What Media Bias? Part 198

There is a Media Research Center study which shows that from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 the MSM reported on Bush’s crumbling poll numbers 124 times.  Fast forward and between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2014 the MSM has reported on Obama’s equally crumbling poll numbers a total of nine times.

This is what media bias is all about: its not so much the outright lies (though they are a problem – and an increasing problem), but the way that the same sort of story will be reported quite differently depending on whether it involves a Republican or a Democrat.  Take, for instance, when a politician is arrested – you can just about bet your life savings on it that if a Republican politician is arrested, his party affiliation will be front and center. Meanwhile, if a Democrat is cuffed, you’d have to read to the last paragraph where it is revealed that the offender may have had some slight connection to the Democrat party.

This is common across all elements of the MSM – doesn’t matter what organization, they all report things pretty much the same way. There is, however, no cure for this – the hard left people who make up the MSM simply will not change.  The only thing we can do, as conservatives, is to create a duplicate MSM to compete.  Fox News has shown the way, but we need a genuinely conservative news network; we need newspapers and magazines and all that MSM infrastructure which drives the narrative. And we need to start ignoring what the MSM is saying because it is all presented in a manner to help the Democrats and harm Republicans.

Progressives Were For Religious Freedom Before They Were Against It!

Of course, this comes as no surprise – the flip flopping of Progressive (pRegressive) politicians who will say anything for political expediency. pRegressive politicians and their Praetorian Guard in the mainstream media have their panties in a bunch over the correct Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. Driven by either agenda or ignorance, they don’t even remember that at one time they were all champions of the same religious freedom they are now against.

The SCOTUS ruling is NOT about contraception. Instead, it affirms a law dating back to 1993 – The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This law, “to protect the free exercise of religion,” according to the U.S. Senate. Specifically, the purpose of the law is “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is burdened by government.” That is the crux of the Hobby Lobby claim. Congress passed this law almost unanimously.

The RFRA was introduced following an unpopular SCOTUS decision curbing the religious freedom of Native Americans to use peyote. Congressman Charles Schumer introduced the bill in March 1993, a time when liberals were strongly in favor of religious freedom. The bill was cosponsored by many of the same pRegressives screeching the loudest about the SCOTUS decision, including Rosa DeLorio, Luis Gutierrez, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. The Senate passed this bill by a vote of 97-3.

I am sure you will recognize some of the names:
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BOND, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. EXON, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. METZEN- BAUM, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. PELL, Mr. REID, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. WOFFORD, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SARBANES, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. SASSER, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BROWN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. KERREY, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. DODD, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GREGG, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. COATS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. MACK) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

What a difference a new pResident and a new agenda make (despite the fact that the Constitution has remained the same)! Senate Weasel Harry Reid was in favor of religious freedom before he was against it. Voting FOR the RFRA in 1993, he is now indignant that the SCOTUS upheld the same law he voted for. Ditto for Nancy Pelosi, who is fussing about “a gross violation of workers’ religious rights.” What religious rights are being violated (must be the fact that progressivism and intrusive government is a religion to these people)? Are the Hobby Lobby employees members of a religion with a commandment, “Thou shall be provided abortifacients paid for by someone else”? Or is it the employer whose religious rights are being violated – “Thou shalt not kill” – by making him or her purchase these drugs for the employees?

Hillary Clinton also found the Hobby Lobby decision “deeply disturbing.” How ironic that her co-president husband, in November 1993, signed the RFRA into law, and when upheld 20 years later, she finds it “disturbing”. At the signing, then-President Bill Clinton remarked, “We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom.” He also noted that “our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties.” Commenting on the Founders, he observed that they “knew that there needed to be a space of freedom between Government and people of faith that otherwise Government might usurp.”

Protecting “religious freedom” was politically expedient 20 years ago. But now the dumbed down talking point is the “war on women”. It serves its purposes for speeches and fund-raising, especially when you have a captive audience of mindless drones. The RFRA passed almost unanimously, while obamacare barely passed along party lines in the House and was rammed through the Senate using budget procedural methods rather than proper voting procedures.

