What Media Bias? Part 201

Been a while since I did one of these – but this article has some interesting things to say regarding media bias and the 2000 election:

…The northwesternmost part of Florida is the Panhandle, which stretches along the Gulf of Mexico to Alabama. Often called the “Redneck Riviera,” it is the most Republican part of Florida, regularly giving Republicans big margins in state and national elections. The nine Panhandle counties that are farthest west—Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington—are in the Central Time Zone, and one additional county, Gulf, is split between Central and Eastern Time. According to the Miami Herald, “It is only a few miles to the Alabama border from anywhere in the western Panhandle, but more than five hundred miles and a cultural light-year to Miami.”

On Election Night, between 6:30 and 7:50 p.m. Eastern, anchors on all the major networks and cable channels reported over and over again that the polls in all of Florida closed at 7 p.m. Eastern. Not once did anyone on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News Channel, NBC, or MSNBC inform the audience that Florida has two time zones and two poll closing times. During that hour and 20 minutes, 13 journalists asserted a total of 39 times that there was only one poll-closing time throughout the entire state of Florida…

Why does that matter? Well, after 7pm Eastern, voting dropped off to practically nothing in the Florida Panhandle. It was over, you see? The Networks were already calling Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the Panhandle. The article goes on to note that the drop off probably cost Bush a net of about 11,000 votes – that margin would have still triggered an automatic re-count, but with that large a margin the result would never have been in doubt. Gore would have, at the latest, conceded a day or two after the election…no Bush vs Gore to the Supreme Court, no doubt cast over President Bush’s legitimacy. A lot of things would have been different (as an aside, I still recall very vividly that when the Networks finally did call the State for Bush, it was something like 97% of precincts reporting and Bush had a healthy lead – all of a sudden, a bunch of votes reported from heavily Democrat precincts and, presto!, it was effectively a tied race…I do wish someone had looked into that little, electoral miracle; that sudden surge in Democrat votes in FL is what caused the Networks to re-re-call FL and Gore to suddenly refuse to concede).

In light of this, you might recall the JournoList scandal – where it was discovered that a bunch of journalists had a private chat room, as it were, where they could discuss and coordinate their message…in the service of Democrats, naturally. We don’t know if there was such a thing during the 2000 election, but such things as JournoList and the massive repetition of the “polls close at 7 Eastern” lie over all MSM outfits in 2000 does indicate that the friendliness of journalists for their Democrat pals probably extends beyond mere friendliness. It might well go all the way to Democrats and journalists coordinating their efforts to tear down Republicans and build up Democrats in the public mind.

Remember, it wouldn’t take much – a hint here, a short phone call there and there you have it…messages all in agreement, everyone takes essentially the same line about whatever issue is being pushed at the moment. It’s not like this hasn’t happened – Ben Rhode’s demonstrably coordinated the MSM talking points for Obama’s Iran deal, after all.

We all know that almost all journalists are liberals – Progressives; Democrats with by-lines, as Instapundit puts it. They are not in journalism to serve objective truth – most of them, given their education, probably don’t believe there is such a thing as objective truth. But they do believe in Progressive ideology – they are quite certain that the world will be a better place if Progressive ideology triumphs in every particular. We know they are not on our side – but we only partially accept that they are on the Democrats’ side. In a certain sense, we know this – but in a larger sense, we still reject it…still expect that when facts are on our side, they’ll have to acknowledge it and (however grudgingly) go along with the facts. Drop that – if the facts disprove Progressive ideology, then the facts are wrong: this is how Progressives always have and always will view matters. And if they have to simply make up facts – or work up a scandal to destroy the purveyor of anti-Progressive facts – then that is what they’ll do.

And they do it all the time – right now, they are inventing “facts” to show that Hillary Clinton’s foundation is just this wonderful, life-giving entity out to serve the poor and downtrodden, even though all the actual facts show it to be nothing but a slush fund to keep the Clintons and their minions on the gravy train. What genuine charity would hire a political hatchet-man like Sid Blumenthal at $10,000.00 a month? Don’t get me wrong, almost all major political figures have a hatchet man or woman on the payroll; it’s part of the nature of things in politics…but 10 large per month for a hatchet man at a charity? Come on! That is just a bit of payola to your hatchet man…keeping him well fed until you needed him for political work. But, if you listen to the MSM, they’re going to have you believing that the Clinton Foundation was the next best thing to Mother Theresa…and perhaps better because the Clinton Foundation is pro-abortion (remember, in the topsy-turvey world of the left, being in favor of abortion in saintly).

