After a rather longish day, I have to admit that I was completely uninspired by the news. Writing about politics was the last thing I wanted to do and besides, nothing really jumped out at me and screamed for my attention.
I mean, who really cares that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are mocking the Glenn Beck rally? I’m yawning right now even as I type.
And yeah, sure, Palin went to Iowa. As much as I respect the woman overall, I just can’t get caught up in yet another speculative news story about whether she’s going to run for president or not.
As for the alleged plot against the Pope? I’ll deal with that on Monday after all of the details come out. Right now, I’m not touching that one with a ten foot pole.
So what does that leave me with? Well, today, it leaves me with newly crowned, Delaware GOP Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell. Or, at least it leaves me with the way the media is treating her.
Now, in all honesty, I don’t know anything about Christine O’Donnell except that she’s the Tea Party candidate who just beat out nine-term Mike Castle, who I understand is quite liberal. So who needs him anyway?
Whether we need her is still left to be seen. Like I said, I have no real idea of who she is. And since I have no hand in voting for her, I can’t say I’m hard-pressed to find out either just at the moment.
What I think is blatantly obvious, however, is the media’s liberal bias.
Does it seem like I completely switched topics? Maybe my transition wouldn’t work in a formal piece of writing, but for this rambling commentary, it fits just fine if you just keep reading…
Media Bias or Hard Hitting News?
If you check out one of the latest AP stories on O’Donnell, you’ll find some interesting choice language. Read the whole article if you’d like, but here are some telling snippets for the more time conscience or flat-out lazy:
“The Tea Party’s latest darling, Delaware GOP Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell…”
“It wasn’t clear whether she was talking about the tea party or the conservative movement or both. But it didn’t seem to matter…”
“’The conservative movement was told to curl up in a fetal position and just stay there for the next eight years, thank you very much,’ O’Donnell told her audience – and then added coyly: ‘Well, how things have changed.’”
“She made scant – if any – references to the Republican Party or the tea party coalition. And only in passing did she acknowledge divisions within the conservative movement, saying there is not always agreement on strategy, endorsements and campaigns but ‘we’re loud, we’re rowdy, we’re passionate.’”
“O’Donnell trails Democrat Chris Coons, the New Castle County executive, in a state where Democratic voters far outnumber Republicans. Republicans and Democrats alike say it will be difficult for a conservative like O’Donnell to win the seat Vice President Joe Biden had held for decades.”
And then it ends with these two paragraphs…
“Since her GOP nomination victory, opponents have unearthed unflattering age-old TV clips, including one in 1996 in which she equated masturbation with adultery. She said then: ‘The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can’t masturbate without lust.’
“On Thursday, O’Donnell dismissed her previous comments and stressed that the Constitution – not her personal beliefs – will guide her votes on legislation.”
Such a Predictable Media
Maybe I’m reading into things, which I’ll admit I have been known to do before, but to me, the article starts out snarky right from the get-go with the word “darling.” The word might have pleasant connotations, but you can’t say the same about all of its denotations.
In fact, the word “darling” rather conveys one of three things: condescension (as when you pat a child on the head and call her “darling”), vapidity (as in, “oh, that purse is just darling, darling!”) or snobbery (as in why would anybody really want to use that word unless they were trying to set themselves apart from the masses in the first place?).
Personally, I’m going to guess that AP writer Liz Sidoti meant it in the condescending way. Though judging by her later use of the word “coyly,” she might have been intending to paint O’Donnell in a vapid light instead. Or maybe she was going for both.
Regardless, I’m not impressed anymore than I am with her dredging up old “dirt” to end the article with.
Of course, if O’Donnell said what she did about what she did, then it’s fair game for the media to pick up and do with as they like.
I just wish the mainstream press would show such due diligence in ferreting out every candidate’s dirt… instead of picking and choosing out of political spite and obvious agenda.
Because really, right now, I’m getting bored with their antics. No wonder the American public doesn’t trust the media. They’re pathetic and they don’t care to hide that unflattering fact up.