Monday, October 27, 2008

Media Bias

ABC News reporter Michael Malone has a great column on the media bias in the 2008 presidential election.
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so. ...
The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.
My major disagreement is that it is partly Obama's fault. In fact, when the Obama campaign is faced with tough questions, they choose to cut off reporters - banning them from future interviews with the Obama campaign. This is only the latest of Obama's attempts to intimidate the media if they air views critical of Obama.  How much protection will free speech have if Obama is president?

Our courts may also be biased for Obama - as the lawsuit alleging Obama was not a "natural born citizen" was dismissed.  I'm not one who buys into this conspiracy theory - it is clear that Hawaii recognizes Obama as having been born there, and if there is a massive cover-up someone would have come forth.  To get a driver's license, passport, voter registration card, etc. Obama would have to have provided his birth certificate and other info.  Someone would know if he wasn't a "natural born citizen" and would have reported it.

However, I think the reasoning behind the lawsuit's dismissal is frightening - that a US citizen "lacks standing" to challenge the eligibility of a candidate.  In other words, if Obama (or anyone else) isn't a "natural born citizen" and runs for president anyway, it doesn't matter, and no harm could come from it.  This effectively renders the Constitution meaningless on this provision.  Furthermore, does this now mean Arnold Schwarzenegger could be president?  We know he isn't a "natural born citizen," but apparently that doesn't matter, and no one has a right to challenge his eligibility in court.  If the court had merely ruled that Obama was eligible, all controversy would have ceased, and the Constitution would not have been trampled again.

No comments: