What Media Bias? Part 193

Walter Russel Mead lays it out:

…The news from Afghanistan is grim. With the latest round of deaths, we pass a milestone: 2,000 US combatants have died in what is now the longest war in American history. The milestone has been reached just as the surge in troops has come to an end without achieving the goals of pacifying the country or even launching peace talks with the Taliban. Our Afghan “allies” remain as corrupt and ineffectual as ever, with the added wrinkle that the most dangerous place in Afghanistan for US troops these days seems to be the neighborhood of US-armed and trained Afghan forces, who are shooting and blowing up their nominal allies faster than the Taliban can do it.

This is all bad news and very disturbing, but there is a crumb of comfort to be had. Because these failures happened on President Obama’s watch, the mainstream press isn’t particularly interested in relentless, non-stop scrutiny of the unpleasant news. If George W. Bush were president now, and had ordered the surge and was responsible for the strategic decisions taken and not taken in Afghanistan over the last four years, the mainstream press would be rubbing our noses in his miserable failures and inexcusable blunders 24/7…

And every last one of you reading this – especially your liberals – knows this is true.  You can say all you want that the war started on Bush’s watch; you can say this, that and the other thing to excuse Obama – but you all know darn well that if a Republican were President right now, the stories about the collapse in Afghanistan would lead the news day after day after day.  Just think for a moment what it would be like if McCain had won in 2008 and Obama was just now taking his second shot at the Presidency.  The MSM would never let this pass, not for a second…and we’d have days of news reports marking the 2,000th American death in Afghanistan.

I really do think I have to retire the title of this post – as you can see, its been going on for a long time.  But a more correct title these days would be “What Venal and Corrupt Press?”.  Because this has gone beyond bias.  This is far more than just a willingness to soften the blows for liberals and turn up the heat on conservatives – this is a disgusting failure to do the very basics of journalism:  at least attempt to bring the truth to the people.

This isn’t the first time that a national press has become corrupt and venal.  It happened in Russia several times.  It happened in France and England in the 1930s.  It happens when the proprietors of news organizations decide that it is in their interests to curry favor with the government.  The why of it is rather irrelevant – it can be done out of greed or fear or a combination of things:  but when it happens, you get a press which will deliberately lie to the people in order to serve the interests of government.  That is what we have in the majority of our news media in 2012:  a fervent desire to curry favor with the government which translates in to a nauseating bout of lies designed to cover up government errors and slander those who oppose the government.

It is our great good fortune that just as this turn to venality has completed itself that the New Media has grown to a level of maturity.  Still not as ubiquitous as the MSM but its reach is ever broadening.  And a tremendous irony about this is the fact that it was liberals – the like of whom mostly control the MSM – who did a lot of development of the technology which has allowed the New Media to flourish.  There is a sense of humor in the universe, it would seem.  The long term good news is that we are rapidly developing the replacement for the venal and corrupt MSM – the only thing which could stop it is a general curtailment of the freedom of speech.  And that brings us to the worrisome development that there are voices in the MSM calling for an end to free speech – the lie that Benghazi was caused by a video being the trigger, as it were, for the MSM to start sounding off on the “limits of free speech” (limits, naturally, which will only apply to those not currying favor with government).

We are poised on a knife edge here – our liberties are truly at stake.  Which will prove the stronger on November 6th – the corrupt MSM or the honest New Media?  Time will tell.

9 thoughts on “What Media Bias? Part 193

  1. Cluster October 2, 2012 / 8:20 am

    This is exactly what Pat Caddell was speaking of yesterday, and exactly what tepid, disillusioned, and dishonest liberals like barstool and Casper do not want to admit, and try desperately to deflect. Barstool posted yesterday that Caddell was woefully lacking in facts, yet Caddell did mention Afghanistan, and did mention the Benghazi debacle as two clear examples of journalist malpractice.

    Anyone that denies a media left leaning bias should be summarily dismissed, in that they either do not have the gray matter to have an intelligent conversation, or are agenda driven.

  2. Cluster October 2, 2012 / 10:58 am

    Good news – a plurality of Americans get it:

    A plurality of Americans and more than seven in 10 Republicans say pollsters are intentionally skewing results to benefit President Obama, according to a new poll released Tuesday. Some 42 percent of voters surveyed by Daily Kos and SEIU believe pollsters are manipulating their sample sizes to benefit the incumbent president, while 40 percent do not.


