TheHeretic
Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007 From: California, USA Status: offline
|
On another thread, I had mentioned the media reports of the Obama/Clinton press conference changing the President's mention of a "Christmas" party to a "holiday" party. I didn't want to hijack too far there, and that's just one example of a bigger issue, anyway. When we talk about bias in the media, the conversation seems to hang at the level of Faux News vs. PMSNBC, and how overtly partisan filters alter what makes it out to the consumers of their respective products. What about the other filters though? The filter of adhering to PC editorial guidelines as mentioned, or the first line filter of how the reporter on the ground assumes the world works? Wikileaks and the DADT policy have both been big topics of discussion in the media recently, yet one flashing neon bridge between the stories is getting left out. New York Times, August 2010 PFC Bradley Manning isn't just a treasonous punk who betrayed his country and his oath, he is also a gay soldier, serving under the DADT system. Whether it is a fair talking point or not, is certainly a good sub-topic, but I'm more interested in why the media is so unwilling to connect such obvious dots at all. There are ratings to be had, dammit, and hours of material for the 24/7 talking heads who have to have something to talk about. One notorious conservative pundit has brought it up, but the story seems to have gone right back under the radar again. Why do you think the media has decided this aspect of the stories is taboo?
_____________________________
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced. That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.
|