Apparently the mainstream media is getting a kick out of polls showing that a large percentage of Americans do not trust the federal government to handle Ebola, and overall questioning the handling of the Ebola outbreak by the federal government, and specifically the Obama administration.
Well, the polls don't really show that. But the way the mainstream media crafts the narrative, you wouldn't know that.
Regardless, the fact that there is any large percentage of Americans at all that feel this way, really pisses me off.
Or rather, it's the media's portrayal of their significance that pisses me off.
Look, to some extent, it's definitely a part of human nature; to fear some unknown epidemic, to distrust a big bureaucracy, to generally be pessimistic.
So that is not what should be newsworthy.
But once again, we have the media relying on a rather transparent false equivalence. To compare reasonable questions about the effectiveness of a government's strategy is a far cry from the usual monolithic Obama-hating driving most of the distrust-in-government discourse, is like comparing rocket science to voodoo.
The mainstream media has spent enough time scrutinizing the Obama administration's handling of the Ebola outbreak. The media has spent enough time trying to drama up a health scare story that they know drive their ratings oh so much.
Now let's see some of that unbiased reporting that the media is wont to claim. Media, you've spent plenty of time on the Obama factor. How about devoting some time now to the other side of the coin.
How about the fact that many of these people who claim to not trust the federal government are many of the same people who claim to want smaller government, and support efforts to obstruct the federal government from operating effectively, such as last year's government shutdown.
How about the fact that many of these people are often the same ones who fight tooth and nail to prevent any sort of increases in tax revenue.
How about the fact that, many of the Republican Congressmen pointing the blame at Obama over Ebola have done little to address the Ebola threat themselves.
How about the fact that many of these Republicans have been campaigning for years on preventing the affordable health care that makes fighting these outbreaks more effective. Not only that, but have voted over 50 times effecting as much.
Where's the portrayal of these Republican Congressmen as Ebola-sympathizers?
If I was administering these polls, if someone were to tell me that they did not trust the federal government's ability to control the Ebola outbreak, I would then ask the followup question if they supported the Republican-led government shutdown. If they said yes to both, I would then tell them to kick rocks.
Let's not forget that, during the last year's government shutdown, many of the government agencies we are relying on today as the immediate responders to the current Ebola outbreak - the CDC, the NIH, the NIAID -were forced to shut down or work under severe limitations.
Let's also not forget, that many of these same agencies are still being forced to work under stringent limitations thanks to the Republican-forced sequester last year, as well.
And worst-case scenario, what happens if Ebola does start to become a major pandemic in the country? Guess what party was most opposed to the emergency agency that we would likely need to rely heavily on in those times? Yep, let's not forget, the party that choose to always proclaim that the worst is about to come, also shows their disdain for preparing for the worst.
And yep, this is all amidst talks of yet another Republican-led government shutdown. Do any reporters care to dig deeper into this issue at all? Or is investigation no longer part of their wheelhouse?
With the 2014 elections looming next month, some may argue that bringing these points up more vocally would be politicizing this latest issue. I would argue that many of the politicians who have exacerbated this issue, even the so-called bipartisan media, have already made it political by using this as an opportunity to attack President Obama, rather than get to work in trenches to make a difference themselves, as if Obama's say alone is the only thing that matters in whether or not this remains contained or becomes a full-on outbreak.
This is a political issue, because it calls into question the effectiveness of our leaders during the types of crises they should be expected to handle effectively. But we should scrutinize all levels of public office-holders, not just the one the media always points at first.
So look media, here is your chance to actually do some basic, fair, perhaps even noteworthy reporting.
I am not asking you to devote nearly as much time as you have already done to Obama's role in all this. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge all that Obama has already done that was within his power.
But for once, for the first time in a long time, if you are at all serious about this desire to still be taken seriously as journalism outfits in this day and age, ask one very important question:
In all this time, what have Republicans been doing to make this Ebola threat better, or worse?
6:59 AM PT: And just saw this diary: GOP cut funding for E-Bola Vaccine
How much more do we need before someone starts to wake up and say, hey, isn't there a pattern here?