Why The Main Stream Media Is Dying

Barry Bonds (the infamous professional baseball player) is now fronting for Christensen Arms. The MSM's unremitting bias is pretty much summed up with this cartoon attached to the article.

Bonds now blasting deer instead of baseballs

You are not even implying Bonds is out killing fawns (is that supposed to be Bambi? Doesn't Disney have a copyright on Bambi?). He isn't killing fawns and you know it. You show Bonds holding the rifle completely wrong and sighting through the scope with the wrong eye. Am I supposed to laugh and say "Ha ha, hunters are dumber than Elmer Fudd"? Hell, I'm insulted and I barely qualify as a hunter.

Then there's the stupid video. You force us to wait through an advertisement before seeing video you took from Christensen Arms without crediting them (that's just plain lame, OK?). The stolen liberated video does show a link to YouTube.com and you even verbally credit YouTube. Am I supposed to believe you don't know it came from Christensen Arms? You've insulted me again and I barely qualify as a Christian (that was a joke, sit down and shut up).

I might have been willing to let slide you telling us Christensen Arms is a munitions manufacturer...

"Barry Bonds has put down his bat and picked up a gun in his new role as spokesman for Christensen Arms, a munitions company that specializes in high-powered hunting rifles."

...cause you probably don't actually know they are a gun manufacturer specializing in custom rifles not designed for war even though you actually printing hunting rifles. Munitions sounds like they make weapons of war (war being something you obviously think means everyone involved with is intrinsically evil) which is why you used the term. I'm insulted (again!) and I am barely qualify as a warrior or a custom rifle maker.

Why is it that you Main Stream Media hacks never actually link to the web sites of the people your insulting talking about? The reason isn't technical, it's ethical, isn't it? By not actually linking, you are hope/changing that we'll all feel the unlinked target is somehow a bad thing, right? Lame again. Correct me if I'm wrong, I so no-backsies, double-dog-dare you.

In fact, if I were just a tad more cynical, I might just think your implying that a black man with a rifle is the really bad thing your pushing here. Let's try that as a headline, shall we?

BLACK MAN WITH A GUN WANTS TO KILL WHITE PEOPLE

No, you'd never print that, not in San Francisco, anyway. Anymore than the MSM would print white people are buying guns because a black man got elected president. Even if a black man was out shooting white people just because he could, you'd probably print this:

EVIL BLACK RIFLE KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE, BRUISES POOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN MANS SHOULDER, GETS HIS HANDS DIRTY

Since I'm not quite that cynical (yet), let's review the take home messages your article left me with. Barry Bonds is bad. Guns are bad. Gun manufactures are bad. Anyone at war is bad. White Tail deer are bad. Is that about it?

Oh, and you've insulted me again even though I am barely qualified as having a white tail.

You are not only wrong (especially about White Tail deer, they taste great) you sound like a TV sitcom version of an arrogant, just-pubescent, valley girl. If you were my kid I'd tell you to shut up and go to your room. In fact, why don't you. I hate the sound of your voice.

Update: Word check brought to you by commenter Phillip. Thanks!

☮