ON FRIDAY, the Clinton's released their tax records dating back to 2000. Turns out they've been doing pretty good: they earned $109 million over that period.So the New York Times wrote this in the Saturday paper: In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty.
Is it necessary to point that out?
The same edition of the Times has only one longer story about Hillary Clinton's competitor, Barack Obama. The Obama story is a campaign journal that follows the candidate on campaign stops - watching him eat onion rings, debate the usefulness of the penny, and bowl. Oh, and we learn that Obama wears a size 13.5 shoe.
Is that fair? Does it have to be?
8 comments:
It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be. Yes the news shouldn't be biased but it comes down to the individual's ability to look past the news' slant and make their own decision.
I personally do wish that they would cover everyone fairly as they should.
The media has been attacking Clinton far more than Obama. They make allegations about her, but they don't speak about how the other candidates have done the same things as her. They don't seem to be digging past Obama's pastor.
It's sad, unfair, and biased. What the heck happened to providing people with the "whole" or "factual" truth?
The media is definitely harder on Hillary because she's been in the business a lot longer. I don't think it's fair, but that is the way it has become. The Clintons have been in the public eye for a really long time - so I guess it comes with the territory. For some reason they seem to hold her accountable for a lot more than they do Obama.
The New York Times supported Hillary, though, so I don't think they have any personal vendettas against her. You won't find any stories of her just chillin' and eating onion rings, though. She's a fighter and she doesn't stop!
Holla!
I believe that the media hates Hillary simply because she is a woman. The media loves Obama because he's Black and he can talk his way out of hell...
To say that the media loves Obama "because he's Black" is pretty asinine, just as it is to say that they hate Hillary because she's a woman. Obama's campaign is very people oriented. Since he chooses to interact with the media, they may have a bit of a bias towards him. Plus, the media has a lot of dirt on the Clinton family already. It has nothing to do with race or gender, because both African Americans and women have a history of being treated poorly in the media.
CURRENT EVENT NEWSFLASH! charlton heston has DIED! AMERICA LOSES WORLD'S GREATEST ACTOR! DISCUSS PEOPLE! DISCUSS!
It's not fair and it should be. How can someone say the news should be unfair????
Who cares if Obama eats onion rings or what size shoe he is? I want to know what the canidates stand for. There is too much being put into this race about charm and charisma. I have no idea what Obama stands for because all of the coverage of him is "wow hes a great speaker, hes a great leader, look at him do this and that." It should be about what the canidates are going to do. Too much in being made about how they present themselves instead of what they are planning to do as President.
Save the cute little favorite food, favorite color questions for Seventeen magazine.
PS. Ms. Caramel Star....are you serious?
It is nearly impossible for Hillary to win this election and if anything, the media talks her up to keep the race going because after all it benefits the media. To say the media hates Hillary because she is a woman and loves Obama because he is black is ignorant. Didn't you learn anything from the comments by Geraldine Ferrera?
Post a Comment