The Media And The Administration

If you spend much time on the internet, you probably already know that Obama's Green Czar, Van Jones, resigned over the weekend. Van Jones made derogatory statements and lived a radical lifestyle, and he should not have been appointed to a non-accountable position overseeing a $30,000,000,000 budget.

These are the accusations against him that I am aware of:

1) Earlier this year, he called Republicans a**holes.

2) He actively supported a cop killer, Mumia, convicted of the 1981 slaying of a Philadelphia police officer.

3) Jones is a self-described communist. Specifically, "by August [after the Rodney King verdict] I was a communist." He assumed a leadership role in the group STORM, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, a Marxist organization in the San Francisco area.

4) Most disturbingly, he's a 'Truther'. This is a term for people who believe that the Bush Administration was behind the 9/11 attacks on our country. Jones now claims that he didn't understand the 2004 petition he signed. It's implausible that a community activist wouldn't understand the words on a petition. More importantly, as early as 2002, he organized a Truther March in San Francisco.

Items #1 and #2 above should not, of themselves, disqualify him from service. (Although, if a Bush appointee had called Democrats a**holes, the mainstream media would have been all over it.)

However, isn't it a very genuine and reasonable concern to question whether a man who has core beliefs that undermine our system of government should be responsible for overseeing a $30,000,000,000 budget within that same government?

Obama named Jones a czar, bypassing the part where the Senate has to confirm his appointment. Jones could have spent the money in any way he chose, with no accountability to the American people. Fortunately, we have a diligent media intent on pursuing truth and making sure that there is no corruption in the Obama Administration, right? Ha Ha.

It's been documented that all last week, as the controversy surrounding Jones' past was brewing, CBS, NBC & ABC, as well as other mainstream news outlets, had zero stories on him. As this article states:

"When the vast majority of the traditional news outlets in the nation fail to report major news regarding the country and its government, citizens are kept precariously in the dark concerning vital news that they need to know in order to make informed choices. CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post, etc. are all so heavily invested in the success of the Obama administration, due to their obvious cheerleading role during the campaign and after the election, that they are loathe to report any information that may place Obama, the Administration, or the Democratic Congress is a negative light."

When the press finally reported about the controversy, after Jones' resignation, they focused on Item #1 above as the main reason for his downfall, not his extremist views.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman claim that the main lesson from the Jones debacle is that the internet is a dangerous place, and now people will be afraid to say anything controversial over fear that it will be posted on the internet. You can check out the video here .

That's the main message? Not that the mainstream media was bending over backwards to protect an Obama appointee from public scrutiny? Don't American citizens have a right to know if someone in a highly responsible government position has extremist beliefs that, are, in fact, subversive to the government?

Of course, I've been aware of a liberal bias in the media ever since I switched over to conservatism. Lately, it's become more than annoying. It's chilling. Those who are supposed to be the watch dogs for all of us, have instead become the lap dogs for the other side.

By the terms they use, by the inflections in their voices, by the questions they ask and don't ask, even by what they edit out and what they leave in an interview, they've been able to decide how the debate will be presented. Who's going to appear to be reasonable, and who's going to appear to be wacko? Who's going to come across as a nice guy, and who's a jerk? Who gives thoughtful responses to a question, and who's answers are mindless?

Is that the way it's going to remain? In years to come, will the few still dominate the dissemination of information? Or, will internet based media gain more and more prominence? In the future, who will be the main framers of the debate?

I don't know. But it definitely reinforces my conviction that I need to hone my own, and my children's, thinking and writing skills so that we'll be prepared to participate.