March 23, 2008
The Glorious Benefits of Media Bias
Rip-roarin’ right-wing commentator Mark Steyn once observed that so-called liberal media bias—though the bugbear of American conservatives—actually hurts leftists. As far as Steyn is concerned, the left-wing cast of the mainstream media serves to insulate Democrats from public opinion, thereby providing for all manner of electoral losses.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” can see what Mr. Steyn means. In fact, we think that the current unraveling of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Bromides) is a perfect case in point of the problems media bias offers to the Left.
After all, for umpteen months now, the mainstream media have resolutely refused to treat Sen. Obama with anything less than embarrassing deference. Whilst blown-dry popinjays like the faintly orange Brian Williams peppered Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Pants Suit) with myriad obnoxious “gotcha” pseudo-queries, they tended to offer nothing but softballs to Sen. Obama.
Hence Sen. Obama cruised to electoral success on the wings of his soaring rhetoric, despite the obvious fact that said rhetoric consists almost entirely of mindless platitudes. Obama, you see, is for “change” and “bi-partisanship.” Wow: So are we. Does he also support puppies and sunsets? If so, his political inclinations are uncannily akin to those of the crack young staff.
So we suppose that should compel us to cast our ballots for this preening paleo-liberal. Sure, his voting record may be slightly to the Left of Eugene Debs, but he sure talks a good centrist game. And what’s so scary about the Left? If we recall correctly, Jimmy Carter was an amazingly successful president. Just ask those Iranian hostages.
But wait: Once the folks at “Saturday Night Live” began to parody the media’s fawning coverage of Sen. Obama, the journalists finally started to ask some tough questions and to probe beneath the surface. And, as it turns out, Sen. Obama isn’t the Dream Candidate after all. Who would have thunk it?
Naturally, much ink has been spilled on the topic of Sen. Obama’s favorite preacher, (Ir)Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This 20-year veteran of Sen. Obama’s good graces winds up being something of an angry, racist radical nutter. He makes Louis Farrakhan seem like a nice guy—or at least like a nice dresser. (Snappy bowtie, Minister Evil).
Now, dear reader, you may not want to take our collective words on this score. After all, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are merely “typical white people.” As such, you just might figure that we don’t take kindly to all that Kill Whitey rhetoric. Silly us.
Even so, it is crystal clear that Sen. Obama isn’t the white Democrat’s Great Semi-Black Hope after all. In fact, it turns out that Sen. Hillary Clinton may well be the stronger candidate. But it seems as if it’s too late for her. Oh, drat.
This could lead to another Republican victory and another instance of perils of left-wing media bias.
March 05, 2008
Pressing Election Questions from the Gray Lady
As everyone in the smart set well knows, The New York Times is a serious newspaper. Perhaps, we suppose, not as serious as The New York Post, Rupert Murdoch’s incessantly highbrow tabloid, but serious nonetheless.
Accordingly, dear reader, one might expect the editorial eminences at The New York Times to offer their readers only the very finest reporting from the world of current affairs. This is the self-proclaimed Paper of Record, for crying out loud: We should think it would eschew tabloid-style high jinks, or similarly flimsy palaver.
And this, dear reader, is exactly what we found upon recently turning to the “website” of the esteemed Gray Lady. Amongst the usual rants of Gail Collins and Paul Krugman, we stumbled upon “What Would Alex Keaton Do?,” a deeply important take on the presidential election from the pen of one David Goldberg.
Who, you may reasonably be asking yourself, is David Goldberg? Well, he was a writer for the feculent 1980s television clunker “Family Ties”—the program that launched the undersized Michael J. Fox to the undersized limelight. And, though the folks at the Times have highlighted his article as “comedy,” Mr. Goldberg doesn’t offer any laughs. Rather, his is a serious rumination on fictional character Alex Keaton’s presumptive choice for President of the United States.
It turns out that Mr. Goldberg believes that the arch-conservative Alex Keaton (were he a real person) would plump for—wait for it—Barack Obama. And the Times appears to have considered this really, really noteworthy.
As, we need hardly add, do we. Yet the Gray Lady’s dipping into the likely voting choice of a fictional television character leads to another important—nay, crucial—question: What about other television characters? For whom would they pull the lever?
Ah, you needn’t have troubled yourself with that vexing—and, we hardly need say, crucial—query. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have already done our darndest to answer it.
Without further ado, we present to you the following list of television characters and their likely presidential picks:
Tootie Ramsey (from “The Facts of Life”): Barack Obama
Benson (from “Benson”): Barack Obama
Stanley (from “The Office”): Barack Obama
B.A. Barracus (from “The A-Team”): Barack Obama
Erkel (from the show with Erkel on it): Barack Obama
Fred Sanford (from “Sanford and Son”): Barack Obama
Lamont Sanford (from “Sanford and Son”): Barack Obama
George Jefferson (from “The Jeffersons”): Barack Obama
The Entire Cast of “Good Times”: Barack Obama
The Entire Cast of “What’s Happening”: Barack Obama
Mr. Magoo (from “Mr. Magoo”) Ron Paul
Well, there you have it: News which, as they say, you can use. Maybe you didn’t know that Mr. Magoo was a hardcore libertarian?
Perhaps such insight can land us some column space in the Paper of Record?
