When In The Presence Of The Queen…
There are rules that regular folks must follow when visiting the Queen. You must never speak until spoken too, and I think you’re not supposed to look her in the eyes directly. Sharron Angle is writing new rules for speaking to Queen of the Teabaggers – don’t ask about things she’s said before. A Las Vegas reporter, Nathan Baca, had the nerve to try to ask Queen Sharron about previous statements she had made:
“Why do you want to eliminate (Social Security) for younger folks, because your plan calls for transitioning out,” Baca asked.
“You believe the Harry Reid lie,” Angle replied.
When asked to define “transitioning out”, Angle said, “Transition into a personalized account… personalized Social Security accounts that they can’t raid.”
The stock market, Baca countered, almost crashed in 2008, meaning millions of seniors would have had their savings accounts wiped out.
Angle replied, “Now, you’re putting words into my mouth from Harry Reid. I want you to be very clear on this. I’m here to save Social Security… Harry Reid is here to bankrupt Social Security.”
Baca got similar responses when asked about Angle’s call to close the EPA or what she meant about “Second Amendment remedies.” Apparently, Sharron Angle’s positions are all Harry Reid’s fault.
All joking aside, I think this is a really important moment for the media. What is going to be their response to candidates like Angle, Paul or Whitman who refuse to do any media but rightwing media? Will they cover them like they do Palin and pretend that this is good enough? Will the media let these candidates get away with pretending they never said what they said previously? If Angle, Paul or Whitman win in this way what reason would any politician have for doing any media but sycophantic friendly interviews?
Tags: NV-Sen, Sharron Angle, Teabaggers
I don’t understand the mainstream media anymore.They’ve gone belly up,like two dollar whores,in reaction to the right-wing blitzkrieg of FOX,Rush,Beck,Palin,Hannity and the rest of the escaped inmates from the asylum.
They have also FAILED to call out politicians for their continuining lies and distortions.That’s their FUCKING job.
I tell you,I forget who said this,but I’m beginning to feel the same.
“Everything is laid waste,even words have lost their lustre.”
the media does not view their job as presenting the truth. Cronkite is dead.
the media views its job as keeping eyes on the tube (which enables the reporters to keep their jobs), and that requires conflict (he said, she said, with no fact checking on the media’s part), and screaming/crying can only help
I’m surprised that the media doesn’t present a segment with scientists going up against flat-earth folks.
Forget where I read it, but I saw a blog post about the markedly different way the media has responded to Wikileaks compared to Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times 40 years ago. When Nixon tried to prevent the NYT from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the Washington Post and others did, pretty much rendering Nixon’s actions useless.
The situation with Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, is another story. Assange is in hiding as the Pentagon hunts him down. His website has been criticized by many “liberal” media outlets, the same ones that once upon a time had sources with names like Deep Throat.
Why is this? I have a few theories, one of which is that most media companies are owned by big corporations, which tend to fall on the right side of the political aisle. Also, since 9/11, I believe the media has largely given the government a free ride at a time when they needed to be more vigilant than ever. Also, in a 24-7 news cycle, with TV and radio time and blogs and websites to fill, these outlets are paranoid about being shut off from the very people they need to provide programming. One more reason might be the cutting of bureaus and staffs and budgets to the point where they can’t devote enough time to chasing a story.