Category Archives: Mainstream Media
Posted on | May 19, 2013 |
“It looks like they’ve lost Bob Schieffer,” says John Hoge, which might be a slight exaggeration. Schieffer is a liberal, but he’s also a veteran Washington journalist who has seen enough scandals to know what a scandal looks like, and he was having none of the Jedi mind trick — “These are not the scandals you were looking for. Move along.” — from Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer today. Right off the bat, Pfeiffer tried to cast the argument in partisan terms, which every scandal-plagued politician does, claiming that any suggestion of wrongdoing is a manufactured artifice, the creation of one’s political opponents:
“[T]he Republican playbook here . . . they don’t have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations.”
Schieffer was highly dubious of this excuse, and reminded Pfeiffer of how familiar his excuse-making sounded:
I don’t want to compare this in anyway to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren’t born then, I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said these are all second-rate things. We don’t have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people’s business. You are taking exactly the same line that they did.
Exactly right. Bob Schieffer was born in 1937, he was working for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the day JFK was shot, and he’s not likely to be impressed by a 37-year-old “senior advisor.” And when it came to Benghazi, Schieffer didn’t let Pfeiffer bulldoze him:
The bottom line is what [Susan Rice] told the American people [Sept. 16] bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed. . . . [T]hat was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn’t know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn’t the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don’t know yet? Why didn’t White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn’t the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?
Pfieffer didn’t have a good answer for that. In fact, Pfeiffer had no answers for any real questions at all Sunday. Pfieffer tried to use the “doctored e-mails” distraction that Jazz Shaw discusses at some length, and which doesn’t have any bearing on the real issues about the Benghazi attack, which can be summarized simply: If the administration had nothing to hide, why were they lying?
One can agree with Schieffer that this isn’t Watergate “by any stretch” and still be curious about why, if everything was on the up and up, the administration was acting so shady. And why did Pfeiffer refuse to say where Obama was during the Benghazi attack?
Schieffer gave a little lecture later on Face the Nation about the IRS scandal that’s worth quoting in its entirety:
You heard Dan Pfeiffer earlier in the broadcast say that he wasn’t born when Watergate happened. Well, it will come as no news to anyone that I was. And when the burglars broke into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate, a lot of us back then found it hard to believe. Why would anyone break in to a political headquarters? What did they hope to find–bumper stickers? Yard signs? Nobody is dumb enough to pull a stunt like that. But they were. I admit I had about the same reaction when I first heard the IRS had gone after the Tea Party last year, the Tea Party? Surely no one could be dumb enough to think you could get away with something like that in an election year. But they were. So welcome to dumb and dumber. It did take a while for the news to get to some quarters. We heard that the President say that he didn’t find out about it until last week, last week, which qualified him for Washington’s fastest growing club, the longer and longer list of officials who suddenly don’t know much about a lot of unpleasant things from Benghazi to the Associated Press investigation. At this point, just spare me the talking points and the excuses. No matter whether Republicans or Democrats are doing this kind of thing, this stuff is not just wrong it’s really stupid. And it will take more than firing a few temps and low-level bureaucrats to fix it. The President won reelection with a smart political team, but the election is over. Maybe he should look now for people of substance who know about other things who could help him govern.
As they say in Texas: Hell to the yes, Bob.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
While the New York Times dispatched its best and brightest lackeys to Boston to write sensitive pieces on how hard it was for the two Tsarnaevs to fit in leaving them no choice but to bomb the Boston Marathon and then send LOL texts to their friends, it fell to a UK tabloid like The Sun to conduct an interview with the ex-girlfriend of the lead terrorist and learn that he wanted her to hate America and beat her because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab.
There are all sorts of jobs that Americans won’t do. Like pick lettuce, bomb the Boston Marathon and report honestly on the motives of the bombers. The only news network that operates outside the media consensus is owned by an Australian mogul who also owns The Sun.
Americans like to think of their press as freer, but it’s only free in the sense that it voluntarily puts on its own muzzle. European tabloids get into bloody brawls with regulators. American newspapers have nothing to brawl about. They will gleefully report anything that undermines national security at the drop of a hat, knowing that they won’t be touched, but there is a long list of subjects that they won’t touch with a million mile pole.
