![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
i know there is nothing funny
about al-qaeda. nevertheless i laughed out loud when i saw this headline: "Al Qaeda Condemns 'Unfair' Pro-Obama Press Bias".
wingnuts the world over agree, from faux news to al qaeda -- that makes me ponder whether the press didn't get it just right.
i don't want to get into a long rant about press bias, but i purposely stayed away from almost all right-wing reporting this year because i just cannot stomach the lack of intelligent conservative commentary anymore; what little there is drowns in vitriol and conspiracy chatter. and yet i was informed in detail about rezko, ayers, wright, raines, the "present" votes, the half-brother in poverty, the illegal immigrant aunt, "spread the wealth", "sex ed for kindergarteners", and even the ludicrous "lover in exile", and "fake" birth certificate. what exactly did the so-called liberal press miss there? IMO there was a lot more coverage of obama's shadier associations than of mccain's.
indeed, they reported more positive things about obama's campaign than about mccain's -- well, yeah, a campaign that's disciplined, well-run, successful, whipping up hope at rallies _is_ more positive than one that's disorganized, putting out a different message a week, and whipping up hatred at rallies. if it bleeds, it leads -- witness sarah palin who got a lot more coverage (and still does) than she deserved, in part because she is such a train wreck in motion which mysteriously inspires accolades from the right wing.
wingnuts the world over agree, from faux news to al qaeda -- that makes me ponder whether the press didn't get it just right.
i don't want to get into a long rant about press bias, but i purposely stayed away from almost all right-wing reporting this year because i just cannot stomach the lack of intelligent conservative commentary anymore; what little there is drowns in vitriol and conspiracy chatter. and yet i was informed in detail about rezko, ayers, wright, raines, the "present" votes, the half-brother in poverty, the illegal immigrant aunt, "spread the wealth", "sex ed for kindergarteners", and even the ludicrous "lover in exile", and "fake" birth certificate. what exactly did the so-called liberal press miss there? IMO there was a lot more coverage of obama's shadier associations than of mccain's.
indeed, they reported more positive things about obama's campaign than about mccain's -- well, yeah, a campaign that's disciplined, well-run, successful, whipping up hope at rallies _is_ more positive than one that's disorganized, putting out a different message a week, and whipping up hatred at rallies. if it bleeds, it leads -- witness sarah palin who got a lot more coverage (and still does) than she deserved, in part because she is such a train wreck in motion which mysteriously inspires accolades from the right wing.