One year after the inauguration of President Obama, right-wing media -- in particular Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, Big Hollywood, and Big Journalism -- marked the anniversary with a series of articles fondly reminiscing about the Bush administration, in which they often attempted to rewrite the history of Bush's policies and also attacked Obama.
Scott Brown Win 'Stunning'? Only to Out-of-Touch Media
And here's the argument they make:
[I]f you've been paying attention to the growing tide of anger and resentment against Washington elitists who have lost touch with their constituents, then Brown's win was not stunning, but a logical outcome. Unfortunately, many of those who task themselves with bringing us the news each and every day seem to be as out of touch with their audience as the Washington elites they cover.
OK, so the media are out of touch for labeling Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election as "stunning." Sure, I'll bite.
Now, check out the opening paragraph from an item posted yesterday on BigGovernment.com, Big Journalism's sister site and one of Breitbart's three "Big" websites [emphasis added]:
One would think the repudiation of the President Obama's direct personal plea would make him the biggest loser in the wake of Tuesday's stunning victory by Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special Senate election. But one would be wrong.
Oh my. It's bad enough to be "out of touch," but to be called out as such by your own colleagues? How embarrassing ...
In a January 19 blog post, Big Journalism's Bill Whittle wrote:
The press is supposed to be the immune system of the body politic. The press is supposed to be anywhere and everywhere, seeking out corruption the way a white blood cell targets pathogens. When the press no longer serves this function of protecting the political body against abuses of power - because it is too ideologically blinded to be able to either see or act upon these threats -- then our Republic has a virulent and highly lethal (historically, anyway) form of AIDS.
Talk radio, Fox News and the Internet - places like Big Journalism - are the immune-boosting cocktails that may keep the patient alive long enough for "the Press" to recover its true function and restore the body to health.
In one of the first posts on Andrew Breitbart's new website BigJournalism.com, radio host Ron Futrell purported to list "The Top Twelve Faux Media Scares of the Past Decade." A couple of the entries caught our eye. In one, Futrell spreads the tired myth that the world is cooling -- something scientists and statisticians could tell him is wrong. In another entry, Futrell goes after "asbestos insulation" as a "faux media scare." That one caused us to do a double take. How could concern over asbestos insulation be a "faux media scare"? Is BigJournalism actually advocating for people to forget the media hype and install asbestos in their homes and offices? Well, not quite. Futrell does acknowledge that you may not want to sprinkle asbestos "on your cereal in the morning," but he does present the link between asbestos and cancer as a matter for debate, labeling asbestos a "supposed carcinogen."
Outside of BigJournalism's world, the link between asbestos and cancer is well-known. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the EPA have determined that asbestos is a human carcinogen." In case you don't trust the liberal federal government and the WHO (who knows what kind of black helicopter plots those folks are involved in), the Utah Department of Environmental Quality also lists asbestos as a carcinogen. Even Fox News isn't on BigJournalism's side: Fox News senior medical editor Dr. Michael W. Smith has listed asbestos as a carcinogen.
Is it too early to say that relying on BigJournalism for your information may be hazardous to your health?