Want to hear a joke? UNBIASED

Michele Bachmann, a Representative from Minnesota and a popular political figure among tea party activists (1) has lately received heavy media attention. Though she has not officially announced her candidacy for the GOP Presidential Nominee, she and her staff have made her intentions clear. Media sources publicize news in different ways, making their political biases evident.

"I'm in for 2012 in that I want to be a part of the conversation in making sure that President Obama only serves one term...but I haven't made a decision yet to announce," Bachmann stated. (2) Also, Bachmann and her staff went on an obvious political trip to Iowa, the state of the first caucus, and an important first step in a presidential campaign. Following her trip she stated, "I am very encouraged by what I heard and the level of support that I saw today." (3) These events were covered by multiple news sources, large and small. However, the similarities between their coverage stopped there.

Let's see how our first media source decided to cover the story. In addition to putting an intimidating snap-shot of her on the page (left), the Huffington Post ran an internet article entitled "Michele Bachmann Still Planning On Doing Some President Stuff, Probably" (2); first of all, what kind of a title is that? They seem to make a mockery of what could be argued to be the indecisiveness of Bachmann. The menacing picture and title are not the only bullets they shot. In the very first sentence, the article mentions that Michele Bachmann's "homeland may have been destroyed by capitalism." It seems apparent that this news source has done all it can to subtly, if not blatantly, make Bachmann, the super-conservative Tea Party activist unattractive to the public. Upon reading with a bias-wary eye, one can see the serious left-winged view of this report.

Next, let's see how the famously right-wing FOX news reported on the same story. It states,

"A recent Gallup poll of Republicans found Bachmann had the second-highest positive intensity rating of any of the potential 2012 candidates in the GOP field...in amazing fashion, she now seems to be running her own shadow Republican caucus in which she is speaker, floor leader, whip, and conference chairwoman." (4)

Not only does the poll they site show her as a serious contender, words such as "amazing fashion," put her in a positive light. FOX news shows obvious right wing bias through the rhetoric with which they reported this story.

ABC news also covered this story. They did so differently from these other two sources: they simply stated the facts. (5) This source didn't mock her indecisiveness in the title or suggest that her home state was destroyed by capitalism, nor did it mention her "amazing fashion" or excellent poll data. It simply reported the news: "Rep. Michele Bachmann, the leader of the House Tea Party caucus and a favorite of conservatives, is wading deeper into presidential waters." (5) This time, in my opinion, ABC news seems to have presented this story in the least biased fashion.

The news media are often responsible for the public's introduction to politicians who may later enter the presidential race. Prior to showing interest in a presidential run, few Americans outside of Minnesota knew much of Michele Bachmann. They may have received their first impressions of her through the afore-mentioned reports. The implications of this fact for Bachmann are huge. First impressions can be hard to change; if someone happened to read the Huffington Post article, their first thoughts of Bachmann would probably be negative. In contrast, upon reading the FOX report, they may have an initial good impression.

Media sources often cover the same news differently based on their biases. A source's true colors are shown in the way it presents information, even when that source professes to be "fair and balanced."

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Due to the word limit, I was only able to show examples of media bias from three fairly well-known sources. If you're interested in seeing some even more obviously biased and interesting coverage of Michele Bachmann, here are a few more links. (6) (7) (8)

Romney and Obama: The Pluses and Minuses

In 2008, Barack Obama became the forty-fourth president of the United States of America after beating republican nominee John McCain. “Obama beat McCain by 52 percent to 46 percent, and he could realistically claim a mandate with nearly two-thirds of the Electoral College. As of Wednesday afternoon, he had 349 electoral votes compared to 173 for McCain” (1). Needless to say, Obama’s victory over McCain was a solid one. When the 2012 election comes, will there be any Republican nominee who can compete with Obama, therefore making him a one-term-president? Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is the man that could beat Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Though he didn’t become the Republican nominee four years ago, he received publicity as a serious contender. While Romney does have his flaws, I believe that he has a chance of defeating Obama next November.

People know that the last few years haven’t gone too well for Obama. First of all, he introduced a health care reform (known by most as “Obamacare”) that many people seem to have condemned as too socialist for this country that has grown to the global power it is largely through democracy and a free-market (capitalist) system. Also, since Obama took office, the national debt has risen by around 3 trillion dollars as reported by CBS on October 18, 2010. (2) In an interview (below), Mitt Romney mentioned a few of the things that he feels Obama has done that are unfavorable; he calls it “the Obama misery index.” Though Obama doesn’t seem to have done anything that would make him an easy take-down, I believe that these issues will play a role in the upcoming election.

