Media bias: another article about children in poverty makes absolutely no mention of their father

The Guardian recently published this article about a single mother who is having financial troubles as she tries to raise her two children on the salary that she gets from working at a fast food restaurant.

As is always the case with articles like this, the article makes absolutely no mention of the children’s father. (I have written about this media irresponsibility before – see here and here.)

In this particular case, the article refers to the woman as “a single mother of two.”

“At the top of America, when it comes to Trump and them, their goal is to keep us down. Between these billion-dollar companies and Trump, it’s a power trip.”

If Trump is in fact the father of her children, then yes, it is Trump’s fault that she is having so much financial trouble.

The article also talks about how the woman is part of the movement to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

But in the real world, even liberals themselves do not want to pay fast food workers $15 an hour.

In December 2013, I made this blog post, which is titled “I dare liberals to buy a McDonald’s franchise, and pay the workers $15 an hour.”

More than three years later, I followed it up with this blog post, which is titled, “Hypocrite liberals have rejected my challenge for them to buy a McDonald’s franchise and pay the workers $15 an hour.”

I also made this other blog post, which is titled, “In the real world, no liberal has ever bought a McDonald’s franchise and paid the workers $15 an hour.”

So even liberals themselves are not willing to pay McDonald’s workers $15 an hour.

Let’s consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.

(My source for that information is this article, which refers to this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.)

Finally, here is a seven minute video with information that liberals never talk about. In my opinion, every middle school and high school in the U.S. should show this to all of their students, repeatedly, every year.

Fast food restaurants are entry level jobs. They are intended to be a person’s first job, and those who hold them are considered to be people getting an education or bettering themselves so they can move on to higher paying jobs.

It’s not our problem that someone gets themselves in trouble, then has to take on a job like this out of desperation.

The owner of the work place has no obligation to take care of this woman. Society doesn’t either.

Causing employers to kill jobs, is not the solution. Women like this and the ass hat clowns that push their agenda, are killing jobs.

Screw that noise. Tell them to go pound sand.

So you found a convenient omission in the Legacy Media.
They are not the only ones who conveniently omit things...

According to your Wiki user profile page, linked here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Grundle2600&oldid=353969441#My_user_name

You favor legal RECREATIONAL drug use.

You support “Same Sex Marriage.”

You are “Pro Choice” (meaning you support legalized abortion.)

You support UNIVERSAL health care.

You support (the lunatic) Ron Paul.

(And you proudly state that you voted for Gary Johnson.)

You are totally opposed to the Death Penalty.

(Although you don’t have a problem with legal abortion.)

So why are you posting on FreeRepublic, a site that is opposed in principle to so much that you support?

In The New Yorker magazine, profiles of urban girls/women in the NYC’s welfare system typically note, “Kayla got pregnant with her first child when she was fifteen.” Fifty percent of the time, the article will mention the baby's father, then describe how and why he drifted out of the picture; fifty percent of the time, there's no mention of the baby's father at all. After the first baby is born, it's as of every subsequent pregnancy is caused by an air-born virus. You'll be reading the article, reading about how Kayla was taking a job-training course, for example, and there will be a matter-of-fact note, “Two months after she turned seventeen, Julia gave birth to twins.” You , the reader, look up from the magazine and say — actually say, even if you are sitting alone in your apartment, drinking a Diet Coke - “Gave birth to twins? How the devil did that happen?”

So why are you [grundle] posting on FreeRepublic, a site that is opposed in principle to so much that you support?

Perhaps he observes the rules of the community, and doesn't go on rampages regarding the issues on which he differs.

Additionally, there are many fans of Ron Paul—and Rand Paul—on this site. Ron Paul is not a lunatic. That's merely your opinion.

Favoring legal recreational drug use shouldn't be anything controversial to someone who isn't a self-righteous Nanny- Stater, and who ostensibly believes in minimal government.

You are aware that alcohol is a drug, I presume? A recreational one? There are others, such as marijuana—a plant created by God, last time I checked—which, like alcohol, is also a recreational drug, and which is also now legal in many states.

Indeed, although traditionally legal, alcohol is the worst recreational drug on the face of the earth, inasmuch as it's a drug whose negative qualities—in the form of damage to health, violent assaults, murders, rapes, vehicular homicides, physical and psychological domestic abuse, etc.—far exceed those of all other drugs combined, both legal and illegal.

Parenthetically, anyone who claims to believe in minimal government while supporting the ever-expanding, bloated Police State necessary to enforce Contraband Law—along with the trampling of Constitutional Rights which invariably accompanies it—can hardly be considered a small-government "conservative", IMHO.

No-knock warrants, violation of privacy, searches conducted without probable cause, and asset forfeiture, for example, are but a few examples of the disregard for Constitutional Rights which routinely accrue due to the existence of such Tyrannical Law.

But I digress. On to the death penalty.

There are also many FReepers who oppose the death penalty—or at least have serious reservations about it—inasmuch as it has been erroneously applied to innocents, and is irrevocable. It's rather hard to Establish Justice for someone who has been wrongfully convicted in such a case. And such cases have occurred—many times, in fact. But even once should be sufficient to give any Christian pause.

As for health care, America has had de facto universal healthcare for many decades. Indeed, it would be an overt violation of the Hippocratic Oath for any doctor to refuse to render essential services to anyone who needed them. While nobody can technically force a doctor to provide health care services against his will, if withholding such services were to cause harm to the patient, that would constitute a violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors take.

Being a supporter of universal health care doesn't necessarily imply a desire to impose a Tyrannical, leviathan, bureaucratic top-down system of socialist rationing. Again, however, America has (for all intents and purposes) had universal healthcare for well over half a century—and until Obamacare, without the socialist Tyranny.

To summarize, simply because this FReeper doesn't agree 100% with your various dogmatic positions, shouldn't mean he isn't welcome here—as long as he abides by the site guidelines, and as long as he doesn't engage in gratuitous antagonism regarding the issues where he stands in the clear minority.

I've seen grundle around here on and off for the last 15 years or so, and don't ever recall him causing any significant problem. If you disagree with him on so many issues, perhaps—through the art of persuasion—he can be disabused of some of his more fallacious policy positions...

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.

Media bias: once again, a news article about a financially struggling single mother trying to raise her children makes absolutely no mention of their father