media bias

MSNBC Falsified Story Stirs Up Racial and Anti-gun Hatred

By Bill Smith: In blatant disregard of the truth, MSNBC follows CBS into the annuals of history (the toilet) for falsifying a news story by controlling or editing camera shots and by preparing and presenting a false narrative that seems be the intent on inflaming racial tensions and casting false allegations of threats. Racial bias was deliberately projected by the MSNBC reporters on to a story with blatant statements impugning whites at a rally as potential racist and threats to a black President.

When in fact, the person at the center of the story narrative was hidden from the public by parlor camera tricks and a false narrative. That person was a patriot citizen who happens to be black. MSNBC actions to falsify this story showed its bias against the general public participating in recent rallies and town hall meetings MSNBC introduced its own form of racial bias and evidenced a willingness to smear Americans exercising both their first and second amendment rights.

MSNBC willingness to advance and promote a false story to pursue either a biased agenda or to boost ratings was indeed despicable. This action opens up to question what other lies MSNBC may have perpetrated on the American public with fictitious or edited camera shots and falsified news story narratives. Americans rely on a free free press to report unbiased and truthfully. Media bias in the past years has become a matter of major concern. However, for members of the press to falsify the news, destroys and jeopardizes public trust and places all Americas at risk.

As identified by Adam Bitely at NetRight Nation, "MSNBC is up to their typical routine of running erroneous reports. One from yesterday was particularly troubling." It is unfortunate that Adam and the rest of the public have observed MSNBC as prevaricator of the truth.

Let's look at the doctored MSNBC broadcast:   Now, view the true version of events as reported by ABC News:

Today, Bill Wilson, President of America for Limited Government sent a letter calling on MSNBC Executive Producer Steven Capus to fire all involved with producing a misleading broadcast that Wilson termed a "nefarious assault on decency." Bill Wilson is right. However, it is also time for the print media, the network media and the cable channels to take seriously false reporting and to police their own actions including calling MSNBC into accountability. A free press will not remain free if society becomes so distrustful that it turns to and trusts in government to monitor the accuracy of the "press." When that happens, the freedom of the press will cease to exist.

Cross-posted at the ARRA News Service

Albany Times Union: Opponents of Obama health care takeover are Nazis

Well, we have a winner, A major metropolitan newspaper violates Godwin"s Law and abandons all pretenses of being anything other than a shill for the DNC.  Go tell George Soros liberal media bias is alive and well in New York State.

Some of the high points in this trip down the low road.

"right wing front groups" " smear reform efforts" "front group"  "fool them into believing there is wide opposition to reform" "Putcht-like"

Jeez, folks, the New York Times found "wide opposition to reform" Are they too a tool of evil Republican lobbyists?

I suppose the oh so clever Mr. Karlin thinks present day Republicans and libertarians  are emulating this event by getting to the public forums early and being a tad bit rude to elected officials.

It's actually kind of disgusting to think that the mainstream press, who wrap themselves in the First Amendment when it suits their interests, now openly advocating silencing ordinary citizens trying to exercise the same right themselves. 

  

Dave, Dave, Dave

It seems the flare-up over David Letterman's lame effort to make the Palin family the butt of sleazy humor isn;t going away.

I think other commenters have pretty much covered the waterfront on this. In regards to Willow Palin, I like the idea of sending Todd on the show. Sadly, the aging Letterman seems to be slowly going Don Imus before our eyes. 

But there are a couple of points here.

First, and this may bother the chattering class Republicans, it's clear this all got going because Sarah Palin is now the nation's "conservative celebrity." Like I said, I don't think Mitt Romney gets hounded for autographs at the ballpark. 

So don;t think this whole thing wasn;t planned by Letterman.  What better way to promote his show now that Conan O'Brien is the new alternative than to manufacture a scandal. And you need to pick on someone "bigger" than you to draw enough attention to make it matter. Voila! press coverage!

Of course, since I think thas shows Palin is "bigger" than Letterman that means of course she would be dimininishing herself by appearing on his show.  She's be better off dealing with the likes of Jon Stewart, who has a younger and more engaged audience anyway.

