'Solidarity'

A free press failing to fulfill the role of - a free press

(NaturalNews) Most Americans know that the three major broadcast networks -, and- are well-oiled echo chambers and propaganda arms of the current White House regime, but more are likely to become convinced by this latest example of what I like to call "talking points reporting."You may have heard that the U.S. economy is in trouble. In fact, it is continuing to flounder under the policies of Barack Obama (no, it is no longer the "Bush economy"), a fact reflected by the still-anemic job growth (only 88,000 new jobs were created in March, while 495,000 Americans simply dropped out of the workforce completely) [ http://www.foxnews.com ].In response to this, our chivalrous president, claiming "solidarity" with struggling workers, announced April 3 that he would take a 5 percent pay cut. While we can debate the impact of that cut - the president lives, eats and travels and the expense of the U.S. taxpayer - the real "story" here is how the three major broadcast networks framed the announcement.Which is to say, the reporting was virtually. FromGood Morning AmericaTodayThere's more.'s Scott Pelley said during his broadcast later in the day, "President Obama will return 5 percent of his salary each monthwhose pay was reduced by those recent across-the-board budget cuts."noted that while the termwasn't uttered, well-known Obama fan and co-host of, after recounting his announcement, gushed, "Thank you, President Obama!"Remarkably similar, wouldn't you say?"Over the last four years, journalists have been parroting Obama's talking points. Usually, however, they rephrase the words slightly. On Wednesday and Thursday, all three networks somehow settled on 'solidarity,'"noted.There was at leastamong the mainstream media , and it came from - surprisingly - the. In a blog post examining Obama's plan to return $1,700 a month of his annual $400,000 salary to the U.S. Treasury, Lisa Rein and Ed O'Keefe wrote:That's true. It's tough to be a millionaire and credibly claim "solidarity" with folks making $40,000 to $50,000 a year. And besides, no one is saying it's not fair for the Obama's to earn so much (except the Obama's, who have been pushing class warfare since taking office). Is the president's gesture postulating or noble? You be the judge.What's notable here is the full-court press coverage of the announcement - the similarity in language, the nothing-but-positive tone of the reporting and the obvious favoritism shown to this president by an adoring media that can hardly contain its worship tendencies.That's not the role our founders envisioned when they wrote, and states adopted, the First Amendment. A free press, they argued, was needed as a check and balance on government excesses and abuses, policies and laws, as a way to ensure the people were well-informed about what their elected leaders are doing on their behalf.Talking points reporting is not conducive to this role.