    • M. Noonan October 2, 2012 / 12:30 pm


      Its another reason I think that Romney will win – and may even end up winning by a large majority: the people long ago started to tune out the MSM as well as Obama. They’re just not listening to the crap any more…those who do listen are either dyed-in-the-wool Obamatons or people who will end up being too lazy to vote, anyways. The engaged center and right, though, pays heed to personal conscience and will act accordingly on November 6th.

  3. irisspirit October 2, 2012 / 1:07 pm

    I do not know what news you watch, read or listen to, but I have heard this story repeatedly over the last few days on the evening news and in the newspapers. I do not watch Fox News but I am guessing it has been on non stop on all of the Fox stations and talk radio. If not, I guess they are a part of that liberal media you all keep harping on. You are whiners. It is always the liberal MSM news media’s fault when something is being reported that you do not like.
    “And that brings us to the worrisome development that there are voices in the MSM calling for an end to free speech – ” M. Noonan
    So, Mr. Noonan could you please provide some truthful examples? I have yet to hear anyone calling for the end to free speech. You do need to worry about this since I believe the voices you are hearing are in your own head. Or maybe you are watching too many hours of Fox.
    If you want to criticize someone about not paying attention to Afghanistan you might start with your GOP candidate who never bothered to mention the troops in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention this past summer. It is tragic to have a soldier die in Afghanistan, especially at the hands of those they are training, and I believe it is time to bring all of them home. The only ones I know of who are wanting to stay indefinitely are McCain and Graham.


    Found in five minutes of searching:




    • Amazona October 2, 2012 / 2:09 pm

      Velma, not quite sure what story you are hearing nonstop. For someone who doesn’t listen to Fox you sure feel free to tell us what they say and what they mean when they say what they say.

      What you don’t seem to be able to understand or process is the effort to silence internet news, under the typically dishonest description of a “Fairness Doctrine”. It is the Lefty Lemmings like you who call for silencing Fox News, for the evidently unforgivable sin of having the temerity to tell people both sides of a story.

      (What I love about your bleating about Fox, that being a plural “you” to include your fellow travelers, is that what gets your goat about Fox is its OPINION people. But you are quite happy with opinion people on CNN, MSNBC, etc, presenting opinion as news.)

      And I see you are still trying to make something of what was not said in Romney’s acceptance speech. It must be awful to be an American Lib right now, saddled with a failure of a president, and having to stoop to snarling about what is meant when someone does NOT say anything, while having to try to sanitize what your guy DOES say. (“Redistribution”) I understand why you are so shrill, so frantic, and so desperate, but gee, Vel, don’t blame US.

  4. Amazona October 2, 2012 / 2:33 pm

    Four years ago, I was sure Obama would win—it was in the air. The Left base was energized, and had managed to appeal to the middle. People were openly talking about their intent to vote for Obama, and were excited about the chance to do so.

    But less than a month after the inauguration a woman who learned I was on my way to CPAC confided in me that she and her husband had voted for Obama and were starting to think they had made a big mistake. Since then I have had a couple dozen, I would guess, tell me the same thing—-and I don’t go out and hustle political opinions from people. But when something has come up, this is what I have often heard. Even my Liberal California teacher cousin has said he will “maybe, probably” vote for Romney this year.

    I feel no positive energy from the Left, like I did last year. All I feel from the Left this year is sour, hostile, defensive and aggressive determination to win no matter what it takes. There is no happiness about what has been accomplished by their guy, just excuses about how he needs four more years to get anything done.

    If anything, this election is even more dependent on demonizing the Right and savaging its candidates on personal, not political, issues. Can anyone think of a Dem running on his record, or his ideology? I can’t. All I see are vile attacks on individuals (Romney, West) and on the Right in general, horrible vicious lies repeated with zeal and glee.

    Every conservative I talk to has had the same perception, and the same experience of knowing people who voted for Obama last time but will not this time.