Now to the other people dissed by Dave. Flight Attendants.

Dave seems to have his mind stuck in some cheezy Rat Pack movie from the late 1960's where some femme fatale in an airline uniform was making moves on Dean Martin. Far from being relevant today, it makes Letterman out like Austin Powers.

Go to fullsize image

The real flight attendants are well-trained professionals.  And hmm, they deal occassionally with rather tough problems. Sure, Sully landed the plane. The flight attendants got it evacuated.

Go to fullsize image

And guess what. My Governor, Jodi Rell, is a former flight attendant.

The eggheads in the CT Democratic party used to snicker about the state being run by a clueless stewardess.  Used to. This pretty much stopped after she crushed their guy John DeStefano like an SUV crushes a latte cup.

Dave abandoned CT awhile back so he could enjoy the joys of the Empire State.  You could come back Dave. The New Canaan cops need to write more speeding tickets. Maybe you could appeal to the Governor for leniency. Or maybe not.

 He might also want to use private jets, too. Who knows what a fight attendant might do by "accident".

The Drive-By Media and the New York Yankees: A Case Study in Bias and Class Warfare

Let's take a second and imagine a hypothetical Major League Baseball Team:

Said Team's best hitter missed the first month of the season...

Said Team's marqee free agent signings got off to slow starts...

Said Team's #2 Starter and Starting Catcher are currently hurt...

Said Team lost the first five VERY close games to it's main rival...

Said Team has issues with it's bullpen...

Said Team is playing in the toughest division of the wild card era...

and, finally, said team has a new staduim with quirks it must get used to.

Given the adversity listed above, one might logically conclude said team was mired in last place, 10 games under .500 and 15 or so games out of first place.

What if, instead of that happening, said team was actually 2 games over .500 and only 4.5 games out of first place (2.5 in the wild card).  Under the circumstances, any fair minded person would have to conclude that said team had actually weathered some pretty serious storms was in a good position considering that it's only May 17th.

Of course, if you're a fair minded person, that means, by definition, you can't get hired as a drive-by journalist.

What does the drive by media (even in said team's hometown) have to say about said team:

- Their New Stadium Will Fail (when it's barely a month old and everyone I know, including myself, who's been there has LOVED it.)

- Their Lefty Free Agent Pitcher is a Bust

- Said team is a National Shame

- Their New Stadium is Too Rich for It's Own Good

- Said Team's General Manager is Incompetant

- Forget the stadium, the very survival of America requires the Team to Fail

- And, finally, an unsubstantiated, hit-piece, book on Said Team's Best Hitter.

What are we to make of this Media Corruption?  To be sure, this sort of coverage is par for the course for the drive-by media.  Part of it is probably laziness, considering that class warfare and class envy are the easiest storylines to peddle.  Drive-by journalists rarely make more than $75,000 a year.  At the same time, given their own self-rightousness, they can't handle it when someone else makes real money for performing a real job. 

Still, that's not good enough.  While said coverage, as it relates to baseball, isn't the end of the world, it epitomizes a deeper threat the corrupt drive-by media poses to America's core values.  Class envy and class warfare poison American society against successful achievers.  When the corrupt drive-by media is allowed to trash America's most successful baseball team, should we be surprised when the President of the United States threatens a private company with the wrath of the the White House Press Corps?  Should we be surprised when the President of the United States wants the successful to bailout the mortgages of people who shouldn't have been given mortgages in the first place?  Should we be surprised when the President of the United States wants to raise our taxes in order to ration our Health Care?

Whatever your feelings on Baseball, we all have a stake in allowing the successful to be successful.

