Monkeywrenching the political process

[unixronin]

With the popular vote in the just-past election so close, one could be forgiven for wondering how much the election may have been influenced by what amounts to an elaborate practical joke.

Of course, the article points out that the perpetrators observed that the news media could easily have exposed their hoax had they put the least effort into checking their facts.  But in this last election, by all appearances the media didn't WANT to check their facts, as long as the report involved something damaging to the McCain-Palin campaign.  Can you imagine the witch-hunt had Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish chosen Barack Obama as their target?  Ah, but wait, we don't have to imagine — we have the persecution of Joe the Plumber as an example.

When I consider how one-sided the reporting of this past election campaign was, and yet how close the popular vote was, I find it hard to avoid speculating that in this Presidential election, the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did.

Comments

[rbos.livejournal.com]

I'm personally pretty sure that the media covered Obama more because he was popular, than vice versa. Coverage begets coverage.

The fact is that whenever I listened to McCain and Palin talked, I got headaches from the stupid-rays, and when I heard Obama talk, I heard someone who was actually willing to work hard to fix some of the fuckheadedness we've been seeing lately.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

While there is some complaint about the amount of coverage, that's pretty easy to explain away by the contested democratic primary and the fact that Obama was The New Thing.

This isn't what people are complaining about. We had more in depth digging into Joe the Plumber during this 2 weeks on the scene than anyone bothered with about Obama. You can at least point out that the digging into Palin was justified by her being the VP candidate, but it's hard to figure why a similar effort into Obama wasn't in the works months ago.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It wasn't a question of the amount of coverage, it was the bias. Obama and Biden could do no wrong; McCain and Palin could do no right. Every mis-step McCain or Palin made was trumpeted to the rooftops, every action of theirs questioned, while Obama's mistakes were swept under the rug and ignored. The media crowed and cheered at this hoaxed report of Sarah Palin not knowing Africa was a continent; but they repeatedly overlooked the several occasions upon which Obama seemed unable to remember how many states the US has. (Apparently as many as 57. Does he have plans for Canada he hasn't told us about?) Any slam or smear against Sarah Palin was accepted as complete truth without any fact-checking; anyone who questioned the Messiah or threw doubt on His Holy Message got crucified. When a non-profit truthfully pointed out some of Obama's past associations, Obama's campaign said they ought to be thrown in jail, and the media smiled, nodded, and sighed in adoration of their hero. Meanwhile, questions to Sarah Palin in TV interviews were misquoted to make her answers look bad. It was the most one-sided coverage I've ever seen.

It remains to be seen whether any of Obama's campaign promises will turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. The talk about running a balanced budget via pay-as-you-go has already gone out the window, apparently because expecting him to be fiscally responsible would be "unfair", and his "support" of the Second Amendment seems to involve a whole bunch of new gun bans.

[rbos.livejournal.com]

Huh, I can see how the coverage could be seen as unfair. Yeah.

[msa.livejournal.com]

-snip-
"Let's remember that what you call a violent past, that was at a time that thousands of people were being murdered by our government every month, and those of us who fought to end that war were actually on the right side. So if we want to replay that history, I would reject the whole notion that demonizing me or the Weather Underground is relevant."

He also disputed whether the actions of the Weather Underground could be considered terrorism: "In trying to end [the war], we did cross lines of propriety, of legality, maybe even of common sense. But we never committed terror."


Ayers also remained unapologetic for his actions during that time.

"I've been quoted again and again as saying, 'I don't regret it,' and saying, 'I don't think we did enough.' And I don't think we did enough," Ayers said. "Just as today I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars and I think we must all recognize the injustice of it and do more."
-snip-
-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-bill-ayers-good-morning-america,0,6403435.story

Just remember kids, domestic terrorism is *OK* if your side wins later or is more 'right.'

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

We must kill people, to stop people from killing people. It's a moral imperative!

[msa.livejournal.com]

I don't think they killed anyone besides themselves per se -- they warned the target ahead of time, but that said, my brain is still trying to wrap itself around that rationalization.

Somehow, I can't quite understand how bombing the Haymarket statue (twice), the Capitol, the Pentagon, the State Department, various courthouses, and committing arson directed at a state supreme court justice whose only offense was trying the Black Panthers for crimes they'd committed or were planning to commit, in order to achieve a political aim, is not terrorism.

And I just can't do it...as much as the word is overused now, those actions, for political gain, are clearly terrorism. In their own country. And we let these people -teach-?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I can't argue with any of that. But yeah, I'm reminded of this quote (http://www.babcom.com/alaric/quotations.html#bell).