Many of you are probably aware by now of the scandal revolving around the Miami Dolphins. It seems that one player (Ingcognito) bullied another player (Martin) to the point that the Martin walked off the team.
The media has been in a flurry to investigate what did the coaches know and when did they know it. I believe they are secretly hoping for a sequel to "A Few Good Men" replacing Marines with professional football players even throwing around the term Code Red.
Yes, the media seems to love a good scandal unless it involves our current president.
CNN recently had a healine to an online article covering the Dolphins story that read like this...Dolphins' Incognito-Martin mess: Is coach Philbin to blame?
Apparently, in the eyes of the media, a head coach of an NFL team needs to be more hands on than the President of the United States.
Why don't we see any headlines like this when it comes to the person running our country? Where are the CNN and New York Times headlines, "Is Obama to blame?" when it comes to Benghazi, IRS targeting, DOJ/NSA spying and wiretapping, Fast & Furious, ObamaCare failure, and the multitude of other scandals that have marked Obama's presidency?
Am I to infer that a head coach in the NFL should know more about what is going on in his organization than the President is supposed to know about what is going on in his administration?
From the article...
"But many who know the ins and outs of pro football say Philbin should have known what was going on in his ranks and taken action much sooner."
I agree, but why don't reporters have the same expectations of Obama? Something like this...
"But many who know the ins and outs of [politics] say [Obama] should have known what was going on in [the IRS, NSA, DOJ, etc.] and taken action much sooner."
There mainstream media, was that so hard? I guess when it comes to Obama — you can't handle the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment