Posts Tagged ‘Presidential Candidate’

Documentary Review: Media Malpractice

Saturday, May 23rd, 2009

Can anyone honestly review the media’s coverage of the 2008 Presidential election and say that the media wasn’t completely in the tank for then-Senator Barack Obama? Didn’t think so. To that end, libertarian filmmaker John Ziegler put together his documentary/expose, Media Malpractice, to give evidence to the former statement. And after watching this documentary, I would suggest that it is required viewing for those who study the media or have an interest in how the American media has fallen apart.

As I looked at some reviews of this documentary on the web, I was shocked by the amount of detractors who suggested that Ziegler was your typical, aggravated conservative who was frustrated with his party’s candidate and is now lashing out. Well, that’s a ton of a bullshit if there ever was some! Ziegler is a committed libertarian and has only ever donated money to democratic politicians. Sounds like a regular Rush Limbaugh, right?

Thought not.

From my view, the documentary really dives into two major issues in the 2008 campaign. First, it looks at how the media deliberately paid no serious attention to the various three alarm fires associated with Senator Obama. For example, the audiotape that came out a few days before the election where Obama specifically cited that previous supposedly-liberal Supreme Courts had not gone far enough into redistributing wealth and addressing issues of economic justice. Second, the documentary looks at how the media absolutely destroyed Alaska Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. When you watch the various attacks played in succession, it’s enough to turn your stomach.

People like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric twisted and bent Palin’s previous statements and then asked her to respond. And when Palin questioned their phrasing of the questions, they lashed out at her like she was a dummy! The thing that always got me about Palin is that she’s just a regular Mom who rose up the political ranks. When she suggested that she was your typical “hockey Mom,” I can see that being true! And it shows you the vast disconnect between the media and regular Americans that they didn’t “get it.”

Understanding Palin boils down to one of the major issues that Bill O’Reilly has been going on about for years now – class warfare; the “elites” versus regular citizens. I put “elite” in quotations because most of the people who fall into this category may not even realize it. For example, I have friends (conservative, liberal, and independent) who have no idea that think in terms of class warfare and their “class” being better than those “below” them. It’s frustrating and a topic for another entry at another time.

There were some portions of Ziegler’s that will stick with me. Maybe the most glaring is how completely biased Katie Couric was in her interview with Palin. And, specifically, how Katie took Senator John McCain’s two major regulatory battles in the realm of the housing meltdown (his relentless pursuit of tighter oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) off of the table when she asked Palin to explain what McCain had done to help stave off the mortgage meltdown. That’s the equivalent of asking someone, “Other than red, white, and blue, what other colors are there on the flag of the United States of America?”

What?

And the documentary also does a good job of talking about how certain issues were blown up to mean much more than they actually did (i.e. race). If you look at the exit polls, race meant nothing to the voters. By and large, the voters went for Obama because they found what the media suggested that he stood for as a good thing (the nebulous concept of “change”). I have no issues with the voters voting anyway they choose, but to constantly use race as a battering ram against anyone who would even think to mention it (such as former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro) is absurd. Sure, if a pundit tried to use it as a negative, then they should have been criticized, but over and again that was not the case.

Watching Media Malpractice gives you a plethora of such aggravating and disgusting examples of the media’s bias. But, as has been reported on this blog by both my entries and my readers via their comments – the American mass media is a complete joke. It is an empire that has forgotten what unbiased reporting is supposed to be about and is, instead, dominated by profits and ratings. Just like now is the perfect time for a third party to rise at the national level, now is the perfect time for us as a nation to turn our backs on the biased media and support independent sources of news and citizen-led media.

In any event, if you have an interest in this stuff, then I suggest that you check out Media Malpractice. You’ll be as disgusted with the mainstream media as I am.

Uhhh Ohhh… Guantanamo is Humane!

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

Sometime in February I bookmarked a page on the FOX News website that talked about a report on the Guantanamo Bay prison which was prepared for President Barack Obama. Some interesting information pulled directly from the report:

As a presidential candidate, Obama criticized the detention center that human rights groups and many in the international community widely condemned for harsh treatment of prisoners during the Bush administration. The military has defended its actions, saying prisoners have been treated humanely since the center was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The report found the camp to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3, the international rules that require the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts, like the war on terrorism. The camp’s controversial force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes was also found to be compliant with the Geneva guidelines, a second government official confirmed.

