MEDIA BIAS

I have never been a big proponent of media bias. There is a common belief among conservatives that the main stream media has a bias towards the Democratic Party but, until recently, I have been a little skeptical of this observation. Of course the media has championed issues that the Democrats call their own but there is a reason for that. The media loves stories that have an appeal to the public. They are trying to attract viewers or readers or listeners and there are stories that accomplish this and there are stories that do not.

Democrats are hand-me-downs from the Nationalists from the first congress and they believe in a strong federal government, so they support issues that give more and more control to the federal government. If they see a problem, they want the federal government to fix the problem. This is the exact opposite of Republicans. Republicans are the ancestors of the ones who originally opposed a strong central government, later called the Wigs. They believe that the states should control their own destinies and the federal government should do only what a federal government can do basically defense, diplomacy and interstate issues. Just by the shear nature of their existences, the Democrats support issues that make good stories and that will pull on the heart strings of the American public. So although the media and the Democratic Party are normally on the same page, it is a self serving partnership for both entities. Columbine makes a good story for the gun control issue. Katrina makes a good story for federal social programs. The working class poor make a good story for national health care. All these are Democrat issues. What is a good story for personal responsibility? Fiscal responsibility? Both Republican issues.

With all that being said, let's talk about Barack Obama. Barack is definitely the story of this presidential race. The media attention given to Senator Obama mirrors that of a rock star and so he has been nicknamed. Is this a case of the media following the story or creating the story? I think it a little bit of both but it is definitely given him an unfair advantage over his rival John McCain. The atmosphere in American politics is bland and Obama has proclaimed himself a "Candidate of Change", an exciting concept although empty (see previous post where I discuss this). The media has taken the buzz Obama started and turned it into a frenzy. Senator McCain has gone to the Middle East several times with minimal coverage but when Senator Obama goes for the first time it draws the attention of all three major networks anchors, not just correspondents but the public leader of the networks, the anchors. Recently Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times but when McCain wrote a response they denied him stating it did not mirror Obama's piece. I think few can defend this decision from a known left wing slanted publication.

Fox News Network has deemed themselves "Fair and Balanced", a description the Democrats have always disputed. Are they fair and balanced or do Democrats argue the point because they are use to a media bias? I will agree that a majority of the programming on the network is more conservative than liberal but their presentation of the actual news is what is in question and I cannot disagree. One morning I watched the news on Fox and heard that the unemployment numbers were nearly the lowest since they kept records although they were hoping for a little lower. I stopped to get breakfast where they were playing CNN on the TV and there story reported, "Unemployment numbers fall short". They put a negative slant on a very positive report. I think the biggest argument for Fox's objectivity is the Hillary Clinton campaign who recently declared that "Fox has been more than fair" and a chief strategist, Howard Wolfson, has joined Fox claiming that it is "distinctively fair." Not that Fox has changed but at least for the Hillary Campaign the media appears a little different from the outside looking in.

Candidate of Change?


This blog is addressing the issue of Sen. Barrack Obama as the “Candidate of Change”. I am not addressing his candidacy as a whole but the title he bestowed upon himself.

The media has helped dub Barrack Obama the “candidate of change.” With all the discontent in America today regarding, primarily, the economy change must be a good thing…. or maybe not. I imagine pre-WWII Germany wanted change and voted the great leader Adolf Hitler, was that good change? I traded in my old Chevrolet Vega for Ford Pinto then found out they tend to burst into flames in rear end accidents, was that a good change? I think I made my point that just because something is not considered good at the time change for change sake is not always good.

Barrack Obama has said he will bring change to Washington. I think most everyone will agree that the partisan way Washington works is not an effective way to run a country. What makes anyone think Barrack will be able to bring members from both side of the isle together? Barrack was considered the most liberal member of congress in 2007, which does not sound like he will be able to unite the two parties. Maybe people just want to change the party leading the country. Well, most of the economic problems began in 2006, exactly when the Democrats took over the control of the congress. This country has always given the President too much credit/blame for market conditions. When the economy makes one it’s cyclical turns we need to change leadership. Stupid!

Maybe people sense change from the way Obama campaigned. When a candidate gets behind they usually tend to go negative on the other candidate, to knock their opponent down a notch. Early on in the Democratic primary Barrack was the front runner, he was the candidate that needed to be knocked down. Almost from the beginning he did not need to close the gap by using negative campaign ads against his opponent(s). Even after he won the nomination and the Presidential campaigning has begun he is the odds on favorite to become the next President. Yet, he has always found a way to negative on his opponents. He took shots at the Clinton presidency, indirectly attacking Hillary. When he directly attacked Hillary he claims he was just pointing out differences. Recently he has resorted to using surrogates to attack his opponent and then he dismisses the charge. This way he gets the attack out there and appears to me magnanimous. Wesley Clark’s attacking Sen. McCain’s military record at the same time Sen. Obama dismisses the charge was pretty transparent to the thinking public. Obama originally said he would operate within the rules of public financed campaigning. This way both candidate would be on equal ground and no one would have a money advantage but since he realized he could raise more money he has flipped on that pledge. Politics as usual, fair is fair unless he can gain an advantage. He may have changed the look of a campaign but the tactics remain the same.

