The State-Run Media’s Spin on the Gulf Oil Spill

by Sal on May 8, 2010

in Media,Media Bias,Politics

The use of a state-run media to prop up the State* has always been a hallmark of Marxist regimes.  The Obama administration regime is only the latest in a long line of those who use the state to spread lies and falsehoods that are so obviously contradictions of the truth that they become almost laughable, at least at first.  Eventually, the lie is repeated so often that the majority of people begin to believe it to be the truth.  That process has started in regards to Obama’s lackluster response to the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Today, the state-run Associated Press penned an analysis of Obama’s response entitled Obama Oil Response:  Aggressive as Crisis Unfolded.  Say what?  Obama was aggressive in his response?  Aggressive in playing golf, maybe.  But aggressive in is response?  I think not.  Yet the article begs to differ and starts to paint the new state-run narrative that will be repeated as the template in the days ahead, until it becomes assumed to be true:

While the Obama administration has faced second-guessing about the speed and effectiveness of some of its actions, a narrative pieced together by The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government’s response.

On April 20, an explosion engulfed the floating BP oil rig in fire, toppling it into the sea and sending 126 workers fleeing. Eleven never made it and are presumed dead.

Eight days later, from Air Force One, Obama told advisers he wanted stepped-up action to what had suddenly become a more menacing threat to the ecology and economy of the Gulf Coast. The president, who had activated a national response team on April 22, made no mention of the new developments when he strolled to the back of the plane to chat with the traveling press pool.

The article tells a story of a White House engaged from day one, of a White House that was unaware that the situation was as bad as it was.  Never mind that their assertion that they were engaged from day one is dubious at best, and outright dishonest at worst.  Never mind that 95% of the damage from the spill could have been prevented, had swifter action been taken.  No, Obama’s response was aggressive, says the state-run media.  And so, that is that.  Case closed.  Anyone who asserts otherwise will be marginalized and attacked.  And so, this is how state-run media outfits do the work of their Marxist overlords.  They take objective fact, twist it to suite the wishes of the State, and create the narrative to be pushed to the masses.  The media thus becomes the tool of the state, not its watch guard, and a little bit of freedom is chipped away.

*Yes, I capitalized the word “State” because to Marxists, the state is a deity.  Just as we Christians capitalize pronouns when referring to Christ or to God, so too does the left look at the state as its deity, hence the capitalization.

Obama oil response: aggressive as crisis unfolded

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Ryan May 9, 2010 at 7:02 am

From what I’ve heard, the word “engaged” referring to Day 1 of the crisis is apparently reflects the fact that the Coast Guard showed up. That’s it. They were “engaged” because the Coast Guard showed up. It’s also funny how the AP investigates the allegations against Obama’s inaction as if the allegation (and not the actual story) was the whole point.

Obama says “Jump!”, AP asks “How High?”


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: