May 16, 2012
The Five Top Priorities That Shook the Times
The New York Times leads off this Obamic puff-piece with flare and drama:
President Obama is hawking his five-point “to-do list” of proposals he would like to see Congress enact this year, just as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle appear to be digging in for another big showdown over the federal budget.
Now riddle me this: What should logically, journalistically follow in the very next graf? What would any professional journalist write? Or any kid just out of J-school? Heck, what would any pajama-wearing blogger write next?
I maintain the next statement should clearly be: "The president called for Congress to act on priority 1, priority 2, priority 3, priority 4, and priority 5" -- substituting the actual priorities that President Barack "Big Stick" Obama specified, of course.
Too bad the Times doesn't hire any journalists.
To be perfectly fair, the article does at least hint at one of those priorities in the next paragraph:
The president, meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders over lunch at the White House on Wednesday, is pushing Congress to approve a proposal to help small businesses that hire additional workers.
But that's it; that's all we get of Big Stick's vaunted list of five top priorities. No other proposals, not even a hint of a whisper of what else el Jefe demands of our other elected respresentatives. No policies, plans, or pronunciamentos; no offerings or observations. No other piece of legislation. If one gets one's news from the New York Times, 80% of Obama's top five priorities for his alleged second term is a deep, dark mystery.
Or make that 100%, since the paper doesn't even elucidate how, exactly, he wants to "help" small businesses. Tax breaks? Federal contracts? Stimulus grants? Suspending noisome regulations? Inviting them to have a hoagie with the One?
Could it be -- now I know the Times is a reputable newspaper, and surely such manipulation would be beneath its dignity -- but could it possibly be that the rest of the top priorities are such small ball, even compared to the one trivial proposal we get to see, that the New York Times editors realize listing them would only diminish President B.O. even more than he already has? In the teeth of America's greatest post-World War II fiscal crisis, the One We Are Still Waiting For has become the incredible shrinking POTUS.
Other than running interference for the Big Schtick, the only other explanation I can imagine is an eruption of sheer, molten incompetence. Like, you know, the Times was going to list them, but it forgot.
I refuse to accept what that would imply; I cannot imagine that anyone could believe that America's newspaper of record, whose very motto is "all the news that's fit to print," would in reality be a worthless, amateurish, subliterate, biased, toadying, dishonest rag fit only for aging leftist stoners and adolescent, Occupier-catering, ideological self-abusers.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 16, 2012, at the time of 3:05 PM
The following hissed in response by: Ken Hahn
I can think of one other reason not to list the priorities. They would be so unpopular as to hurt Obama's chances at reelection. The Times wouldn't do anything to make proposals like that known.
The following hissed in response by: MarkJM
I believe you summed up the NYT's predominant qualities quite accurately. Why do you even bother wasting your time reading ANY story from that rag?
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Why do you even bother wasting your time reading ANY story from that rag?
Same reason oil companies dredge up tar sands: to take a noxious substance and turn it into something worthwhile!
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 17, 2012 12:25 AM
The following hissed in response by: Geoman
Fortunately I got a peak at his list:
1) Help small business by doing something or another.
2) A golf outing, since, that small businees thing is gonna get me pretty tired.
3) Bitch about the rich.
4) Chisel my likness into Mount Rushmore, since I am such an awesome artist.
5) 5 things? Sheesh. This is sooo hard. Maybe I slow jam the news again?
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved