22 May 2009

O Mighty Mainstream Media! Tell us What to Feel!

It is no great revelation to note that the mainstream media is, just slightly of course, shall we say, tilted in favor of the Great Obama. But this headline in the Post today is an absolute classic:

President, past divide on terror


Anonymous said...

It's not just the mainstream media that is open to working with Obama...

"Good reviews: Vatican newspaper sees Obama's start in positive light"

From CNS: "The newspaper [L'Osservatore Romano] enjoys a degree of editorial independence, especially under its new editor, Giovanni Maria Vian, so its opinions cannot be read as formal Vatican policy statements. But it describes itself as "at the service of the thinking of the pope" and in practice works closely with the Vatican Secretariat of State. If its myriad front-page articles on Obama were going in the wrong direction, one can be sure that the editors would feel a swift tug on the reins."

Here's a link to the rest of the CNS news brief: http://ow.ly/8xF7

Anonymous said...

It is funny trying to figure out who the "mainstream media" is? Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Rush, and all the other TV and radio pundits have more viewership and listeners than most the rest combined, at least in the Midwest.

Re the use of terror. Why couldn't any reporter have asked either of these guys this one question: "How would America have responded had Iran waterboarded Roxanna Saberi 56 times while they claimed she was a spy?"

For those of us Catholics who believe that there is an absolute moral law, it is totally incomprehensible to dive into moral relativism and say "it is okay if America uses torture, but not okay if any other country on the planet uses it."

MP said...


The viewership of the network news television is still much greater than any conservative commentary shows. The NEWS is not supposed to be BIASED. People naively still think what they see is FACT. O'Reilly and Hannity are commentators and we know these are their opinions. That is the huge difference between the main stream media and commentators.

Dick Cheney has repeatedly asked for memos to be released that mention what was gained by water boarding three of the most dangerous terrorists. Lives of Americans were saved, particularly in the West Coast.

Our OWN special forces are water boarded as part of their training, which nobody calls torture, because there was no intent to harm them. These three men who had information on the next terror strike on America were interrogated to retrieve information, not to inflict permanent harm on them.

If you want to see the results of real torture, just look at John McCain. He was beaten and hung from his arms by the Vietamese so badly that he can't even lift his arms and typing on the computer is painful.

X said...

MP that is one sick twisted post. It is also a very stupid post. McCain clearly stated in the Republican debates that waterboarding was torture and that it violated the Geneva convention and should not be used, ever. In contrast, draft dodging cowards like Cheney and Limbaugh are all for it. It's that old lie, they do evil that good may come of it. The truth is they do evil because they are evil. Your logic is on a par with Catholics for a Free Choice. Maybe you can get a bumper sticker that says "Catholics for Torture." And they will know we are Christians by our love.

Latinmassgirl said...


Do think that we would torture our OWN special forces troops, who we DO waterboard during their training? It is a fact. We don't train our troops with invitations to tea at Club G'itmo.

If you want to read about what waterboarding is, and why it is NOT defined as torture, under Article 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty, Read:

I'm sure you won't read it, as it doesn't go with the Kool-aid you've been drinking.

Anonymous said...

Really? You think that Hannity and O'Reilly are commentators? You think that a former Hollywood gossips specialist and a former pro-wrestling announcer are commentators? Now I think that they might more accurately be categorized as opportunists who would say whatever is controversial in order to satisfy their viewers. Their opinion is no better than the couterman as the local Starbucks. In fact, from the few times that I have seen either one of them, I can barely follow their conspiracy based drivel. And they live in New York City, so I know that they don't believe much of what they put out there for the consumption of the "yahoos" in the rest of the country. They are laughing at most of their viewers all the way to their big homes out on Long Island.