Here's one from last evening.
The screen shot is important because of the context. Notice the picture of Condi Rice atop a headline saying, "What the rich and powerful really think of the poor". Why her picture on such a story?
The left and media might say, "Why Condi? To get someone to click. It's intriguing. It's just business. Quit being paranoid". OK sure, clickability could explain part of it, but why not Bill Maher, Michelle Obama, or Nancy Pelosi--all of them 'rich' and all equally click-worthy? Why pick a Republican icon who just gave a highly applauded speech at the RNC convention? Do they even realize how it looks?
They must--these people aren't idiots. The story featured a list of rich snobs: Condi Rice, Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Leona Helmsley, and Rush Limbaugh.
Can you predict where it goes? ABC threw in one moderate-left leaning billionaire, Buffett, who of course was quoted as bashing the rich and favoring Obama's tax increases. The rest were shown in the usual horrible light, including Rice. And throwing a wretch like Helmsley in the group was a particularly nasty touch; sort of like being on a list with Hitler or Saddam.
So here's a clue for Mr. George. The quote attributed to Rice, which allegedly occurred in a jewelry store where some clerk was giving her lip after she wanted to see more than costume jewelry, was used in this mindless idiotic story to show her disdain for the common folk, ie, snobby rich powerful neocon woman just as bad as Leona Helmsley!
Yet if Ms Rice was a liberal the very same anecdote would have been used to show the triumph of a strong and powerful black woman over institutional racism; a brave lady who rose to greatness out of the bowels of the old South and courageously faced down racism and feminism at the same time while putting the clerk (probably white) in her place.
None of which matters to them--they delivered the message.
But of course let's not just pick on George's network, here's an example on the NBC news website, from an article in their politics section on the Eastwood convention speech. Here's the very first phrase of the piece:
It was a substance-free, 12-minute prime-time performance that remains unlikely to sway a single vote,In other words, it's a foregone conclusion that Clint's speech was a pathetic failing joke, according to us, now here's the rest of our scribblings trying hard to show that Romney people agree with us, Hail Obama! Ok, the last part was my personal opinion of their column. But seriously, only in the world of MSM journolist-ism could a legendary actor's pronouncement that "we own this country" and "politicians work for us" and need to be "let go" if they fail be considered "substance free". Behold the problem, George.