Perhaps minor but nevertheless, an indicator of how easily media bias can slip into your news.
I read this over at Politico:
Rep. Carolyn Maloney...got slammed during the UN general assembly this week by her GOP rival, Christopher Wight, as soft on Israel. "Carolyn Maloney once again demonstrated her glaring negligence in protecting Israel. Rather than insisting that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, Carolyn Maloney conceded Iranian nuclear weapons," he said. "In her own words the question is no longer ‘if’ but ‘when...She is not providing badly needed leadership or advocating for solutions with clear next steps" in terms of the "red line" issue.The issue of Israel has been applied broadly in the presidential race this cycle, and more surgically in downballot races. But with the election cycle drawing to a close, and given the physical parameters of Maloney''s district, it was inevitable this would be an issue this week.
“In the last year, Iran has grown ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon – we’re no longer talking about ''if'' – instead we''re wondering ''when''.“In the last year, Iran has grown ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon – we’re no longer talking about ''if'' – instead we''re wondering ''when''.
“In the last year, Iran has grown ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon – we’re no longer talking about ''if'' – instead we''re wondering ''when''.
Read that report again please, if you will:
with the election cycle drawing to a close, and given the physical parameters of Maloney''s district, it was inevitable this would be an issue this week.
Really?
"Inevitable"?
Why should it be "inevitable"?
The "physical parameters" were the "given" element? That her district encompasses the UN or that Jews live there or perhaps people who care about the dangers of a nuclear Iran?
Why was it ''inevitable''?
Was her statement truly inevitable? Did she have to say what she did? Could it have been avoided? What is her thinking?
Does she have positions not during election time that are different from non-election time?
Was Wight''s reaction inevitable? Should he have been reticent?
Or, perhaps, is it that Obama''s stance on this issue is inevitable and therefore, it is inevitable that Democrats adopt it? That Iran will be nuclear? That it cannot be stopped - or, rather, Obama is resigned to the fact since he is unwilling, inevitably, to use all the power and might he can to prevent that development?
Or is it that the media will inevitably adopt an anti-Israel position, even such an insignificant one such as this example?
Or is it not that insignificant?
^