More Pro-Obama Media Manipulation

English professors advise media students that a piece of discourse requires an opening, powerful (preferably emotional) “hook” in order to grab the attention of potential listeners or readers.   Having secured the requisite attention, the presenter then can advocate his position, even when the position makes little or no empirical sense. 

Hook and manipulate (h&m) worked well in enabling the liberal media to promulgate the “beautiful story” of candidate Barack Obama that resulted in his winning the 2008 presidential election.  Now they are at it again. 

On December 26, 2011, in print and over the air waves, Chris Satullo, Whyy Public Radio’s Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue, continued the h&m tradition.   On that day, he introduced an essay by recounting an uplifting vignette about how a lady in Grand Rapids, Michigan chose to pay anonymously the past-due K-mart layaway balances of three, presumably financially strapped, shoppers.    Satullo went on to recount how the practice induced some others to do the same such that over 1000 similar acts occurred in K-marts across our nation.

So far, so good.  We need all the positive news stories we can get and, to my way of thinking, the essay starts out right for Satullo, Whyy and for us all.   However, to really appreciate the Whyy story, it requires further context.  

For about two weeks prior to Satullo’s piece, President Obama had been pounding away at the Republicans, blaming them for refusing to tax the rich and for obstructing his plan to extend the “middle-class payroll tax holiday.”  His emotional hook concerned equating the evil GOP with the anti-Christmas villain, the “Grinch”  — a tactic consistent with the Barack Hussein Obama dark-triad personality that demonizes any opposition in an identity-oriented manner.

So, what about the Chris Satullo-Obama connection?

Halfway through his heart-rending essay, Chris asks, “Why are Americans so often so generous when the act of digging into one's own treasure to help others in need is framed as charity, yet so reluctant when it's framed as taxation?”   This pro-Obama question implicitly encourages us to suspend our reality testing and to accept Sutullo’s equating being taxed and being charitable.  I could spend all afternoon on this and I bet you could as well, so I will make only a couple points.

First, one gives freely to charity, whereas taxes are taken from us by force of law.  Second, one chooses when to give, whereas the government takes according to its timeline.  Third, a charitable giver presents his “gift” to the specific person or organization whom he chooses.   And  fourth,  a charitable giver provides as much or as little support as he wishes.

Chris Suttulo’s article, “Charity and paradox in the aisles of Kmart” has little to do with charity and everything to do with pro-Barack Obama political advocacy through subterfuge.  The piece captures our attention by tugging at our heart strings and attempts to deceive us by juvenile, mawkish logic.  What an affront to the intelligence of the National Public Radio audience!