Of course Fox News is part of the MSM. Just because I believe them to be intellectually dishonest and totally supportive of the neoconservative Republican platform doesn’t make them NOT part of the mainstream media. If anything it reinforces my argument. As part of the MSM, they are applying a double standard to Obama. The Fox article I link to typically laments Obama for wanting to increase spending on foreign aid mixed with all kinds of lingo about income redistribution and the usual socialists accusations from the right wing. Nothing is mentioned about Bush single handily giving us the largest deficit in history, or expanding the size of government more than any president, or about his $10 billion a month being spent on building social projects and other infrastructure in foreign countries. That’s the double standard I’m referring to. The double standard is not with Lisa or bloggers, it’s with the MSM, of which Fox News is definitely a part of if not the poster boy for what’s wrong with American media.
It’s not because, like Lisa suggests, the MSM is objective and accurate in it’s reporting, it’s precisely because they are just the opposite. If they were objective in their reporting, Fox would have included quotes from other sources other than the right wing CATO and would have mentioned our current president’s redistribution of wealth programs. Fox isn’t unique in this regard, but they are the source to remove all doubt if any exists.
You can spin all you want to, but even you do not know what Barack Obama will do once he’s President. He could decide to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus the war funding would continue.This quote may sum it all up entirely. Until we know what Barack might do as president, he’s a socialist. However, we know what Bush has done and if anyone tries to argue that he hasn’t socialized this country they would be sorely detached from society. Yet, the double standard exists in the MSM because him and McCain do not get the same socialist treatment. Until we know how Obama will govern he’ll have to defend his socialist label applied squarely by the right wing. Lisa, with all due respect, you prove the point I say you keep missing.
Neither did I say that Lisa didn’t mention that Obama’s bill hadn’t passed and that as president Obama wouldn’t be bound by it. I said that the Fox News article didn’t mention it. Even in Lisa’s description of government’s duties towards its citizenry, the mention that the wars will end is missing. It also begs to bring up the fact that George Bush has failed in every single one of the categories mentioned, yet he’s not a socialist but the greatest president to ever serve. All in all, I fail to see how a UN program that would cost 0.7% of GDP will increase people’s dependency on government so much so that it qualifies Obama as a socialist when McCain’s support for Bush’s handling of the economy and his support for war without end, items that will cost 50 times more than Obama’s bill, aren’t also being called socialism.
