MSM reporters: will you be employable after the election?

Dear mainstream media reporters:

Have you considered the impact your coverage of the 2008 election might have on your career? Many of you have gone all out to elect Barack Obama as president, completely oblivious to the long-term impact that advocacy could have.

It's easier than ever for news consumers to do research on specific reporters and see whether they have a habit of lying, misleading, ignoring relevant facts, failing to ask tough questions, or other forms of bias. And, as time goes on that's going to become even easier. Some will help in that effort, such as by publishing lists of reporters who crossed the line into advocacy or who clearly lied in order to support Obama.

Before reading an article, a news consumer might spend just a few seconds doing a little research and be able to quickly find page after page detailing past instances of that reporter's low journalistic ethics.

Now, certainly, papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post have powerful megaphones, but dozens or hundreds of other sites loosely working together can have a major impact. Eventually, a critical mass will be reached, and a media source might decide that a specific reporter is too much of a liability. Why continue publishing news reports from someone when those reports are instantly dismissed by a good portion of their readership?

Thankfully, it's not too late for the media to somewhat redeem themselves by finally asking Obama tough questions, by avoiding lying or misleading on his behalf, and by releasing any information on him that they've assiduously tried to cover up.

The press serves a vital role in the American system, yet too much of the press has abrogated their responsibilies and now simply serves as an arm of the Obama campaign.

Mainstream media reporters should take a longer-term view of the full impact that will have on their careers.


I think they are hired and retained per criteria that are different than the ones you might use.

The idea that your "critical mass" will be reached falls apart when you examine what the mass would be made of. Namely, people like you. People willing to latch on to non-stories and inuendo, and paste them into a crazy-quilt conspiracy. But, in order for that to happen, you'd have to convince millions of people that your (manifestly ridiculous) worldview is the "correct" one. And to do that, you'd need to be a lot less transparently crazy. "Obama goes to Hawaii: Is something else involved?" You're a nut. I barely know anything about you, and it's plain to see.

Have Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, Bill Bennett, Morton Kondracke, Michael Barone, William Kristol, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove gone all out to elect Barack Obama as president? One may argue that they have. Is John McCain, who was born in Panama, eligible to run for the office he now seeks? When will the MSM do its job and discuss this at length?

Bigshot Reporter's thoughts might have more heft if its IP matched some news agency and if it had used its real name. And, I'm not aware of any reporters from that city being "bigshots". Irrespective of that, the entire argument it presents is ad hom. The process I'm discussing will be performed by others, not just me. Another plan is already under way and in fact someone's already starting to put together a website. And, all those people working loosely together can have a very significant impact. I'm not the only one who'd be involved, I'd just be one of the facilitators. And, millions of people aren't needed, just a few dozen or more. As for BHO's trip, the only reason I went easy on that is because I don't want to burn in hell ;) Any reporter who wouldn't at least wonder why someone would take two days off almost at the end of a two year campaign to be the most powerful leader in the world is an ahistoric fool.

Congress passed a resolution acknowledging that McCain is eligible for the position. Obama has not been subjected to this scrutiny. His word is not enough. With McCain, the issue was whether someone born in the Canal zone was eligible to run for president. With Obama, the issue is not whether he is eligible to run based on where he was born, but rather where he was born. It is clear-cut - if he was born in Kenya then he is ineligible and a fraud has been perpetrated on millions of Americans who supported him; if he was born in Hawaii, then the issue is moot and he is a valid candidate. One cannot help but be skeptical when the facts are shrouded in mystery.

The answer to that inane question is: if FOX is still alive, then not even the devil would be out of a job after Nov 4th.

IS your defention of liberal anything you dont agree with? Also you condemn the MSM for being in the tank for Obama, would you also condemn Fox News and others like them for their support of McCain or is it ok because its "balancing" things out?

What about you McCain? You lecture about "Obama's hidden life" and "paid for media". Don't you do that? What about you? Is anything that you don't agree with "wrong" and "unacceptable"? I heard you and Palin both avoiding the tough questions and critizing any opinion that that you don't agree with. Stop hitting Obama and attempt to be a somewhat decent leader and ANSWER our questions instead of telling us what we want to hear and taking shortcuts like the sly coward you are. You're guilty of what you accuse Obama of- be a real leader will you? Come on!

Drive interested readers to the net. Cancel all cable and print media. We won't listen to a progaganda machine for liberals and liberal Democrats. Don't buy anything unless absolutely necessary. Let's see how liberals live without an economy to push their agenda. Good night, and Good Luck.