Elizabeth Crum

For all you online media and blog and journalism geeks, this is an interesting post.

It resonates with me because I always click source links, read the “About,” and check to see who is paying the bills before I assess the “objectivity” of something I read online.

Do you?

I got three LOLs and one verge-of-tears moment out of this video.  It’s a joke, but my love for my country, and my desire for truth and transparency in government, is not.  Watch, laugh, cry, and then decide what YOU can do about it.

It seems the New York Times decided to fill 2009’s quota for poignant, truthful reporting on the very first day of the year. Having published a surprisingly straightforward and touchingly personal account of the Cuban-American story, they can now return to their regularly scheduled brainwashing.

(The online piece is dated Dec. 31, but the article appeared in the NYT print edition yesterday.)

Far Right Democrat reminds us about George Orwell’s 1984ian government organization, the Ministry of Truth, and wonders how quickly KOS will do likewise in the way of rewriting history (i.e. change the official story) on mandated health care when Obama reverses himself and endorses it.

Of course, the modern day Ministry of Truth – the mainstream media – does this all the time.  As do nearly all politicians, especially during election cycles. 

Revisionist history:  it’s what’s for breakfast.

Duane Lester has a well-researched post on the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” up at All American Blogger.

Here’s an excerpt from his opening:

The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and lasted until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, the FCC issued a report. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communication, the report said the Doctrine was stifling debate:

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

The Democrat Congress, in the face of a report saying they might be violating the First Amendment, voted the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987. Reagan squashed it with a veto. Thus, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio was born.

[end excerpt]

Thank God for Reagan, ay?  Wtih NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT et al in the tank for the Dems and the hard left – 90% of the staff at these “mainstream” media orgs are registered Democrats and many are clearly unable or unwilling to hide their bias – conservative talk radio (and FNC) is really all we conservatives have for the airing of conservative/Republican platforms and ideas.

It is truly amazing that even with a multitude of network media and AM and FM radio channels, the Democratic leadership wants to force conservative talk radio to give equal airtime to liberal/left views.  Apparently they really cannot stand to let conservative broadcasters and citizens talk freely.

On a personal note, I listen to Laura Ingraham every morning on my drive to work.  If half her show had to be devoted to the voicing of liberal, leftist, George Soros and Bill Moyers type ranting, I wouldn’t listen.

For your information, here are the names of people who have either come out in favor of The Fairness Doctrone or have said they think conservative talk radio needs to be shut down:  John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Here’s some more unbiased journalism from the national press:

(The premis is a joke. Didn’t anyone see Obama’s eyes darken and veins swell during the debate? At one point I thought he was going to pop his jaw out of joint while waiting for McCain to finish. And what he lacks in temper-mental-ness, Michelle MORE than makes up for.)

(Plus: I kind of like McCain’s grumpy old man routine when he’s had his fill of the crap on The Hill. The man’s got some fire; so what?)

Hat Tip:  All American Blogger