In Europe, editors risked their lives to publish the Mohammed cartoons. In America, on the rare occasion that they were depicted, they were usually censored. CNN, which could show Kathy Griffin trying to molest Anderson Cooper, without the benefit of pixelation or a suicide button, blurred out Mohammed’s face; assuming that Muslims would appreciate the sensitivity of treating their prophet’s face like an obscene object.
The American media does not need to be censored. It censors itself.
Did the New York Times really fail to come across Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s ex-girlfriend and domestic abuse victim while they were busily interviewing every single person in Boston who ever ran into the future terrorists? Doubtful. The New York Times may be incompetent, but it isn’t that incompetent. If it could track down Tamerlan’s old coach, it could track down his old girlfriend. It chose not to.
So did every other paper.
Either The Sun is staffed with crack journalists who could do what no American newspaper, news channel and network news program could, or The Sun got the scoop on Nadine Ascencao because no newspaper on this side of the ocean wanted to touch it. And it’s easy to see why.
Nadine talks about being beaten in the name of Islam, forced to memorize Koran verses and being taught to hate America. Most journalists on this side of the ocean want quotes on what nice boys the two Tsarnaevs were and how, in true liberal fashion, no one could have expected them to do something like this.
Every background story on them is filled with the same pabulum, because the endless march of “We couldn’t have known” quotes provides the government-media complex with the plausible deniability it needs to continue doing the same thing all over again. If the people couldn’t have known, then it stands to reason that their government or their media couldn’t have known either.
No Islam please, we’re American was the mainstream media’s unspoken message. We don’t do Islamic terrorism. We only report on terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
The only newspaper besides The Sun to do an interview with Nadine Ascencao was the Wall Street Journal; which just happens to be owned by the same tabloid mogul. But there is an interesting difference between The Sun and the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ piece doesn’t mention Hijabs, Koran verses or hating America. It doesn’t mention Islam at all.
Co-written by a Pakistani journalist, it emphasizes only that Tamerlan was a bully of no particular religion. That reporter’s twitter feed features a retweet from another Muslim WSJ reporter who broadcasts that the plans of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to head to Times Square amounted to nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Nothing to see here is the theme of the media’s coverage. Like a movie, it begins with inspirational tales of courage, and then just when the villains were about to come on the scene, the credits began to roll. It’s only been twenty minutes, but the audience gets hustled out of the theater and told to leave their sodas and popcorn behind.
The “folks who did this”, in Obama’s patently false folksy parlance, were caught. Or at least one of them was. The sacred liberal ceremony of the Miranda warning was recited by a judge at his bedside and the trial will now move through the traditional phases of expensive lawyers paid for by the taxpayer pleading that their client was traumatized by our foreign policy and the entire story being shoved to the back of the media’s coat rack behind the next sports star who comes out of the closet.
This is the surreal world of the American media, which wields its weapons of mass distraction with clinical precision, so that the news hour and the local paper are virtually indistinguishable in content from an old episode of The Jerry Springer Show. But it can’t possibly spare the time for a coherent discussion of the real world motives of two men who carried out a major terrorist attack in Boston.
Soviet citizens listened to the Voice of America to find out what their own government wouldn’t tell them. American citizens have to read The Sun and the Daily Mail, publications whose standards are slightly above that of The Huffington Post and yet, like the National Inquirer, have become one of the few outlets that will chase after the stories that the media has embargoed as effectively as Pravda.
Instead of wasting time on a dead end like Islam, the media has spent its time chasing down every other possible angle.
Did Tamerlan turn terrorist because he took too many blows to the head while boxing? Could the Boston Marathon bombing have been prevented if only we had let him win?
The New York Times assembled a touching story of an aspiring immigrant boxer radicalized by the petty restrictions of a government that wouldn’t let him apply for citizenship because of his history of domestic violence and appearance on a terrorist watch list. But how does that jibe with the Tamerlan from five earlier who beat up a boy that his sister was dating because he wasn’t Muslim?
When the media must deal with Tamerlan’s theology, it keeps him in the category of the troubled man who turned to some wacky extremist version of Islam propounded by a YouTube convert. The man who beat his sister’s boyfriend because he wasn’t a Muslim and beat his ex-girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab wasn’t some brainwashed drone who had his mind stolen by YouTube videos. He was a Muslim.
