
Alice H. asks - Is Cyclone Nargis getting less press, despite it's massively huge death toll, because it's harder to blame Bush for something that happened halfway around the world?
As we all know, everything bad that happens, whether by action or inaction, is Bush's fault. The problem the media runs into is how to frame this argument when the event is:
- A) An Act of God
- B) All the way around the world
- C) responded to by Bush with a strong diplomatic push to allow a torrent of government and charitable aid into the stricken areas.
This presents quite a quandary. What to do?
Why, what they always do. Attempt to ignore it completely. Problem is, death tolls of 100,000 or more tend to demand public attention to some level or another. In order to maintain the charade of neutrality a news organization must occasionally pad their 24/7 Bushilter programming with some, you know, actual news.
If you remember, they had the same panicked feeling about the tsunami and the shuttle disaster. For the first few hours of coverage they reported it almost completely straight while their top journalistic minds attempted to find some angle with which to pin the blame on Bush. You could almost see the tear run down their faces when they realized there was not even a stretch move to be made.
Poor bastards.
That's why I get all my news from the Moronosphere. We may be stupid but at least we're honest. You know, like retards.
P.S.: I know I'm in the middle of a big Ask A Moron but that's going to take a week or more and this one was pretty topical. Besides, Alice rules.
In order to keep Ask A Moron a regular feature I need questions from you, my readers. Please put your questions, any question at all, in the comments or e-mail them to me at the address on the sidebar.