UPDATE: Make that 3 games over .500

UPDATE II: Make that 1.5 Games out in the Wild Card

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

Recognizing A Professional Journalist

Since much of today's media has such a blatant school-girl crush on President Obama, it is important to not only point out the shmoes who can't resist telling America that President Obama gives them a, 'thrill up their leg;' it is also important to point out those few journalists who are credible. National Review did this in their article Jake Tapper Isn't Letting Go. The article not only points out that ABC's Jake Tapper was virtually the only network journalist willing to write an article critical of then candidate Obama, but also that he is now pretty much the only one willing to ask Press Secretary Gibbs a tough question during White House briefings. For many Tapper was the first to show Robert Gibbs as a sub-par press secretary when Gibbs refused to take Tapper's questions about transparency seriously, as shown in the clip below. National Review did all of us who are fed up with the over-the-top media bias a service by not only highlighting Tapper as a solid competent member of the media, but also by reminding us that one can't just complain about those who do a poor job, and that it may be even more important that we applaud and encourage those who are competent than it is to gripe about those whose bias is so obsurd and obvious.

Recognizing a Professional Journalist - Katherine Morrison

Rush Limbaugh for the New York Times Op-Ed Page

Let me first state that I don't particularly care who writes for the New York Times op-ed page, and think all the handwringing about who will replace Bill Kristol is a collosal waste of time for conservatives. I long ago stopped reading the editorial pages, and rely mostly on RSS and the news section for my daily fill of politics. If I ever want opinion, which is a rarer and rarer thing in a media environment that prizes raw information, I read the smart blogs on highly relevant topics, like Marginal Revolution.

I will, however, say this about the selection process for the New York Times op-ed page.

The goal of conservative new media should not be to legitimize the status quo in media, but to challenge it and shift the balance of power. To hang on the prestige of a Times appointment is a mostly useless exercise by navel-gazing pundits whose sole concern is accurately describing the status quo, not moving the ball forward.

Doubly disturbing is the notion that the Times' token conservative should be someone who is acceptable to sensibility of liberal (and hence more civilized) Times readers; that only a certain type of conservative will do -- a "smart," "reasonable" figure worthy of dining with President Obama. 

I have a great deal of respect for Bill Kristol and David Brooks (or for that matter, Charles Krauthammer and George Will), but they play a very defined role in the process -- which is to represent a safe flavor of Beltway-centric conservatism that is acceptable within the Acela corridor. I appreciate that someone has to play this role, but by engaging in this parlor game, we are playing with fire: feeding the left's desire to elevate a narrow elite of Times-worthy conservative pundits whose job it is to hold the braying Coulterite masses in check.

We shouldn't play this game. Either we engage the liberal media on our terms or on none at all. The Times needs someone who is as far to the right, in as hard-edged and partisan a way, as Paul Krugman is to the left. The fact that strident left-wing voices one step voice up from Kos appear on the op-ed page is not considered a problem, so why shouldn't the same be true on the right? Perhaps it would be better if both sides' columnists were as reasonable and fair-minded as Brooks and Kristol. But if the Times continues to select liberal columnists who are locked and loaded for bear, we should accept nothing less for the right. To wit, the Times should pick Rush Limbaugh or a comparable full spectrum heartland conservative who defended Palin. Someone who would shock the Upper East Side, not reinforce its worldview in subtle ways. If not Rush, then Steyn or Lileks or someone with the intestinal fortitude for a fight.

A simple exercise to prove what we know about the press

For all those people who insist "there is no media bias"

Let's assume for a moment President-elect McCain nominated a highly qualified cabinet choice who had this sort of tax problem that he failed to disclose earlier in his public career. 

Would President-elect McCain get away with this sort of response

Remember Geithner used to be a Republican and might well have been a consensus pick amenable to serving under McCain.

Had that scenario unfolded I open the floor for predictions on:

a) How long before Geithner would have been forced to withdraw his name from consideration over his tax flap?

b) How long before Geithner would have been hounded by the press out of his present job at the NY Fed?

The double standard here is astonishing. And much as Republicans have every right to be disgusted, my .....what of old time Democrat women like Zoe Baird    or Kimba Wood  who were tossed aside like last week's recycling when very similar issues came to light?

Bleccch!

Evil Israel?

Over the past few weeks, i have been trying to get a handle on the current conflict between Israel and Gaza.  In researching the current military escalation as well as the area's historical context, i have come across many questions.  Specifically, why do a larger number of folks on the left blame Israel compared to the right?  Also, why does most of the world not support Israel or even recognize Hamas as a terrorist threat?

