Posted on 07/23/2012 7:27:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
I try not to spend too much time complaining about media bias, mostly because it doesn’t do any good.
But I have had a couple of posts about the topic, usually when there’s a hopelessly outrageous example on an issue I care about.
I’ve also had a few posts where I hit the media for mistakes that probably don’t represent overt bias, but instead reflect no knowledge of economics and/or a cloistered worldview.
Now we can add another example to the list. But it definitely belongs in the first group, because this is clear, blatant, and deliberate bias. I’m talking, of course, about ABC News and its reprehensible decision to smear a member of the Tea Party simply because he had the same name as the Colorado killer.
The obvious question to ask is why the reporter who did the smear, Brian Ross, hasn’t been fired. But not just Brian Ross. The axe should fall on anyone involved in the ideologically biased and legally reckless decision to speculate that a 52-year old Hispanic Tea Party member was responsible for the Colorado shooting
Here’s a good cartoon from the Hope-n-Change website, which has an amusing collection of anti-Obama cartoons. This does capture the mentality of the establishment media.
P.S. Here’s another cartoon about media bias that is definitely worth sharing.
P.P.S. I get irked whenever anybody refers to the big networks and newspapers as the “mainstream press.” That’s a horribly misguided term, considering how far left they are. The Tea Party is much closer to the mainstream than those clowns. That’s why they should be called the “establishment press.”
Why hasn’t he been fired?
Because, according to the Left, he’s “on the right side of history.”
Because he did right by ABC.
Careful....
Don Imus,Jimmy the Greek,and Hank Williams Jr. wonder about that,too.....
Ross ain’t the one, or the only one...
ABC should be fired.
Because when he spews BS, rumors, and made-up nonsense it's a good thing.
What makes it a good thing is that he's advancing the suicidal agenda of the elites.
The new media and the blogosphere, on the other hand, is not pushing the state-owned media agenda, and - therefore - is a bad thing.
long ago
It may be less a matter of offense than a concern that it is somehow libelous. Do you think the mods should weigh in on this or am I out of bounds by suggesting this?
It’s been clearly established that parody is protected as free speech, and your creation is clearly parody (that Ross invited upon himself by his own flagrant actions).
My guess is, you’re OK from a legal standpoint, although I’m not a lawyer so FWIW.
Taste is a different question altogether. :-) Doesn’t bother me personally though.
The graphic CLEARLY is not libelous, just read it. It's the seriousness of the charge, not the actual situation.
Did you read what is in the little box on the left side from you, or did you miss that?
I don’t have any problems with it. Just asking.
I saw it. I was just speculating on why the other poster suggested to be careful.
Under the Rather Rules of Journalism, he should be promoted, not fired.
He hasn’t been fired because they agree with his initial statement and believe it whole heartedly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.