Political Bias

It cracks me up to listen to these news channels. It reminds me of ESPN. When it comes time for the predictions, who do the "analysts" go with?

Tom Jackson: The Broncos (he played for Denver)

Keyshawn Johnson: The Buccaneers, Cowboys, Jets, or Panthers (teams he played for)

Michael Irvin: The Cowboys (who he played for)

Ron Jaworski: The Eagles (guess...)

Barry Switzer: Oklahoma (who he coached)

Lou Holtz: Notre Dame, South Carolina, and Arkansas (who he coached)

Bias much? On these channels, they'll interview a Republican Strategist and Democratic Strategist, or a contributor to the Clinton camp and one for the Obama camp. What do you think these men and women have to say?

Republican Strategist: Well, in either case, whether Obama or Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, they will probably lose to John McCain. Polls show this right now and that's how it'll probably play out. McCain can earn plenty of independent votes and even some Democrats.

Democratic Strategist: I could see both candidates' points here. Obama will probably be able to generate more younger voters, independents, and even some Republicans to vote for him than Hillary, but Clinton does have the advantage of being able to counter McCain's message of the war and national security to where the Arizona Senator has to engage in talks regarding other issues, where he isn't as comfortable. Either way, the Democratic candidate should win in November.

Oh, gosh, I'm so shocked! The Democratic Strategist is supporting the Democrat without much substance to the argument and the Republican Strategist is doing likewise with the Republican Candidate.

Clinton Camp: We're disappointed with Obama, because he went on the attack yesterday, and kind of went against his word of having a postitive campaign. Some of those attacks were vicious.

Obama Camp: Attacks? The Senator was just contrasting he from Hillary. There's a difference between what he did yesterday to what the Clintons did the two weeks prior.

Another shocker. The Clinton camp takes the side of Hillary and the Obama camp takes the side of their candidate.

Immediately when we see the label underneath the speaker, we can probably accurately guess what the person is going to say before they actually speak, depending on the question posed. Why even have them appear on these shows? Why not bring in fairly non-biased reporters, who are more interested in the news and facts, as opposed to these people directly involved in the campaigns, with their intent being to elect one candidate or the other. I find these "interviews," if you want to call them that, comical. I don't think I'll see the day when a contributor of a candidate speaks out against a viewpoint or decision made by the one they support. Although, I'd like to see it. It'd make my day, politically speaking.