Depending on where you look and who you talk to, the opinions on this matter have a very wide range.  I have personally received opinions such as, Hamas is a Terrorist group and they all should be killed to, Israel is an imperialist country committing genocide on Gaza's peaceful civilians.  I live in an area with large populations of Jews and Muslims, but personally i have no vested interest either way, i am only looking for rational opinions in trying to understand where the truth lies and whether or not we should support Israel or share the view of most of the world

Much of the anti-Israeli sentiment comes from the left, which is unique in and of itself since the overwhelming majority of Jews align themselves with democrats politically.   I even watched an interview that posed this question to Benjamin Netanyahu the former Israeli PM, and he dodged the question.  Of course, this question can only be asked to the American Media and Citizens, since nearly all of Congress gives our ally Israel its undivided support.  But, i cant help trying to understand where and why people fall either in support of or against Israel.

Here are a few reports and opinions on the matter that i found interesting.

Opinion from the left, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/  See, "Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel's war"

Opinion from the right, http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/01/02/the_necessity_of_israel

One final note, earlier today i was reading a Townhall column by David Horowitz entitled "The War Against the Jews."  http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHorowitz/2009/01/09/the_war_against_the_jews  In it he gives some quotes from a liberal professor from Wisconsin named Jennifer Lowenstein, herself a Jew.  After reading her shocking quotes, i googled her and found this link to the Yemen times.  The opinion from the Yemen times, though a few years old, praised this professor and charged Israel with torture, maimings, and called them "cold blooded murderers who have lost all sense of humanity."

So far on this topic, it seems that the rational people fall on the right side of the spectrum.

Amazing: The AP issues a biased birth announcement

Congratulations are in order for Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson, who have welcomed a son into the world. 

As for the Associated Press, not so much....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_re_us/bristol_palin_baby

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose quest for the vice presidency began to go downhill the day she announced the pregnancy, has given birth to a son, a magazine reported Monday

Hmm, the daughter's news came out before this event, which the Associated Press seemed to think went pretty well for the Alaska Governor

 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=155&sid=4180481

NEW YORK (AP) - Barack Obama apparently isn't the only "rock star" in presidential politics this year.

After days of intense media coverage about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's qualifications, more than 40 million Americans tuned in Wednesday to see for themselves what they thought of her.

The huge audience for Palin's acceptance speech rivaled that for Obama's address at the Democratic National Convention six days earlier, and set a tough standard for the top of her own ticket. John McCain was to accept the GOP presidential nomination on Thursday.

You know, it might have been classy to have avoided a political cheap shot in a birth announcement. It might have been professional to have at least made an accurate statement in taking a shot. I think most rational observers would have identified the Katie Couric interview as the point where Governor Palin's fortunes waned......but maybe that doesn't fit the narrative the elite media want to promote.

You see, no one with Sarah Palin's background and family was supposed to get this far. Now, if her maiden name was Kennedy, I'm sure this story would have been written a slight bit differently.

We are going to have to work overtime to keep the AP from trying to put anything positive about the Republican party and its candidates in the Orwellian "memory hole" over the next few years. Even if it means using a birth annoucement as a partisan hit piece.

 

   

 

Why does the Palin bashing seem "TANG"y?--I "Rather" think we've seen this before

Post- election Palin bashing seems to have left the reality-based community
 
 
and now we find some of the alleged critics may not even be part of "reality"
 
 
I suspect there may be some cattiness and bad blood with some McCain staffers--inevitable in a losing campaign---but it seems like liberal saboteurs have been fueling the fire by adding to ; embellishing, or flat out fabricating new tales of misbehavior on the Alaska Governor's part---and by posing as angry McCain staffers--scamming a credulous news media .
 
Who knows, maybe all these rumors are getting sent from a Kinko's in Anchorage?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate
 
Maybe some flunky for Carl Cameron will insist a friend of Nicolle Wallace passed all this stuff to him at a cattle show or something 

 

Syndicate content