Expensive Shirts Expose Media Bias
July 31, 2012 11 Comments
Last weekend Michelle Obama wore a $6,800 shirt to a royal Olympic function. The New York Daily News gushed over the shirt declaring she’s supporting commerce. The Washington Post declared the shirt fit for a Queen. This is the same Washington Post which groused that Ann Romney’s $990 shirt worn last May was ”tone deaf” and indicative of the Romney’s being “out of touch.” The Post even wondered how many t-shirts Mrs. Obama could buy at Target to equal the price Mrs. Romney paid for one shirt. Mrs. Romney couldn’t buy seven of her pricey shirts to equal the one Mrs. Obama wore to her Royal event.
We conservatives are constantly declaring the benefits of capitalism while we attack the Obama’s socialism. We are quite right in supporting capitalism and one of the things that capitalism stands for is choice. We should not begrudge Mrs. Obama’s or Mrs. Romney’s choices. They’re both worth millions, if they want to spend a lot of money on ugly clothes, that’s their business and not ours. That we might make different choices with our money or that we might make different choices if we had the kind of money they have shouldn’t take away from their right to make the choices they’ve made. There is nothing inherently bad about an expensive shirt, whether it costs $6,800 or $990. We should refrain from declaring our preferences to be “right” while others are tone-deaf, evil or bad.
The issue here is of course media bias. Ann Romney has been savaged by the media because she wore an expensive shirt and she’s been attacked for having expensive horses. As if any of this is any of our business. Meanwhile Mrs. Obama wears a shirt valued at seven times what Mrs. Romney wore and she’s praised as royal worthy. She jets off to Spain, on the taxpayers dime no less, and no one in the mainstream press says anything. If Mrs. Obama paid for her Spanish getaway herself, none of us should have had any problem with it whatsoever. It’s none of our business. That taxpayers had to fork over a fortune changes that analysis.
At the end of the day Mrs. Obama is not the President and if Mitt Romney wins then Mrs. Romney will not be the President. They’re just the President’s wife, nothing more. If they buy expensive clothes, ride expensive horses or go on expensive, privately paid vacations what’s it to us? These people all have the money to pay for these things, why should we in the middle class impose our personal preferences on them? Why is the media imposing their own odd preferences on either one of these women? How can it be that the same newspaper declares an expensive shirt worn by a Republican wife is tone deaf while an expensive shirt that costs nearly seven times as much worn by a Democrat’s wife is royal worthy? That the Washington Post has the audacity to mention Target in the same sentence as Michelle Obama perhaps takes the cake.
What we’re seeing here is media bias at its worst. Republicans are rich and distant from the people, when they spend money it’s the elite strutting around being tone deaf. When Democrats spend nearly seven times as much as the Republican on a nearly equally hideous shirt it’s royal worthy and to be praised. The media did the same thing to Sarah Palin in 2008, they attacked her clothes and the expense of those clothes while pretending Mrs. Obama shopped at Target. The media has a narrative and we can see it in how Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama are treated by the mainstream press.