The Los Angeles Times editorialized on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize award today. While I don't disagree with their overall position of the prize, there is one thing that is really telling about the editorial policy of the Times itself.
They wrote in part:
For our part, we're fans of the president. We endorsed him for the job, and we greatly prefer him to his predecessor. [Italics mine.] But it's difficult to see why he deserves the peace prize so soon after taking office. The Nobel committee didn't just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the prize itself, which traditionally rotates among world leaders (Willy Brandt, Mikhail Gorbachev), charitable organizations (Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders) and humanitarians (Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa).
Note that the Times confessed that they are "fans" of Obama. How is a paper to remain editorially honest and also be credible in its news reporting if they are in Obama's pocket? That is an idiotic stance for any newspaper (or any news outlet) to take. Taking their own words from above, the Times "diminished the credibility" of their own paper by admitting they are "fans."
In a way, it is not surprising since the media in general has been in the tank for Obama. The slanted reporting and constant gushing during the 2008 campaign were obvious. Also, the L. A. Times is now owned by the Tribune Co. from Chicago, which is Obama's hometown (with all of its corrupt Democrat politics).
Perhaps it is time that the Los Angeles Times rids itself of its current editorial staff or is sold to an entity who has journalistic and editorial integrity. If they can't do either, then they should close down for good.
NOTE: I thought I'd take this opportunity to post my favorite political cartoon from last year's campaign on the subject of the media's love affair with Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment