Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Chris Muir's Day by Day

Saturday, May 08, 2010

More On Media Bias

The recent law passed with overwhelming support by the citizens of Arizona is an excellent case in point on the bias in media.  While more than 70% of the people of Arizona support the law, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN, of the broadcast networks, have aired more than 50 stories  that are against this law.  This is despite a new national poll that is giving similar numbers from across the country. 
The new poll finds 61 percent of voters nationally think Arizona was right to take action instead of waiting for the federal government to do something on immigration. That’s more than twice as many as the 27 percent who think securing the border is a federal responsibility and Arizona should have waited for Washington to act. . . . Significantly more voters think the Obama administration should wait and see how the new law works (64 percent) than think the administration should try to stop it (15 percent).
Even more importantly, Democrats are for the Arizona measure, more than 2-1.   The LA Times is reporting that
By a two to one margin (52-26), Democrats said the law should be left alone to ’see how it works.
Yet, the vast majority of broadcast and cable news channels/organizations are airing stories that cast the measure in a distinctly unfavorable light. 
From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the “growing storm” of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law’s passage – 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.

The soundbite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law numbers, however, included many soundbites of Arizona public officials defending themselves against liberal charges that they were racists or in favor of racial profiling.
Print media has been no kinder with the Washington Post, NY Times and LA Times all publishing stories just as scathing against Arizona.  It's no wonder that all of these organizations are losing readers/viewers in huge numbers.  When your audience leaves do your advertizers.  Thus all of these companies are on the long slow death glide to bankruptcy.

Personally, I can't read my local papers, the Baltimore Sun, or the Washington Post, because of their bias.   That of the Sun is often quite naked with "news" stories are often in fact opinion peices.  It's a sad fact, that comedy/entertainment faux news shows are the only ones who are  the only "journalists" asking hard questions of our politicians...not schilling for them as is the case with most of the mass media today.

No comments: