If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”
                                                                  — Mark Twain

Don’t think for one minute that our minds are not being manipulated by a biased media. We are all much like lambs in the flock, following, believing as they mold us to believe.
I’ve witnessed their methods through several personal experiences. Thus, I always read and watch with a jaundiced eye, knowing that certain television news stations and newspapers lean left and lean right. By doing so, they intend for you and I to lean with them.
In 2000, when my article on racial profiling had appeared in the Miami Herald, the producers of ABC’s 20/20 asked if I would come to New York for an on-camera interview. My article had emphasized that profiling may be justified in certain situations. Not a bad deal. Two free days in the big apple for my wife and I, plus a shot on national TV.Lights, action, camera: John Stossel was congenial enough. Then the barrage of questioning was steered toward pinning me against the wall to make me seem a like bigot. Not nice. After thirty minutes of interview, I finally turned the tables and said, “John, can I ask you a question?”
“Sure,” he said.
“When you first heard about the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and then the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, what was the first thing that came into your mind?”
“Arabs,” he said.
“See? You just profiled.”

From the rear, the producer hollered. “Stop!”

The interview was never aired.

I was not as they intended to portray. I did not fit the message, so I was out. They eventually managed to get another subject that fit into that pre-determined pigeon hole.

It’s all about “story.” Will it sell papers? Will it sell advertisers? Is it grabbing news?

The public doesn’t know what the media omits, they only present what they want you to know.

In 1980, rabid Channel 10, I-Team reporters in Miami were covering a corruption scandal in the Miami-Dade P.D. They asked for an on-camera interview with the captain. That was me. No problem. The corruption was focused on detective levels, and I was happy to oblige. The two reporters worked themselves into a fury, popping a barrage of inane questions which, as it turned out, was an attempt to nail a higher ranking cop. I cut the interview off.

That night, I watched the show with amazement. Editors had cleverly cut and pasted answers to questions…that didn’t go together, all for the purpose of trying to make me look like I was hiding something. A dirty captain would be a bigger “story” than a dirty detective.

Arthur McDuffie was a 32 year-old black man who was chased down on a motorcycle through Miami’s residential streets at 1:00 a.m. by a dozen cops. Once caught, they proceeded to beat him to death. A horror, to be sure.

The media went into a frenzy. Not one article appeared where the racial equation wasn’t specifically emphasized: “White cops. Black man.” They got what they were after: Racial unrest. The black community was uproarious, threatening, outraged. Angry communities make great copy. Riots sell lots of news, on television and in print. McDuffie was repeatedly described as an innocent insurance executive who was only speeding. In truth, he had not worked as an “executive”, but a salesman, he was out of work, he had been using drugs that night (marijuana) and had a suspended driver’s license, which is why he fled the cops. This, of course, was not injected into the news stories, only the items that would derive sympathy for the victim, and hatred toward the police.

As reporters dug up the details on the individual cops involved, they omitted stories about how they had a history of abuse in general, against whites and Hispanics also.

Six years ago, in Cincinnati, Ohio, a police officer was in an untenable situation when he had to fire his weapon in self defense, thereby killing another man. The next-day newspaper headlines read: “White Cop Shoots Black Man.”

Get the picture?

I dated a newspaper crime reporter for a short time back in the 1970’s. A very short time. Even when we talked about inane subjects like movies, old friends, etc. her note pad and pen emerged. The only thing on that woman’s mind was “story.”

Democratic candidate Barack Obama wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in July of 2007 about the Iraq war. It was published. John McCain wrote a rebuttal op-ed for the New York Times. They refused to publish.

Get the picture?

Candidate Obama travels to Europe. The three major television news network anchors travels with him as a major news story, fawning over him like a rock star. When candidate McCain traveled, only a few low-level reporters followed. Obama is new, he’s black and he’s a “story.”

Is the media biased?

Just turn on any news night with CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC, and the so-called discussion teams are 90-10 Obama-leaners and so goes the discussion. Yes, Fox leans more conservative, but those are tough odds to face when 90 percent of the media are manipulating opinions in one direction over another, because it does what? It makes a “story.”

The media is already drooling over ratings when the first black man takes the oath on inauguration day.

Does anyone doubt that someone like Sean Hannity would have been categorically banned from moderating the Vice-Presidential debate, because he is not neutral, and clearly a McCain supporter? Why then was Gwen Ifill allowed to moderate, when she is openly supportive of Obama? Not only that, she has much to gain by an Obama victory when her book gets published on January 20th.



(The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of sure to be a best seller should Obama win. And with that win, the big bucks will flow.)

It’s like hiring a referee who’s bet on one fighter over the other.

Even if she conducted herself professionally, (which she did) it never should have been permitted, because it presents the appearance of non-neutrality, which it is.

The media has absolutely been non-neutral in this election year. And in doing so, they have directly or subtly, worked at manipulating the minds of voters.

Get the picture?

I would have enjoyed watching ABC’s Charlie Gibson look over his glasses in that condescending pose, if he could have asked Obama, or McCain, or Biden, “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?” Talk about Gotcha!

Columnist Charles Krauthammer points out that there been at least four definitions of a “Bush Doctrine” and that it was a loaded question posed for no other reason but to make Sarah Palin look bad.

Get the picture? 

Click here: Charles Krauthammer

Finally, there was the separate appearances by candidates Obama and McCain on the popular television show, “The View.” If it weren’t so sad, it would be laughable.

Obama was treated as though the Prince of Wales had graced their stage, fawning over him,drooling, enthralled and clearly among his greatest fans. For McCain, it was like entering a pit of vipers. See for yourself.

There’s no room left in this blog to even begin going into the plethora of questionable ties of Obama to sordid past relationships and associations, and how the investigative media has given him a pass that no other candidate would ever have enjoyed, including McCain.

I’m sure you get the picture.