Don’t expect the Praetorian Guard (media) to acknowledge the flip-flops by our pRegressive politicians – after all it is an election year. The must mindlessly continue the propaganda.

Leading From Behind – The “What Difference Does It Make” Version

Leave it to the foreign press to actually do the heavy lifting of investigative journalism in regards to this current Administration. A Citizens Commission on Benghazi comprised of top military officers and CIA insiders has recently released a report on their findings that are strangely absent from our MSM, and their findings are interesting to say the least:

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

So our government knowingly allowed arm shipments to come in to the country and instead going to the Gaddafi government as intended, they were allowed to fall into the hands of the Islamist opposition. And now these weapons have found their way to Syria. Has anyone ever read this account before? In addition, Gaddafi was reportedly willing to broker a peace deal and abdicate power, but evidently our “Nobel Peace Prize” winning President chose not to pursue any deal. Again, has that ever been reported by our press?

The report goes on to state that military help for our Ambassador was just an hour away in Italy  – another account that I don’t remember reading in our press. The failure at Benghazi is epic, it needs to be more responsibly investigated, and it should preclude Hillary from ever being POTUS. When that 3 am call came in, she was AWOL.

 

What Media Bias? Part 197

Been a while since I had one of these updates – but this is important, from Gateway Pundit:

The liberal media and conservative outlets are highlighting former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s speculation that Media Matters for America is being paid to attack her reporting that was perceived as critical of the Obama administration. That’s a dog bites man story. Of course the Democratic Party front group is paid to attack reporters and media outlets that critically report on President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

What stood out in Attkisson’s comments about Media Matters, made in an interview with Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources that was broadcast on Sunday, was the revelation that Media Matters helps produce news reports for CBS News—and given the matter of fact way Attkisson mentioned it—presumably other liberal news outlets as well.

It is widely known that Media Matters ‘works the refs’ in media–trying to spin reporters to discredit conservative media, talk radio personalities and politicians and to report favorably on Democrats…

This is not at all shocking, of course, but it is something that needs to be noted – because while we all usually just laugh at Media Matters’ absurd distortions, the plain fact of the matter is that the MSM seeks a seal of approval from Media Matters as well as other leftwing enforcers of fascist conformity.  Essentially, for an MSMer, getting the seal of approval of Media Matters  – or similar groups – is a requirement.  By checking with such groups they can ensure that their reporting and/or editorializing is in conformity with the Party Line, thus avoiding any chance of getting fired for accidentally allowing the truth to slip out.

Just be careful how you read MSM reports and remember that while they may contain facts, they are all run through what amounts to a censor’s office to ensure that nothing is reported without pushing the leftwing party line.

What Media Bias? Part 196

A story in the New Republic about western reporters self-censoring themselves in China:

The visa question has insidious ways of sowing the seeds of self-censorship,” Dorinda Elliott, the global affairs editor at Condé Nast Traveler, wrote on ChinaFile last month. “I am ashamed to admit that I personally have worried about the risk of reporting on sensitive topics, such as human rights lawyers: what if they don’t let me back in?” Elliott is a longtime China hand who worked as Newsweek’s Beijing bureau chief in the late 1980s. “My decision to not write that story—at least not yet—proves that I am complicit in China’s control games,” she continued. “After all, there are plenty of other interesting subjects to pursue, right?”

The most shocking thing about Elliott’s statement is its honesty. Western journalists are not supposed to make any concessions to China, and even when they do, they rarely admit it. Many people were thus horrified by recent reports that Matt Winkler, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, spiked an investigative piece about one of China’s richest men out of fear of offending the government. (Winkler denied killing the piece and said it is still under consideration.)

People are understandably angry about the Bloomberg reports, but they shouldn’t be surprised. This is all part of a larger story. China may force some two dozen correspondents from The New York Times and Bloomberg News to leave the country by the end of the year, apparently in response to their investigative reports on the familial wealth of the Chinese leadership. “Chinese officials have all but said that American reporters know what they need to do to get their visas renewed: tailor their coverage,” The New York Times wrote. On Thursday, Vice President Joseph Biden, who was visiting Beijing, said he had “profound disagreements” with China’s “treatment of U.S. journalists.” As China more harshly intimidates foreign reporters, incidents of Western self-censorship will only increase. Bloomberg is not the first case, and it will not be the last…

Not the first case, indeed.  In fact, self-censoring is something that journalists are actually rather prone to do.  There are two reasons a reporter/editor will self-censor:

1.   They back a particular policy/party/politician and don’t wish to cause any trouble.

2.  They fear that reporting the truth will result in a denial of access to a particular party or politician.

For China, it is the latter that is operational – reporters and editors are worried that if they report the unvarnished truth about China (which is pretty bad, all the way down) then the Chinese government will deny them access to China and so they won’t be able to further report on China from first-hand knowledge.  It amazes me that this is even an issue – if I were a reporter or editor, I would report the truth as best as I could and if I got kicked out, I’d file one, last first-hand report about China indicating I was kicked out for telling the truth and then, whenever I reported about China from second-hand sources, I’d point out that the only way anyone can be reporting from China is if they are willing accomplices of the Chinese government in suppressing the truth.  This doesn’t mean no useful information will come out of China, but it would show that everything from China should be taken with a grain of salt and that my competitors who remain in China are just hacks shilling for a corrupt and inhuman oligarchy.  I’d take that as a badge of honor.  I guess having badges of honor, though, doesn’t commend itself to reporters and editors these days.

I bring this up because it shows that in the slew of “news” we get each and every day, this has to be taken in to consideration: are the reporters and editors playing a double game?  We see it all the time, after all, with American MSM reporting on Obama – they both support Obama and are fearful of losing access to Obama, and so they tailor their reporting (with a very, very few shining exceptions) to please Obama.  Generally, to get to the truth about Obama, we have to take Obama statements and news reports and then dig around to see how they square with the truth (and almost invariably, they don’t).

The fundamental weakness of the MSM lies in the fact that they are not devoted to the truth – the objective truth.  They don’t, in fact, believe that such a thing exists.  Given this, it is natural that they will craft their reporting in the manner which best advances the MSM, itself.  The MSM wants a Chinese bureau and if the price of getting and keeping it is to downplay negative reports and some times put out a puff piece on China, then they’ll do it.  The MSM wants Obama to be a success and if the price of Obama’s success is to conspire with Obama to suppress the truth and slander the opposition, then that is hardly anything which can be thought of as a “price” to be paid for Obama’s success.

The bottom line is to presume that anything which comes over the transom is not 100% correct.  Don’t assume its all a lie – somewhere deep down inside the truth does exist; but don’t take it at face value.  Question everything which is stated as fact – find a second or third source, if at all possible (but, be wary!, there are kook sites out there which will use an MSM lie merely to advance the credibility of a kook site lie…”see, the MSM is lying about “Aspect A” of the situation, therefore my absurd claim about situation is correct!”).  Understand that the MSM is not on your side – they are first and foremost on their own side (so they’ll lie to please China so they can keep their bureau open in China), secondly on the side of liberalism in general (so they’ll lie to protect Obama and the Democrat party).

It is my hope that eventually a group of wealthy genuine conservatives will found a new, media empire – with standard-fare television, television news, internet and print news; all with an absolute commitment to truth above all, regardless of whom is offended.  That will be the day when we really slay the beast of falsehood which has stalked and disturbed our land for a century.

What Media Bias? Part 195 – Shutdown Edition

So, we’ve got a poll which shows Obama’s approval rating cratering to 37% – this it the territory last plumbed in Presidential terms by George W Bush towards the end of his term.  With vital information like that in the news, what is the headline?

Poll:  GOP Gets the Blame in Shutdown

To be sure, that isn’t a lie – the GOP is getting a lot of blame for the shutdown.  But, also, we already knew that.  We also know that Congress, as a whole, usually has approval ratings lower an ill-tempered woodchuck which then dies under your front porch.  That isn’t news – what is news is that Obama’s popularity is rapidly declining…which means that in the 5th year of Hope and Change, people are starting to take a long, hard look at the President and not liking what they find.  It is a pity people didn’t wake up this much by September of 2012 (Obama was just this bad all along, after all), but at least they are waking up…and in spite of the GOP losing points during the shutdown, the fact of an unpopular President is the crucial story.

This is because as his popularity ebbs away his own party will start to distance itself from him.  Fewer and fewer, especially in red or purple States, will be willing to go to the mat for him.  More and more red and purple State Democrats will find it advantageous to start coming out in public opposed to the President.  Additionally, Presidential unpopularity has a drag on the party, itself…it dispirits the party base and makes them less enthusiastic about getting out there and doing the work necessary for victory.  Finally, a weakened President emboldens the opposition – they sense he’s on the ropes and so press him all the harder, even if a particular action is technically unpopular.  Bottom line, in Obama’s drooping polls is the prospect of GOP victory in 2014 and 2016 – just as Bush’s drooping polls in 2005 opened the path for Democrat victory in 2006 and 2008 (this, by the way, is an argument in my mind to amend the Constitution so that the Presidency is a one term of six years affair).

But, there’s our MSM – always willing to cover for President.  Its ok – it’ll just make the shocked look on liberals faces more delicious in the long run.

UPDATE:  Obama shut down theater gets even more absurd:

A popular youth sandcastle contest on San Francisco’s Ocean Beach is the latest local victim of the federal government shutdown, event organizers said today.

The Leap 30th Anniversary Sandcastle Contest was planned for Saturday, but the continued standoff in Congress over the federal budget is causing organizers to postpone the event until a later date.

Thousands of people were expected to attend the free event, with more than 20 local schools participating. Leap, a local arts advocacy nonprofit, has held the contest for the past three decades.

The beach has no government personnel, its open year round to the public and it would cost the government nothing to have this event go forward.  It gets shut down because Obama wants us to feel pain.

Deep Liberal Thinking: Its the Fault of Those Damned Teabaggers!

To be sure, they don’t use words like that – being all super intellectual and mainstream, you see, they don’t go in for vulgarity.  But, that is the sense of Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein when they write this:

A brighter future for politics and policy requires a different Republican Party, one no longer beholden to its hard right and willing to operate within the mainstream of American politics.

Unlike the Democrats who, of course, completely ignore their hard left and are willing to compromise on such things as abortion, right?  I mean, if some people just wanted to have some reasonable, humane restrictions on abortion in the later half of pregnancy, these moderate,  in-the-mainstream Democrats would have no problem with that.  Answer:  Wendy Davis.  The Great Pink Hope of the Democrat party in Texas who stood tall and brave against an attempt to prevent children 8 months in to pregnancy from being ripped limb from limb by abortionists.  Thank goodness for moderate Democrats who operate within the mainstream of American politics.

What, exactly, is the “mainstream of American politics”?  It is that big corporations and big government will get bigger while an insulated Ruling Class of corporate and government bureaucrats live high and mighty off the sweat of average Americans.  Mann and Ornstein are dead on about one thing:

Any degree of success in this arena requires enlisting a small group of Senate Republicans who have tired of the lockstep opposition to Obama and  relish an opportunity to legislate.

Opposition to Obama is “lockstep”, you see?  If you bother to read the article, you’ll understand that the authors think that Obama is the one who reached out to the GOP and tried to govern by compromise.  But then that dratted TEA Party came along and started to muck everything up (unstated sub-text – dog whistle, as it were – “they are racists who just hate”).  Meanwhile, opposition to conservatism is nuanced and willing to compromise…like the way Obama immediately abandoned the birth control mandate when Catholics reasonably pointed out they couldn’t do that without violating their moral beliefs.  But it is true that there is a group of Senate Republicans who do relish the opportunity to legislate and if such legislation works out to just giving more power and wealth to the Ruling Class at the expense of the people, so be it.  After all, its not the people who pass out invitations to the cool parties, nor can the people ensure a well-paid sinecure once the “small group of Senate Republicans” retires.

