IFI Media Watch: Washington Post Writer Admits Liberal Media Bias
 But Important Pro-Marriage Ballot Measures Pass In Places Like California. Why?
Now that election day is fast disappearing in the rearview mirror of the American psyche, there are some disturbing and encouraging trends we can see from the results.
One thing was made painfully clear. Many in the dominant media have strayed from their charge to be objective in their reporting. Studies by organizations, including the Pew Research Center, Accuracy In Media and Media Research Center affirm this fact.
Most recently, a column written by Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell referred to the Post's "Obama tilt" in its campaign coverage--and such revelations should be surprising to no one. [An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage]
Of course, many who believe in the pro-family cause were probably discouraged by the results of the November 4th election. We now have a president-elect who favors the expansion of abortion rights and other policies which conflict with a social conservative agenda. However, there were some positive results from election day which may be more important than the presidential race itself. Three crucial ballot measures designed to protect the institution of marriage as being solely between one man and one woman were passed in California, Arizona and Florida. (Read more HERE.)
A valid question can then be asked: Why would ballot measures protecting the conventional institution of marriage pass in states, including California and Florida, while at the same time, voters in those states elected a liberal candidate to the White House?
An answer to this question can be found in the strategic model the two major political parties have adopted since the year 2000. Some may call it genius, others may see it as a distortion of the way we choose those to fill elected office on a national basis.
Karl Rove, the political guru behind the election of George Bush's two terms, developed strategies which have led to a drastic change on how national campaigns are conducted. For example, Illinois is a blue state. In layman's terms, this means Illinois is automatically assigned to one political party. In such states, candidates from the opposing party rarely, if ever, visit. This has resulted in a vast majority of the electorate not knowing where a candidate stands on issues from abortion to taxation. Indeed, an impromptu survey by this journalist found many voters were ignorant of both Senator Obama's and McCain's views on the rights of the unborn. In contrast, in a very Democratic blue state like California, Proposition 8 -- which affirmed an earlier state referendum which declared marriage should only be defined as being between one man and one woman--passed. But the question is: Why?
Even though California was not a battle ground state, there were in-depth discussions of the issues which did not take place in other parts of the country. Obviously, the voters in California, Arizona and Florida reaffirmed that even so-called liberal states, when given the information, made their decisions on merit and not campaign commercials or media coverage.
"While the outcome of this year's election was a referendum on an historically poor economy, it was also a mandate against artificial 'same-sex marriage' and the rampant judicial activism which has forced this silly and oxymoronic, though very harmful, notion into popular lexicon," said Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. "Although president-elect Obama has indicated his opposition to both the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) and all constitutional marriage protection amendments, this election proves that he is sorely out of step with the American people on these issues."
But there was another reason why the ballot measure in California succeeded. Millions of dollars were spent by those who were determined to protect the institution of marriage. Thereby lies the flaw in the Karl Rove strategy which only targets states which a party has a reasonable chance to win or lose. Those supporting the ballot measures in California, Arizona and Florida launched a valiant battle against forces in the press who fervently opposed the measure. Therefore, the danger in using Rove's strategy is clear. In the future, in non-battle ground states, can social conservatives count on there not only being the money, but the initiative to fight for similar causes?
A press release from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) may give pro-family activists hope.
"The principles of marriage transcend the personalities of the campaign," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "Voters do not want the will of the people thwarted by courts or legislatures that listen more to political special interests than they do to them. ADF will continue its work to defend marriage in all 50 states."
I personally hope Mr. Raum of the ADF is correct in his assessment of the November 4th victories against those who would redefine marriage as we know it. At the same time, we are beginning to see that presidential elections are becoming more about charisma than substance. That's why support of organizations like the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is so important. I say this not as a contributing writer to IFI, but as someone who cares about our state and nation and the moral direction it is headed.
Daniel T. Zanoza, 54, is a free lance journalist and political analyst. He has a degree in political science and social work. Zanoza formed RFFM.org nearly fifteen years ago, in an attempt to encourage fair coverage of political and social issues in the mainstream media which are important to pro-family conservatives. Zanoza often works behind the scenes with journalists in a non-confrontational manner to achieve this goal.
E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format
|
 |
|
| |
|