I can appreciate that Obama will probably read this report and change his position during the election on whether or not Guantanamo is/was a humane place to keep prisoners. In fact, I would assume that the President is privy to higher levels of information now that he’s the Commander in Chief and that, in this role, he knows things about Guantanamo that we will never know about. I get it – he’s the President, he should know those things.

But what gets me is that you’ll never hear about this story being covered en masse by the mainstream media. You’ll never hear the political extremists come back and say, “Oh golly. Looks like we goofed on that whole ‘inhumane’ thing down at Guantanamo Bay. Our bad!” Not going to happen. However, if this report for President Obama proved the opposite – that Guantanamo was a disaster and that it was an inhumane place to keep prisoners – then you’d have people calling for President Bush’s head right now!

Isn’t that annoying? Isn’t it annoying that we have extremists in the mainstream who will call for the prosecution of a President based solely on their own ideas and thoughts? However, when those ideas and thoughts are proven wrong by the administration of their favorite son, the extremists won’t turn around and say, “Wow. We were mistaken. Our apologies.”

What a sad commentary on the loud voices…

The Constitution Party in the 2008 Election

Friday, November 14th, 2008

Continuing with my look at the Constitution Party, I thought I’d relay some information both e-mailed to those of us on their mailing list and posted on their website. This message talks about how the party fared in the 2008 election. From the e-mail:

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and his running mate Darrell Castle wound up with close to 179,000 votes, showing even with no ads and comparatively little media attention, the message of liberty resonated with many.

The tally was a 24% increase over the party’s vote total in 2004. However, this year we were not on the ballot in California or Pennsylvania, and in 2004 those states accounted for 33,000 votes. The Baldwin/Castle ticket even grabbed 3,418 write-in votes in Texas, the highest for any write-in candidate in that state.

While the Constitution Party lists their final tally to be “close to 179,000″ votes, Wikipedia lists their total for 2008 as 181,342. Not too bad, really. Both the Libertarians and Ralph Nader finished ahead of the Constitutionalists, but they got a few thousand more votes than the Green Party. More from their message:

In addition to larger percentages of votes, 20 states will remain ballot qualified meaning fewer time-consuming and costly ballot-access campaigns will be necessary going forward. This is a 33% increase over 2004.

Many people do not realize that one of the biggest hurdles that young political parties have to overcome is actually getting on the ballot! You don’t just “wind up” on the ballot – you have to actually collect signatures and petition to be on the ballot in each state. It’s not the easiest process and as the quoted message above alludes to, it’s not an entirely quick process either.

It would appear that the Constitution Party made a decent showing for a third party with no financing and no advertising in the 2008 election. America needs a strong third party at the national level – could it be this one?

Ron Paul Plans Alternative Rally

Saturday, July 26th, 2008

Failed Presidential candidate Ron Paul has planned an alternative rally to the Republican National Convention. Paul’s rally, to be held at the Target Center in Minneapolis, is supposed to focus on his message of limited government (of which I am a fan).

It’s a shame that Congressman Paul’s campaign was neglected by the major networks. The media has really shaped the current Presidential campaign and it’s disgusting. Any American out there who is looking for real “change” isn’t even allowed to hear different opinions by the American media. How many of the major media conglomerates are allowing the Libertarian or Green Party to join the debates? FOX isn’t. CNN isn’t. CBS isn’t. ABC isn’t. MSNBC isn’t. Speaking of NBC – I can barely watch their programming any more as their entire schedule of programming is so one-sided in favor of Obama that it might as well be funded out of the Obama campaign!

I know these media companies stick to some format that requires X% of the national polls to be in favor of your campaign, but they know that American masses are mostly sheep and vote for either R or D. Why not change your debate regulations to reflect the fact that there needs to be more than two views of how to move forward? Why not have regulations that allow the four political parties with the highest polling to be involved in the debate? If the Republicans get 44% and the Democrats get 44%, then the media should look to that remaining 12% of the opinion polls to see which third party candidates people are supporting.

All I know is that for a Republican and a Democrat to run around America saying “Change, change, change,” is completely ridiculous. What’s the definition of insanity? Always doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So America – keep voting Republican and Democrat and see if you get a different result…lunatics.


© 1996 - 2010 Usable Web Solutions, LLC
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

All content is exclusive to this site and may be reprinted only with express written permission of the Owner of this site.
Privacy Policy | Contact Us