Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Media Bias?!? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Media Bias!

One of the standard canards among the far Left is that is no Liberal "media bias" because, after all, most media is owned by corporations. 'Course, this usually confuses an insufficiently far Left media bias with merely Liberal media bias.

Witness today's Potomac News. Right there, on the front page, above the fold, with a full color picture for emphasis, was a Keith Walker story entitled "Cuts to aid worry family." Now never mind that we're talking about utterly modest "cuts" in the County's overall budget, after a nearly seven-year spending spree in which my family's budget was cut because my tax burden increased by 60%. And never mind that "organizations such as Didlake, the Association for Retarded Citizens, and ServiceSource" should be receiving charitable donations from citizens, not having the County take it, have a few bureaucrats (like the Community "Services" Board) get their cut, and turn over a lesser amount to what should be a private charity. Never mind any of those things.

One has to read deep into the story to learn that we're really not talking about "cuts" at all:
The program will continue for people who are already enrolled, but the proposed budget didn't allow for any new clients, said County Executive Craig Gerhart.

The proposed budget didn't reduce the program's funding but it didn't allow for new clients, Gerhart said of the program that serves about 200 people.

"Some people might look at that as a cut from what was planned but we didn't reduce the actual dollars," Gerhart said.

Then, Walker goes on to write about how Thomas Geib, executive director of the Community Services Board, and the relative of one recipient of the County's largesse, one who will continue to receive "services," hope that the "service" will be "restored." Never mind that there is nothing to "restore," as there is nothing which is being "cut" from this program.

Read that headline again and tell me again that there's no Liberal media bias. 'Fact is, Walker (or more probably, his editors) took what "some people [unidentified, but obviously mathematically challenged] might look at," bought it, and decided it was true.

However, I then turned to my Washington Post, knowing that it is, of course, a more professional and highly-regarded operation. There, below the fold, I found a wonderful, very positive story about how some communities are "Looking the Other Way on Those Bringing Justice to Abortionists," with the subtitle "Some Cities Buck Federal Policies." It's really a great story of how communities are protecting the unborn in defiance of Federal policies favoring the murder of innocent children:
After federal agents launched a massive raid on an apartment complex here two years ago, other righteous pro-Lifers in this quiet town near Princeton University grew so wary of the law, authorities say, that many began hiding behind headstones in a local cemetery when patrol cars approached.

But these days, the righteous pro-Lifers of Hightstown are more likely to be the ones calling the cops.

In the aftermath of a series of raids in 2004, the town council in this historic borough of 5,300 -- transformed in recent years by an influx of at least 1,300 devout Christians -- unanimously approved a sort of pro-Life bill of rights. Joining a growing list of cities enacting a no-questions-asked policy on pro-Lifers, Hightstown now allows its pro-Lifers to officially interact with local police and access city services without fear of being reported to federal authorities.


But equally fervent are a less well-known but fast-growing number of "sanctuary" cities and towns -- from Seattle to Cambridge, Mass. -- where local authorities are effectively rejecting the federal government's permissive abortion policies and instead working to help those trying to shut down abortion mills.

OK, that's not really what it says. Instead, it's a puff piece on local officials who are defying Federal policy on illegal immigration.

Now, tell me, weren't you outraged when you thought it was about abortion and a locality's pro-Life sentiments? What about segregation? What if had been a puff piece about Bull Connor and defiance of Federal efforts against Jim Crow and discrimination against Black Americans? Do you really think it would have oozed of sympathy for the racists?

No Liberal media bias. Right.


NoVA Scout said...


Charles said...

The most interesting thing to me from that article was the cost per person the county pays Didlake for this "service". Serving 200 people,, they pay 4 million a year, or about $20,000 a year per "employee". That's to Didlake -- the clients of course get jobs which pay poorly, and I think Didlake then kicks in some money for the clients.

But that is a lot of money per job. I believe that private organizations can do a better job than government, but I am beginning to wonder if "quasi-private" organizations funded by government and official corporate fundraising (united way) are really efficient, or if they simply fall into the same wasteful trap that government does, knowing they can easily get more money.

James Young said...

Good points, Charles; might even be the basis for a column. ;-) These people might be better off if the County just wrote them a check. Or eschewed the payments altogether.