Julian Assange: hero or villan?

Julian Assange, the mysterious founder of WikiLeaks has been granted bail for $315,000 by a British Court today. But, he'll be unable to go free on his own. He's required to wear an electronic bracelet, surrender his passport and report to police on a daily basis.

Assange has been developing major controversy, ever since his website managed to obtain hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. Department documents (known as cables), from the FBI and CIA. In November, WikiLeaks released many of these cable documents, including the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia and were given to major national newspapers, among them including the New York Times and were published.

And, new cables continue to be published.

The released cables, immediately triggered the search and arrest of Assange.

Since this all started coming down last month, Assange and WikiLeaks have been deemed both a hero and a villain by liberals and conservatives, and vice-versa. His arrest triggered protests from followers in Europe, and even resulted in hacking into MasterCard and Visa, after the credit card companies payment services, including people donating money to the WikiLeaks website.

But the major scrutiny that is going around is what people are thinking of Assange. Perhaps, oddly enough, his most prominent critic is Fox News Channel. While I'd typically classify myself as a viewer of Fox News, I've noticed somewhat of a flip flop at times on issues. This is the same news channel that a year before the Tea Parties had even begun, would not allow Congressman Ron Paul to offer his perspective on our country's problems when he was running for President.

After President Obama was elected, the Tea Parties began, yet this is the same thing that Ron Paul had been advocating the entire time for years... a revolution to take our country back.

But I digress, back to Assange.

My point is when it comes to that kind of flip flopping, I've heard on a number of occasions since early 2009 from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that Americans were getting fed up with their government and they were tired of being lied to. Indeed, we all are. Well, when Assange released papers that exposed some of those lies from our government (again, OUR government that we pay for), all you hear from the left and the right is that Assange should be prosecuted and this is an act of terrorism and a threat to our national security. So people on the news that we tend to listen to, rant about the same thing, yet when it finally exposes the facts and a leap towards the truth, we instead are supposed to call it an act of terrorism.

I'd go further and say that I completely agree that diplomatic relations between the U.S. and other countries, if indeed it means for the protection of our country, it should be confidential. But I'd also take another Fox News commentator's perspective, Andrew Napolitano, who said yesterday on The Glenn Beck Program that he felt "the thief that steals the document, is the one who commits the crime... the person who disseminates them, as long as they are truthful documents, does not commit the crime..." 

I actually agree with his notion. Now Glenn Beck did offer some good points, the fact that Assange has connections with far left liberal groups and individuals like George Soros. But the reasonable point he made was when it came to exposing the Global Warming lies, a liberal newspaper like the New York Times, refused to print those documents. Yet they all jumped on the story of WikiLeaks obtaining U.S. Diplomatic cables.

While those facts do bother me and it certainly shows the 'money trail' I think, it does not bother me enough to know that there are hidden secrets in our Government that the American people have wondered for years and were lied to. For that, I would say it was worth it.

Whatever the outcome may be with Julian Assange, he certainly has shown our Government's lack of honesty, and integrity. What else is new?

I don't think there really is a win or loose with this issue. It paints it all in black and white.

But one day, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this week or next year, we'll finally know the truth to many things that have been going on in our Government. This is still supposed to be a Government by the People and for the People. Not the other way around, as has been depicted in those cables.

FCC trying to regulate News Media

As much as I can't stand MSNBC or the bickering Fox News has with that network, the idea of the Federal Communications Commission attempting to regulate the news media, including freedom of the press is a simple violation of Constitutional rights. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, Bloomberg, they all have freedom to exercise their right to report news to the American people and to those all over the world. Not to mention, they're all owned by major corporations... it's called capitalism.

But apparently, the current people in our Federal Government have been lacking knowledge in that department for the better half of the two years thus far. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, maybe fed up with the bickering between Fox and MSNBC, decided to sit down for an interview with Katty Kay of BBC Washington and stated:

"It's a pretty serious situation that we are in... we're not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue, we're not producing as much news as we did five ten, fifteen years ago and we have to reverse that trend or I think we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need in order to make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country..."

Who in the hell cares about what Commissioner Copps thinks? The news media has First Amendment rights just like everyone else in this country, granted all news organizations should uphold ethical journalist practices, and have facts, not falsifying those facts. There is also a greater difference between traditional news and the commentators on the networks. I think Mr. Copps beef is primarily with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and maybe Jack Cafferty on CNN.

But why is he so committed to regulating or possibly silencing the news media? The only real rational answer to this question is that perhaps Mr. Copps does not want the American public to know about what is really going on in their country.

In fact, probably more Americans are happy with the news that they get today. Not only does the traditional cable news network provide sources of information, but the internet is the principal place to get breaking news stories. Is Mr. Copps going to start regulating the internet? Quite frankly, the American people can get they're news from wherever they choose, and it is not Mr. Copps interest nor should it be up to his decision to tell people what kind of news and/or news commentators we should listen to.