    I believe he won by something like 7% last time. That does not mean Romney needs to gain more than 7% to beat him. That means Romney has to gain just about 3.5%, and that assuming that the number of people voting is as high as it was last year. But Dems can’t count on that happening, and they are very likely to continue to see their base erode.

    Black churches are telling their people not to vote at all, because voting for Obama is voting for gay marriage, which goes against their Christian beliefs. Latinos are not only more religious and culturally conservative than most Libs, which means they are less likely to vote for abortion or gay marriage, they tend to identify with the Catholic Church even when they do not attend church regularly, so the Left is faced with dealing with a formerly solid Latino base told by the Church that voting for Obama makes them complicit in a sin, and which is figuring out that the Obama administration decided a few hundred or thousand casualties in the pursuit of more gun control was acceptable if it was just Latino lives sacrificed. Black activists are ticked off that Obama has not been black enough, and done enough for “the black community”. Non-Latino Catholics are told by their church that some of the Leftist platform is antithetical to Catholic teachings. Constitutional Conservatives are teaching more people about the actual law of the land and how Obama’s agenda defies the Constitution.

    And no matter how much Obama and his surrogates try to blame Bush, the simple fact is that he has had four years to turn things around and he has made them worse, has saddled the nation with unsustainable debt, has come up with a horrible deficit, has been part of defying the Constitution in not having a budget for years now, has been in the White House while our embassies are being burned and sacked and our citizens murdered abroad in terrorist attacks celebrating the anniversary of 9/11, he has not only ignored our laws but instructed his Judicial Department to not enforce them, he has overridden laws by executive fiat——-there is nothing in his term that anyone but the most rabid supporters could find acceptable, much less encouraging.

    And the feeling of the nation is a 180 from that of 2008. It is depressed, pessimistic, beaten down, confused…….

    So it is entertaining to watch the blog Libs declaim with such energy that Obama is a lock, and baffling to see the polls continue to contradict observations. Last time, the polls echoed what we saw and felt, and this time they contradict it all.

    Oh, he might win after all. But at this point in the cycle, it is hard to see how or why, given the political climate in the country.

    • dbschmidt October 2, 2012 / 10:00 pm

      This is exactly what I was pointing out in the Rasmussen poll a couple of posts back but the leftist on this blog could only see that it was a poll that had Obama up by 2% which was well within the margin of error.

      It is the under-current, or undertow, of the electorate that is different. Then again, I have been a member of Rasmussen for several years and follow the real trending data and not just the fluff on the surface.

      Not necessarily an Alabama fan but all I can say is “Roll, Tide, Roll.”

    • Ricorun October 2, 2012 / 11:05 pm

      Amazona: Last time, the polls echoed what we saw and felt, and this time they contradict it all.

      Actually, things didn’t really break for Obama in the polls back in 2008 until late September. I doubt you’d find too many people, particularly on this site, willing to write McCain off at that point. Rather, they saw and felt he had a real chance of victory. Then within a week or so Obama’s lead widened from about 1-3 points to about 7-9 points, where they stayed until election day. It’s easy to argue away 1-3 points, not so much 7-9. So only then did the feelings set in. And even then they weren’t unanimous. For example, I recall Mark was still predicting an easy victory for McCain up until election day.

      Of course, there were monumental decisions being made in late Sept of 2008, and McCain fumbled them badly. Neither event is likely to happen this time around. Then again, it’s hard to expect the unexpected. But at any rate, thus far the national polls remain pretty even. RCP has Mitt down by 3, but that’s coming off a rough couple of weeks, and already the newer polls suggest a tightening. The debates are going to be critical.

      Oh, he [Obama] might win after all. But at this point in the cycle, it is hard to see how or why, given the political climate in the country.

      You’re right — he really might. In fact, InTrade has the odds at about 4:1 in favor of Obama. So if you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, you could make a pretty penny. In my case, though, my perception of the political climate in the country suggests the odds are about right. Okay, maybe a little high, but not by all that much.

  5. Cluster October 2, 2012 / 3:41 pm

    Re: Obamacare and the expiration of the Obama tax rate extension, a Romney campaign spokesperson nails it:

    “This is deadly earnest, man. This is deadly earnest, How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years — how in Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts.”

    Oh wait – that was Joe Biden who said that.

Comments are closed.