Media Biased, Ignorant or Malicious

Snowflakes In Hell pointed to this article of a man stopping what would likely have been a multi-person murdering spree.  The citizen who stopped the event in Oklahoma City did so by means of pointing his firearm at the individual who retreated.

Sebastian commented on how little coverage this event received.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/05/the-forgotten-virtue-of-firearms/

Some accuse the media of being biased, others say it’s a matter of $$$ and sensationalism – and things don’t get printed unless they’re sensational – and can therefore make money.

I have grown toward the third category. I believe a fair amount of the media is malicious. Adhering to a set dogma they are deliberate in their focus, and even more deliberate in their silence. If the event does not fit their side of the coin, then silence is the only option.

We can see this on 2nd Amendment issues. When the event supports the people’s right to keep and bear arms, the media is silent – even if it is a sensational story ($$$).

We saw it regarding the coverage of the Tea Party on 9-12.  Hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, Americans gathered and received paltry coverage from the media.  Were it a favored agenda with a mere 2,000 people it would be a week of headlines.

We saw it when two pro-life life protesters were murdered.  The number of articles and coverage of the event was paltry, especially compared to how much coverage the murder of an abortion doctor received.   There was plenty of $$$ to be made by covering such a sensational event. Why bury it?

These actions go far beyond “bias” or “ignorance” and are clear evidence of a far more malicious action upon the part of mainstream media.  In fact, I don’t even think that is a good term anymore.  Mainstream has some connotation to the people, the masses. It’s really the “Conglomerate Media”.