With a strong showing in three primary contests earlier this month, Mitt Romney crept closer to the presumptive presidential nomination.
The Republican duel is nearing its end. But the mainstream media will continue bashing each and every GOP candidate until they are blue in the face (their minds are already this color politically) – and then some. You see, it is never enough to pooh-pooh one’s policy preferences based on logical argumentation.
From Governor Rick Perry’s verbal slip-ups to strong accusations against businessman Herman Cain, traditional news outlets have closely followed the Republican field while practically ignoring the incumbent’s sketchy past. Huffington Post articles and CNN segments tend to focus on the intricate details of the right-leaning challengers instead of vetting Barack Obama for once.
Speaking of slanted media, White House Correspondent for the New York Times Sheryl Stolberg visited my campus after Super Tuesday. Naturally she had much to say about the Party of Lincoln and Reagan.
To begin, a biased criticism of conservative leaders was in order. Stolberg mocked Michele Bachmann’s family and candidacy. In her view, Cain is a mere “lobbyist.” Jon Huntsman – the former Utah Governor, ambassador to China, and high school dropout – succeeded solely because of his “billionaire dad.” After thoroughly gutting the credibility of each conservative hopeful past and present, Stolberg added, “all these characters… they’re so interesting.” If I were a rubberstamp regressive reporter, I might see the presidential race that way too.
And then there’s the front-runner. The evidently neutral journalist proclaimed it is “so fascinating” that Romney “can’t close the deal.” As of last check, though, the former Massachusetts chief executive leads Rick Santorum 661 to 285. Still, Stolberg – who recently penned an article painting Mitt and the late Senator Ted Kennedy as one and the same – “doubts” Romney has secured the nod. If that wasn’t enough, she scoffed at Mitt’s pro-life missionary work in France and unilaterally declared that “a big chunk of the electorate” is against him. Media bias, anyone?
“We need to know what the candidates believe,” Stolberg argued, “what they know, think.” By that logic Democrats also fall under that category. Although when asked whether the current crop of contenders are being held to a stricter standard than BHO four years prior, she replied thus:
“No, I don’t think that is true. We broke the Jeremiah Wright relationship. This time around, the media ought to focus on what he’s done, decide if he deserves a second term.”
Stolberg is right. For equality’s sake, the president deserves the same treatment as the rest. No radical secret should remain unknown. Unfortunately, Harvard Law Professor and Obama mentor Charles Ogletree didn’t agree last election cycle. Should Mr. O’s ties to advocates of Critical Race Theory see the light of day? Stolberg mentioned that she would “want to know more about what Derrick Bell espoused and whether he had any influence on Obama’s thinking,” after shrugging off the strength of the story.
On the plus side, and for your entertainment, Stolberg admitted the obvious:
“Obama’s friends are his friends from Chicago”
“Mitt Romney is not a sexist”
“My first job covering politics was covering Congress for the New York Times!”
Hold on, there’s more:
“I don’t think there is a parallel” between Obama and Jimmy Carter
Obama’s foreign policy is “kind of Republican”
Republicans “don’t really want to expose themselves to the media”
Before his untimely early March death, Andrew Breitbart personified the conservative defense of common sense reporting. He ushered in a new era of media by bringing back a classical approach: genuine investigative analysis. No project was off the table. If it meant that some boneheads would lose their taken-for-granted jobs – the Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and NPR bombshell stories come to mind – so be it. The public deserves to know the truth.