So the Past Tense Media finally got around to covering the ACORN scandal. As Hugh Hewitt says:
One of the most fascinating aspects of the unfolding ACORN scandal is how mainstream media has covered the daily release of videos, or in most cases, how they’ve completely ignored it, instead bringing you the latest tangent on the week-old Joe Wilson ‘you lie’ story, which has saturated airwaves and newspapers ad nauseum.
After the fourth video release in four consecutive business days, the New York Times has actually run a bona fide story on the ACORN affair.
But “covering” isn’t the same as “investigating.” This is an interesting story, right? A young man and young women pretend to be seeking advice on how to carry out clearly illegal and starkly immoral acts to their best benefit, not just how to not get caught. ACORN workers at 4 different offices on both coasts don’t bat an eyelash, and start giving advice on how to pull it off, and how to make the “business” more effective and profitable.
Isn’t this worth investigating, not just covering? Wouldn’t it be useful to know how often this sort of event occurs? Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to know what training the ACORN workers get, what the organization’s policy is regarding the reporting of illegal acts?
At the fourth office, on the fourth released tape, an ACORN worker claims to have shot and killed her ex-husband.
Shockingly, this is where the traditional journalism media decides to investigate. They quickly determine that at least one ex-husband of the ACORN worker is still alive.
Ignore, for now, that merely finding one ex-husband alive does not rule out the possibility of other husbands shot dead, because that’s just a distraction.
The real point is how journalists are using investigation (or not using, as the case may be) in support of liberal goals and organizations.
This is very similar to when the traditional journalist news media dispatched dozens of investigative journalists to Alaska to search out everything they could about Gov. Sarah Palin, a vice-presidential candidate, but couldn’t be bothered to do any investigation at all into presidential candidate Barack Obama’s connections to a self-avowed terrorist, his college record, his college grades, how he was able to attend a prestigious university, etc, etc. We knew very little about Barack Obama before he became President, helping him preserve the blank canvas that made him unobjectionable and easy for moderates to vote for, but they cast in the worst light possible every bit of information found about Sarah Palin, lest her popularity buoy John McCain’s presidential campaign.
And it barely worked.
Why would the news media, ostensibly objective, do this? What else are they not telling us?
Thank goodness that person who voted for President Obama is more honest than the traditional news media.