The Tamerlan of 2007 might not have watched as many Jihadist videos, but it would be a mistake to assume that he would have disagreed with their content. That Tamerlan might not have been looking at bombing targets, but neither would he have been upset and angry if some other Muslim had done what he would go on to do. Like Dzhokhar’s two Muslim friends, his first reaction would have been to cover it up.
When it comes to serial killers and mass shooters, the media is conditioned to look for a break that follows some life crisis. But with Muslim terrorists there is no discontinuity, only continuity. A few setbacks might have made terrorism more appealing to Tamerlan, but that would not have happened if it had not already been on his menu of life choices. Or that of his brother.
That angle is the most terrifying one that the media can think of. It’s the one that they can’t touch. It’s the one that they won’t let anyone else touch either. If they have to mention the “I” word, they will sandwich it between “extremist” and “radicalization”. But it’s not Tamerlan who was the radical extremist. Among Muslims, his views were mainstream. The Wahhabis are in ascendance in most parts of the world, including the United States. Islamist parties roundly won the Arab Spring.
What was the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the Syrian Jihadists held up by the media as the epitome of courage and bravery? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Hamas and Fatah terrorists that the media peevishly contends Israel must make peace with? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists fighting in conflicts around the world?
While the European media, for all its faults, occasionally grapples with the incompatibility of liberal values and Muslim values; on this side of the ocean the topic is all but untouchable. There is no national censorship body that does this. Instead stories are held down by the weight of a consensus that insists the media exists to promote liberal values. All else follows from there.
The stories that promote liberal values are reported. The stories about a future Muslim terrorist beating his girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab are not because those stories create a sneaking suspicion that Muslim multiculturalism is incompatible with liberal values. And the incompatible Muslims, like Mohammed’s face, have been pixelated out of existence in reports on the terrorist attacks by disgruntled boxers, doctors and perfume salesmen who just happen to be Muslim.
These are the Muslims that the media doesn’t see. And it is doing everything possible to make sure that we don’t see them either.
Absolutely disgraceful how the media is ignoring this trial.
Via Washington Times:
Reflecting mounting frustration over the lack of press coverage of inner-city Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial, a group of pro-life House members took to the floor to denounce what they call a “national media cover-up” of the sensational case.
“Again, I ask my colleagues and I ask the news media, ‘Why the blackout?’” said Rep. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Republican. “Will America ever be told of the brutality of abortion?”
The congressional outcry is the latest effort to draw attention to the gruesome courtroom drama unfolding in Philadelphia, where Dr. Gosnell stands accused of committing eight murders including seven live babies born after botched abortions at the Women’s Medical Society.
“Just hearing about this trial and quite frankly, I haven’t heard about it on TV, and if I weren’t informed about it leading up this special order, I wouldn’t know about the Gosnell trial, one that I think is really sickening just to hear the facts,” said Rep. John Fleming, Louisiana Republican.
The trial is being covered by The Associated Press, as well as the Philadelphia and Delaware media, but has yet to earn a report on the major television broadcast or cable networks since jury selection began March 4.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Classy: Obama Officials Called Female Reporter A “Bitch,” “Cunt,” “Asshole” For Asking Tough Questions…
Via NY Post:
As coverage of last week’s flare-up between Bob Woodward and the White House devolved into the granular parsing of words and implications and extrapolations and possible intent, the larger point was roundly missed: the increasing pressure that White House correspondents feel when dealing with the Obama administration — to follow their narrative, to be properly deferential (!), to react to push-back by politely sitting down and shutting up. [...]
Finally, this week, reporters are pushing back. Even Jonathan Alter — who frequently appears on the Obama-friendly MSNBC — came forward to say he, too, had been treated horribly by the administration for writing something they didn’t like.
“There is a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time — comes out of these guys,” Alter said this week. During the 2008 campaign swing through Berlin, Alter said that future White House press secretary Robert Gibbs disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and the press corps over it.
“I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to Woodward] look like patty-cake.”
“I had a young reporter asking tough, important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran. “She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully her. In an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c–t, a–hole.” He complained and was told the matter would be investigated: “They were hemming and hawing, saying, ‘We’ll look into it.’ Nothing happened.”