Most of this comes into place ever since Senator Jay Rockefeller publicly criticized both Fox News and MSNBC wishing that both of those news network be shut down simply to improve political discourse. Senator Rockefeller wanted the FCC to handle this, but failed to do his homework since the FCC only handles broadcast airways, and not cable airways.

But now, Mr. Copps seems to want to expand the FCC's role in the regulation of ALL airways, not just broadcast.

More Government control...? I think so. 

Any future change when it comes to bias in the news media?

The bias in mainstream news and cable news is pretty extraordinary. If television news networks and newspapers had a balanced team of political contributors whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or Independents, I think you would see a decline in people that are brainwashed and buy into this propaganda. Americans are finding that the more media operations that are promoting liberalism are failing. Whether its networks like MSNBC, or newspapers like The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, they’re failing beyond disbelief.

I first began to notice bias in the news media in late 2008 when I started paying attention to politics and at the height of then candidate Barack Obama and all of his coverage before he was elected. I realized that was probably the cause of the bias. He was a Democrat, an African American, promising all of this 'change', and as a result, the news networks primarily being MSNBC and CNN, and CBS and ABC, felt inclined to give him all of the coverage they felt he deserved, and they were tired of President Bush. MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews once said that "I get this thrill up my leg" when he heard Obama speak, which I'm sure he regrets now that he's been mocked and spoofed ever since then; then you had Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS try to railroad Sarah Palin, John McCain's then-Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

The one network that did not give extensive coverage to Barack Obama was Fox News. In fact, I don't think Fox News even did extensive coverage of John McCain. There is no question that Fox News leans right and promotes a more conservative platform, and while I do not always agree with Fox's "fair and balanced" motto, they do bring out the facts that need to be discussed whether its the financial problems, or how Americans think of certain legislative decisions in Congress, Fox usually discusses them.

After Obama was elected as President, I noticed a huge shift in the news media from leaning left, to leaning ultra left.

MSNBC went into overdrive. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow began to promote this beyond awful liberal agenda, and never displayed any of the facts. For example, the Healthcare Bill. Did anyone on MSNBC even bother to read the bill and analyze the problems? Probably not. Instead, each of these commentators' platform has been anything that is left-leaning or promoted by President Obama, they will support, even if it causes dire consequences for the rest of the country. I will give credit to Chris Matthews in the sense that he does try to have cordial debates with Republicans and Democrats on his show, even though he is left-leaning in term of his final opinion. Keith Olbermann in particular, I am inclined to believe, along with most people, that he is terrified of Republicans. He is terrified of debates and differences in opinion, so instead, he has to resort to baseless attacks and smear anyone who disagrees with his opinion or the progressive-liberal agenda.

MSNBC also did quite a bit of exploitive coverage of criticizing the Tea-Parties across America in 2009. MSNBC commentators like Olbermann, or Matthews argued that it was not fair that people were criticizing President Obama after only three months in office for the financial meltdown and people getting taxed to death. It was all Bush’s fault.

Well of course Bush is to be blamed as is the Democratic controlled Congress. The real reason of the Tea-Party is that people are tired of the growth of our government. It has nothing to do with right wing extremism. People were getting angry in 2008 when President Bush and Congress bailed out Wall Street and the economy was collapsing, and then it continued to happen into President Obama’s first months in office: the Stimulus package (which failed) and bailing out General Motors. Yet, MSNBC covered the individuals at these Tea-Parties across the nation as condemning President Obama as a socialist and he’s made up to look like Adolph Hitler. True, many Tea-Party protestors had signs that described Obama like Hitler, but it was out of frustration and anger.

I seem to remember back in 2006, when left-wing liberals were protesting the War in Iraq, they had several signs depicting President Bush as Hitler… yet there was no extensive coverage in the mainstream news media at that time, nor any outcry from the opposition.

To hear someone like Keith Olbermann argue back in 2009 that it was not fair that President Obama was being criticized a few months into his presidency is hypocritical in itself. Olbermann also criticized President Bush for the 9/11 attacks, even though Bush had only been in office for less than a year. What's the difference? It should be noted that President Clinton actually admitted to Chris Wallace on Fox News that he failed to capture and kill Osama bin Laden.

Enough on MSNBC for a moment.

Now CNN is not as left-leaning as MSNBC. I used to think at one time that CNN was more neutral and had a balance of opinion. They have liberal commentators like Anderson Cooper or Larry King, and more conservative commentators like Lou Dobbs. But after Obama was elected, CNN seemingly not wanting to get into the middle of the competition between MSNBC and Fox News, decides to start promoting a “news” only agenda, and doing away with commentary. Lou Dobbs, for example, had been a crusader against illegal immigration, outspokenly critical of the Bush Administration and the Democratic controlled Congress. Yet when he continued his opinions, even when it came to Obama’s birth certificate and challenging the President on his economic policies, special interest groups start to pressure CNN to get him off the network… and that’s what happened.

