Thursday, April 23, 2009

MSM Versus the Tea Parties

Excerpts from Mona Charen’s column “CNN Versus the Tea Parties” with my comments below the star line.

Cheren writes - - -

… Susan Roesgen, who "covered" the Chicago tea party for CNN, was downright confrontational with attendees she interviewed, challenging a protestor who referenced Abraham Lincoln with "What does this have to do with taxes?"

The man attempted to explain. But the reporter interrupted him. "Did you know that you are eligible for a $400 rebate? Did you know that your state, the state of Lincoln, gets $50 billion out of the stimulus? That's $50 billion for your state."

She then tossed back to the anchor noting that "This is really not family viewing."

What Ms. Roesgen and others like her do not understand is that some people are interested in more than their own narrow self-interest.

Perhaps the protestor she interviewed, who was holding his 2-year-old son, is eligible for a tax rebate. And perhaps his state will get a juicy piece of the stimulus money. It is possible, just possible, that such a bribe does not influence him.

Perhaps it doesn't buy his support because he is skeptical that his taxes can remain low when the federal government is embarked on a record-shattering spending spree. He may be offended by the bailout culture, and worried that the obligations of taxpayers cannot remain low when it seems that every irresponsible borrower, failed car company, and free spending state is being rescued by the federal government.

Additionally, he may be dubious that the government will spend the money wisely. It has been rumored that government spending has produced waste, fraud, inefficiency, and corruption.

But he also may simply believe that engorging the government and enfeebling the private sector -- no matter who is writing the checks -- is not good for the economic or spiritual health of the country.

Charen’s entire column’s here and well worth reading if you haven’t done that already.


My comments:

On Arp. 15 I was using a computer in a library in a small rural town to get some Net work done. Over the course of about twenty minutes a dozen or so people came in and greeted one another. They were meeting to car pool and caravan to a tea party in a nearby city.

They were chatty as they waited for other folks so, as you’d expect, the librarian, who knew them all, gave them a few friendly “ssshs.” On their own accord and with smiles to the librarian, they moved outside to wait for their fellow protesters.

I decided that was a good time to stretch and get some fresh air while asking the people why they were protesting. So I went outside and told them I'd like to hear why they were protesting. They were happy to explain.

The reasons that group of protesters gave match up with the reasons Charen suggests in her column. Their reasons also match up with what other people I know who attended tea parties say motivated them.

Yet most of the MSM tea party coverage I’ve read and heard described the protesters in snarky or worse terms as “Republicans” or “conservatives” opposed to President Obama.

Reading both left and right oriented blogs this past week helped confirm my believe most of MSM got the tea party story wrong.

The way most news orgs reported the tea parties (or in many cases underreported them) told us more about news orgs’ liberal and leftist biases then it did the protesters and what motivated them to go to the parties.

Whatever motivated them, protesters at the library and others I know who want to tea parties are people who bring to mind the phrase "salt of the earth."

Hat tip:


Anonymous said...

This person is not a reporter -- she is a political operative. She may not even know this, but on some level, she was selected for her left-wing views – and she is in an environment where these are only encouraged. She has a very clear track record by now.

Large portions of the media have been compromised and become corrupt and act as full-time producers of paid political advertising, only in disguise. This is what is known as propaganda. Selective reporting of stories, gross distortion, spinning opposition protests, and on and on...

Beyond even this, lots of people no longer take in and process news; they absorb opinions from celebrities and others. This is an even more effective way to influence large numbers of people, so you see the same sort of corrupt dealings in this arena.

The federal government is the largest source of revenue for most colleges and universities and, here too, political operatives control the purse strings. With our money (either taxes, debt, or through inflation), agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Institute of the Arts, and others create a very uneven playing field that results in things such as Duke's infamous "Gang of 88".

All of these things manifest the simple truth – power corrupts. Our federal government is far too large and exerts far more influence in each of our lives than the founding fathers even began to imagine. The left is bent on the destruction of our society and the right is rendered silent because they can’t risk exposing their own dirty laundry.

We really need a substantive civic discourse where the failure of the press is plainly brought to light for all to see. The “third estate” was supposed to act as an external check, bringing to light failures in government. This is why the failure of the press is such a huge issue.