As I noted in “You Say You Want a Revolution“, below, its an entire class which is united against us.  People like Mann and Ornstein have got their marching orders…provide a patina of intellectual legitimacy for the McCains and Grahams of the GOP to stab the rest of us in the back…go ahead, they say, satisfy your desire to legislate.  Step away from those crazies Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (to Mann and Ornstein, the literal pictures of intolerance…and I mean that; the picture posted at the top of their article is Paul and Cruz).  You’ll get a nice write up in the Washington Post.  You’ll be lauded as a statesman.  President Hillary Clinton will award you a Presidential Medal of Freedom.  We’ll ensure that your memoirs sell in the millions!

Getting rid of these people will be difficult and then easy.  First difficult in finding enough GOPers who will fight – but once we do, we will win and win it all.  And then we just cut off the taxpayer funds for the left and be free of them forever.

Matt and Mark on Blog Talk Radio, Bards Logic Political Talk

The details of our appearance can be found at Blog Talk Radio’s website.  We’ll be on at 10pm Eastern – please tune in!

UPDATE:  We want to thank Robert Jetter for giving us the opportunity to discuss the book on his show; we had a great time in a free-ranging discussion of the book and its implications and we hope that you’ll take the opportunity to listen at your leisure.

What Media Bias? Part 194

Geesh:

ABC is defending its decision to edit out an apparently erroneous claim by Michelle Obama in its broadcast of the first lady’s interview on Good Morning America today, saying it made the changes “solely” for the sake of time.

As The Washington Examiner reported this morning, the first lady claimed during an interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts that 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was killed in Chicago shortly after performing during the President’s Inauguration, was shot because “some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.”

In fact, Chicago Police reported Pendleton was shot by a man who “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car,” according to the Associated Press…

Yeah, for the sake of time.  Now, any time President Bush inadvertently mangled English, the MSM always had plenty of time to show it – over and over and over again.  Now here’s the First Lady making a flat out false statement and all of a sudden, “oh, we’re so pressed for time, can’t even show it once!”.

You believe that, then I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn…

Dystopia – Part Deux

A few days ago, Leo wrote an excellent piece on the radical nature of Obama’s worldview and politics, which is, and has been ignored by too many people, chief among them, our supposedly objective media. In fact the liberal media has yet to do their job and vet Obama, ask the difficult questions, or even hold him accountable. Last week, David Gregory attacked Sen. McCain for having the gall to say that there are still unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attack. Think about that. A member of the media was actually defending the administration and questioning a Senator who was telling that reporter that there are unanswered questions surrounding the death of a US Ambassador. Shouldn’t the reporter be asking those questions? What has happened to our media? The deference the liberal media has given to Obama is borderline criminal in my opinion. What ever happened to “speaking truth to power”?

The liberal ideological brand of Barack Obama would have us believe that adding layers of government bureaucracies will reduce costs, that increasing someone’s taxes will enhance their chances for prosperity, that restricting personal choices increases ones liberties, that demonizing certain demographics actually unites us, and that apologizing for America’s arrogance strengthens our positions abroad. All of which defy common sense, all of which have failed and failed repeatedly and yet all of which go unreported by our liberal mainstream media. Sadly, the liberal media has abandoned their journalistic integrity in favor of supporting a President that shares their ideology and not enough people yet have discovered that truth.

Case in point is another current political issue that the media is letting the President off the hook on. The sequester. Here’s Obama just last November:

“Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No, I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one”

Yet just two days ago, after his million dollar vacation in Florida, the President said that the sequester cuts would result in economic calamity and again laid the blame at the feet of the republicans. And not one reporter, not one, in the liberal media has had the presence of mind to report on the fact that Obama supported the cuts just a few months prior. For the most part, we no longer have an honest media and they are as much responsible for the decline of America as Barack Obama is.