The second reason I dislike harping about the media is simple: this isn't in my wheelhouse. I'm an economist both academically and professionally. I don't know much about education, or immigration, etc., but I do know economics. I should be spending more time conducting economic analysis, but I simply can't let the media do what it is doing, and I feel it's my duty to use this medium to show people truth.
I will try to leave my opinion on this brief because I want readers and viewers to express what they feel about the upcoming videos. The first is the full 24-minute speech Mitt Romney delivered at the NAACP conference on Wednesday. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VspxfjfQ6Zo
In my opinion (again, I'll try to keep this brief), it seemed to go decently well. Romney received many rounds of applause and few boos. He wasn't booed for the first time until about the 11-minute mark when he mentioned repealing Obamacare. In fact, I counted a total of 3 rounds of boos to about 30 rounds of applause. In addition to the applause, he received a standing ovation at the speech's conclusion. So to me, that's a decently positive speech. It's not perfect, but it certainly isn't bad.
Of course, that isn't what CNN would want you to believe. I snapped a screenshot of their headlines shortly following the former governor's speech:
WOW! Three back-to-back headlines all containing negative connotations. They all highlight the "boos" Romney received. Remember how this works? See it: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/07/obamas-most-powerful-surrogate-media.html The repeated negative connotations in headlines surrounding Mitt Romney are done intentionally to have an effect. They exist to sway the minds of the electorate.
But this isn't the half of it. My biggest problem exists with CNN correspondent Jim Acosta (https://twitter.com/jimacostacnn). Watch his analysis, which was shown on CNN, shortly after Romney's speech: http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/114830.html
I want to ask him, "what speech did you attend?" He makes it sound like it was awful. If you only listened to his take and you didn't listen to the speech itself, I would think you'd perceive Mitt Romney's speech and the reaction he received as a complete disaster. According to Jim Acosta, this was the most negative reaction Mitt Romney has received (maybe it was considering he gets positive reactions to his campaign stumps). But the point from Mr. Acosta is clear: ONLY focus on the negative to make it look way worse than it is. Of course, these are all subjective opinions, and the best I can offer to counter Mr. Acosta is a count of applause to boos as I've done. But why not take the path of "he surprisingly received many rounds of applause and a standing ovation in addition to some boos?" Why not take the positive road? Perhaps, as I've said, it's about lies, influence, and spin. I've said this before: CNN is starting to fall so far to one side it's not even hiding it any more (http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-anti-romney-overhyped-junk-from.html), and to me, this is dangerous for our country to be listening to "news" that's not really news.
What do you think? Am I way off base? Is Jim Acosta's assessment fair? Is he off base? Please share your opinions below.