Deciding Newsworthiness

Perhaps because my first degree was in radio, television, and film production, I’ve remained more than casually interested in how the media covers the news. Each news organization decides what is newsworthy and what isn’t. For instance, very few have considered the investigation into New Jersey senator Robert Menendez’s activities, which include granting favors to a very large donor and having sexual relations with prostitutes, as worth their notice. Marco Rubio’s sip of water, though, has garnered major attention. MSNBC ran the clip of the sip more than 150 times in a day. CNN pondered whether the sip spells the end of Rubio’s political ambitions. CNN, of course, is totally in the tank in the ratings race.

This is CNN—focusing on the trivial. What’s worse, Rubio’s sip of water or CNN’s wholesale gulping of the kool-aid?

The worst offense, however, has been the fawning over Obama. Honest liberals have to admit the networks were on his side. To what lengths will they go?

Anyone who thinks this is fanciful has not watched MSNBC.

President Obama, meanwhile, simply cannot abide any dissent from his media acolytes:

I don’t expect a drone strike on Fox News, but I think the cartoon does capture Obama’s feelings quite well. Fox seems to be the only news outlet unwilling to let Benghazi rest. May they not let go of that story. May real journalism revive and prosper.

Welcome to America 2013

Every once in a while, I don’t focus on one particular topic. Sometimes, there are a number of things happening simultaneously that are worthy of commentary. I’ve drawn attention this week to the inaugural. On Tuesday, I provided my interpretation of what President Obama really said. Here’s a cartoonist’s stab at the same thing:

I believe he caught the essence of the address.

Then there was Hillary Clinton’s testimony—sort of—before a congressional committee the other day. She was supposed to be telling what she knew about the Benghazi fiasco. Liberal news outlets praised her defiant performance, yet the only thing they got right about it were the words “defiant” and “performance.” She said virtually nothing. While making it sound like she took responsibility, in fact she spent the entire time defending her failures and saying she was not to blame. There’s an end game here; she’s looking ahead:

If we still have a country in 2016, she wants to be poised to lead it. After eight years of Obama, that’s all we need. Her defiance also manifested itself in an outburst of feigned outrage when questioned about why the administration misled the people for a few weeks, claiming the incident was the result of an anti-Mohammed video:

In answer to her angry question, “What difference does it make?” I would suggest it makes a whole lot of difference. If the administration, with her at the top of the foreign policy apparatus, deliberately tried to deflect the public’s attention away from its obvious failure to protect our diplomats by blaming a filmmaker, that would be despicable to the utmost. Beyond trying to shift the blame, it also became an attack on the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech. That filmmaker is the only person associated with the Benghazi event who has suffered any consequences—a chilling precedent for anyone else who may critique Islam or the current administration’s policies.

Then there’s the ongoing issue of looming national bankruptcy, which has been studiously ignored by Obama and his acolytes. They continue to act as if it’s not a real disaster–in-waiting. The president’s only nod toward the problem is to—surprise—blame the Republicans:

And his “solution” is just as out of touch with reality:

Welcome to America 2013. When I say we need to pray for the future of our nation, I’m not simply mouthing a pious cliché. It’s a cry from the heart. Acknowledging our dependence on the grace of God and getting our priorities straightened out are our most pressing needs.