What media bias???
Can it be more obviously pathetic than this?
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
Thank goodness for change.
That bias reporting was fully expected. Look at the campaign.
Originally Posted by Goose
I hope he does.
Are these quotes from the same sources today as four years ago? If they aren't it really is an inaccurate presentation.
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill
This is the kind of reporting that shows why you have to be skeptical of anything you read and to look a little deeper I am not sure what it is with reporters whether their just to lazy to look up all the facts or just want to intentionally mislead us.
Just two things I would like to point out about these articles. First only the request for 75 million dollars from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia for security and transportation costs was the only hard fact for which you could figure out what the cost of this will be. Using the phrase "could approach..........." is misleading and ambiguous. It could approach anything. Let the indignation begin when the true cost of the Inauguration is known
Secondly and more important the cost of the two Inaugurations is incomplete. It is a comparison of apples and oranges. What the headlines have left out and which is inexcusable (Unless of course you have a political agenda) is that they left out the Security cost for Presidents Bush's Inauguration. A report in the NY Times stated that the District of Columbia spent 115.5 million on Security, clean up and Holiday pay for that Inauguration.
Liberal media bias? I don't think so even the super Liberal MSNBC was reporting this same figure. Bad reporting? You decide
I was looking for the sources behind the quotes used to indicate media bias. The only one I found specifically was based on stories by AP writer Will Lester. He noted the cost of Bush's inauguration at $40 million which only included direct costs for festivities. The equivalent figure noted for Obama was $45 million. Neither figure included security.
Note: The biggest difference in costs seems to stem from the difference in crowd size. Bush's first inauguration attracted less than 1/2 million people and his second attracted about 300,000. Today's event are expected to draw over 2 million.
the bias is the fact that the media and liberals in general were bashing bush and calling him all kinds of nasty names because of his inauguration. where is the outrage now? there is no outrage because all of the people that that were the loudest are at this inauguration. if there is no bias they are at the very least hypocrites!
The cononation of King Obama is underway.