that the paper would sway far right. While more Republican contributors were added to give the paper a more balanced feel (including the addition of Rick Santorum), up until now I felt that there was at least an attempt to keep things fair and balanced. With a presidential election on the horizon, it is clear that Mr. Toll was keeping the proverbial powder dry. I will be canceling my Inquirer subscription today, with a letter to the editor. I already receive the Right Wing Philadelphia Bulletin for free. Why pay for the propaganda?
http://www.philly.com/...http://www.philly.com/...http://www.philly.com/...http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/14/103247/626
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
