A frequently employed tactic used by the left to protect, and defend their candidates is to question the motives of their opponent’s critiques. However, because the left cannot backup their claims regarding the motives of their opponents with any specific evidence, or anecdotal examples, the liberal media, and leftist politicians will rather just aggressively suggest Ill motives on the part of their opponents until it becomes part of the mainstream narrative. This relentless and aggressive suggestion of ill motives is played, and parroted throughout the media echo chamber until it becomes ingrained in the minds of the general public. Ask any average, low-information voter on the streets of America if they believe the Republican Party’s critiques of president Obama are underpinned by a current of racism, and they will likely give you an affirmative answer. Ask them why, however, and you will be hard pressed to get anything definitive, beyond hems, and haws.
Just as easily as the left can suggest racism on the part of conservatives, conservatives could suggest racism in the part of the left, a racism of a different kind, one of low expectations, rather than hard, overt racism.
The media has done everything in their power since before Obama won the election in 2008 to protect him from criticism. They have insulted him by refusing to report effectively the various scandals that have plagued his administration, as well as his other failures. More insidiously, they have insulated the American people through their under-reporting. We are meant to believe that every possible scandal is simply an unwarranted attack by the vast right wing conspiracy machine, based solely on racial, and political animosity, rather than a legitimate concern. Obama has been painted by the mainstream media as a great, caring, and humble man, caught in the high-stakes game of politics. Nothing serious is ever his fault.
Evidence, you ask? Well, according to Rich Noyes of MRC:
“Eight years ago, the networks aired 124 evening news reports which cited public opinion polls about either President Bush’s overall approval rating or his handling of specific policies. In 2014, those same broadcasts produced only nine reports which mentioned public opinion surveys related to President Obama.”
This is just one minuscule example of the uneven reporting plaguing Washington. During the 2012 election, the mainstream media’s coverage of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could not have been more different. The negative reporting on Romney outweighed the negative reporting on Obama. The most extreme example comes from MSNBC, whose negative stories about Mitt Romney outweighed their positive ones by a ratio of 23 to 1. The lopsidedness of the coverage was even more disturbing during the 2008 election cycle. According to Pew:
“In that race, Obama’s coverage was almost twice as positive as it has been this year (36% vs. 19%) and more positive than negative overall (36% positive vs. 29% negative that year). McCain’s coverage four years ago…In 2008, nearly six in 10 stories about McCain were clearly negative in nature (57%), while only 14% were positive.”
While there is little to no evidence that the plethora of biased reporting is based on anything but an adoration of Obama’s far left beliefs, one could easily attribute them to a racism of low expectations. You see, in the absence of evidence, one can imply almost anything. And if that implication is replayed, and echoed by a large, and highly watched media machine, it will become a cultural (though not actual) fact.
Next time a liberal friend tells you that Republicans are racist for opposing Obama, ask them to give you an example. They won’t be able to. They can only reference what the pundits have repeatedly and aggressively suggested. Then proceed to suggest that the left is responsible for the racism of low expectations, because of their ferocious protection of the president. At least your suggestion has a modicum of evidence to back it up. They will shut right up if they have even an ounce of intellectual integrity.