To the MSM, it’s “controversial” that Mitt Romney delivers a commencement address as the nation’s largest evangelical university. Protestants are the nation’s largest religious group, and evangelicals are the largest group within that group. Since when is it controversial for a presidential candidate to speak to such a large and mainstream group?
To the same MSM, it’s not controversial — it’s not even worth mentioning — that President Obama borrows his campaign language and imagery directly from socialism. Shouldn’t the president’s obvious devotion to a failed, non-mainstream, totalitarian ideology merit some coverage?
To the MSM, it’s controversial that Mitt Romney may or may not have given a hippie a haircut 50 years ago.
But to the same MSM, it’s not controversial — it’s not even worth a follow-up report — that President Obama is using the power of the presidency to bully private citizens right now.
The same media that praises Obama for “evolving,” makes controversy anytime Mitt Romney even appears to think about changing his mind on anything.
The Tea Party — controversial. Occupy, with its rapes and other crimes — darlings.
The Koch brothers — controversial. George Soros — philanthropist.
We’ll have another “controversy” next week. The MSM will turn up as it has every week since late January, to make a big to-do out of something that’s mostly disconnected to the concerns of average Americans. It’s fun to guess what that “controversy” might be.
We’ve had a war on women. We’ve had a big national race controversy. We’ve had an attack on Romney for being a successful businessman. We’ve had gay marriage. What’s the next “controversy” that most Americans really don’t care about, but will dominate the week?
Whatever that shiny distraction turns out to be, the bottom line is, the so-called mainstream media is every bit as out of touch with mainstream America as the president they’re playing praetorian guard for.
The MSM is out of touch with the average American on making a profit, too. If a real company were losing money as fast as the NY Times and WaPo, they’d be a candidate for a shutdown.
These 2 papers are hoping to hang on until after the elections and see if they can get a bail out ala the auto industry. If you look at their actions in light of business preservation, everything they do makes sense.
It seems that what the Democrat strategy is, is pretty clear, for now.
Each and every week, they’ll try to bring something up — something irrelevant or that will exploit and exacerbate the social divides in our nation — with, of course, their MSM — advised, prepared and ready to go on it —
so as to distract from the real issues —
the economy and foreign policy.
And our values of rugged independence, personal perseverence and earned self-respect.
This is going to go on week after week until November.
Is there a way to put the breaks on this corrupt strategy?
There must be a counter-strategy that could work — to keep the country’s mind on the issues.
To keep bringing the subject back to the issues.
We are still playing by the rules that they set … on their terms.
Can the New Media (along with the Romney campaign) help to turn this situation around?
(Maybe the Blogs should just ignore the distractions, instead of amplifying them. Maybe there should be complaints sent to Fox and CNN when they spend too much time on the irrelevant.)
Can these distractions be ignored … and the topic continually be brought back to and kept on the vital issues?
“Controversial” is of course a code word for media-disapproved.
The most interesting thing about Old Media-baptized “controversies” is the low standard required of them. If even one left-liberal anywhere (including the staff of the Old Media outlet in question) is disturbed or displeased by a conservative-themed event, that’s enough to style it “controversial.” This is of particular interest when the “controversy” is about a purely factual matter: for example, the failure of the global-warming crowd to produce anything in support of their thesis except computer models — simulations.
Some years back, it was revealed that, despite all the scare talk, the “hole in the ozone layer” over the South Pole regularly waxes and wanes in diameter, and therefore exhibits a cyclical stability. The evidence was uncontested. Nevertheless, the claim was labeled “controversial” by the Old Media. We ceased to hear about the danger of ozone depletion shortly thereafter, though. Food for thought.
“Controversial” is supposed to mean that there is a controversy, and that the controversy has two sides, and those sides can be identified, and the location of the controversy can be identified. Any reporter who says something is controversial should be forced to answer those questions. An appropriate paragraph would go like this: “The controversy between the straight evolutionists and the periodic evolutionists has been conducted in the Letters pages of BioWeekly Monthly for the last 18 months.”
“We ceased to hear about the danger of ozone depletion shortly thereafter, though.”
Yeah, after billions were spent redesigning every product that used an aerosol propellant and redesigning all airconditioning and refrigeration products to use less efficient coolants, and the loss of one Space Shuttle and its crew due to the inferior foam used because of “ozone layer depletion” caused by the original foam. But a small price I guess for some perfessers to get published and get grants and contracts from the Federal government and all the foundations that use the money made by some “Robber Baron” in the 19th Century to destroy America.
Yep. You’re on the scent, now!
Oh there will always be something because when there isn’t they will make something up anyway.
Who knows, maybe someday it will be “controversial” for the government to intentionally allow gun traffickers to buy guns in the U.S. so they can be provided to Mexican drug cartels, then used to kill numerous Mexicans and a Border Patrol agent.
Only if there’s a Republican in the White House… which actually makes a little bit of sense, since it’s so much less likely then, at least judging by the actions of D and R Presidents in the last 40ish years.
You will find that even Fox News gives a controversial label where it does not belong. They consistently call the Arizona immigration bill controversial, whereas 65% of the public supports the bill. Also, it would appear that the Supremes are going to find the bill to be constitutional by a significant majority. The only people that consider this bill to be controversial is the far-left.
The media drives me mad.
And despite the panoply of controversies, Romney marches on. God bless him!
If you’re going with controversial protestant institutions, how about revd Jeremiah Wright’s church?
2012 Presidential Election
Candidate speaking at christian institution: Controversial
Candidate speaking at gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender convention: Normal
We are living in strange times.
Bryan – For Leftists, the existence of conservatives is controversial. So are you surprised that the Leftists press views anything done by a conservative (even a relatively uncoservative Romney) as controversial? And are you surprised when it views anything done by a Leftist as so mainstream? As for example, Elizabeth Warren’s passing herself off as 1/32 Cherokee, even though the righ ratio is 0/32. That is not controversial, of course.
Today over Sabbath lunch, a guest was a telling me a story in the NYT about supposed sexual misconduct in the paleo-Orthodox community in Brooklyn. My first response was, well you know how much the NYT lies about Israel, so why do you take what it says at face value when they bring up this issuue? The response was, well it sounds true. — Well maybe it is, and maybe it’s not, but if it’s in the NYT my initial reaction is, whatever truth there may be to this, they overstating the issue to make the paleo-Orthodox community look bad.
As you can tell, I simply have no trust in the LSM, as personified by the NYT. I think it’s great that they are attacking Romney now, and keep getting their a**sses handed them when the story blows up in their faces. By September/October, they will have used up their stock of credibility, so when they try and run something bad about Romney, people will yawn and think, there goes the LSM again, trying to carry water for O.
The MSM is the modern day equivalent of Wonderland where madness & chaos are the rules. Go ask Alice, I think she’ll know…