He wound up confronting the author of the e-mail directly. “I said, ‘From now on, every e-mail you send this reporter will be on the record, and you will be speaking on behalf of the president of the United States.’ That shut it down.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From 90 miles:http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Posted on | February 20, 2013
The other day, Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen of Politico published a long story about the dysfunctional relationship between the Obama administration and the White House press corps, saying that the lack of access and deliberate manipulation were making it difficult for reporters to do their jobs.
A basic rule of life: If you volunteer to be somebody’s doormat, you forfeit the right to complain about the footprints on your back.
The White House has merely exploited the unabashed fandom of the journalistic elite, which is so overwhelmingly liberal that they were only too happy for the opportunity to publish daily valentines to their presidential heartthrob. Predictably, this posture of eager sycophancy has not earned reporters the respect of those they flatter, and so White House correspondents — journalists at the very peak of professional prestige — are shocked to find themselves treated like rent-boys by the administration’s P.R. machinery. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is unsympathetic:
It certainly is true that Obama is good at manipulating the media, but I’m taking Obama’s side on this one. The media has proven itself willing subjects, with tingles and oohs and ahhs running wild since before Obama was elected the first time. . . .
Don’t blame Obama for your own failings.
Look in the mirror and ask why you are such a bunch of hypocritical sycophants who abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity in order to get Obama elected twice.
Ah, but here comes The Enforcer: Charles Pierce at Esquire attacks Vandehei and Harris from their left flank, signaling that even the mildest media dissent against Dear Leader is unacceptable. Anyone in the D.C. press corps who actually does stray from the fawning pro-Obama herd will be targeted for destruction by MSNBC, by the left blogosphere, by Media Matters and Think Progress.
It’s these enforcer types — Commissars of the People’s Information Bureau, as it were — who make media reform impossible. That’s what Journolist was all about, and you may notice that the Washington Post hasn’t exactly kicked Ezra Klein to the curb.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
What most people saw last night:
US President Barack Obama arrives to deliver his annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress inside the US House of Representatives February 12, 2013, in Washington, DC. (AFP PHOTO/Paul J. Richards)
What libs saw:
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
This is how I See Obama:
Later in the day CNN had on another guest who openly praised Dorner… shockingly, both guests were black liberals.
On Wednesday morning, Carol Costello‘s panel on CNN tackled the question of whether ex-LAPD officer and murder suspect Chris Dorner, who was the center of a manhunt in California, can “teach” us anything about gun violence. The panel quickly turned into a two-against-one discussion, with the majority not humoring Dorner’s manifesto.
“He says a lot about more than just guns,” Politic365′s Jason Johnson asserted. “He tells us a lot about how our urban police departments are working, he tells us a lot about corruption. He tells us a lot about institutionalized racism. His story is the kind of testimony that we need to take a look at how America operates in general.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Posted on | February 13, 2013
It’s Ash Wednesday, and a 29-year-old kindergarten teacher was laid to rest in Westchester County, N.Y. Her story is now gaining international attention, but the New York Times and the national TV networks can’t be bothered to report the death of a woman who died after a late-term abortion by Dr. LeRoy Carhart. So the story got covered by Viral Read:
A 10 AM service was held this morning at New York’s Holy Name of Jesus Church for 29 year-old Kindergarten teacher Jennifer McKenna Morbelli. ViralRead was on the scene.
Morbelli died Thursday at Shady Grove Hospital in suburban Montgomery County, Md., after undergoing a late-term abortion performed by Dr. LeRoy Carhart at the Germantown Reproductive Health clinic. Pro-life organizations including Operation Rescue have reported that Morbelli arrived at the clinic late Sunday, Feb. 3, and returned to the clinic for the next three days, including a nine-hour visit on Wednesday, Feb. 6. Morbelli was reportedly rushed to the hospital early Thursday morning and died hours later after suffering “massive internal bleeding,” Operation Rescue reported.
In a humble eulogy, Morbelli’s sister Kristin remembered how wonderful her sister was; how she always was ‘sticking up for her’ in ways no one else would. ViralRead’s New York City based correspondent reported that in the view of her family, Morbelli had accomplished more in 29 years than most do in a lifetime. In her mother’s stead, Kristin read a letter from her mother and father to Morbelli, a feat incomprehensible to anyone who has never laid a loved one to rest. Roughly 150 mourners were present for the services.
The priest who presided over the services delivered a consoling homily in which he remembered his favorite childhood nursery rhyme, Humpty Dumpty. He stated that much like Humpty Dumpty, God will put both Jennifer and her unborn child, Madison Leigh, back together again. . . .
