Difficult decisions

The media is struggling with difficult decisions.  On the one hand, media members have to ask themselves if they should report about Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, the fact that she was interested in seeing her ex-brother-in-law lose his job after issuing death threats to her father and tasering her nephew, or her question about controversial books (a question that never went anywhere, mind you).  On the other hand, they’re wondering whether they should report that Barack Obama has had tight relationships for decades with known America-haters, who advanced Communism, race hatred and sexual deviance; that he played a money/political back-scratching game with a felon (that would be Rezko); that he spent twenty years listening to a pastor spouting race and America hatred; that he tried to keep American troops in Iraq, despite his claim that they their presence their was dangerous and unnecessary, simply to advance his own political ascendency; and myriad other little details that keep popping up about Barack Obama’s past and politics.  Decisions, decisions….

Okay, you got me.  The above was a total lie.  It was complete satire.  The media has never faced down this decision.  For the media, it’s always been a no-brainer.  Their patriotic duty, as they see it, is to ensure that Obama wins and McCain loses.  Media members have no interest in being the public’s eyes and ears, dutifully reporting all available information to the American people so that the latter can draw their own opinion.  The stories revolving around this election and the way in which media members choose stories and attack and defend the candidates make it plain that the media has abandoned its role as an investigative organization, and has become, for the most part, a highly partisan branch of the Democratic party.

By the way, for those with short historic memories, there was a party organ like that in the former Soviet Union, with the ironic name of Pravda (truth).