Clarice Feldman notes that Bill Ayers was a lot more than a "guy in Barack's neighborhood."
How is it possible that Obama in writing two autobiographies could ignore his 13 year-long association with Ayers if he were not purposely trying to hide or downplay it? How is it possible that the media could continue to ignore the CAC story? How is it possible that American voters, who regularly indicate such enormous concern over educational issues, could be so long kept in the dark by the Fourth Estate about the educational project Obama ran into the ground while he aided his revolutionary pals in recruiting Chicago kids to their extreme left wing mission?
It's clear that Obama and his friends, including those in the press, are trying to keep this all bottled up at least until after the election.
Then, I suppose, like the Clinton peccadilloes in Arkansas, this story will be free to unfold, too late to inform the voters.
Except unlike 1992, we have alternate media today.
Except unlike 1992, we have alternate media today.
Yes we do. But if you recall what you posted yesterday, Jeff Goldstein bitterly denounced the alternative media for spreading even more lies. He said that most of it has been hijacked by the left.
No, there is only one reliable solution to your problem: A comprehensive government campaign to eliminate leftist bias and coverups from all of the media, mainstream and alternative. Sure, the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment, but they never intended it for liberal fascism.
What are you fantasizing about now, Jim? Who are you arguing with, the voices in your head?
We have an alternate media, but it is still informing a tiny minority of the populace. Worse still, from a replacement/supplement standpoint, a majority of those who do rely in whole or part on alternate media tend to only read sources that share their biases. So for example, a HuffPo/Kos/Sullivan reader would not hear anything about CAC in any case, even though they are paying attention to the alternative media.
Finally, this will not change so long as the blogs are, at best, a combination of aggregators and opinion outlets. Until we see blogs start taking on news gathering functions themselves, people will continue to need the MSM for that. And if they're already there, they'll get the MSM's (predominantly one-sided) spin during the opinion pieces, as well as increasingly in the news stories themselves. And since most people have limited attention to devote to media, they will not seek alternatives that don't meet their needs for both news and opinion.
Hopefully, PJM and others like it will succeed, but until they do, we're stuck with a populace largely informed by biased sources parading as objective and by late night comics.
OK, I took the trouble to read all the links and don't see squat.
What are you talking about?
A comprehensive government campaign to eliminate leftist bias and coverups from all of the media, mainstream and alternative.
See, Jim, the very fact that you feel free to write that kind of stuff is proof positive that you know in your heart the people with whom you argue would never consider such a thing, would feel ashamed of themselves if the thought even crossed their minds. Indeed, to the extent you intent to make any attempt to persuade, you are appealing to that sense of fairness, prodding your opponents to say: is he right? Am I being scrupulously fair?
If you really thought that, say, when McCain/Palin win in November, the FBI is going to come a-knockin' on your door and tie you to the cane chair with the bottom cut out, like in Casino Royale, you'd never dare say such things.