Baron Banner Online » Palin

Media 101

victoria — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:49:42 +0000

by Misael Galdamez, Staff writer

Let\’s face it. We\’ve got a rather sticky situation on our hands. The mainstream media has downright given up on objective reporting. They\’d rather be brainwashing the masses and beat around the bush than put real effort into their reporting.But what is the mainstream media? Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a news columnist, defines the mainstream media is as “an unpopular place where the media is maligned by both ends of the political spectrum as biased, lazy, and agenda-driven. This reference invariably includes major newspapers and broadcast media.”

Let\’s take a current example: Barack Obama. Everyone, everywhere is enamored with Obama. Obama, Obama, Obama. His T-shirts are everywhere, his slogans are everywhere, yet no one seems to know why they back him. Most of his supporters believe and follow what the media tells them to, no questions asked.

The mainstream media has favored Obama since day one, even since the caucuses. MSNBC began nudging that, “Obama was the candidate for change,” though other more experienced democratic candidates had been campaigning for “change”. MSNBC reporter and Hardball host Chris Matthews stated while on air, that watching an Obama speech made, “thrills” run up his leg, regardless of the fact that his news program was meant to be objective.

After Obama had won the nomination, the issue of his pastor Jeremiah Wright surfaced. Wright had been known to preach anti-American rhetoric from the pulpit, including one particularly well-known remark: “Not God bless America, God D*mn America”. But did the media probe Obama on how he could have sat through 20 years worth of sermons from the same pastor without believing any of it? Instead of reporting, the media just brushed Rev. Wright under the mat. By the time the mainstream media reported on Wright\’s sermons, 42 out of 50 states had already voted in the primaries.*

Obama has also been known for his shady friends and acquaintances, like Tony Rezko and William Ayers. In the late 60\’s, Ayers was part of a radical organization that bombed federal buildings, including the Pentagon. Up until the last week, no one had questioned Obama\’s relationship with William Ayers and today\’s issue of The Washington Post went so far as to call Ayers “A former radical”.

But it doesn\’t stop there. What about Obama\’s sexist comment to a female reporter, saying, “Hold on sweetie. we\’ll hold a Press avail” in reference to her question about helping American auto workers? What about Obama referring to Palin as a “pig with lipstick”? What about a misinformed Obama who said that there was no Al-Quadea in Iraq pre-invasion?

What about his running mate, Joe Biden, telling the paraplegic governor of Missouri to “Stand Up Chuck”? What about Biden\’s remark that “Obama is not ready and the presidency doesn\’t lend itself on-the-job training”? The media trivializes Biden\’s “gaffes”, but not McCain\’s or Palin\’s. Why is this so?

Will the media ever cover these issues? Simply put, not likely because it doesn\’t fit into their new approach to journalism, or rather their “agenda”.

On the other hand, the media has been scrutinizing the Republican VP candidate, Sarah Palin. They have delved into her religion. They have dissected everything she has said. They have probed her “Bridge to nowhere” comment. They\’ve analyzed anything and everything to dig dirt on Palin. Why is this true about her and McCain but not about Biden and Obama? Could it be that they have a hidden agenda?

Could it be that the mainstream media has created a fantasy world based on rhetoric, devoid of any objectivity? Perhaps they would rather settle for “thrills” running up their legs than put some real effort into quality journalism.

*According to a report published by the Media Research Center in August 2008

This is from the Baron Banner Blogs, and not edited by the Baron Banner staff.

A Spin on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: Debate

amanda — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:04:55 +0000

By: Kim Ngai, News Editor

First Presidential Debate Fails to Change Many Minds

The key turning points and cautiously awaited rise in poll numbers never took place during the first presidential debate on Friday, September 26.

No candidate came out of the debate with a clear win, although Obama did seem to finish with the same lead he claimed before the debate started. You should look at two things to identify the winner of a debate: style and substance.

Obama had two audiences when he was speaking- the moderator and the viewers. It gave the viewers a more personal feeling, unlike the tone they got from John McCain, who seemed to have a conversation with the moderator. I\’m not planning on a psychology major, but I contribute Obama\’s almost constant lead in the polls to his ability to “seem” to be able to relate with the public- a quality which is sought after in every president.

While Obama “won” for his tone, neither he nor McCain\’s answers and rebuttals seemed to contain much substance. They discussed our nation\’s dire financial state in extremely general terms. What was most surprising was that both decided they wouldn\’t change much- if anything- in their presidential agenda to correspond with our economic crisis. The moderator appeared more concerned with the failure of financial institutions than the candidates were.

One obvious difference between the candidates, however, was the level on which McCain and Obama gauged each other on. Obama replied that McCain was correct on several instances, while McCain never directly responded to Obama with a positive remark. While many Americans will see this as congeniality on Obama\’s part, some will most likely be swayed by the negative ads coming from the McCain Camp on Obama\’s “indecisiveness.”

While this first presidential debate did have some key moments, it was, for the most part, a restatement of their past principles in a more aggressive tone. I didn\’t see or learn anything from the candidates that I wasn\’t aware of before.

All eyes will be centered on the vice-presidential debate which will take place on October 2. Palin\’s last clash with the media took place in Katie Couric\’s interview, when bloggers, pundits, and journalists alike confirmed the obvious- that Palin is definitely not fit for the presidency. I can\’t wait to see an inexperienced governor of Alaska argue with the most experienced candidate within the federal government. I know an epic failure when I see one.

A Spin on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: Palin

amanda — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:38:32 +0000

photo credit: Fox News

By Kim Ngai, News Editor

For the first time since she was announced to be Senator John McCain\’s running mate, Sarah Palin wasn\’t the topic of the day on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. She didn\’t make headlines on the LA Times, and she wasn\’t the subject of any major political pundits\’ broadcasts on CNN.

Sarah Palin was a sensation when she was picked. She was different— a hunter, a former beauty queen and varsity high school basketball player. She was from Alaska. And if that was the “change” the GOP was looking for, they got it.

They got everything by nominating Governor Palin except for experience—the very same thing they have been hounding Obama on for the past year. Her foreign policy experience is that the fact that Alaska is neighbors with Russia.

Well, I\’m pretty sure that Obama took a geography course once, too and learned that Alaska was next to Russia. And perhaps it would only be fair to add that since she\’s governor, she\’s also in charge of the National Guard. So is Arnold Schwarzenegger, my dear. And when was the last time you heard him talking about the last thing he did with California\’s National Guard?

I have to admit that Sarah Palin is interesting—but for all the wrong reasons. Never have I seen someone who so strongly believes global warming is a climactic cycle that will end when Mother Nature wills it. Never have I seen someone who so strongly advocated Georgia being involved with NATO. She says war is hell, but by accepting Georgia into NATO, she would only be promoting it by taunting Russia.

Someone who inherits an almost debt-free state and leaves it owing 13 million is definitely someone who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, the highest position in the United States of America.

Palin also attempted to comment on our economic crisis. And it was a failure at best. She claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” However, Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analyst, added that her remarks were “…somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was no public funding there [ in Fannie and Freddie]. Even today they haven’t drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury.”

The Sarah Palin excitement has finally died down. Unlike the unfathomable reasons for why John McCain would pick such an inexperienced individual to lead our nation, there was a large reason why Palin was on headline news. She was interesting because she hunted moose and has a teenage daughter pregnant out of wedlock.

We let her personal life influence our own judgments. Republicans blamed Obama for hosting a celebrity show, but there\’s nothing different than the Palin was being presented. It\’s about time both parties focus on the real issues.