The Media
http://www.guardian.co.uk…6444438,00.html
This article says the following:
-In his Senate race, he wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than his liberal opponent, Edward M. Kennedy. Now he emphasizes his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.
Why does the media keep repeating this lie about Romney? When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Click here for a link to a 2002 article that explains this.
There is no change. Why is it that the media attacks Romney over non existing flip-flops, but does not attack Hillary?
It often seems that journalist would rather cause problems, than fix them. They don’t even try to give an accurate portraits of what Romney believes. But this is not new. Journalist tend to over simplify things. Else why do they summarize the president’s speech, when you can read the whole thing online? Why do they have to put it into their own words? Ego? Agenda? Or do they need to explain it to us?
Edward R. Murrow said; “The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one.” I actually disagree with this. I think it is obvious when you have crossed the line into persecution. When you don’t follow journalistic standards. When you don’t treat all the candidates the same. When you oversimplify someone’s position, when you misrepresent someone’s position… these are all examples of persecution. AKA: Drive-by media.
Thomas Jefferson said; “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” This is, of course, an exaggeration, but what would motivate TJ to say this? Newspapers are motivated by selling adds. Controversy sells papers, and therefore, adds. Newspapers promote controversy (just like Eminem). But it is more than just saying, journalist will have more stories to write about if there is more conflict is in the world. Ads are sold by conflict, but they are also sold by reassuring the reader what they already believe. Thus newspapers in liberal areas tend to attack conservatives, and newspapers in Red States tend to attack liberals. But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Did the liberal newspapers cause liberals to become liberal, or does the newspaper follow the liberals? Those familiar with the bible will be familiar with the term “itching ears”. Or those who speak what their audience wants to hear.
Others have observed that the media likes to start fights. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) has said; “All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.”
So the newspapers will not help us figure out who we need in 2008. They will never sit down and do a thorough analysis of both sides of each issue. They will just miss-quote and misrepresent each side just enough to keep both sides angry. So what are we to do? We should go around them. We should sit down and figure out for ourselves.
Is Mitt Romney a flip-flopper? In the next two years, you will never see the media try to figure this out. You will just hear them use whatever names they can get to stick. So lets figure it out ourselves. Please help me compile all the reasons to agree or disagree that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper. I will, unlike the media, present both sides.
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/flip-flop
I look forward to your comments, and will add whatever reasons you tell me to add. I won’t silence you, by ignoring your logic (like the media).
~ Mike
February 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
because boys and girls, “Can you say liberal media bias! Sure you can.” Just another wonderful day in the neighborhood of Hypocrisy.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
The article is talking about his 1994 senate race where he did in fact state that he would be a more effective advocate for “gay rights” than Kennedy. If I recall correctly, this came up a couple of months ago when a group called the “Log Cabin Republicans” released a ‘94 memo from Romney stating such.
However, the MSM is misleading the public by giving the impression that Romney’s commitment to “gay rights” included the right for gays to marry. Romney has always been against gay marriage, and recently has been a very effective traditional marriage advocate in Massachusetts. His record is consistent on that.
If I recall, Romney’s focus in 1994 was on employment rights for gays, though I think he has since moved somewhat to the right on this issue.
You won’t find a gay hater in Mitt Romney. He’s willing to extend them the freedom to choose their own lifestyle without undue persecution, yet he’s not about to start extending them bogus rights that don’t exist. If you’re the kind of person who demands gay marriage, and the issue is your top priority, you won’t like Mitt Romney.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Rush had a great commentary on what the Drive-by Media is doing to Romney. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022607/content/01125105.guest.html
February 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Mitt Romney should be elected because he IS a “Mormon” The only advice givern to members is that they vote for men with good principles no matter their party.
The principle of free agency is a major teaching. The churdh is recognised world wide for its welfare programs. “Mormons” in political positions have been outstanding for their
contributions. Men like Benson, Secritary of Agriculture under Eisenhaur, Hatch and Bennett. They are admired for their contributions. Open your eyes, Media, and quit nit picking. Give some credit where credit is due. Any one with as much as an ant brain knows where Romney stands on issues.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Being “Mormon” doesn’t necessarily define ones standing on issues. Compare Senator Harry Reid with Governor Romney to see what I mean.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Nate: I totally agree. Although I would like to see Mike Wallace interview both MR and HR in the same room! I would pay big money to see that interview or debate and watch Reid stumble and stammer.