IS JOHN KING BEING FRIVOLOUS?
That (report) failed to be an investigative journalism.
The media has started it again with sensational reporting on serious political issues in an election year, just to point out the side they were on, in regard to the party or the person they favored.
An article by John King, who started by saying that he was CNN National Correspondent, was outrageous and one sided, and that suggested that the news outlet he worked for was "playing favorites" in politics.
He was supposedly trying to debunk the news that 1999 was to cover-up the year that Mitt Romney said he left Bain Capital, and that he (Romney) was still in charge of the company, according to "Securities and Exchange Commission filings listing" him "as Bain's top officer after 1999".
That information had come from "Talking Points Memo", and if it was not factual it should have been refuted by Romney himself and not even one of his surrogates, as it dealt with his person and character.
According to King, it was some Democrats, who chose to remain anonymous, that went to the defense of Romney, after his campaign' manager, Matt Rhoades, has called on President Barack Obama to apologize for "the out of control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office that he holds."
The Obama camp has only responded to the Talking Points Memo by saying, ....
"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments," ....and that statement came from Stephanie Cutter, deputy Obama campaign manager.
She did respond as freely as she should, pointing out the ethics or violations in the matter; and that gave credit to the Obama side. So, there shouldn't be any apology coming from the president; period.
However, reading the whole text by King, he was basically making the inference that the allegation originally came from the Obama camp, which was not true.
That aside, ABC News has a column captioned "TOP5, PRESIDENTIAL DIPS", and one should watch what name came first? 1. Mitt Romney.....and then, 2. Barack Obama....
How they could place Romney before Obama, when the column was dealing with presidents, past and present, was beyond anyone's imagination.
Romney has never been president of the United States, and if so, how could his name appear under a subject matter that dealt with presidents? Could it be an honest mistake, or was ABC pointing the public to a candidate, who needed more media exposure in an election year?
Another trick of the media was to place a picture of their choice personality on the left of the page or screen, when they were comparing two people; thus giving importance or prominence to the one on the left, from the audience's or the reader's point of view.
They have often done that in the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, with Martin being on the right of pictures of both men. They however switch Obama and Romney around from time to time, depending on how they, media, felt; and as counting was from the left to the right in Western culture, the person on the left would be first or more important.
The media have the right to do whatever they wanted, but in a pivotal election such as the one in 2012, they should not start choosing sides at a point when voters were gauging the candidates by their character and background, and particularly, whether they were honest and truthful.
King's article was as frivolous as could be, as it tend to be more lopsided than a true investigative piece; and as for ABC, the people there should know the difference between what was scurrilous (humorously insulting), when placing a candidate in such a tie-breaker contest the 2012 presidential election was turning out to be.
The "Press" should be objective and even impartial. Though, it was not practical for them to always remain that way; but they should try, in order to retain the trust and confidence of the public.
More by this Author
No comments yet.