Though President Obama has his weaknesses, Romney does have his own as well. For instance, Romney developed a helath care plan in Massachusetts that Republicans feel is similar to Obama's plan. (3) Also, in 2002, Romney stated, "...when asked, 'will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose,' I make unequivocal answer: yes." ((4) see video in link) Having pro-choice views is not generally something a politician seeking to become the Republican presidential nominee would do. While this is a negative, it becomes even more questionable when he changed his views altogether just a few years later. In 2006, in response to the question, "what's your position on abortion," he said "I am pro-life." ((5) see video in link) This blatant 'flip-flop' in stance on debatably one of the most sensitive topics in the political world is disconcerting to voters; on what other issue might he have changed his stance while they weren't looking? I believe that these flaws possessed by Romney as a contender will prove a bit of a hindrance to him in the 2012 election.

What is it that makes Romney seem to have a leg up on President Obama for the upcoming election? A Gallup poll that posed the question: "If Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012, in general, are you more likely to vote for Obama or for the Republican Party's candidate for president?" The findings of this poll show that even though 44% of those polled plan to vote for President Obama again, a very close 42% appear to be prepared to vote for the Republican candidate. (6) Also, in a New Hampshire poll, Romney turned out to have an 8-percentage-point lead over Obama. ((7) see video in link) This simply proves that Romney is a legitimate contender. In addition to these minor victories, Romney has very solid areas of expertise that could rally the financially minded conservatives who are sick of the seemingly socialist views of Obama: economics and business. A New York times article (8) said,

"Mr. Romney is presenting himself as a ready-to-lead executive, gambling that a fluency in economic matters distinguishes him from other candidates...Mr. Romney makes the case that the halting economic recovery provides a compelling rationale that he is the strongest candidate to create jobs and take on President Obama."

Sometimes it seems that what really gives one politician an edge over another in politics is: which of the two has done the least amount of damage in the past? I believe that that will be a determining factor in the upcoming election. Above, I showed a couple examples of the things Obama has done that have left a bad taste in the mouths of voters, if you will. After that, I did the same for Romney. It seems pretty apparent that though both men have their "dirt" (as all politicians do), Romney has a lot less of it. America wanted change, and Obama sure gave it to them; he's worked on changing the health care system to a socialized medicine program which many Americans have shown that they don't like, and he changed the federal debt issue significantly for the worse. During the upcoming years of financial recovery after a past few years, what America needs is an economically minded president with a clean record. I believe that Mitt Romney is that man: the man who will defeat President Obama in the 2012 election.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

The NBWA: a PAC that protects!

There is a plethora of groups, organizations, committees, and associations that try to influence the political scene. The main pursuit of a Political Action Committees (PAC), as defined by the Merriam-Webster encyclopedia is “to raise and contribute money to the campaigns of candidates likely to advance the group’s interests” (1). One of the many PACs that exist is the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA). This is an organization focused on the twenty-first Amendment. The twenty-first Amendment repealed the eighteenth amendment which stated, “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” (2)

Right from the start, it would seem like a group called the National Beer Wholesalers Association would revolve around changing such legislation as the legal drinking age (lowering it for their personal gain), changing the acceptable level of intoxication while driving. However, the NBWA actually states in its mission statement, “The purpose of the National Beer Wholesalers Association is to…advocate before government and the public; [and] to encourage the responsible consumption of alcohol” (3). The eighteenth amendment gives the duty of alcohol regulation primarily to the state government, as opposed to the federal. NBWA representatives attend legislative conferences in Washington, DC, including one coming up on the 27-30^th of this March, in support of the preservation of this already established legislation. (4)

The NBWA does more than simply attend congressional meetings. In order to be a PAC, an association must raise and donate funds to politicians and their campaigns. In preparation for elections in 2010, the NBWA donated $1,490,500 to House Democrats, $1,171,000 to House Republicans, $182,500 to Democrats in the Senate, and $152,000 to Republicans in the Senate. (5) This money didn't just come from nowhere; "Individual donors gave 1721 large ($200+) contributions to this PAC in 2009-2010." (6) Many of these donors gave the legal, annual limit of $5,000. (7)

While the NBWA hasn't greatly contributed to the changing of any major, specific legislation, the NBWA, through the 2,850+ independent, and licensed beer distributors whom it represents (3) has proven a powerful supporter behind the twenty-first amendment. Through attending the afore mentioned legislative conferences, NBWA members represent all the beer distributors and companies across America.

The National Beer Wholesalers Association may sound (especially to active LDS Church members) like an association pulling for looser restrictions on alcoholic beverages, however, we have discovered that this is not their aim. The NBWA acts as any other PAC does; it raises and donates money to support candidates who support its cause of defending the twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)