Let's try to be honest and objective about the way the media covers presidents and presidential candidates. How many times have you had Marilyn Monroe and JFK shoved in your face? No matter what political subject comes up and argued between Democrats and Republicans, inevitably when cornered, the conservatives bring up Bill Clinton. The Clinton reference is not only about Monica, it always has a sinister and sweeping hint about the low morals of liberals. John Edwards' career and personal life were destroyed by "revelations." He deserved judgment. But how come.....?
We never hear or see anything about Dwight D. Eisenhower and his on-going adultery? It is true. It has been carefully proven. But that's the end of it. Don't touch DDE! For me, personally, I think it is just as well that we leave Ike alone. The difference in treatment between leading political candidates of the left and right is noticeably different. Conservatives are treated......well, treated more conservatively.
Of course the champ in immorality, double-dealing, selling sophisticated weaponry to our arch-enemy Iran, adultery, lack of aptitude, ad infinitum, is Ronald Reagan. Wow, does he get a pass! The Gipper is a legend of purity, honesty, truth, etc. Ronald Reagan was a man with a multitude of immoral and unethical secrets, lies, and distortions. And the media chose to keep 99% of it unrevealed. Why?
Well, for one thing, the press/media are owned by huge corporations. That slides them over to the corporate and right-wing side of the ledger. Selective reporting is the norm. It is not only FOX. It is all media. The revealing "truths' presented in the media are highly selective. Counter to the way the right likes to present their criticism of the mainstream media, American media is at best middle-of-the-road, and at worst a mouthpiece for right-wing ideology.
The elections that took place on Tuesday give us a hint about this. The abortion and birth-control issue in Mississippi, and the decision by the electorate in Ohio regarding the right-wing governor's actions related to labor negotiations, were both expected to be very close and most media told us they would be so close that they could not predict the outcome. Well, here's a bulletin for the conservative press: both elections were strongly progressive...even in strongly right-wing Mississippi. Amazing. It is as though the media was shocked with the large vote to the left. Amazing to the media, not so amazing to anyone who knew the facts in these cases. Gee, I wonder why this discrepency. Hmmm.
The problem that continues, however, is that the media controls how political opinions are formed. This ongoing presentation of "forged news" is why we have an emergence of right-wing power. And it is a real and continuing danger to American democracy. There was a time when the media in the U.S. was more objective, and was the gold standard that the world envied. No more. American journalism is now seen as something other than objective....not strongly tilted to the right, that would be too obvious, but big media is protecting its own monied skin. For today's news organizations to survive, they must be sympathetic to right-wing issues or close shop.
A final thought. How many women have to come forward in order for us to believe there have been sexual improprieties in the life of Herman Cain? My, how restrained the media has been about this. Were three women enough when they complained? Four? Five? How many before the media admits Mr. Cain has a problem in this area? Clinton and Edwards were lynched. Right-wing candidates get a lot of patience and "understanding" from the media. The right-wing press doesn't always win. Look at how Bill Clinton continues to be popular with the people.
My wish: Herman Cain deserves fair and balanced treatment, and I hope he gets it.