Sunday, September 12, 2010

The So-Called Liberal Media

The above-the-fold tease on the Yahoo home age:
Record gains for US poverty with elections looming (AP)

AP - The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to th...


Who could possibly benefit from that framing?

Reading into the article further, all the reader gets is more negative trend information wrapped up with the typical non-analysis of today's mainstream media [emphasis aded]:

The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.

Democrats almost certainly will argue
that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.


They say... vs they argue. Awesome. And, seriously? "Rightly or wrongly?" It's not a question, not even rhetorically. Do your fucking jobs, you dicks. I'm glad Fox News gets to lie with impunity, while the rest of you have now assumed the mantle of "We (sort of, but not really) Report, You (are forced to) Decide."

1 comment:

Smitty said...

It's that "we report, you decide" thing that is the worse slogan of all. MSM is so lazy; all they do any more is report on what people said. Dude A says blue, Dude B says orange. The problem, as you know, is that lends all sorts of credibility to arguments that are false or erroneous or misleading.

It is not media bias to say "A says blue, B says orange, but clearly scientists show it's blue." But somehow, responsible, factual reporting has become a liability. So now, the fact that B says orange is just as credible as what A said, despite the fact "orange" is not based in truth.

And we wonder why so many people think Obama is a skeery mooslim??