The Andrea Mitchell Comment Proves Media not interested in Solutions

As a beloved follower of some political shows on MSNBC, I was both a little confused and sadden when I read about the comment made by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell while being a guest on Meet the Press.  I was confused because here was an elite media member who has always in the past compared where we came from to where we are today in order to draw a contrast and possibly find solutions to our problems.  I was saddened by the fact that she sat on television and began to attempt an education on what words or language should be used while in the office of president.  Saddened that she, of all people, should know that before any person or country can ever move forward, that they must first be well aware of how they got to where they are and from whence they came.  If memory serves, she, herself, has said that you will never know where you are going unless you know where you came from.

The article can be found at TPM Livewire under the title “MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Rips Obama For 'Crusade' Remarks (VIDEO)” posted by Brendan James.  The article reads “MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell slammed President Barack Obama for mentioning the Crusades at the National Prayer Breakfast on Sunday's edition of "Meet the Press."  After New York Times columnist David Brooks heaped a good deal of praise on the speech, Mitchell condemned the President's remarks.  "You don't use the word 'crusade,' number one, in any context right now," the host of "Andrew Mitchell Reports" said. "It's too fraught."  "And the week after a pilot is burned alive in a video shown, you don't lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers," she added.  "You have to deal with the issue at hand or don't deal with it at all, talk about faith," Mitchell said.  "But he's the President," she said. "You can't really go back to 1095."  "If you're giving a major speech about theology, perhaps. But this is the prayer breakfast," Mitchell added”

So now was this revelation from Mitchell more about continuing her stance opposite of David Brooks or just wishing to be seen as being critical of President Obama?  Surely she wasn’t suggesting that she should be the one who decides what he says, how he says it and when he does?  I mean, disagreeing with the president is okay, it is her right as an American citizen but before you stand on camera and denounce any actions of another person, should not you attempt to understand the entire purpose or has our television gotten so corrupted that you say whatever you feel without considering how it may be interpreted?  She said that mentioning the crusades is too fraught, so are we to assume that this word or subject is off limits to certain people.  Are we to assume, that only a select few can talk about certain parts of our history?  Are we not adult enough to point out how much alike cultures may appear than many wish to believe and does your location dictate when you can discuss a subject or not.

Journalist wishes to talk about ISIL and Americans wish to make people think that this nation was not built by the same ideology that this group spews.  ISIL wants an Islamic State and Puritans/Pilgrims wanted a New World.  ISIL say that they fight based on the teachings of their Bible and religion but did not the Crusades make the same claim.  Did not the Catholic religion choose selected individuals to go around fighting and killing in the name of the church?  Do not we wish our country to turn the page on hypocrisy?  Condemning one country about something that we, ourselves, have or had done?  Just how righteous do we think we are to poke our chest out talking to China about human rights violations, while we have people in positions of power today, taking away voting rights, due process, women rights and any ability to think for ourselves right here in the good ole U.S. of A.

I used to think that between MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, somewhere there is the truth about a matter, that if you could stomach all the other crap surrounding the news, you would be able to get a pretty good idea about a subject and then be able to make an educated decision on which side of the argument you should stand.  Now it appears that we have too many people making comments about a story instead of having all new media just simply report the story. Blogs are where you should be able to get the spin but television should be where you get the news or maybe I’m just wrong.