You are easily confused LOMS. Sorry to hear that. It's really not that complicated.
1. Point 1-Media bias exists everywhere (including the MSM), not just with "right-wing" media. So I agree that all of us can be influenced in some way by what we read, listen to, or view on television. The difference is how we form our own objective thoughts and opinions based upon those influences.
2. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush and others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Again, if that's hard for you to grasp, I will repeat it. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush or others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Do you understand or should I repeat again?
3. I provided an example just happening this week of the hypocrisy of the MSM in terms of how they critiqued Bush 43 during Katrina, but have waited several days to offer any criticism of Obama. Are you going to admit that they have a double standard in these two examples or simply choose to rehearse your talking points because you don't want to admit the MSM has bias?
Let me ask you this.
Do you think it was the media criticizing Bush or do you think they were reporting on criticism of Bush? Big distinction.
And....like has been pointed out, comparing Katrina to these floods is completely ridiculous.
I think the media is criticizing Bush by injecting their negative coverage time to him during Katrina. They could have taken it easy on Bush as they have with Obama so far but they chose not to.
Regardless if it's apples to apples, as you said earlier you felt in both cases there should not have been a negative spotlight on Bush or Obama, yet that spotlight was very much on Bush and has been lacking on Obama. If you want to continue to believe there is no bias in the MSM reporting so be it. We will just have to disagree on this, but I will continue to provide examples in this thread as they arise.
My question is very important to the discussion.
Was it the media criticizing him or were they reporting on criticism of Bush?
It's the job of the media to report on what is happening. If there is a group of people making a big stink about Bush wanting to kill black people and blow up the bank of the river to do it, I'm not going to criticize the media for reporting that someone is criticizing him for that.
Right now, I don't see any major groups criticizing Obama for these floods. In large part, because it would be absolutely stupid to do. Now, when they were criticizing Bush, it was idiotic. However, those criticisms still were being put out. So...the media reported it.
If someone all of a sudden created a criticism of Pete Rickets claiming he secretly hates farmers and is out to destroy the farming industry in Nebraska, I expect the media to report that. BUT.....that doesn't mean the media has some liberal bias against Rickets. They are simply reporting what is being said.
PS...the author of the article is an idiot for even trying to equate the two events in Louisiana.
