I would like to continue my insistence that their is media bias directed at John McCain. The reason is very simple. Over the past week, I have read numerous articles in such established publication as Newsweek and the New York Times expressing their shock and dismay over the McCain campaigns stretching of the truth. I have to agree. The McCain campaign has been guilty of stretching the truth. As has every politician in the modern era. Including Barack Obama. I have no problem with the McCain campaign being slammed for its Rovian (although I like to refer to them as Ploufian) tactics, however, if the media has decided to go on a moral crusade they attack Jerusalem as well as Tiberius. They have to go after Barack Obama as well.
Here are some interesting articles: The National Review says that McCain was not lying about the Sex-Ed ad, AP has finally noted that the McCain campaign is far from the "sleaziest" ever [almost 2 days after that inane comment was made]. The AP article is especially significant because it is the first time I have seen a major new organization mention that the type of adds McCain has aired are perfectly normal political fodder. [Update: I just viewed CNN's coerage of Obama's own attack adds. The verdict: Since Obama was attacked, he has every right to respond. How typical.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Any time anyone quotes the National Review as proof of anything, ever, I'm going to make a face using the symbols above the numbers on my keyboard. Here's one:
:-O
(Nothing personal intended, obviously. I'm just about 100% horrified about every single thing the National Review ever has to say about anything.)
Btw, I watched the CNN report you mention at the end of your post. The report doesn't actually say what you said it does. They don't attempt to justify Obama's attack ads in any manner. They just present a sequence of events.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you interpreted them differently - but you've gotta make an argument for that. Just like it would be a good thing if you explained why you find the National Review article compelling. (When I first read the article, I was utterly unconvinced. When I reread it now - because of your post - I paid a lot more attention to it. It is quite a disingenous article and if you want to discuss what I think its merits and flaws are, I'd be happy to have a discussion about that.)
Maybe there is a good reason for the multitude of media concentrating on McCains lies. The issue is that he has gone too far and the media is picking up on that. You know hes gone to far when Karl Rove criticizes him.
Post a Comment