If we need real change, we need to change the type of individual running for the public office. We need individuals with values, conviction and courage: Values to know what is right and wrong for the country and not for the individual, Conviction to stand up for what is right and to fight to change what is wrong, Courage to resist the temptations that have found their home in Washington. At this point we do know if Barrack Obama has these characteristics. All we do know is that he is not the Candidate of Change he would like America to think he is.

We once had a baby sitter we did not feel proved to be competent so we wanted to make a change. Did we hire the best looking or the best speaking individual who applied? Did we hire someone because they were from a certain race or gender? Did we hire someone just because they were from a group different than the one we fired? No we looked into the qualifications of each applicant and hired the most qualified. Now we are looking for someone to run the most powerful nation in the world. Don’t you think that requires the same due diligence?

Energy Crisis

I thought it only suiting to follow up manmade Global Warming with an assessment on energy. Gasoline prices have soared to over $4 a gallon in the US and estimates only predict prices going higher. I have heard from some that Bush is an oil man and since he took office the oil companies have recorded record profits so prices must be the result of the “failed policies” of this administration. The prices have definitely risen since W’s election so what are the policies he has enacted that have caused the prices to soar?

Both President Bush and Congress can share credit/blame for ethanol. Uncle Sam began subsidizing Ethanol production in 1978 and has done nothing but increase since to the tune of $7 billion in 2006. The goal of ethanol was to reduce our dependency on oil and reduce greenhouse gases, a noble cause! Ethanol is blended into the gasoline to reduce our oil consumption 10-12%, but at what cost? Ethanol is 20-30% less efficient than gasoline, it takes 450 pounds of corn to fill one SUV (that would feed one person for a year) and takes 1700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol which also adds a corrosion element into the equation. On top of all this, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested & shipped using as much fossil fuels as the process produces. (Unconfirmed) With the ethanol producers consuming a large amount of the corn crop, what do you think this has done to the food supplies as well as the price of many of our foods?

Withh the emergence of the economies of China and India the world knew the demand for oil was going to exceed the supply so basic economics tell us the price goes up. What has the President or Congress done to affect this foreseen problem? US oil companies are very small in their industry. They must buy 90% of the crude they refine from foreign companies or governments, usually hostile. It is estimated the US sitting on some of the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world and yet the federal government will not allow US oil companies to tap into these natural resources for “environmental” reasons. If they were able they could be a much larger player in the market and actually influence price.

The largest reserves are in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR is roughly 19 million acres and it would take approximately 2,000 acres to drill for this oil & natural gas. The portion of ANWR where they want to drill is in the Coastal Plains region on the northern part of the refuge. The “environment” in the area is tundra, a virtual vast wasteland.

It has been said that it will take years for ANWR’s oil to make a difference in the price at the price but that the effect would almost be immediate. The price of oil is not determined by supply and demand of the oil but for the demand of oil futures. So as soon as the US government allows oil companies to drill in currently prohibited areas the speculators would change the price the price of the oil. The problem is that speculators are a small part of the market so their affect is minimal.

We are told we need to develope "alternative" energy sources yet the alternatives are blocked from being developed. France derives 75% of its electrical energy from nuclear energy. Over decades of improvements have made this form of energy safe yet, once again, many in Congress block any new nuclear power plants from being built. When a wind farm was proposed on the windy island of Cape Cod, Senator Edward Kennedy effectively blocked the project to protect the view from his Nantucket home.

The President as well as Republican nominee John McCain proposed drilling while the Democrats are blocking all efforts as well as other sources of energy. I can only speculate the Democrats reasoning and that I will. First, I believe they are puppets to the environmentalist lobbyists. They are paying off a debt, plain and simple. Second, these are just political issues they can use to make the President look bad. Just keep the American public complaining so they will elect a President from their party. Third, I believe this goes to the overall desire to get the US off a dependency for fossil fuels. An artificial high price for gasoline is the only way Americans will change their habits and reduce their dependency on oil. This may be a national security issue, it may be a future economy issue or it may be ozone issue… It all goes back to the Global Warming debate and today’s America is paying for future generations.

I will address the candidate’s plans for energy in future posts.