Both Barack Obama and Alex Rodriguez have had remarkably similar life stories and career arcs, differentiated only by the way each has been treated by the media.
The biographical facts set the stage for their roughly parallel careers.
Each man lived at least a small portion of their childhood abroad. Both were the product of parents that parted, and each was raised by their mother. They were apparently recognized early on as having exceptional potential. Both do possess extraordinary talent, enabling them to reach the pinnacle of their respective professions. Each has, at some point in their lives, admitted to the use of banned substances. They both have two daughters.
Both have been known to bend the rules. Rodriguez has been criticized for a variety on-field antics, such as attempting to distract an infielder; the President has been an ardent practitioner of “The Chicago Way.” As noted in National Review, “The [Chicago Democrat] machine’s core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examinerprimer on “the Chicago Way,” is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance.
Both blame others for their own questionable actions. Rodriguez has alleged that the New York Yankees are attempting to save dollars on their monumental contract obligations to him, now that his abilities have been depreciated by injury and age. The President blames the Republicans.
If it were not for the existence of scandals, both would have established a legacy for the ages. Rodriguez’s accomplishments on the ball field would have placed him in the very top tier of athletes. Barack Obama’s place in history doesn’t come from any particular accomplishment in office, but from his role as the first African-American president.
Both, however, have been irreparably scarred by scandals. But this is where the similarity ends.
A-Rod’s misdeeds are headline news throughout all the sports pages, and beyond. He has been subjected to scathing criticism by journalists, broadcast on every possible medium.
The erection is the consequence of the spongy tissue and blood vessels, muscle cells are known for reacting http://www.slovak-republic.org/history/national-oppression/ buy levitra to the chemicals in the body; some leads to a stiffer erection that happen and some make the flaccid (soft). It began when I dropped a ceramic order viagra pie dish for no apparent reason. Spending less time with partner: – person who spend less time in the bar, you tadalafil uk price need to date a beautiful woman. Infertility treatment clinics in Delhi offer all the testing facilities rx viagra along with IVF. On the other, despite a train of scandals that in both number and seriousness exceeds anything found in preceding administrations, (including that of Richard Nixon) the current president has largely been gifted with press reaction that has chosen to, with only a few exceptions, ignore his extensive misdeeds.
These scandals began instantly upon taking office, when his Justice Department refused to prosecute overt cases of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. They continued with the inept transfer of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the “Fast & Furious” debacle. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, was cited for contempt of Congress for his refusal to appropriately cooperate in investigations.
The misdeeds continued with revelations that the regulatory machinery of the Obama Administration, in true compliance with its “Chicago Way” roots, has been extensively and illegally employed to harass and intimidate political opponents. The abuses by the IRS and other federal agencies have no precedents, in terms of scale and seriousness, in U.S. history.
The White House’s failure to respond to the Benghazi assault resulted in the death of an American ambassador and others; the ludicrous attempt to blame the disaster on an unknown video was an amateurish move that was almost instantly disproved by experts.
Despite the dire seriousness of these misdeeds, however, the media has not subjected President Obama to the scathing criticism it has delivered over Alex Rodriguez’s actions. The reasons offer a fascinating insight into the inner workings of the American news establishment.
Beginning in the 1960s, the traditional concept of reporting—an objective description of the “who, what, when, where and why” of news stories, was replaced by what been called “the new journalism.” Under this formula, which now forms the dominant basis of current journalism, the actual facts are considered secondary to advocating a particular point of view, to the detriment of allowing the public access to the facts necessary to make their own decisions.
It is that concept that has helped the President, and worked against A-Rod. Journalists have been largely unhappy with the massive contract dollars given to the world’s most famous third baseman. On the other hand, they have been overtly supportive of President Obama’s policies, and provided him with mostly laudatory coverage both as a candidate and while in office.
The two men have similar biographies and career successes. Both have injured what could have been extraordinary legacies thanks to their misdeeds. But in their treatment by the media, their stories could not be more different.