Re: Media has agenda on Obama re-election, Letters, Oct. 2.
With respect to Randy O’Donnell – and I agree with his hypothesis – I would like to offer an even starker example of this bias.
In 2002, George W. Bush called on the finest minds in military intelligence, foreign affairs and Middle East specialists to report on the status of Iraq’s weaponry.
Without exception, they told the president that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Their argument was so convincing that Gen. Colin Powell addressed the United Nations about it.
As it turned out, no such weapons were found when American invaded Iraq. Within days, the news media, with vindictiveness bordering on outright animosity, began calling Bush a ‘liar’ for making his statement.
Almost four years ago, President Barack Obama called in the most prominent economic advisors in America to report on remedies for the economic difficulties associated with the ‘great recession’. He listened to academic experts, Federal Reserve Board leaders and his council of economic advisors. Based on their evidence and advice, he went before the American people and promised that “unemployment would never reach eight per cent.”
Seldom has a prediction been so wrong. The unemployment rate in the U.S. has been eight per cent or higher for 43 consecutive months. Strangely enough, however; not one prominent media member has called Obama a liar. When questioning him about his erroneous prediction, the media has offered ‘softball’ questions which put the blame anywhere but at the president’s door and the term ‘liar’ has never been used.
One must ask why the two standards? It is a most interesting question.
Leonard M. Melman