Thursday, September 18, 2008

Who is really elitist?

This blog is about the mass media's ignorance at times, although we talk about many other things besides. But much of the reason WE have to talk about other things besides is because the MSM does a poor job of it on its own. So when I came across this story on another blog and looked into it myself, I was again shocked by what the MSM considers "newsworthy."

The story was about Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has now decided that Sen. John McCain is more her style. The reason? She thinks Sen. Barack Obama is "elitist." I hear you laughing. Yes, a woman who goes by LADY thinks Obama is elitist. A woman who is a billionaire married to a billionaire, and who splits her time between New York and London, thinks Obama is elitist. That's rich, no pun intended.

One might argue that she'd know elitist being so elite herself. But when you compare McCain and Obama, it's clear who falls into the "elite" category. According to Opensecrets.org, McCain's net worth in 2006 was between $27 million and $45 million. Obama's? $456,000 to $1 million. Elite indeed! And much has already been made about McCain's many houses (from four to seven, depending on whom you talk to).

But it's not just that Obama is elitist. Read the Lady's remarks from her interview with Campbell Brown on CNN:

"So, please, you know, the class war that Barack Obama would like to declare in this country to divide people is so wrong."

The class war Obama is declaring? Where? Because he wants to tax those who make over $250,000? I don't see that as a class war. I see that as fairness to the American people. Why should I get taxed more or equally to someone who makes 10 times what I do a year? Because let's face it, what problems would it really cause someone in that income bracket? That he might have to sell one of his five cars? That he might have to move into a $1 million house instead of a $5 million one, or sell one of his 10 houses? Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear. I'm sorry the Lady doesn't want to be taxed more, but something tells me she won't be living in a cardboard box in an alley anytime soon. And this class war she's talking about is in her head. If anything, Obama has brought people together. I see it on the streets, where people of all races and ages are wearing Obama shirts or buttons, putting up Obama signs on their lawns or Obama bumper stickers on their cars. I see it in my cousin in Colorado who wasn't really interested in politics until this year, because Obama inspired her, and others in her immediate family. I see it in people in my family who have not always held black people in high regard (much to my dismay), who now want to know more about Obama.

And let's not forget to mention that during that same CNN interview, the Lady referred to those people in Pennsylvania who Obama allegedly called "bitter" as "rednecks." Oh yes, the woman who thinks Obama is elitist and ready to start a class war thinks working class Pennsylvanians are rednecks. You know what, McCain? You can have her.

What I find hard to understand is why the Lady was on CNN, or why when I run a search on Google, I come up with 365 articles about her switch? Why is this news? Sure, she was a big supporter of Clinton and was on the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee (a membership she's now resigned). But she's not, oh I don't know, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Maybe it was because the Lady is a woman and a former Clinton supporter, and this somehow was supposed to show how vulnerable Obama is with women who once supported Clinton. Still, that's very far-fetched. The Lady is certainly not the typical female Clinton supporter. And a new poll shows that Obama is leading McCain with women. I'm not big on polls because I think they are unreliable at times, but that's all I have to look to at this point, since the MSM only talks to the likes of the Lady.

Now on the flip side of this, Rep. Wayne Gilchrist, a Republican, endorsed Obama yesterday, and much less was made of that announcement. I think a Republican with a current seat in Congress endorsing the Democratic candidate for president is much more significant than the Lady's thinking Obama is too elitist for her liking. I looked on CNN.com for any articles or videos about the Gilchrist/Obama story and received a "No Results" for my trouble. Interesting. The Lady gets an interview with Campbell Brown, and Gilchrist gets squat. I guess the fact that he lost the primary and is retiring makes him a nobody. Certainly not as important as a director at Estee Lauder. And what about these people?

This just reinforces my thinking that people can't just watch television or read newspapers and think they are getting the "important" news, or even getting the whole story. I know for most people, this is all they do. They watch their local late night news and read their local newspaper and think they have what they need to make an informed decision. But nowadays, making an informed decision means doing a lot more than listening to the MSM. I won't lie. I like watching CNN and MSNBC, or reading some of the newspapers online, but I also consult other sources. And I don't mean just blogs. If I hear or read something I want more information on, I research it. I know a lot of people don't have that kind of time, though, and that is why my disappointment in the MSM is so great. We either get only one side of things, or we get news like the Lady's defection to the McCain campaign as if it means something.

I went to school to study journalism because I wanted to be a reporter who informed people about the things that were important in the world. Now, I'm not sure that is the role of a reporter anymore.

1 comment:

niteowl said...

I happened to catch this interview with Rothschild. Absolutely nauseating.