I am puzzled by the behavior of the mainstream press when it comes to reporting national political news, particularly the results of the three nationally televised debates of the Republican candidates for president. Am I mistaken in assuming that the function of a news organization is to report in a clear, honest and unbiased manner the events which comprise the news? If the mainstream news organizations are not really news organizations at all, then just what are they?
The results of the three Republican debates among the candidates could not be clearer, could they? Hasn’t a congressman from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul (a medical doctor), won all three debates by margins so wide as to be startling?
Isn’t it even more startling that the major news organizations fail to mention these facts? The polls taken by the several TV chains have even been displayed prominently if briefly on the TV screens of those major systems, haven’t they? So what gives?
Are we to assume that those who control the TV systems have political views so different from those of presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul that those TV systems refuse to fulfill their function as unbiased news reporters and sources? And if that were the case, then how could the public trust anything that it is presented by those sources as being unbiased?
Isn’t it chilling to discover that the only reliable source of news is the Internet, which requires, nevertheless, that the viewer laboriously pick through reports in order to find the truth about events? Yet, isn’t that preferable to a monolithic mass that isn’t true?
Peninsula Clarion ©2013. All Rights Reserved.