Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
That's true at MSNBC, but some of the others on your list acted as Bush's stenographers for at least a few years after 9/11. The Washington Post and New York Times were particularly shameless in their cheerleading for W. Why the right always bashes them is beyond me. It was as if they were on Bush's payroll, until he went out of fashion a short time after they helped get him re-elected. Then they started bashing him.
I don't have time now, but maybe I can find some links later on.
|
It's really simple. If you write articles and your target audience is women, it might be easier for you to find work at a magazine that caters to women. At that time, he might have been popular. As such, if you want to write articles with negative content about him, it might not sell as well. Either you write to your audience's taste, or you are out of a job. It is that simple.
Who the hell do you think you are to expect that a journalist do otherwise? If Obama hired me or my wife, you can bet we'd be saying he was a saint that can walk on water. When our link is no longer necessary and we are hired by Obama's opponent, why do you think we'd say Obama was good? We don't bite the hand that feeds us, do we? As such, why do you think we can expect it of others? When hired and/or on the payroll of Company X, why do you think it is in my interests to denounce them? Sure, in private I might air my views to the boss but that is as far as it goes. Publicly, I would feel obligated to support my employer's position whether I agree with them or not.
As with reporters, when Obama first got elected, it would NOT be wise to say bad things about him unless your ground was certain. Say after he got re-elected or if the popular opinion changed, you can bet he'd be led to the slaughter like a lamb.