And, so, don’t believe them. Oh, you can read and listen to their reports – and when an identifiable fact comes across, you can believe it (but check, to be sure – and even if it’s confirmed elsewhere, run it through your “does this really seem likely?” mental filter). But remember that even when the MSM reports something true, it is bound to be mixed with lies – and as I said the other day, add an ounce of lie to a pound of truth, and you get a lie. The stories will be reported, if they relate in any way to politics, in a way which will reflect ill on GOPers/Conservatives and well on Democrats/Progressives.

As it relates to 2016, the real problem is that Trump is giving the Democrats and their MSM lapdogs a lot of ammunition – but, even then, keep in mind that as bad as Trump may be, the MSM will paint him as worse than he is (and they’ll be assisted this year by a section of the right which has decided that hating Trump is vastly more important than stopping Progressives). Don’t fall into conspiracy theory stuff about it – it isn’t a conspiracy, once you understand that the nice, attractive and well-spoken reporter on TV is as dyed in the wool Progressive as Hillary and is convinced that come heck or high water, Hillary simply must be elected President. Even if they wanted to be honest, this simple fact of life will color their perception of what is going on…and if they don’t care about being honest, then it’ll just be worse as far as telling the truth goes.

12 thoughts on “What Media Bias? Part 201

  1. Cluster August 28, 2016 / 8:54 am

    ….they are quite certain that the world will be a better place if Progressive ideology triumphs in every particular

    I disagree and contest that none of them even give a damn if the “world is a better place”. They are more concerned with their own careers and acceptance within the Clerisy. It’s called GROUP THINK. They all crave access and the more you promote the “accepted agenda” the more access you will have. If you do not promote the agenda, you will be shunned. Think Sharyl Attkisson

  2. Cluster August 28, 2016 / 9:05 am

    Re: Sid Blumenthal who was forbidden to be a part of the State Dept. by none other than Obama, was given a job at CGI and proceeded to be an unofficial advisor to Hilary. Sid was in Libya and was encouraging Hillary to topple Ghaddafi so that he could put together commercial contracts with the new government. Sid was also telling Hillary that toppling the Libya regime would be crowning achievement for SecState legacy, and of course due to Sid’s advice and encouragement, Hillary pushed Obama to “lead from behind” and topple the regime and we all know what happened next. Sid Blumenthal is as responsible for the deaths at Benghazi as Hillary is.

    • Amazona August 28, 2016 / 10:51 pm

      That’s a little like Takata complaining that they are getting more negative coverage than other air bag manufacturers.

      Are you seriously going to argue that media coverage of only PART of Hillary’s long sordid list of misdeeds is based on bias? And what does this stellar site use as its definition of “negative”? Is it “negative” if is is factually true and accurate?

      When you came here a few weeks ago and said you didn’t like Hillary, I wondered how long it would be before you were defending her. I knew it was just a matter of time.

  3. Cluster August 29, 2016 / 8:23 am

    Right now on MSNBC the panel is seriously discussing whether or not Trump is a psychopath or a sociopath, and they have none other than Dr. Howard Dean to help them along. All the while Mika feigns exasperation and concern. It’s better than Comedy Central and wholly indicative of how far gone our media is. Time to get rid of all of them too.

    • Amazona August 29, 2016 / 11:22 am

      Well, who knows more about loopy and unbalanced than Howard Dean?

      Did they get into where on the spectrum of whatever pathology they decided on would they place Trump vis-a-vis Hillary? Given that no matter what he may or may not have done, or why, he has never sold out his country and doesn’t have bodies littering his landscape.

      I would think that even MSNBC would realize that drawing attention to clinical discussion of pathologies just opens the door to realizing how many of them apply to Hillary.

  4. Amazona August 29, 2016 / 10:00 am

    From an excellent article in Public Discourse

    Restoring the Political-Moral Center
    by Shimon Cowen and Arthur Goldberg

    ”…..today, with respect to the universal ethical values of civilization, our major parties have become, in moral terms, fringe parties. As former United Kingdom Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks observed (paraphrasing Yeats), “The center no longer holds. Things are falling apart. Anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

    The philosophical root of the problem is the widespread acceptance of a worldview that is fundamentally atheistic, materialistic, and geared to a pleasure-and-pain calculus alone. This movement sees the human being as simply another animal within nature. In this commonwealth of nature, there is no distinguishing soul within the human being and no G-d within or beyond nature. There remains only sentient flesh, the pleasures of which should be gratified by morphing sexual morality; the pain of flesh and psyche is meant to be escaped through euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion on demand.

