No, of course not!
That's why the Washington Times has an article about Romney headed up by a video clip of Obama talking about a totally unrelated topic.
Yeah, their article about Romney's upcoming speech has the title, Romney to Slam Obama on Warfare. Under that headline is a huge embedded video of a self-deprecating Obama poking fun at his own debate performance last week. Then comes the main body of the article.
First, what is that video doing there? Really. Couldn't anyone at the Washington Times think of a more relevant video? Or even a photo? Maybe one of, oh, I don't know, Romney. But if you're gonna show Obama, why ought it not be relevant to the topic of foreign affairs? The self-deprecating Obama is the absolute best of any recent Obama clips, I admit. But, video of the mid-September Mideast violence at our embassies might be a tad more relevant.
Now, showing that sort of thing might be to Romney's favor. And we want to be un-biased, right, and not substitute bias for Obama with bias for Romney. And they favor Obama. So, why not have a photo or video of Obama with some other heads of state? Or at the UN? Or something like that? Why this totally unrelated, but Obama-in-the-best-light-possible video?
Also take note of the headline. This is a foreign policy speech Romney is going to make. It isn't about warfare, or at least not warfare alone. "Warfare" is a loaded word, it narrows the scope of Romney's speech to something nasty, and it makes it seem like Romney is all about waging war -- which, by the way, is how Democrats have been painting Republicans since Lyndon Johnson's famous atomic bomb TV commercial that defeated Goldwater. (See the back story here, where there is a link to the TV commercial that ran in 1964.) I have been alive since JFK was president, and have yet to see the war-mongering stereotype played out. Anyway, it's a loaded and biased headline.
I can't wait for the next few weeks to go by. Then I can stop talking about politics again!
Well, unless Obama wins.