Friday, September 21, 2012

A Joke and the Mainstream Media

A decidedly left-of-center political bias by the mainstream media is a well-known fact by nearly all Americans with the exception of those hyper-left partisans, and of course by the media itself who still cynically claim to be objective.   With that said, and in light of the disgustingly sycophantic coverage of Obama in this election cycle while portraying Romney as Beelzebub himself, I thought the following story was appropriate.  While the story is fictional, of course, and meant as a cynical joke, one almost wonders if it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that this is something that could theoretically be broadcasted on MS-NBC or printed in the New York Times to further denigrate those of us that refuse to kowtow to the progressive ideology.  



 A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage, and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back thus letting go of the girl.  The biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life."

The Harley rider replies, "Why, it was nothing really; the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”

The biker replies, “I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.”

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions and consequently reads on the front page:

"U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH"

...  and THAT pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

10 comments:

Annie said...

Brilliant and funny too :)

Vincent said...

Yes, I like this a lot. Viewing your hustings from the other side of the Atlantic, I've never been sure whether I'd vote GOP or democrat. On this side, in Old England, I'm dyed-in-the-wool Tory, i.e. Conservative, and find the Labour policies repulsive; but our party systems are not parallel or comparable.

T. Paine said...

Vincent, thanks for stopping by, sir. Yes, if I were to live on your side of the pond, I would definitely be a Tory, albeit I would likely be considered to be on the far right of the party even then.

Our progressive friends here would proclaim otherwise, but the window has shifted quite far to the left in American politics these days. The fact that the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate could be elected to the presidency with only two years in senatorial office and no accomplishments of distinction to his past credit speaks to the desperation and yet power of the left in this country. The policies put in place and the disgusting tendency for a huge percentage of Americans to look to government now to “solve” their problems speaks to the ascendancy of the leftist ideology. Of course, all of this is made possible by the willing accomplices in the mainstream media.

Several years back I saw a gentleman conducting interviews of journalism students in various colleges. He asked them why they were studying this field. Many of them responded with some version of the theme of how “they wanted to make a difference and change the world”. Funny, but I thought a journalist was supposed to simply report facts to the public in as objective a manner as possible. These kids don’t want to be journalists. They want to be editorialists, hence the current deplorable state of our American media.

John Myste said...

Vincent, can you give a small list of what Tory's stand for?

Mr. Paine,

Where do you place politifact and fact check? Are they legitimate in your conservative view or are they editorilists?

Where you do place FOX? Is it legitimate journalism or do they editorialize?

T. Paine said...

Mr. Myste, I generally place politifact as an objective source, although sometimes with more complex issues they make silly judgments on what is clearly meant to by hyperbole, which they take seriously. I have noticed a few glaring inaccuracies with fact check though.

As for Fox, I would say it depends on the program. The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity are very much editorial shows.

On the other hand, Fox News Sunday is probably one of the very best and most objective shows of its type out there. Chris Wallace does an exceptional job as host by asking tough and relevant questions of both conservative and liberal guests. Further, after years of watching, I still do not know what his personal political views are. THAT is what objective journalism should be!

Vincent said...

John, Tory is the nickname for a Conservative party politician or supporter. The Conservatives are a broad church, with left and right wings. They go back centuries, and are constantly reinventing themselves. So the list you request would be controversial, whoever provided it to you.

I would say that a typical Tory believes in "small government", respects tradition as a source of guidance, is cautious about progressive initiatives, believes in encouraging self-reliance, dislikes Britain's membership of the European Community.

However it's important to remember that in social provision (free health service, help to unemployed and elderly etc) the UK is to the left of the Democrats in the US; and the Conservatives have no policy to roll back any of that. Those on the tough-minded Right might want to, but it would make them unelectable.

I might add that the UK is considerably to the right of Scandinavian countries, whose citizens pay on average 50% of their earnings in tax; where gender equality is a fact, and child care is free. This seems to work for those countries, but any party trying to copy them in the UK would be unelectable also.

T. Paine said...

Vincent, what is your impression of the UK health care system, sir?

Is the quality of care and accessibility to necessary services good? I am curious since the United States seems to be rapidly "progressing" in that direction.

Vincent said...

I would say extremely good. The NHS is allegedly the third largest employer in the world, after the Indian Railways and the Chinese Army (or something like that, anyone can check) so it is obviously a nightmare ensuring that it gives optimum value for money.

My wife works in the Infection Control Dept of the local hospital, fighting superbugs (MRSA, C. diff etc) trying to make sure that your hospital visit doesn't put you in worse shape rather than better.

It's a very fair and generous system and the devil's own job to control the whole world taking advantage (illegal immigrants, health tourists).

But I have other objections to the NHS. Because ill-health is a burden on the taxpayer, the government is always nagging people to live healthy lives: give up smoking obviously, drink almost no alcohol, take lots of exercise, don't get fat, don't catch AIDS, don't be a junkie.

It strikes me though that some people want to live unhealthy lives because deep down they feel life is not worth living and they are not the kind of anti-heroes to jump off a high bridge, and it's hard to get hold of a gun without a licence just for the single bullet to one's own head.

So there they are trying to live as unhealthily as possible in order to die young or at least before they become demented, while all the time the doctors are desperately trying to improve the mortality rates by forcing them to take pills to lower their blood pressure & cholesterol.

So it's a kind of stalemate. Now if you had to pay for the health service, on a sliding scale according to your ability to pay, these people could indignantly refuse medical care and have their wish, and everyone would be, if not actually happy, a little less unhappy.

Another thing I observed one day was a survey which showed that depressed people live shorter lives. Therefore, said a doctoring spokesperson, we must give priority to forcing depressed people to take pills to make them live longer, despite the fact that the pills don't make them any happier, in fact the reverse, as another survey proved.

So you see, the NHS does not really care about happiness, only about forcing you to live longer, or whatever other statistic will prove incontrovertibly that the NHS is doing a damn good job and could do a better one if given more money.

Apart from my objections as stated, I am full of praise for the day-to-day job done by the NHS for people who really want to live till they get Alzheimer's disease, and for decades thereafter.

John Myste said...

Thanks, Vincent. That was very informative. Just an FYI, there is no equivalent to this kind of conservative in America, so far as I know.

You are well to the right of me and well to the left of Mr. Paine, and you would be called a moderate here, which is a catch all for those who are not left or right in America.

We have had moderates that were called liberals, such as Bill Clinton and moderates that were called conservatives, such the real Romney, prior to presidential campaigning. Even our moderates choose sides, though, because they must, or, as you say, they would be unelectable.

T. Paine said...

Vincent, your accounting of the NHS is interesting, if sometimes contradictory. I am still of the opinion that when something is offered for free or little cost, people will often abuse it as you suggested in the case of the NHS. Our version that we are hell bent on implementing here is a monstrous catastrophe in the making. There are strong disincentives to doctors and medical professionals that will reduce the supply of providers while increasing the number of those needing coverage. Simple supply and demand economics suggest that costs will go up while availability will go down, all the while, some of our religious freedoms as enshrined in our Bill of Rights will be violated as we all must pay for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives whether we agree or not with them. No offense meant, but I think we need to reform our health care system in a manner not reminiscent of your NHS, sir. If Romney and the GOP don’t win in 40 days, this will never come to pass though.

Mr. Myste is actually pretty accurate in his description of our conservatives, liberals, and moderates as it relates though.