When you go back and look at the way they covered the last administration and compare it to the way they cover for this administration it is disgusting.
Reasonable people may draw the conclusion that the purpose of The Telegraph has evolved into a deliberate effort to deceive the people about what is going on in Washington, D.C.
For people who know what is going on in Washington and this administration it is clear The Telegraph is not reporting information that the people of middle Georgia need to make informed decisions.
The late Ron Woodgeard in a phone conversation some time ago advised us that “we [The Telegraph] have a lot more resources than you do”. Based on this alone any reasonable person with an open mind would have to reach the conclusion that what The Telegraph is doing is deliberate. Everything that goes into The Telegraph is a conscious act. This is indisputable – contrary to any effort by The Telegraph to convince people other wise.
Bob Kohn in chapter two of his book Journalist Fraud, quotes “Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of the New York Times, 1896-1935” as saying about “The purpose of a newspaper”, that it is “To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone advocating anything they believe in. However, when they do this under the flag of a news organization or a newspaper, it is wrong and some may even consider it dishonest.
When they promote themselves as “middle Georgia’s newspaper” and then use it to deceive the very same people who they claim to be providing with a “community service”, it is simply wrong. Some might even say a scam.
Let there be no doubt about it, deceit by omission is just as dishonest as misrepresenting things in print.
When they promote the paper as a “newspaper” and then withhold news and events which they have previously included - and which people would ordinarily expect to find in a newspaper – why shouldn’t people conclude this is a scam? After all they charge good money for it.
This is nothing new to The Telegraph, but it appears to us since the arrival of President and Publisher George McCanless on the scene the problem has ballooned all out of all proportion.
The editors of The Telegraph tell the readers on Friday, May 15 2009 that: “The first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ The constitution does not address, directly or by implication, how to ‘report the news,’ with or with out bias. – Editors”
It is an indisputable fact that The Telegraph and AP (Associated Press) have been carrying the water for Bill Clinton since Jan. 3, 1992 and continue to do so until this day. Jan. 3, 1992 was the day the Star broke the story about Clinton and Gennifer Flowers.
At least The Telegraph let the reader know what they planned to do. It was made clear in an editorial, which they ran five days after the news broke. On Jan. 28, 1992 they ran an editorial titled “Can one sleazy story destroy Clinton candidacy?”
We are going to repeat the editorial here in its entirety for absolute clarity!
“Can one sleazy story destroy Clinton candidacy?’
" Let’s be very careful and very specific in judging Gov. Bill Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidates in trouble with his past.
Clinton’s problem is not so much that his marital background includes infidelities; he’s admitted rough spots in his marriage. His problem stems from allegations in a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.
In this case the money (reportedly anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000) went to former nightclub singer and TV reporter Gennifer Flowers. She was quoted in The Star as saying she had a 12-year affair with Clinton. (Yes, the same woman who had her lawyer threaten a radio station with a lawsuit for saying the same thing.) Clinton has denied the affair ever occurred.
Of course we don’t know whether it did or didn’t. The question is whether allegations – and that’s all they are – from a source paid bug bucks by a scandal sheet are enough to derail a presidential candiacy. It that’s the case it would seem the political process itself is in big trouble.
And, no we haven’t forgotten Gary Hart. The difference is that Hart blatantly practiced his indiscretions during his campaign, thus calling into serious doubt that he had the necessary judgment and self-discipline to be president. With Clinton, we have a man whose survival as presidential candidacy hangs on accusations via “checkbook” journalism from a questionable source.
Clinton’s personal past is not irrelevant. But if his candidacy can be blown out of the water by one allegation, priorities are askew. What happened to judging a candidate on his governmental record, programs and ideas?"
We find this simply amazing. The Telegraph and AP go on to demonstrate that nothing and we mean nothing will get in the way where the Clintons are concerned.
Reasonable people can and we think rightly so reach the conclusion that if it takes a jaundiced eye where honor, honesty, truth, morals and ethics are concerned, something is wrong!
There will be more on this with a comparison of the way The Telegraph and the AP have treated the Presidential Candidate Herman Cain! They have been shameless in both incidences.
After all, we find that for Clinton it was “muck”. But accusations for Presidential candidate Herman Cain in a column The Telegraph recently ran it was “…a past sexual transgression involving the former pizza executive.” The column goes on to tell us that “…Herman Cain is a predator, not to mention a boor, and no man for the presidency.”
This is our opinion and we would like to hear yours. You can reach us by e-mail at wetrack@windstream.net
Have a nice day.
No comments:
Post a Comment