This week my post is not going to come from the actual news itself, but from an e-mail I received from a friend not to long ago.
As everyone in the world knows, last week on January 20, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. It was a huge day in America as the first African American president was welcomed into the Whitehouse. For a lot of people, it didn’t matter who won the election, as long as President Bush was out. He may kind of been a goon, but sometimes I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the guy. Could you imagine having his job and knowing so many people hated you?
I thought the e-mail I got was appropriate for this week because it had to do with the media. This e-mail shows how truly bias the media is. The e-mail was pretty short and to the point. The subject read “”You have to Love our Media” and below it listed headlines referring to the inaugurations of President Bush and President Obama.
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"I thought this was crazy.
Four years ago people were furious at the fact that the inauguration for Bush cost $42 million, but it is not a big deal that Obama’s Inauguration cost $120 million. That is almost triple the cost. Headlines went on about the “extravagance” of Bush in tough economic times, and yet it is acceptable for Obama to spend more because “America needs a party”. The economy is worse off today than it was four years ago, yet some people found it acceptable to spend $120 million dollars on a party??? I understand why the United States needs a morale boost, but was it worth all the cash? Does anyone feel better about the worsening of our economy because we got to watch a big party on tv?
-------------------------------------------
Here is a professional blog about maintaining reliable sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, this is a stunning story. Many people acknowledge the fact that there is a bias in the media, but it's still surprising to see this. I think it is unprofessional to use words like "only $120 million" and "Everyman Obama" in headlines. With our economy in its current state, it seems really unnecessary to spend this kind of money. While it was truly a historic event, this kind of extravagance does not make it any more special in my mind.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the truth? The media is biases, but could this possibly be because of the people they are trying to please. (Wait, this is what biasy is.) Anyway, I believe that the media folds to make the majority happy and if that means spinning headlines to make things sound better (or worse for that matter) they will do it. I know when I worked on my high school newspaper, I had fun making headlines for boring articles: I would always have the the fun ones for the stories that NO ONE would want to read. In the long run, it is hard for the media to be unbiased. Although Bush spent less, he had been in the spotlight and made an impression and it was easy to turn on him.
ReplyDelete