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
It is the duty of the media to condition the gullible to accept what liberalism is doing to our country. Here’s how the flagship publication of the left-wing ruling class (the NY Slimes) explains why Chicago is a national leader in both repressive gun laws and gun violence:
Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl [last] Tuesday.
Is it because law-abiding citizens aren’t allowed to defend themselves? Nah.
Chicago’s experience reveals the complications inherent in carrying out local gun laws around the nation. Less restrictive laws in neighboring communities and states not only make guns easy to obtain nearby, but layers of differing laws — local and state — make it difficult to police violations. And though many describe the local and state gun laws here as relatively stringent, penalties for violating them — from jail time to fines — have not proven as severe as they are in some other places, reducing the incentive to comply. …
“Chicago is not an island,” said David Spielfogel, senior adviser to [Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish"] Emanuel. “We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”
That is, it’s the rest of the country’s fault, for still honoring the Constitution. If we turn the whole country into Chicago, the rotting pustule of a city that produced Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and Barack Obama won’t resemble the innermost circle of hell anymore.
Any liberal who can regurgitate this nonsense with a straight face gets extra brownie points for political obedience.
On a tip from Ghost of FA Hayek.
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Posted on | January 31, 2013
When the major news networks ignored the FBI raid on the Miami doctor who bankrolled Sen. Robert Menendez’s trips to the Dominican Republic, I was frankly stunned. No matter how liberal your bias may be, the allegation that Menendez was banging underage hookers during his Caribbean expeditions is irresistible as news.
There is nothing in mere politics than can equal the power of a sex scandal to make people pay attention.
And dude: Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee? It’s almost as good as a sex scandal with a congressman named Weiner.
In a little-noticed email published online Wednesday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime Menendez campaign donor.
“That Senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2002, according to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker.
Could anything possibly be more newsworthy than that? How about the Senator’s (allegedly) exotic tastes for foreign women?
Another email string has been released naming some of the prostitutes involved with Dr. Melgen and Senator Menendez. Of the 4 prostitutes named, 2 were Dominican, 1 Russian, and another Colombian.
Yes, the names — Geraldine, La Honey, Yaneisy and Svetlana — conjure images of an international sexual smorgasbord assembled for the Senator’s prurient pleasure by his Miami patron. And you want to tell me that’s not newsworthy? Turn in your press credentials, clean out your desk and find another line of work, because you clearly have no aptitude for the news business.
From the Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
At this point it would be far too much to expect the apparatchiks at CBS to challenge authoritarian former police chief William Bratton on this whopper:
“If we could have kept the assault weapon out of the hands of that young man in the Newtown school shootings, those 26 lives would have been saved by just keeping it out of his hands.”
Adam Lanza did not use an “assault weapon.” Because the media is neither competent nor honest, it is still not entirely clear that he even used an AR-15, and semiautomatic AR-15s are not assault rifles except in the muddled minds of moonbats and those who feed them politically motivated lies.
But say for the sake of argument that the evil freak did use an assault weapon; does anyone really believe that he couldn’t have used anything else?
Bratton repeatedly endorses the “incremental” approach to denying us our right to bear arms. This is why we must fight ferociously to defend each and every millimeter they try to take from us.
On a tip from TrojanMan.
So, it was no surprise later when I saw this at NewsBusters, “‘March for … ?’ Nets Don’t Use ‘Life’ in Abortion Debate“:
Thinking of learning a new language? Try English – broadcast media style. Specifically, try abortion-reporting speak – a tongue as notable for the words it doesn’t use as those it does.
This year’s annual March for Life, this Friday, Jan. 25th, marks the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. And, though you might think it would be difficult to talk about something called the March for Life without using the word “life,” the broadcast networks have shown the utility of abortion-reporting speak. In the past 10 years, 91 percent of ABC, NBC, and CBS anchor reports on the March for Life and Roe v. Wade failed to mention the word, “life.”
In 22 reports, “life” was used just twice. The first came from NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell. O’Donnell said in a Jan. 22, 2003, “Today” segment when she introduced a “pro-life group.” The other came from CBS’ Russ Mitchell in a Jan. 22, 2007, “Early Show” report when he described a “march for life” marking the 34th Roe v. Wade anniversary.
