stephanie
09-14-2008, 09:22 AM
:clap:
By Yomin Postelnik Sunday, September 14, 2008
It’s well known and well documented that Charlie Gibson is liberal. But he generally seems to be a well meaning, likeable liberal. He has only a cursory view of the economy, of geopolitics, in truth, of any significant issue, and a disinterest in all things military. But he’s a genuinely nice man, albeit one who is tremendously influenced, at least as far as politics is concerned, by the spiteful New York elites.
When the left has a cause celebre, he will regularly join hands with them, but on his terms, in a milder and gentler, and hopefully more fair manner. But his interview with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was way over the top. In fact, it was downright hypocritical.
I understand where Charlie is coming from. For months, the media has been lulled into the false notion that Obama, their newest hero in a long line of leftist cult personalities, was inevitable. And for a few years now, they’ve propagated a sense that Democrats would finally gain the White House after eight long years on the sidelines.
Electoral victories of Democrats is a matter the media elites take immensely personal. Bill Clinton’s victory in ’92 was seen as their victory, the ascension to power of all children of the 60s (although Clinton is more conservative than they are, we must bear in mind that perception always trumps reality when it comes to the whimsical allegiances of superficial media elites) . Their fierce allegiance has now transferred to their replacement hero, Obama, who is far more radical than Clinton ever was and who may be even more radical than the media elites are themselves.
So it’s understandable that they’re personally upset. What’s not excusable is that they’ve, in effect, walked off the job. They’re refusing to report and have instead assumed the role of attack dogs for their campaign of choice. Yes, they’ve favored, lied and manipulated the news for years, many times in very inexcusable ways. But they never campaigned as overtly for or against a campaign as they are now. They’ve never been so full of bile as they are today. They’ve never acted as outrageously and been so openly spiteful as they are with their anti-Palin, pro-Obama crusade. And in the process, they’ve thrown their integrity straight out the window.
Joining their ranks is the once respected Charlie Gibson. He’s done similar things before and his biases are very much a reality. But the sad thing is not that he was never as overtly biased as he is now, as is the case with the rest of the media. The truly sad part is that the level of nastiness and hypocrisy displayed by him is uncharacteristic and is a blemish on an otherwise fairly decent career (as decent as one can expect from one in today’s mass media).
read the rest..
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5004
By Yomin Postelnik Sunday, September 14, 2008
It’s well known and well documented that Charlie Gibson is liberal. But he generally seems to be a well meaning, likeable liberal. He has only a cursory view of the economy, of geopolitics, in truth, of any significant issue, and a disinterest in all things military. But he’s a genuinely nice man, albeit one who is tremendously influenced, at least as far as politics is concerned, by the spiteful New York elites.
When the left has a cause celebre, he will regularly join hands with them, but on his terms, in a milder and gentler, and hopefully more fair manner. But his interview with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was way over the top. In fact, it was downright hypocritical.
I understand where Charlie is coming from. For months, the media has been lulled into the false notion that Obama, their newest hero in a long line of leftist cult personalities, was inevitable. And for a few years now, they’ve propagated a sense that Democrats would finally gain the White House after eight long years on the sidelines.
Electoral victories of Democrats is a matter the media elites take immensely personal. Bill Clinton’s victory in ’92 was seen as their victory, the ascension to power of all children of the 60s (although Clinton is more conservative than they are, we must bear in mind that perception always trumps reality when it comes to the whimsical allegiances of superficial media elites) . Their fierce allegiance has now transferred to their replacement hero, Obama, who is far more radical than Clinton ever was and who may be even more radical than the media elites are themselves.
So it’s understandable that they’re personally upset. What’s not excusable is that they’ve, in effect, walked off the job. They’re refusing to report and have instead assumed the role of attack dogs for their campaign of choice. Yes, they’ve favored, lied and manipulated the news for years, many times in very inexcusable ways. But they never campaigned as overtly for or against a campaign as they are now. They’ve never been so full of bile as they are today. They’ve never acted as outrageously and been so openly spiteful as they are with their anti-Palin, pro-Obama crusade. And in the process, they’ve thrown their integrity straight out the window.
Joining their ranks is the once respected Charlie Gibson. He’s done similar things before and his biases are very much a reality. But the sad thing is not that he was never as overtly biased as he is now, as is the case with the rest of the media. The truly sad part is that the level of nastiness and hypocrisy displayed by him is uncharacteristic and is a blemish on an otherwise fairly decent career (as decent as one can expect from one in today’s mass media).
read the rest..
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5004