by D. Cupples | Friday, Media Matters reported:
"Last week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a new report by Michael Ettlinger estimating that under McCain's tax plan, he and his wife, Cindy, would save $373,429. That's nearly $400,000 -- per year, not over the course of their lifetimes. (Under Barack Obama's plan, the McCains would save less than $6,000.
"The Obamas would save nearly $50,000 under McCain's plan, and slightly more than $6,000 under Obama's plan own plan.)"
While those numbers are interesting, Media Matters' primary point was actually the media's coverage failures and inconsistencies.
"During John Edwards' campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, media regularly treated his personal wealth as a key to assessing his policy proposals -- a standard that is not being applied to John McCain."
"It often seemed as though the news media was incapable of running a story about Edwards' anti-poverty proposals without noting his own wealth. The Washington Post, for example, ran a 203-word blurb about Edwards' eight-state poverty tour, opening it with a 28-word reminder of the candidate's fortune: John Edwards is battling back the 'three H's' that have dogged his campaign -- expensive haircuts, a lavish new house and a stint working for a hedge fund.'...
"By the standards the media applied to Edwards, the fact that McCain supports tax policies that would save him and his wife nearly $400,000 a year -- and require massive cuts to public services to pay for those tax breaks -- should surely be news." (Media Matters)
Media's meddling in our nation's political debate in ways that render the debate less factual is a huge problem with potentially grave future consequences. Frankly, I don't know the roots lie in journalistic laziness or intent to unduly manipulate public opinion.
It wasn't that long ago that we watched many U.S. media spin or ignore facts -- apparently to protect ad revenues -- in a way that helped the Bush Administration falsely sell an costly war that we will likely be stuck with for years to come.
It's been obvious for some time that the Bush Administration has been itching to go to war in Iran. Will our media fail to adequately question the Administration on this one?
Some media would no doubt benefit from military action. General Electric, for example, owns NBC (and many other media outlets), and GE could profit handsomely from war-related contracts.
What about certain media executives' personal or corporate interests in other issues that face our nation: things like social security, campaign finance reform, health care, education...?
Given that many prominent media had no qualms about falsely selling a war or hijacking this year's Democratic primaries (see links below), it's fair to wonder which issues our media may fail to accurately inform (or outright deceive) us about in the future.
If more progressives had stood up and shouted about media laziness (or bias) during the Democratic primaries, many media might have already made steps toward cleaning up their act.
Instead, many progressives ignored media laziness (or bias) during the first six months of 2008. This leaves progressives with a two-front war to fight between now and November: 1) the battle for the presidency, and 2) the battle for objective media.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Greenwald Takes on Olbermann for FISA Flip-Flop
* Studies Show Pro-Obama (or Anti-Hillary) Media Bias
* Media Misleads Public about Florida, Michigan, & DNC Rules
* Law Prof Challenges Spin & Tells Why FISA Bill is Frightening
* Pentagon to Investigate Military News "Analysts"
* ABC Ignores Obama's Misleading Message re: Lobbyist Money
* Media Bias: it's Bigger than the Presidential Race
..
Comments