The other 20 reports employed a variety of alternate descriptions for the March for Life and pro-life activists. The March and counter-demonstrations were rallies sponsored by both opponents and supporters of Roe v. Wade, according to NBC’s Brian Williams on Jan. 24, 2005 and his colleague Ann Curry on Jan. 22, 2007. The marchers were “opponents” (ABC’s Jake Tapper, Jan. 23, 2006), and “anti-abortion activists” (NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Jan. 22, 2003) rather than “pro-lifers” or “pro-life marchers,” as they self-describe.
The linguistic selections are far from unconscious. A recent interview by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell illustrated the “life” language prejudice pervading broadcast media. When Republican strategist Juleanna Glover identified herself as “deeply pro-life” in an interview, Mitchell interrupted, “Well, what I would call anti-abortion,” and added, “to use the term that I think is more value neutral.”
And the bias is institutionalized. Journalists should “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life andabortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice,” according to The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook’s 44th edition. Instead of making the argument about life and death or choice and constraint, AP advocates for the flat, procedural term: abortion.
More here, “Marching for Life in the Face of a Pro-Abortion Media.”
And here’s the New York Times’ report, where pro-life activists are called “abortion opponents.” See, “40 Years After Roe v. Wade, Thousands March to Oppose Abortion.” And that piece didn’t make the front-page, despite hundreds of thousands of people rallying for life.
RELATED: At Twitchy, “Social media fills the role the MSM won’t as hundreds of thousands #MarchForLife in DC.”
CBS Political Director Howls for Destruction of GOP
How is this for nonbiased political coverage?
The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …
Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.
The author of this bellicose, hyperpartisan diatribe is John Dickerson, political director for CBS News.
To expect anything resembling objective coverage from these ideologues would be preposterous. The “mainstream” media exists for a single purpose: to ram the leftist agenda down our throats. Despite his obvious unsuitability for the office, Obama has been placed and kept in the White House by the media to serve this purpose.
Hat tip: Breitbart, on tips from Bob Roberts and Clingtomyguns.
They’re not even trying to pretend they are not biased hacks.
JIM ACOSTA: And obviously, this is the moment that everybody is waiting for on Inauguration Day when the President and the First Lady step out of their limo and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. You know, I feel like I should pinch myself right now, Wolf. I can’t believe I have this vantage point of history in the making.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at I Own The World
Unsurprisingly, the likeminded Obama Regime refuses to deport slimy Limey Piers Morgan, despite the reasonable request by over 100,000 Americans that he be kicked out of the country for using his CNN soapbox to campaign against the natural rights our forefathers fought his to secure. This frees up Morgan to vomit ever more condescending venom upon the Constitution that defines our country.
Ben Shapiro of Breitbart walked into his lair to face an astonishing attempt to pretend the attack on gun rights is not coming from the statist left:
MORGAN; So, it’s not left or right is it? Unless you deliberately frame it in that way. And the way the NRA has in the ’80s and ’90s and have deliberately tried to frame this as a left-wing attack —
SHAPIRO: Piers, avoiding the breakdown of left and right here is irresponsible.
MORGAN: — on the American constitution and the second amendment. It’s exactly what you’ve tried to do. You come in, you brandish yourlittle book, as if I don’t know what’s in there —
SHAPIRO: My little book? That’s the constitution of the United States. It’s our founding document, Piers.
This is why even in an age when Barack Hussein Obama could be reelected on an unabashedly Marxist platform, almost nobody watches CNN.
On a tip from Bill T. From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Blistering proof of what freedom-loving people across the world are up against. Today in the Daily Mail, one of the “better” newspapers (it’s relative, I know) that covers stories most other publications won’t is a breathtaking glimpse of how crippled the media is at covering jihad, sharia, and Islam.
They have surrendered our freedom without so much as shedding a tear. Look at how ridiculous these cowards are.
Daily Mail wimps out, pixelates Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad JihadwatchAn unexpurgated photo from the same shoot
The Daily Mail recently posted a story about the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo’s new comic book life of Muhammad; they illustrated the story with a photo of a man standing in front of the Charlie Hebdo offices after Islamic jihadists had firebombed them. The man is holding one of the earlier issues of the paper that featured cartoons of Muhammad, but the Daily Mail pixelated out the images.
