(Editor's comment: The following article was forwarded to RiteOn specifically by the author for our publication. We particularly appreciate the fact that we have been selected to display her work. The article suggests a perspective that we believe many share: The major media has unfortunately become a propaganda arm of the liberals who control the Democratic Party.
---------------------------
Our Propaganda Media
By EKG
Imagine the brouhaha that would have erupted had Haliburton made 3.2 billion dollars in profit and paid not a single dime in taxes. The response would have been Krakatauan. The talking heads and ink mongers' dudgeon would have been so high, the Russians would have had to install rubber bumpers on the space station. But since Jeffrey Imelt (CEO of GE) is one of the president's primary supporters, the media makes little of it. If they mention it, they remind us GE paid no taxes under George Bush either. Can anyone cite a single instance when the media pounded George W. Bush and then reminded the readers/listeners that Clinton did the same thing?
Of course, to Leftists, including the media, Haliburton's raison d'etre is to soil the world and make a profit while GE has nobler goals. Like producing solar panels and wind turbines that reduce our dependance on the filthy stuff that runs through Haliburton's veins. What they don't say is that wind turbines are acceptable in your back yard, but not off the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport. (Wind farms tend to spoil the sailing and wind surfing). To be informed the Kennedys are or were part of a lawsuit to prevent wind farms off the Massachusetts coast, you'd have to watch Fox News, listen to talk radio or haunt the Internet. But then you'd be corrupted by biased media, wouldn't you.
Speaking of oil. Where are the "no blood for oil" anti-war, protest crowd now that we're bombing Libya? If they're out there, where's the coverage? Three years ago, every screech, howl and poster keening about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was dutifully recorded, reported and repeated on the nightly news and above the fold in the national newspapers. So where's Cindy? Holed up in Pakistan or Iran with Osama bin Laden? We haven't heard anything about him in awhile either. When Bush was president, catching Al Qaeda's leader was paramount, but once Obama was elected, capturing him lost importance and Cindy's become invisible. Is he still out there? Is she? Or is the media just ignoring them?
America's bombing Libya supposedly was justified because Qaddafi was killing his own people. Like that's something new among despots. News Flash, New York Times, Alphabets and Washington Post! So was Saddam. Is the difference then not the despot doing the slaughteringbut rather the president in office? Media support of one but not the other? Wasn't that how it was when Clinton bombed Serbia? Isn't this the way media always functions in countries where media is a part of the government? Does our national media report the news, give us information, or has it merely become the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party?
Comments