When Texas Governor Rick Perry scuttled his election chances by forgetting in the CNBC GOP debate a third federal agency he’d like to abolish, it was headline news. And rightly so. Yet when Barack Obama indicated that our nation has 58 states, the media were missing in action. In fact, someone close to me had never even heard about the President’s incredible gaffe — although “gaffe” doesn’t really do such an unfathomable mistake justice — until recently when she watched a comedic campaign commercial I put together that includes footage of it (below):
Now could you imagine if Perry, or any Republican, had uttered such stupidity? Heck, when former Vice-President Dan Quayle misspelled "potato" at a school in 1992 (after being given a cue card with the incorrect spelling), he was branded a Ken Doll dolt wholly unfit for office. The fact is that if a conservative made a mistake such as Obama’s, the conclusion would be that 58 might just represent his I.Q.
This is nothing new, of course. Another staggering example is from 1996, when President Bill Clinton was walking out of the memorial for Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. As Clinton emerged, he was laughing and smiling — until he saw a camera. He then bowed his head and, unbelievably, pretended to cry. Yet, with the Internet in its infancy back then, even I wouldn’t have known about the phony display had Rush Limbaugh not featured it on his television show (the footage is shown below). And what would the reaction have been had the Machiavellian actor been a Republican? He would rightly have been condemned in the media — perhaps as a sociopath — and it could have spelled the end of his political career. Yet with Slick Willie’s it wasn’t deemed newsworthy.
As eyebrow-raising as such hidden examples are, far more destructive is what’s hiding in plain sight: the media’s everyday opinion manipulation. For instance, consider how Herman Cain was grilled by CNN’s Piers Morgan on his belief that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in cases of rape and incest, as you would still be murdering an innocent child. While I agree with Cain, this principled pro-life position is not mainstream; thus, the more you’re forced to air it, the more voters you alienate. Now, many will say that this is the media’s job, to extract information and let the chips fall where they may.
If only they did that job.
The problem is that when someone on the left embraces a corresponding fringe position, he’s never put on the hot seat. For example, President Obama opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) when he was in the Illinois senate. Yet could you ever imagine a reporter raising the matter and then asking the following question: “Mr. President, without BAIPA innocent babies will be left to die in soiled storerooms. What do you say to the millions of Americans who are aghast that anyone would turn a blind eye to such heartless infanticide?”?
The fact is that the media place GOP candidates under a microscope — and sometimes in front of a fun-house mirror — while erecting a façade of respectability in front of Democrats. When it was found that Rick Perry’s family had leased a hunting camp at which there was a slab of rock bearing a racial-epithet-based name, it was front-page news even though the Perrys had long before painted over the term. Ron Paul is currently enduring criticism for politically incorrect statements in newsletters published in his name decades ago, even though he disavows authorship. But does this really compare to the danger of a crypto-Marxist in government? When will the media do an exposé on Obama’s communist ties? Why is it that Dr. John Drew, a former Marxist who knew Obama and heard him explicitly advocate communist revolution, tells me that he can’t even get anyone in the mainstream media to interview him?
Given such a double standard, is it any wonder that many of the Republican contenders are viewed as “radical” while Obama, who had the Senate’s most left-wing voting record in 2007 – even outdoing that chamber’s only avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders — is thought more moderate? And it’s easy to lend this impression. Simply take Republicans and continually emphasize whatever out-of-the-mainstream positions they may hold, as you masquerade as an objective journalist who, by gum, is just trying to get to the bottom of things; meanwhile, simply ignore the far more egregious radicalism of Democrats. It’s Photoshop reporting: Republicans’ warts are magnified — and some are Photoshopped on – while a blur tool is used on Democrats with an intensity that could make the Wicked Witch of the West look like Marilyn Monroe.
What else can be mentioned? How about showcasing white-on-black “hate crimes” while ignoring black-on-white ones, portraying man-caused global warming as real and suppressing refutatory evidence, calling pro-life activists “anti-abortion” while allowing “pro-choice” operatives their euphemistic name, or reporting on the male-female wage gap so as to lend the incorrect impression that it’s a function of discrimination? How about the distortion of the thousands of other little pictures, which then come together and create a distorted big picture?
Really, the deception is so great it reminds me of the film The Matrix, a story about malevolent machines that keep man living in a false reality for the purposes of maintaining control over him. And the only way to emerge from the illusion is to take a certain red pill. Take the blue one, and you remain in the dream world.
Yet, tragically, virtually all the people who need to read this article will never see it. Most of those who read the Red Pill Media already know about Matrix Media bias, and those who don’t are ensconced in its cocoon of deceit. Without even knowing it, they have taken the blue bill — ergo, blue states. It’s also why, I suspect, Americans will be singing the blues this November.