Desperate media are pandering to desperate Obama
The recent hit piece, now falling apart, by the Washington Post on Mitt Romney's supposed high school hi-jinks has prompted many questions as to why a pillar of the mainstream media sinks so low in not-so-subtle pandering for Barack Obama and the Democrats.
Ideology plays a major role as the overwhelming majority of journalists and editors are politically left of the majority of the American people. However another more practical factor may well be the driving force behind the excessive willingness to carry water for the Obama re-election campaign.
It is no secret that the Washington Post, New York Times, and virtually all mainstream news outlets are hemorrhaging red ink, with no end in sight. The Washington Post, for example, recorded an average daily circulation of 790,000 in 2000, today it has dropped to 507,000 (-36%). Worse still print advertising revenue has fallen from $665 million in 2000 to less than $270 million last year; a precipitous drop of 60%. The most recent reporting quarter reveals a financial situation that has become worse with no end in sight.
The results for the New York Times have been critical as they have been scrambling to stay afloat by selling assets. They are about to run out of assets to sell.
It has been estimated that within 10 years, without a major change of direction or subsidy, there will be no mainstream media as we know it still in business.
Yet there is no apparent willingness to change their biased reporting and editorial policies, one of the major factors in the loss of readership and subsequent financial debacles as many people are increasingly turning to alternative sources of news.
Over the past few years there has been increasing conversation among the media elites on whether the government should subsidize newspapers as the only means of keeping them afloat. It is their contention that newspapers are so vital to the nation that they must be saved.
There is only one political party that would even consider such an action: the Democrats. Plus a president who governs by which group or individuals give him the most money. Sycophantic media coverage and co-ordination with the campaign is worth a king's ransom.
The coverage to-date more than indicates the media's willingness to walk hand-in-hand with the Democrats and the Obama re-election team. Expect more absurd hit pieces not only on Romney but all Republicans and a pronounced lack of scrutiny on Obama's record or past.
While ideology is important, one's livelihood and future are of much greater importance and the cause of many to sell their soul to the highest bidder. If Obama wins re-election and the Democrats minimize any Republican gains, will the media get their wish and receive government largess in order to save their industry? Will this Faustian bargain be their final death-knell?