Posted by
realetybytes on Monday, August 18, 2008 8:23:00 PM
Deborah Howell is the ombudsman at the Washington Post, and she had an illuminating article on the imbalance in the coverage of the candidates in her own paper. I find that while it was an honest evaluation and admission of a slant in articles in general, I take offense personally at what is conspicuous in its absence. I dropped her a line to tell her so, at ombudsman@washpost.com.
Ms. Howell, while I commend you on your research and all the information about the imbalance, I am still amazed that you miss the depths of our disgust with a so-called" investigative media", that can let someone with the past Mr. Obama has, go untouched by the slightest questioning about his basic judgement. I address only one, (because it is deeply personal to me), of the issues that the media has failed to properly investigate, or demand of him real answers. I was especially amused at Mr. Hamiltons defense, the standard, "first time African American president and party unity" line to justify more coverage on Obama. I would think if they really investigate this man, and ask real questions, there would be a LOT more coverage.
I can almost see the disdain on the face of Mr. Hamilton (assistant managing editor for politics), as he spoke of McCains "raising money". I guess the role of the news media to give us, the public, a glimpse of the candidates before different organizations, so we can see if and to whom they are pandering, is no longer worthy of his time. Not to mention that the news media never mentions anything but the most glowing facets of Mr. Obama. His being black. Cool. I'd prefer JC Watts, or Michael Steel, Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas, but yeah, cool.
What about how he went to a man that tried to kill my father when he wanted support as a "community organizer". Why is their no " historical significance" in the fact that the man who wants to be president is closely associated with an admitted terrorist, a terrorist that is sorry he didn't do more in his war with America, (as stated recently), but it seems, IS responsible for Obama. (Is Obama part of this terrorists hateful plan to destroy America? Probably not, but does anyone believe that, while as he said, Obama may have been 8 when the terrorist was openly at war with this country, he wasn't 8 when he knocked on the terrorists door years later and asked him for help. If he knew who he went too, he does not deserve to be this countries President, and if he did not know to whom he went, he is too stupid to be the President).
The terrorist support got Obama where he is today.
Have we had so many Presidents supported openly by terrorists, accepting money from terrorist fundraisers, that it is not considered newsworthy? Not one investigative story of "The Early Years, How A Terrorist At War With The United States, Started Me On My Path To The White House, And What I Owe His Movement". It would seem there would be SOME curiosity, but no.
I'm sure if John McCain were in the same poition, we wouldn't hear about that in the media, either.
This Mr. Hamiltons' elitist, so shallow view of Obama misses the real signifigance of whether this candidate, who seems to struggle internally to say something good about this country without adding, "BUT", who has been immersed in radical thought and friends all his adult life, has the "historical judgement" to be President Of The United States, his, "color and party unity" talents be damned!