This is the suicide of the free press. The Daily Mail is generally better than the other papers in Britain in covering the jihad threat, but it is also careless, sensationalistic, and — as this proves — execrably cowardly. The Daily Mail is hereby signaling that violent intimidation works, and that all you have to do to get the West’s vaunted “free press” to cower before you and give up its freedom is lob a few bombs, kill a few innocents, make a few threats.
The proper response to violent intimidation is not for its victims to curtail their activities and to change their behavior. That only encourages the bullies. The proper response is to stand up to them, show them that they will not get their way, and do all one can to protect those whom they may harm. This would show the world that the West will not give up its principle of free speech, our foremost bulwark against tyranny, and will stand for our principles against attempts to intimidate us into enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws upon ourselves.
In that same paper is a huge puff piece on the wildly dishonest and insulting ruse campaign on jihad sponsored by the Hamas group in America, un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR. You’ll notice the vile Ahmed Rehab is quoting at length without question or comment.
They are not alone. The American press did the same thing.
AFDI is not quoted at all. No comment was sought. So afraid is the Daily Mail. If they had inquired, they would know that the savage ad already ran — months ago (instead, they say 10 ads will run next week. Did they miss Mona’s meltdown?).
They would know we are launching our own “that’s my jihad, what’s yours?”
14 hours ago – CAIR has launched a series of five different posters, featuring attractive young men and women, which describe jihad in relation to fitness, …From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
I’m sure they would have been equally silent if a Tea Party protest got violent.
All three networks on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning ignored the violent assaults by union protesters in Michigan, instead vaguely insisting that activists were simply “voicing their anger” at the “showdown raging in the heartland.” The morning shows on Wednesday allowed little coverage of Michigan at all, a mere 72 seconds out of eight hours of programming.
Hey, Let’s Seceede Or Start a Revolution… Said the Left in 2005
This is a good point: Although liberals are laughing at conservatives’ frustrations and the very human responses to it, they themselves experienced similar frustrations, and had similar responses to them, after Bush’s reelection.
This is an important point: 96% of the reason conservatives are viewed as “weird” or “extreme” or what-have-you is that the media, controlled by the left, covers-up/embargoes their own excesses (and, when forced to report upon such excesses, supply a lot of “context” which justifies these excesses), but of course loves reporting similar conservative statements (without any justifying “context,” needless to say).
It hardly needs to be said, at least on the right, that Jonathan Chait was not pilloried as a “hater” for his infamous “Why I Hate George W. Bush” column. Instead, it was celebrated — among the left, I mean; they didn’t broadly report it to the general public — for how it so daringly captured the real feeling of the left.
Needless to say my own “Why I Hate Barack Hussein Obama” column would not be celebrated as “daring,” “honest,” “bracing,” or “cathartic.” It would be a hate crime and a symptom of possibly dangerous impulses.
This is what I hate more than anything else: the hypocrisy, the division of citizens into two classes, the Privileged Class, which has a broad license and range of liberty, and the Disfavored Underclass, whose liberty is sharply restricted.
And they’ll call themselves patriots and Sons of the Enlightenment. They’re Sons of Gramsci and Sons of Marx and Sons of Mao, not Sons of the Enlightenment.
But when you have the near exclusive right to write your own bio, you can be anything you’d like people to think you are.
From Ace of Spades: http://ace.mu.nu/
Found at American Power: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
“They vary one from the othernot by the value of the life that was cut short but by column inches of copy they generate. The principal metric of the tragedy of a modern death is its news value. If the death serves a narrative it is tragic. If not, who gives a damn? Here is how it works.
Black Africans killing black Africans with machetes has no news value. White Europeans killing black Africans with machetes has a big news value. Anyone killing anyone with bladed weapons generally has little news value. Anyone killing anyone with a handgun has front page news value, especially where the Second Amendment is concerned. Arabs killing Arabs is page 10 news. A Jew killing anyone is the headline story. Babies dying in their millions from abortion does not even qualify as a story. The IDF killing a stone killer from Hamas is a horror of unimaginable international proportions. Arabs rocketing Israelis is not even reported. Israelis shooting back — well how dare they.” — Belmont Club » The Assassin’s Creed
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
College Professor – Dr. Jonathan Matusitz – Explains Why The US Government Does Not Call Terrorism By Its Name
Found at Blazing Cat Fur
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/