Before you "criticize" me for lumping all of the media together (see recent comment), yu have to understand my Sodom and Gomorrah search (I still blame Him for punishing me for being an agnostic with that assignment) for ann honest, competent Associated Press "reporter". As readers of ths blg know, that DECADE long "search" proved futile, as no such creature exists. However, if that search--DOCUMENTED in his blog over a decade--proved anything, beyond the fact that eVERY modern "journalist" is dishonest and incompetent, it is that the "mainstream media" in this country bascially has the SAME AGENDA. There may be slight variances from time to time, and even what Rush Limbaugh correctly calls "random acts of journalism", but a media "storyline" ALWAYS develops. Lately, this blog has been focusing on CNN, with the same "resuls". I mention the AP and CNN, because tother I think they saand in pretty well for tghe media as a whole.
What about the unfair and unbalanced network, or what I call "CNN light"? Yes, I think you can say that the OPININ on the unfair and unbalanced network has an ANTI-OBAAM tone (not nearly as pronounced as the PRO-OBAMA slant of the rest of the media, once yu get awya from Hannity, Huckabee and the obvious "conservatives"0. However, again, this blog has DOCUMENTED that the "journalism" on the unfair and unbalanced network is pretty much indistinguishable from the rest of the media. Often, it is the SAME people. For examle, this blog once did an article on John Roberrts, who used to be at CNN, exposing him for his AGENDA 9perhaps, of course, incfluenced SLIGHTLY by CNN, but still evident after he moved to teh unfair and unablanced network). Limbaugh regulary uses montages were all of these people use the SAME WORDS. John Robers, of course, moved--fairly recently--to a MAJOR "news" post with the unfair and unbalanced network. And that netwrok usualy picks up on those sAME WORDS that Limbuagh highlights. The most lyou can say is that t the unfair and unbalanced network has an "establishment GOP" point of view. Reaers of this blog know that I cannot really distignguish the estabishment GOP from Obama, other than att the margins: where the establishment GOP thinks that they can MANAGE the economy better than Obama can, and in a more pro-business manner. But it is no accident that BUSH appointed Bailout Ben Bernanke, or that I DISOWNED Prfesdient Bush in 2006 (after NEVER regarding him as a "conservativ ve").
No, the "recognized" media (not including the internet, where I am a part of the "media, and not including talk radio) is pretty much monoolithic. But CAREFUlL readers of this blog know that my main point is not that the media all have the SAME agenda. My main point is that ALL present "journalists" have the attitude that Michel Crichton "exposed" in his nnovel, "Airframe": They ALL are UNINTERESTED IN FACTS. They are ONLY interested in AGENDA (what they perceive as the "storyline") . They don't feel that the modern person WANTS FACTS. Taht is ging "in the weeds'> . That is why the modern media (yes, ALL of them) attitude toward "fairness" is that you have people uon what the MEDIA perceives as the "sides" ARGUING. For today's media, it is ALL aobut OPINION--even in supposed "news" stories. .It is all about "point of view": the STORYLINE. I cal it the "Howard Cosell School of Journalism", because that is the way Cosell reported SPORTS. Indeed, Monday Night Football--the original show--represents what the supposed "news' media has become. Therefore, the media agenda may not always be entriely the SAME, but the AGENDA always exists. When I say that the modern "media' is all about agenda, that is what I mean. CAREFUL readers of this blog know that, because I have told lyou that over and over again. The Wall Street Journal EDITORIAL page, for example, has a generally "economic fascist" agenda--NOT a "free market" agenda. But--at least as of the 198s, when I quit reading for this very reason, the "jounalist" part of the Wall Street Journal ha susually had a MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM agenda indistinguishable from CNN. That is now asicallly ture of the unfair and unbalanced network, althouygh taht network will SOMETIMES cover sstoreis that the rest of the media simply will not cover (like Reverend Wright, or almsot anything negative about Obama or the left, unless it hits them in the face). That does not stop the unfair and unbalanced network from pickng up the same stories as CNN, with "news" stories with he sAME point of view as CNN. It jsut means that the unfair and unbalanced network will deviate from the leftist agenda by ADDING stories. The difference, of course, is that CNN will NOT pick up stories from the unfair and unbalanced network, UNLESS they fit the CNN agenda or jsut can't be ignored, while the unfair and unbalanced netwrok WILL (and almsot always does) pick up stories from CNN (or the same "journalists" from whom CN picks them up).
To summarize: I have shown that there is a remarkable consistency in the AGENDA of the mainstream media, even spilling over to the unfair and unbalanced network. However, my total CONTEMPT of modern "journalists" is not based on their "bias" (which "afflictgs" ALL human beings), but is based on their total DISINTERST in facts. There is simply no tsuch thing as "journalism" out there any more. It is ALL AGENDA> The agenda is not always the same, even though it usually is (over a remarkably broad spectrum of "journalists"). But there is ALWAYS an AGENDA> The modenrn "journslist" thinks a "point of view" is NECESSARY for an audience. ep. They have total CONTEMPT for YOU. And I have total contempt for THEM. You should, too. And, by the way, I have DOCUMENTED why over the entire time this blgo has been in existecence, mroe extensively than any other person.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). You should be able to see wy I no lnger worry about usng "mainstream media", or Sarah Palin's "lamestream media'. Sometimes--fairly often--I will use the "mainstream media' phrase, but mycontempt extends over the entire "recognized" medai. Too much of the "new media", of curse, is as bad--or worse. The internet allows peole to RESEARCH the facts, and figure them out (by reading between the lines, and ookng at varioius points of view, like this blog). But is there any SUBSTITUTE in the "new' media' for supposed "objective" "journalism", where people can be somewhat confident that the "journalists" are actually TRING to report the FACTS? I don't think such a place exists, if any such "journalism" ever existed. I will say that I grew up on the Huntley-Brinkley report, back when NBC "News" was a real "news' organization, instead of a partisan PAC. Even then, there was usually an "agenda" of sorts. But it was not so OBVIOUS. You got the feeling that there was SOME interest in acual facts and INFORMATION. Definitely not true anymore. This blog, by the way, obviusly has a point of view which (intentionaly) "hits you in t the face". However, this blog is actually more interested in the FACTS than any "journalist" I know of. I am willing ot ARGUE OPINION off of the ffacts as they actually exist. I know of NO source to find those facts, other than to look at multiple sources and read between the lines. The religious emphaiss that modern "jounalists" put on POLLS tells you al you need to know about those people. "Journalists" are what they are NOT, and I MEAN that statemetn to apply to them ALL.