Interestingly, after Dobbs resigned from CNN, all of their other longtime anchors started to leave every other month, because of the network’s failure in ratings: One by one, Erica Hill, Christiane Amanpour, Campbell Brown and the soon-to-retire Larry King all decided to leave the network, and CNN has not done much to improve itself as a news organization.

Now CNN certainly has some excellent world class journalists like Wolf Blitzer, John King and Candy Crowley, even though they are straight and neutral on the political issues. Probably the only commentator on CNN that a real hoot to listen to is Jack Cafferty. A shame he does not have enough time in his segment on The Situation Room to tell the American people how he really feels. While Cafferty was critical of the Bush Administration, he is the only one on CNN that has been very vocal in the last year with criticizing just about every decision that the Obama Administration has made. The emails he reads every day certainly reflects how the American people feel about our corrupt and failed government, and of this President.

One final note about CNN that I found irritating occurred recently. Its long time anchor Rick Sanchez, someone I really didn’t care too much for, was fired for making controversial remarks about Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart on a radio program. As a result, CNN terminated his employment with the network. Shortly after this, Joy Behar on The View said horrible and hateful comments about Nevada Senate Republican candidate Sharron Angle, calling her “a bitch… she’s going to hell”.

Tell me something, Joy Behar has a commentary broadcast on CNN’s sister network, HLN. So CNN exercises its right to fire Rick Sanchez, but refuses to do anything about Joy Behar? If that is not a form of bias in terms of ethical standards on the same network, I don’t know what is. In retrospect, I almost feel sorry for Sanchez.

Same thing happened with Juan Williams at NPR News. He contributes to Fox News and voiced his opinion on Muslims in airlines, and as a result, the liberalism in NPR News removes him.

As indicated before, there is no question that Fox News leans right, but as anyone can tell, it is the only news network that does. In a sense, they are in the minority, but Fox has the ratings. They virtually destroy MSNBC and CNN every hour on the hour, seven days a week. This is because people want to know about they’re government and how bad it really is out there, and Fox News delivers.

Glenn Beck is a great entertainer, and true, I don’t always agree with everything he focuses his attention on, however if you break apart some of the things he discusses on his program, it does make sense. I should point out that Beck has been the main commentator in the last year or so that has been attacked every day by left-fielders like Keith Olbermann, saying he is just a conspiracy theorist and promotes conservative bias. If there is one thing that Glenn Beck said that really stuck in my head, it was something he said back in 2007 while he still had his broadcast on Headline News. Beck was being critical of President Bush and said something to the effect that “he probably has the worst communication with the American people since James Buchanan”. It was at that point that I realized commentators that appear to be conservative, are indeed openly critical of both parties.

Yet, you will never hear Olbermann or anyone else on the left mention the fact that Beck was critical of the Bush Administration before he moved to Fox News.

Another interesting discussion Beck had on his old Headline News broadcast was with Lou Dobbs concerning the left’s attempt to stifle free speech on cable news and radio. As with the examples laid out above, whether it was Dobbs himself leaving CNN, or Sanchez, or whoever, the left is trying to do this. Then you have this radical left-wing media watchdog group, Media Matters for America that cuts bits and pieces of commentaries of anyone involved in the news that is not a liberal, and exploits them, but they never exploit any liberal that says hateful comments, like Joy Behar did.

They’ve tried for quite sometime now to get Beck removed from Fox News, but they’ve been unsuccessful…. Good!

But perhaps Fox News’ voice of reason is Bill O’Reilly. He tells it like it is, and usually has two sides to discuss the issues on his program, and this is the reason why O’Reilly has the top rated cable news program. If you tell it like it is, and it is a hot button issue that people can probably relate to and agree on, they’ll watch. O’Reilly is controversial sometimes on issues which makes it one more reason why people tune in.

Fox does have other commentators like Sean Hannity, a true-Reagan conservative, although I personally think a more fair and balanced program was Hannity and Colmes, before liberal commentator Alan Colmes decided to leave the show. Greta Van Susteren, John Stossell and Megyn Kelly also give thought provoking opinions on their respectable programs, without a political position.

Now that the Republicans have taken back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, are we going to see a future change when it comes to the news media?

Already, I’m seeing Bill O’Reilly change his stance slightly on Fox News, fairly analyzing the new GOP held house and they’re attempts in 2011 to work with the President. Keith Olbermann has even removed his Worst Person in the World segment on his program.

I think the bias in the news media, either through the cable news network platforms or newspapers and its relationship with politics in Washington D.C. has even more so, angered Americans. I think with this change of power, perhaps we will see a neutral position on both sides of politics, instead just favoring one party.

It is seemingly becoming apparent that liberals in this country see that progressive agenda is not going to work in this country and the message from the American people has hopefully been heard.

Is there really going to be any future change when it comes to the bias in the news media? I guess we’ll find out in the coming year. After all, how much worse can it get?