News at 11:00, Opinion at 11:01

Have you ever listened to the news and just said WHAT?

I just heard a peppy female caster proclaim good news for the economy.  She reports that this is the third straight month that there has been a gain in manufacturing hiring.  Then comes the sound bite; a gravelly voiced economist saying there has been an increase in job openings for manufacturing positions, BUT unfortunately it has not kept pace with manufacturing jobs losses.  The giddy cheerleader voice returns to say that economic indicators prove that the US economy has rounded a corner and is on the rebound.  Isn't that like an oncologist telling you he has good news – they are killing more lung cancer cells than ever, unfortunately the cancer has metastasized to all parts of your body and is growing faster than they can keep up.  But hey, we've turned a corner here. 

Last week The Globe reported that there are serious flaws with the data collection of global temperatures in regard to Global Warming.  Scientists admit that sea levels have not risen as computer projections forecast.  The lead IPCC scientist admitted that there has been no significant rise of temperature in the last 15 years.  The rest of the article dealt with the danger the earth is in if we don't act now (it may be too late already) and how some people refuse to accept the reality of global warming even with the mountain of evidence staring us in the face – which, by the way, only science professions can understand.  The article was oblivious to its own contradictions.

Today Barak Obama extended the Patriot Act for another year.  DEMOCRATS called it a necessary step for security.   It was reported matter-of-factly.  Two years ago democrats were calling it the biggest civil rights travesty in US History.   George Bush had to go - Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, Afghanistan – he was a national embarrassment.  He was alternately the devil incarnate or the stupidest man on earth.  As of March 2010, the smartest man on the planet has done nothing about Gitmo, decided to stay in Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan and today extended the Patriot Act.  All these things are okay now.  I mean the situation on the ground is dire. 

Full disclosure, I am neither republican nor democrat and my leanings are more libertarian with a shade of cultural conservativism.  I think Glenn Beck can be a big fat jerk, but he should get a Pulitzer for some of the stories he broke last year.  FOX leans right, NPR leans left and CNN is somewhere out in its own little self-congratulatory universe.  And if there is a court fool it is Keith Olberman.  Though Rachel Madow consistently proves she is not even up to par for her own show.  And not one of them can tell us what is really going on without interjecting biased commentary into the news report.  Okay, so Beck, Olberman, et al, are commentators and can be excused but you know what I mean.  It's their job to look at the news and spin it to their views. And they are paid well for it. It's the actual reporting full of  (not so) hidden commentary that I object to. Just tell me what is going on. Period. Don't analyze it for me. If I want it analyzed I know when Blitzer, O'Reilly and Matthews are on.

I took ONE – just ONE journalism class in college.  It didn't take long, as I listened to their conversations, to realize that the majors in the class were there because they wanted to change the world.  One time I not-so-slyly pointed out that the PoliSci building was on the other side of campus.  It didn't go over well.  They didn't want to be Woodward and Bernstein.  They wanted to be Perez Hilton and slam conservative Christian beauty pageant contestants and expose the bigotry of the right. I sat in many classes just amazed as lessons and arguments against propaganda and prejudice were nothing more than tirades and rants filled with propaganda and prejudice. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men, objectivity was used for a punch line in a joke.

I miss Cronkite. Remember Uncle Walter? It shocked people to find out how liberal his political views were revealed to be after he retired. Nobody knew. Today, we know.  No surprise, but most reporters vote democrat in elections.  We're supposed to believe that any such sharply skewed group even knows what a balanced view is?  Granted, news can be biased because reporters are often lazy and use only the most convenient sources, i.e. government spokesman, PR consultants, etc. but today there is the decision to seek out the more progressive viewpoint, to find alternate interests and to include other societal demographics. These viewpoints usually are not relevant to the facts of the story. But in the interest of "diversity" and "fairness" we are righting the inequalities of the past in the newsrooms of today.

Back in the days of America Past you knew the bias of a newspaper when you picked it up.  Editorial ownership guided the whole tone of the reporting.  Today they all pretend that they are unbiased, impartial, fair and balanced.  Bull.  The Wall Street Journal has the most liberal reporting in the nation – but they hide it by staffing the most conservative editorial board.  The New York Times often has fair reporting but Marx and Lenin would feel comfortable on its Ed Board.  Sometimes you don't know what you're getting.  But sometimes you do.  And you realize that the cheerleading peppy voice on the 3 PM newscast has no idea that she just contradicted herself.