No Need To Ignore This Story, The Media Already Did
The liberal media has done it again. They have uncovered yet another embarrassing story about George W. Bush and gave it thousands of hours of coverage, causing nationwide outrage. No wait, that’s not how it happened. Instead, coverage of Doug Wead’s release of tapes of Dubya pre-presidency were glazed over; and Mr. Wead was booed and insulted by news organizations across the country. For those of you who remain unaware, the tapes seem to contain Bush’s admission of smoking marijuana and some scathing comments about John McCain. The same media that fawned over Whitewater, Vince Foster, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinski, paper gate, Al Gore “inventing the internet,” and of course Clinton’s own admission that he had tried smoking pot has largely ignored pointless potential scandal after scandal. While I hardly advocate the useless expenditure of valuable airtime and page space with which the media could inform us of important information, I still can’t help but wander where the shock journalism of the mid 90’s has gone.
George Bush should be any shill-tabloid reporter’s dream. A wife who killed her boyfriend in a car crash earlier on in life, obnoxious drunken daughters, a nephew arrested on drug charges, plus the worst (not to mention shadiest and possibly most illegal) recorded past of any president in the country’s history. I doubt Jack Kennedy could even have gotten away with some of these things! Now many Americans give allowances with relation to Dubya’s past because well, “he became religious.” Is that so? Despite George Bush’s constant harping on his religious fervor and the fact that God personally speaks to him, he constantly gets flustered when questioned about his religious knowledge. During his first run for president, several reporters asked him what bible passage he was currently reading, because after all he did claim to read the bible everyday. When the question was posed, Bush would get angry and refuse to answer the question.
So if George Bush really is as immoral and unethical as history and common sense would suggest, then why is the “moral” media that crucified Clinton not dragging out the hammer and nails for the current president? Since when did the news go from “hit him with all we’ve got,” to “lets try and take a respectful view of our political leaders?” The answer is quite simple, because it’s easier. Sensationalism was so easy in the 90’s because it played itself out for everyone to see. You couldn’t ignore the scandals when they were so out in the open, when conservative and “independent” groups did all the investigating for the media. I guess it just proves once again that there is no liberal bias in the media, just a lazy one.
Front Page (March 31, 2005)
• Current Issue •