Obama's Cabinet Picks Heavy on Washington Experience
Perusing this week's news articles from various media outlets, I noticed something particularly interesting, yet unsurprising; Fox News has practically ceased criticizing now President-elect Barack Obama. Key word: practically.
Despite clear indications that the network's avoided its usual agenda-setting (because of Obama's overwhelming victory), bias is still evident. Take the lead of the article Obama's Cabinet Picks Heavy on Washington Experience for example:
"For months on the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington. But now that he's president-elect, his first potential Cabinet picks indicate that he may bring more years of Washington experience to his administration than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did."
Obama promised change. He didn't promise inexperienced Cabinet members. Suggesting that picking experienced Cabinet members is somehow contradictory to a policy of change is either stupid or biased. Something tells me it's the latter.
Who the experienced individuals are is the subject of interest, or at least it should be. Obama picking individuals who served or held views consistent with the Bush Administration would be cause for criticism. But this is not the case.
In fact, he seems to be keen on veterans of the Clinton Administration, naming Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel was a leading strategist in the efforts to institute universal health care during Clinton's presidency.
To be fair, the lead is the only blatant bias in the article. Fox did include several quotes from Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs. These include the following:
"[Clinton administration veterans] participated in a presidency that is viewed to have its accomplishments and was viewed as well run."
"The argument that Obama people would make ... it's possible to rely on people who know how the levers are pulled, but move it in a different direction than the last eight years."
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
(Click headline for link to article)
OK, it is now post-election time and we can congratulate President-elect Barack Obama for really "Baracking the vote!" I am sure we can also come to a consensus that the 2008 election was quite eventful, full of surprises, and of course, dramatic as ever. During the election we saw SNL, MAD-TV and many other satirical productions of the events that led up to the final vote. Even after the election, some people just can't let go of the comedic drama. ABC News broke out a recent story about an inevitable movie for the 2008 election.
This article is not bias based on the dictionary definition of the term, but it definitely offers a slanted approach centered on the election being more humorous and amusing than fundamental. This whole idea of making a new movie, "Election 2008: The Movie" seems a bit too far fetched. Granted I found myself laughing while reading the article, I realized how inpractical it was with the point it made. Not only does it offer a fabricated illustration of the recent elections, but it mirrors more parodies that were already revealed on Late Night shows as previously mentioned.
I found the cinemark idea to offer a more satirical idea of the realistic events and would actually take away from the seriousness of the election. Moreover, the movie would display a mockery and ridicule of the candidates involved, such as Senator John McCain, whom the critics mention Ed Harris as a prospective actor for this part and regarding Harris' intended role, say: "I'm sure he can be made to look older."
Most notably of course, they discussed the proposal of Tina Fey playing Governor Sarah Palin, which is no surprise since that was a main focal point of mainstream media during the election.
As for the other participants, it was interesting to read the bogus suggestions for the cast characters such as Barack Obama (Will Smith), Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Cindy McCain, Oprah (by Oprah), Joe Biden, George Bush and we couldn't forget the infamous "Joe the Plumber."
Although I agree that this past election was much different than any others and encompassed many extremes thus making it quite amusing, I would not advocate it as a blockbuster comedy because of its intense distortion of reality.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Are suburban singles destined to be alone? Does it mean that since they do not live in a hip, bustling city, they are completely out of the loop when it comes to finding a "mate?" According to this article entitled The Best Cities For Singles on www.forbes.com, the answer would be a resounding "Yes!"
"For the first time ever, Atlanta tops our list of the best cities for singles. The capital of Georgia and home of Coca-Cola earns the top slot because of its hopping nightlife, relatively high number of singles and sizzling job growth."
By the sounds of this, perhaps Atlanta is the best city for anyone and everyone.
What really bothered me about this article was the methodology of "coolness," meaning rating the coolness factor of each individual city and comparing them against each other. The fact that "coolness" was an actual method of measurement made me think of junior high cliques and "No Boys Allowed" clubs.
Though, I'm sure this article was written for a rather young audience, probably aimed at women, it is biased in the way of pertaining to a select social group. After all, how many single, lonely 60-year-olds are going to be searching for a "mate" based on a spicy nightlife or the coolest city?
Overall, this article was an interesting read, but lacking and relatively pointless if you are looking to get anything substantial out of it.