The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, among other rights, grants freedom of the press. It specifically states: "... Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press ..." As with the rest of the Constitution, a brilliant political principle without question. With its brilliance though, it does not regulate the quality of the free press and throughout our history we have seen both outstanding journalism and pitiful examples of a free press. In the second decade of the 21st century, there are two strong political ideologies (left & right) controlling the political dialogue in this country. During the 2012 Presidential Election, spin from the left and right are presented as mainstream information and what was formerly mainstream, balanced & unbiased information sources have changed or evolved their format to the point that unbiased reporting is unavailable. In the 2016 Presidential Election, there was no effort at all to cover up the biased reporting of the mainstream media. Today's news sources are targeting specific messages to gain specific ideological audiences, thereby presenting bias. This bias is most times unidentifiable, not completely truthfully nor presented with perspective and context that the reader/viewer/listener requires and expects. Shockingly, sometimes this bias is purposely (NBC) camouflaged (NY Times - 4th paragraph down) from the reader/viewer/listener. In our polarized society, these strong messages on both sides overpower the ability of people with limited time to evaluate issues to find a center, compromise, reasonable or mainstream position. Especially when each side is also saying they offer the center, compromise, reasonable and mainstream position, whether they do or not. There are media watchdog organizations out there, but they also represent an ideological left and right. Much of this website is dedicated to shedding light on the bias in current American journalism. While we long for that great post-WWII journalistic era, where we were served by responsible, professional and largely unbiased journalism, unfortunately, we are no longer so served. That makes it difficult for American citizens to find the truth among the hype, agenda peddling and biased reporting. If you look at the bottom of this page and all pages on this website, you will find major (and some not so major) news organizations listed based on their political leanings, Left or Right. You will immediately notice there are none listed in the center. While there may be the occasional article in any of these news sources which could be a center, balanced and truthful report, by and large the reporting from that news source is defined by its L-R political leanings. The Gray Area is attempting to help its readers by so identifying the biases of the news source from which a report originates to help you identify the spin within the news piece you are reading or watching. We will include an article in the center if we believe it represents the center, a thoughtful, balanced and honest perspective. That way, presented with facts and recognizing the source, you can make up your own mind. In this 'media' section, we comment on the egregiousness of some reporting so that you may see the best and worst of what we must today use as our sources of information. From an analysis of all the sources, THE GRAY AREA HAS CREATED ITS OWN SPECTRUM OF MEDIA BIAS.

Would You Feel The Same If Lt. Col. Scheller's Post was against Pres. Trump?

from The Gray Area:
The Washington Post over this weekend issued an editorial opinion that the sentence Lt Col Stuart Scheller got was a 'slap on the wrist'. WaPo argues that 'such a light penalty for such a deliberate' act sets a horrible precedent for others would might now feel more free to 'breach ... the core principle of civilian control of the military [and] could cause real long-term harm'. WaPo, would you feel the same if Lt. Col. Scheller's post was against Pres. Trump? For one, you clearly don't understand the rules of military discipline. He did not do anything treasonous. He disobeyed a direct order. No lives were in danger. For that you are reprimanded, or court-martialed or separated from the military, possibly with a dis-honorable discharge. That is a significant penalty. Maybe even losing his pension which would be a travesty. He will already be giving up years of continued service and continued building of his pension had he chosen to stay quiet. For this he might spend a night in the 'brig', not nine days in solitary confinement. He was of no harm to others or himself.  He became a political prisoner. Yes, we know the answer to this question, what would you say if he spoke out against Pres Trump? He would be hailed a brave whistleblower. He would be protected under the whistleblower statutes. He would be brought before Congress to describe how bad he thinks Trump is. It would be grounds for impeachment, even if Trump is no longer President! Hordes of pro-bono lawyers from the Democrats and their leftist supporters would be lining up to take his case against the military, Trump and everyone else they might want to put through the ringer. With complete support from the media. It is understood that today there are two systems of justice in America, one for Democrats and one for Republicans. This is the problem we have with the mainstream media and all those who fall in line with their political narratives. The narrative is transparent, politically motivated and harmful to America. And, for those who pay attention, unevenly applied. Fortunately for Lt. Col. Scheller and the rest of the country, the trial judge did his job without succumbing to political pressure. Here is a perspective from Tucker Carlson Tonight, including an interview with Col. Scheller's parents. More From FoxNews - Tucker Carlson Tonight:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )