I've just joined some conservative groups on Facebook because it's been so nice to have people who feel the same way as I do on certain things to talk to. Not to downplay my Dem friends at all because I love a lively, loving debate and them as people, but sometimes you just don't feel like working that hard when discussing issues you're passionate about.
So, imagine my delight when I ran across the following You Cannot's from one of the sites and the appropriateness to our current election and Obama's speech. Maybe you'll read this and see the truth.
And I quote:
- "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
- You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
- You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
- You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
- You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
- You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
- You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
- You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
- You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
- You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves."
Now you would think these were written recently in direct response to Obama's eloquence, but you would be in for a surprise. These mandates were actually written back in 1916. Here's what The Conservative Underground's blog had to say about the author:
J. H. Boetcker was born in Hamburg, Germany in 1873. He is well-known
as one of the first motivational speakers, regarded as a forerunner for
Tony Robbins. He was also a Presbyterian minister, and regularly used
his morals and values as solid frameworks for his political ideas. He
gained a reputation as a conservative speaker when he published the
above "10 Cannot's" in 1916. You may recognize them from Reagan's 1992
Republican Convention speech. "
Now in light of all the "bad" publicity, or should I say "biased" journalism on the issue of Prop 8, I would like to say that hopefully soon you will be hearing more from the "other" side if I have anything to do with it as a publicist.
Just because straight people aren't marching in the streets doesn't mean we're not as upset over this waste of taxpayers dollars, disregard for the democratic process and the popular vote, and the fact our rights are about to be rocked as well.
I found it par for the course that the only article in my local paper reported the hurried marriage of our local Redondo Beach Mayor, rather than discussing it as a news story with both sides represented and the effects of this Proposition being analyzed. I don't agree with that.
Now everyone likes this man a lot. I know I do too. But to use his political position and his personal story vs. the facts to play on people's sympathies? That's not something I agree with. Sorry, just don't. I didn't say anything when the paper covered our local black Manhattan Beach City Council man to promote Obama in a rather large article, but at one point, we have to say, is journalism only liberal from now on?
Will there ever be both sides represented ever again? Or will only the agenda of those reporting be represented with no attempt to balance the news? I'm putting that out there to all journalists who stumble across my site because it really is a question I'm struggling with as a publicist and as a blogger.
Will we have to create two completely separate forms of reporting in all areas of our lives with no cross-over ever to receive news that one particular group wants to hear? Will that really help accomplish the healing that Obama wants and so many Americans want if we only hear what we want to hear all the time and no other perspective? Think about it.
The dictionary defines journalism as:
|1.||the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.|
|2.||press 1 (def. 31).|
|3.||a course of study preparing students for careers in reporting, writing, and editing for newspapers and magazines.|
|4.||writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.|
I guess if you read the definition above, journalists are fulfilling their mandate to create writing that reflects "superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition" and if we take that definition as it stands, then they are only doing what they are supposed to be doing. Right?
However, when does the conservative voice ever get heard then? If all the media is liberal and probama and not researching facts and exposing them as we the public thought they would, when does it stop being journalism and become mere publicity?
This is truly a question that is plaguing this profession more and more. I know there are good journalists out there, but then their editors take the stories and manipulate them to their perspective perhaps. When do you stand up and say, that's not what I wrote, that's not what I shot, please report the facts?
When I watch the Prop 8 coverage that is so loud and proudly supportive of the gay perspective with the one woman from Protect Marriage being the only one interviewed vs. the many from the crowds. Do straight people really have to create a riot in order to be interviewed on this subject?
Isn't it the journalist's responsibility to seek out people to interview from both sides? Why aren't we hearing more from African American church members, or African Americans who actually have experienced discrimination and really know what civil rights issues are?
What about the Japanese people who actually believe in traditional marriage and lived in an intern camp and don't see this as a discrimination issue? What about the straight couple with kids in school who don't appreciate the gay agenda being shoved down their throats by gay activists who are putting this all over the newscasts that their children are watching?
What about the attorneys who will explain the domestic partnership rights that all gays have access to already? What about the public debate that Jack O'Connell conveniently refuses to participate in with proponents from Yes on Prop 8? Never hear about that do you? Because he knows he's spreading lies and if he continues to state a lie repeatedly, loudly and with conviction pretty soon people will believe him.
I just don't get it. I know everyone thinks Gloria Allred is the best attorney ever, but I think she's an opportunist. When you read the biography of the woman she used, (and I'm not writing that word lightly), to help pass Roe V. Wade and the way she threw her aside once her agenda was accomplished, you really don't respect her in the same way others do.
I know I'm stepping out on a limb to attack one of the icons of our city, but I'm tired of her agenda being the only thing we hear on TV on so many topics. Where are the celebrity attorneys willing to stick their necks out for the conservative perspective? Do they need a publicist? Hire me! I love publicizing individuals and getting the other side heard. I'll make you a celebrity! LOL
Heavy sigh. When did America or CA ever become so divided between conservatives and liberals? When did it become acceptable to only report one side of the news? I can only imagine what it would be like if Obama succeeds in trying to take away the few conservative TV and radio shows, but was comforted to hear Bill O'Reilly say he wouldn't go down without a fight.
However, I just wish I didn't have to only hear him or Rush (not that I ever, ever, ever listen to Rush because he annoys me so much), but am referring to those guys as the most vocal conservatives. Why isn't there a local news station that takes pride in reflecting both sides of the news and does it well? Why do we need to escape to cable?
Where are the stories about the judges who overturned this ruling and the inflammatory language that Jerry Brown incorporated into this last proposition to favor gays? I had no idea how inflammatory it was until I walked into the voting booth to vote the other day. Why not interview someone on language and the way it shapes people's perspectives in elections. I would love to hear that one!
No wonder people are so upset. If you vote your moral beliefs you risk being called a homophobe, an intolerant bigot and who knows what else? Why is it ok to bash Christians and straight people's desire to have traditional marriage preserved and it's not ok when the tables are turned? I'm seriously asking this question because it deeply hurts to be called names like that.
I've taken to calling those who call me that the same back because then it takes the sting out a little. Kind of like African Americans calling themselves the N word I guess.
Maybe if we all realize that in some respect or another we all have areas in our lives where we all are intolerant or bigoted, then maybe, just maybe we'll accept the fact that that's what makes America great. Freedom of speech is what makes our country what it is!
However, right now? I'm not so sure. Living in California and visiting Nevada during this election the contrast is stark in how people treat those with differing viewpoints. When we were walking the precincts over and over and over again, the people who were voting for Obama were polite for the most part when they saw us. They weren't hateful and attacking like I've experienced so often in LA.
Maybe they have more manners? Maybe they still appreciate Freedom of Speech? Maybe they haven't been bludgeoned into following the party line like so many people have here making people afraid to raise a differing viewpoint?
I just don't understand. Please help.
And again, in keeping with mainstream media's intention to silence the conservative voice, I will not be posting any comments from the liberal perspective because I really, really, really, really want you to experience what this feels like once and for all. It's not right. It needs to stop.
Maybe if you become as frustrated hearing only one viewpoint reflected here, then perhaps you will begin to accept the fact that there are other sides to an issue that need to be explored in our media.
Maybe, just maybe, you'll join the chorus of voices that are beginning to demand equal rights for all in the media. It only takes one person to make a difference. Be that difference.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some work to complete. Enjoy your day and think about what I've written. I'm writing it sincerely and because I'm tired of it. Sick and tired of it.
And when I become sick and tired of anything, I take action.
That's a promise.