    These advocates of the new “politically correct” ideology seek to prohibit all religious teaching in schools and universities—even if it is optional—for fear that it may derail their movement. They also want to end state and local support for religious schools, even though a very significant majority of taxpaying Americans are religiously affiliated. This movement knows that traditional morality has its roots in religious tradition and education, and its goal is to destroy the transmission of these values by crippling religious education.”


    I find a lot of very interesting articles at this site and I highly recommend it

    • M. Noonan August 29, 2016 / 9:24 pm

      Hilaire Belloc, in his The Great Heresies, called this the Modern Attack, for lack of a better term…but it is just another heretical attack on Christian truth…and all Progressive ideology is always, ultimately, at war with Christian truth.

    • Amazona August 29, 2016 / 10:00 pm

      I’ve always thought that the Left’s three pronged attacks on religion, education and the family are because these are sources of authority and the Left can’t tolerate any authority but its own.

      • Amazona August 30, 2016 / 11:30 pm

        Another comment on Leftist intolerance, in this case successfully bullying people into believing nonsense and acting like terrified bunnies.

        A bunch of atheist thugs who have managed to convince people that the Constitution says what it doesn’t say have bullied some hotels into removing Bibles from their rooms. Evidently the very presence of a Bible tucked into a dresser drawer gives the poor sensitive darlings the heebie-jeebies, and do not make those hotel rooms feel like safe spaces.

        But what ticked me off about the story was not just the assumption that these people can impose their bigotry on others, it was the combination of their false assertions coupled with the timid appeasement of the hotel officials.

        “If a state-run university has a policy of providing a Christian religious text to guests, that policy facilitates illegal endorsement of Christianity over other religions and over nonreligion,” the letter read. “State-run colleges have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion.”

        Really? Since when? Says who? The Constitution doesn’t say this, or anything remotely like this. The Constitution says the government may not establish a religion. This claim is utter crap. No, putting Bibles in hotel rooms does not “endorse Christianity over other religions” much less over “nonreligion”, and even it it did it would not be “illegal”. What’s more, no state-run institution of any kind has a “constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion”.

        But the hotel caved. I would have said there are plenty of hotels to choose from and atheists should do what everyone else does when choosing lodging and look for places that make them feel comfortable. Or, if they feel extremely vulnerable to the Christian emanations from the dresser drawers, they can request that the Bibles be removed from their rooms before they check in.

        Why do we let the Left get away with this crap?


  5. Cluster August 29, 2016 / 2:31 pm

    I like that public discourse website and saved it to my favorites, so thanks for that. I am a big fan of american thinker and find a lot of good articles there.

    Re: this recent Anthony Weiner debacle I have to say this – the Clinton’s and the people they surround themselves with are absolutely reprehensible people. They disgust me on every level and I repel at the very notion of them having power over this country. Hillary is diabolical, dishonest, and more resembles a mob boss than a politician. I have zero respect for anyone who directly, or indirectly supports her candidacy.

    • Amazona August 29, 2016 / 3:07 pm

      That’s what I mean about having, or not having, a moral compass. This election is not about differences in political philosophy. It is not about different ideas of how best to govern the nation. It is not even, to too many people, about what is best for the nation.

      Supporting Hillary Clinton is basically saying to the world

      “Nothing matters to me but my political identity. It isn’t necessarily based on commitment to Leftist governance, because I don’t know what that is. It is just that I consider myself a Democrat, and I know as a Democrat I am supposed to think Republicans are evil, and that’s as deep as my thinking gets. I know people say things about Hillary that sound bad, but I don’t care if they are true or not. I am quite happy pulling the lever for a power-mad woman whose past is littered with bodies of people who have stood in her way. I don’t care if she sold out her office as Secretary of State, taking money in exchange for American favors or benefits. I don’t care if her policies, such as expanding Obamacare, will harm millions of people. I don’t care that when she went into her job as Secretary of State she was already planning on using that position to enrich herself, and took steps to try to hide the evidence by knowingly violating the rules for handling government and classified information. I don’t care that this gave this information to any hacker who wanted to break into her unsecured account, and I don’t care that she was willing to take that risk. I don’t care that she broke the law in Libya by putting the United States in the middle of a civil war in Syria, I don’t care that this was handled so badly that she ended up arming the terrorists who want to destroy America, I don’t care that she risked American lives in an effort to cover this up, and I don’t care that she abandoned those people to die because she couldn’t risk having them come home and talk about what they were doing. I don’t care that she framed and then persecuted an innocent man to cover up her dereliction of moral and legal duty. I DON’T CARE. And I also don’t care that supporting her makes me an accomplice after the fact to her bad acts. These are my standards of integrity, patriotism, and decency. “

Comments are closed.