The MSM-Obama Full Court SupPress

I have been observing the Left leaning bias of the media for 25 years of my life. Many times I have been angry, surprised, shocked and indignant at the sheer blatancy of the bias. Nothing in that 25 years, however, comes close to what I have seen in this 2008 Presidential election. In other elections we have seen the MSM dig up dirt on a GOP candidate and drive, drive, drive the story home. That would be what I have referred to in the past as an MSM Full Court Press.

When McCain and Obama became the nominees, basically there was a candidate that virtually everything was already known about and the other a virtual unknown. Since there was little chance of scandal against McCain, the Full Court Press against him was thwarted. That left the alternative strategy - the Full Court Suppress to do all in their power to suppress anything that would make Obama look bad.

It has been pointed out to me that stories I may think are newsworthy and of interest are not everybody's view. Perhaps not, but the stories and areas of Obama's life that the MSM has failed to lift a finger to pursue go well beyond the typical story. In the conglomerate, nobody of either political persuasion can deny how much the MSM has been in the tank for Obama. They may spin it, they may make excuses for it, but they do not deny it.

Some would claim the MSM has "covered" most if not all of these areas. Wrong. I am looking back into other election coverage using fairly measurable factors of
1) How in depth did they research the story?
2) How in depth did they report the story?
3) How many news cycles did they include the story?

The MSM seems to be under the impression that if during a single news cycle, in midsentence they rapidly mention one of these items, without any details, under the notion that it is a claim on "the right", that it meets the criteria of having "covered" the story. How much attention did George Bush's drunk driving arrest get days before the 2000 election? How much attention did George Bush's AWOL story get (yeah, the forged document one)? How in depth and how many news cycles did the Mark Foley and Larry Craig stories get? Using these stories as bench marks, compare that to how much coverage these Obama items have gotten:

- Family claims of Barack Obama's birth in Kenya that would make him ineligible to become President
- Obama's formative years under communist and sexually perverted mentor Frank Marshall Davis
- Obama's drug years. He admits taking them - where did he buy them? Did he sell them? When did he stop taking them?
- Since Obama will not release his school transcripts, how did he get into Harvard?
- What was he doing in Pakistan?
- Why would a virtual unknown community organizer be selected to chair the board of the CAC?
- With a organizational newsletter supporting by claim and a picture that Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, why is he denying being a socialist?
- The depth of his association with William Ayers. Have you seen the little office bldg they shared?
- The likelihood that William Ayers ghost wrote Obama's book "Dreams of My Fathers"

The three newest news suppression stories are:
- The withholding of the tape of Obama praising PLO operative Rashid Khalidi by the LA Times
- The deliberate shutting off of basic credit card security measures on the Obama website to guard against illegal foreign donations and against exceeding donation limits.
- The depth of the investigation of Joe the Plumber in retaliation for getting Obama to reveal his socialist inclinations

There are many more items in this list that the MSM has simply yawned over. It is an all out information suppression campaign. The information is there. It is easy to obtain much of it. The MSM, however, has always had a different standard of what is newsworthy depending on the ideology of the person the story involves. It is only newsworthy to play a story that makes a Republican look bad. It simply is not newsworthy to make a Democrat look bad. In this election, they have been exponentially worse than in the past.

I am certain there are books already in the making describing this information suppression. We can only hope that they are being written by a source not easy for the MSM to dismiss. Either way, the people have seen with their own eyes their electioneering. Somebody said recently that if he is elected, the MSM will have ownership of an Obama Presidency and all the ramifications that come with it. The memory of most people is very short. It will be up to the New Media and word of mouth by the informed to keep the memory fresh.

No One Mourns the Wicked - Except the Liberal Media

Last year about this time I went to see the musical Wicked and absolutely loved it. One of the songs in Wicked is No One Mourns the Wicked. It is after they announce to the crowd that the Wicked witch is dead and nobody seems to grieved over it. In real life that is likely so, except when it comes to the media. When evil people die, you can get some really weird reactions from the media. Pay attention next time when somebody like Yassar Arafat or Saddam Hussein dies. While I guess they cannot get on their desks and dance a gig, their glumness is quite noticeable. There was even the reporter that broke down crying for Arafat, the father of modern terrorism. When a death row inmate gets his final justice, once again we see the surreal glumness. Contrast that to the time I heard local WLS talk show host Don Wade declare gleefully, "Today is the day John Wayne Gacy wakes up in Hell!"

Perhaps the most obvious time the media seems to mourn the wicked is when a law abiding citizen is forced to defend his life with a gun and shoots an intruder. You almost expect them to start breaking down like the professional wailing woman of Lebanon. Then they get angry. Captains Quarters has a post and a video of a reporter hounding a 70 year old man because he has been forced to shoot 2 intruders within weeks. The video shows the man walking to his car with a long box and the reporter leaping up to him demanding "What's in the box!" as she aggressively taps on it. He tells her it is a shotgun and she starts grilling him asking if he is "trigger happy". It is obvious from the video that the man wishes he did not have to do this, but has no qualms about doing it again if necessary.

The man lives in a residence that is part of his business. He has a huge tall fence surrounding him. He had called the police on intrusions 41 times and when he had to shoot they had broken into the residence portion of the property. So it is obvious that counting on the police to save your life in this situation is not the answer. I guess the media thinks he should lift up his chin and let the intruder slit his throat.

I always hate when there is a reported shooting and the reporter states there are no charges or leaves the matter open about charges. This snippy reporter does the same thing stating the police said "No laws have been broken" but that it would be turned over to the Grand Jury to determine. I would love to see the reporter state, "Of course having defended his life, there will be no charges against him. He has rid the world of one of its problems."

So while those of us with two feet in reality feel a sense of relief and justice when the wicked die, in a world of liberal journalism gone wild we must try to stomach when they mourn the deaths of those most deserving.