I am aware that
journalists, reporters, and other members of the media love to report on
awkward statements that politicians make, because it creates great ratings, and
I’m fine with that. As long as the
reporter or journalist accurately reports what the politician said, and doesn’t
take it out of context, or try to change the meaning of what was said. If you watched the first presidential debate,
you heard what Romney said about cutting funding, and he used PBS as an
example. I found a video of the first
presidential debate, and to quote Mr. Romney, “First I will eliminate all
programs by this test if they don’t pass it.
Is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to
pay for it, and if it’s not then I’ll get rid of it. Obama Care is on my list… I’m sorry Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy
to PBS…” Somehow the far leftwing media, and other liberal nut jobs interpret
this statement, as Mitt Romney hates Big Bird.
I happen to agree
with Mitt Romney’s plan to stop funding non-critical programs that are not
worth borrowing money from china. On the
other hand Charles M. Blow, a Grambling State University graduate and art
director of The New York Times, decided to write a column in the New York Times
editorial page about how Mitt Romney can’t relate to Big Bird, and all the
poor, poor people who will be lost without Sesame Street. Give me a break! This is just another liberal, who happens to
be a minority, trying to paint Mitt Romney as an evil, white, Republican who is
not in touch with the poor black American man.
This is typical class warfare.
Blow goes on to say that Sesame Street taught him, as well as many other
poor people, to read, write, and count.
I guess Mr. Blow’s school had nothing to do with that, it was all Big Bird,
Elmo, and Count Von Count.
Secondly, it’s not
like Sesame Street will go off the air if it stops receiving it’s government
subsidy. PBS earns enough money through
various charities and donations to keep Big Bird, Grover, and Oscar the Grouch employed
and living well (Oscar chooses to live in a dump). It is clear that Blow’s intent in writing
this article is to make Romney look bad, and win votes for President
Obama.
I just can’t wrap
my head around the fact that an educated man, like Mr. Blow, can take a
statement so far out of context. It’s borderline
unethical. I just hope the readers of Mr.
Blow’s column can see through all that smoke Mr. Blow is blowing.
1 comment:
In my classmate, Antonio Barletta’s post Get Over Big Bird Already, he points out a couple of key misconceptions about Conservatives. Most Democrats paint republicans as “evil, white [and] not in touch with poor black Americans.” When in reality most Conservatives don’t care about someone’s sex, race, or gender. They care if someone is working and providing for themselves or if they are just living off taxpayer dollars that Conservatives worked hard for and earned. Liberals are the ones centered on racism. They are constantly focused on those markers but they try and pin conservatives as the racist ones.
He also brings up the fact that Blow’s true intent behind his column was to try and smear Mitt Romney’s campaign as much as possible and win votes for Barack Obama. This just goes to show how many left-winged people there are in media. Most of the media channels and news outlets are pushing a liberal agenda. Trying to get a straight answer or real facts from the media these days is hard to do. Mitt Romney’s statement about cutting funding to PBS was taken extremely far out of context. People claim to want to reduce the debt and cut spending but when the idea of cutting programs is brought up claws come out.
By painting this picture of Romney as a Big Bird hater, liberals were hoping to persuade voters against voting for him in the elections. By pushing their agenda in media, they know people will see that and not do the research for themselves to find out the real facts and just believe whatever they see. I wish America could see through all the smoke the liberals are blowing.
Post a Comment