Media Partisanship
February 16th, 2008Those in the news media are just like you and me. They may not have the same interests as you and me, and they may not have the same capabilities as you and me, and they may not have as much money as you and me… well, maybe they have as much money as you —maybe even more— but they certainly don’t have as much money as me. The point is they have their opinions, as you and I do, but when a journalist expresses his or her opinion it has a much greater and far-reaching effect than when you or I express our opinions. After all, our opinions don’t appear on the front page of a newspaper and our opinions are not expressed on the six o’clock news.
There’s a word for this, and that word is partisanship. In other words—and when you’re a candidate for the presidency of the United States you’re never at a loss for words, and if you are, and you’re as wealthy as I am, you can just hire someone to come up with more words—where the media should adopt a purely impartial, unbiased attitude in reporting the news and commenting on the various presidential candidates, instead it favors—sometimes subtly and sometimes blatantly—one candidate over another. Short of buying the newspaper or the radio or TV station and firing the offending individuals, which I could do if I wanted to, there’s not much that can be done about this practice.
If you just watch any of the numerous “talking head” shows on the tube you can’t help but notice that some journalists favor one candidate over another. Sometimes this is evident by what they say. Other times it’s evident by their reaction or the expression on their faces. A sneer, or a rolling of the eyes, or an unstifled laugh, or a guffaw, or a blurted out obscenity are dead give-aways of the personal preference of the talking head in question.
The good thing is that two can play this game. By that I mean that candidates for public office, specifically the presidency, can make known their personal preferences regarding any of these bozos on the endless list of talk-radio and talk-TV shows, and, for that matter, any of the pompous airheads writing for major publications. Think that’s hard to do? Not if you’re loaded, and brother… I am loaded. I’ve got more money that all these TV and radio stations and newspapers and magazines combined. I could go on TV 24 hours a day, seven days a week, sneering and rolling my eyes and laughing and letting loose with loud guffaws and generally cursing up a storm at the mere mention of the name of one commentator or writer or another.
This upcoming presidential election is too important to be decided by the press. There are too many important issues at hand—issues such as education, public health, job creation, fiscal responsibility, illegal handguns, affordable housing, poverty, the environment, and the arts, issue I have addressed in great detail—to have the press influence how members of the general public will cast their votes.
I say it’s high time for the voters in this great country of ours, this land of opportunity, to tell the bloviators of the press and the air waves that they’ve had enough. Each and every voter in the United States should feel free to go into the voting booth this fall and pull the lever next to the name of the wealthiest candidate running for president. After all, it’s what our founding fathers envisioned. It’s the American way.








