OK, so the AP decided they were going to ignore Paris Hilton for a full week, "just to see what would happen". Doesn't this seem a bit odd to anyone else? I personally could not care less for what ever the hell is going on in the life of the Hilton girls....but HOW IN THE HELL does the worlds largest "unbiased" news agency just arbitrarily decide they are going to ignore this and report on that?

I mean, seriously. Could there be a more clear cut example of how the media ultimately reports on whatever the hell they think is going make the biggest splash? As is jokingly reported in the editorial, one of the reporters faseciously asked if they could ban reporting on North Korea for a week.

NOT FUNNY!

What happens when the media openly dictates what they report and what they don't? Obviously there is a limit to resources any company can put into the field and the biggest stories need to be covered first. JUST IMAGINE, however, what would happen if the LIBERAL media decides they are going to ban coverage of Brownback, or McCain, or any of the other presidential candidates in the up-coming election!? What if only Democrats get news coverage? Or, perhaps, the majority of news coverage? What then?

Heck, one can almost picture it happening already with as much press as Obama and Clinton have received over ANYONE else in recent news.

It may sound like a stretch to coorelate Paris Hilton and US politics, but anyone reading this article could see how it would be possible. Just one WEEK of banning coverage of President Bush could change public opinion immensely. Think about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html

~Dubya