Some are still oblivious:
Meanwhile, in the MSNBC senior offices:
Bad Luck Press:
And the right of center feels their pain:
Update: Linked at Rare. Thanks!
Update: Linked at Rare. Thanks!
The media, whether the grunts behind the on-the-scene camera know it or not, have an agenda.
It’s left of center and it’s stopped being subtle.
In the eight days since NBA player Jason Collins announced he was gay, the news media have covered the story in 2,381 places. But in the first eight days of the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his “House of Horrors” abortion business, the media covered the story in 115 places, meaning that Collins’ “gay” news received more than 1,970.4% more news coverage.
That’s not a coincidence. That’s a clear choice not to cover a story.
Need more evidence?
How about the fact that the media had to be shamed into showing up to the courtroom?
PHOTO: Seats for media in Courtroom 304 at the Kermit Gosnell abortion “house of horrors” trial in Phila on Thurs. twitter.com/jdmullane/stat…
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) April 12, 2013
No one had to do this to shame the media into covering the supposed first gay professional athlete. They fell over each other to get to him.
(For the record, Collins wasn’t the first gay athlete. The inventor of the high-five was.)
But this is the agenda. This is how media bias works. Promote the stories that further the liberal agenda.
Bury the ones that don’t. So you get this:
This is why a state run media is dangerous, especially with a nation that considers Honey Boo-Boo acceptable entertainment.
Rep. Steve King was talking with a local Iowa station when this happened:
Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
Only, that’s not what he said. This is what he said:
House Republicans at one point pushed legislation that would have limited federal funding of abortion to cases of “forcible” rape. So KMEG asked King Monday about victims of statutory rape or incest. King said, “Well, I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way, and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
Talking Points Memo is twisting King’s words into something that can tie him to Todd Akin. It’s pretty sleazy.
Here’s King’s response:
“The liberal press and their allies have again twisted my words,” he said in a statement. “I never said, nor do I believe, a woman, including minors, cannot get pregnant from rape, statutory rape or incest. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, shameful, disgusting and nothing but an attempt to falsely define who I am.”
I spend almost all day hitting “J” on my keyboard, going from one headline to another in my Google Reader. There are times when I look at a story, and these stories are on established, big name conservative websites, and I move on, dismissing it as a non-story because I don’t want to spin the news that way.
Then I see stuff like this and think, “Why not?”
Last week, Crazy Uncle Joe said this:
“We got a real clear picture of what they all value,” Vice President Joe Biden said at a campaign event in Virginia yesterday, referring to the Republican budget conceived, in part by newly-minted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. “Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first hundred days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, ‘unchain Wall Street.’ They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
If that’s not a code word or a dog whistle, what is? If it isn’t, it’s only because it’s so overt it’s disqualified as being covert.
In order to cover for Crazy Uncle Joe’s gaffe, the New York Times wrote this:
WASHINGTON — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. came in for an unapologetic drubbing on Sunday from two prominent Republicans for suggesting last week before a largely African-American audience that Mitt Romney’s policies would unshackle Wall Street but put some Americans “in chains.”
Joe pointed and said, “Y’all.”
He was clearly telling the black folks in attendence that Mitt Romney was going to let Wall Street put them “back in chains.”
They even left out the “back.”
This is why people don’t trust the main stream media. Rather than reporting, they’re carrying water.
Newt Gingrich don’t want no scrubs, a scrub is a guy who can’t think outside the Democrat talking points…
(it’s a work in progress…here’s the video)
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I suppose the fundamental debate that’s going to be had, though, will come down to whether the Republicans can sell to the American people that they are really concerned about jobs, about people’s livelihoods, and all the rest of it. If they’re also scratching the backs of their rich and wealthy members, which is clearly I think the flaw in the Ryan plan is that it just does. I mean, if you’re very wealthy, you’re going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax.
NEWT GINGRICH: You know, I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly. The fact is, these kinds of things were said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut – which was developed by Jack Kemp who Paul Ryan worked for – Ronald Reagan’s tax cut raised more people to middle class status, took more people out of poverty, created more jobs.
You know, this is the core thing that liberals don’t get. If you want to have jobs, you have to encourage job creators. If you discourage job creators, if you engage in class warfare, if you do what Barack Obama’s been doing, you have what we currently have. This is the worst recovery in 75 years.
Now, nobody in the media seems to want to come to grips with the fact that the Obama economic policy is a disaster for the poor. Look at the unemployment rate for black teenagers. Look at the unemployment rate for Latino teenagers. At what point do we hold the president accountable for a policy which is crippling the poor in America by crushing the economy under big government?
Ryan and Romney represent a different approach. And I think there’s this mantra you guys almost sound like you’re an extension of the Obama campaign. The Ryan/Romney plan empowers middle class Americans to get a job. When they get a job, their income goes up. They pay more taxes. They are independent. They’re able to live their own lives.
Obama worries about student loans. None of those students are going to get any jobs under Obama. Ryan and Romney are worried about getting jobs for those students so they can pay off the Obama loans.
I think this is a fundamentally different model, and I know everybody in the media wants to rush down and narrow it down to one point. So I’m going to rush down and narrow it down to one point: how long are we going to tolerate a president who makes the poorest Americans more unemployed, who pushes more poor Americans on to food stamps, and who eliminates hope for minorities? And that’s the Barack Obama record after four years.
Transcript courtesy of Newsbusters.
It’s depressing to think that the line, “if you’re very wealthy, you’re going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax,” is a rallying cry for the party of Thomas Jefferson. This isn’t the party of Jefferson, it’s the party of Marx.
Newt leveled up during this clip, I think. He was already Epic level, but he clearly applied some skill points to “Liberal Smackdown” towards the end.
Don’t be nosy.
That’s the advice from a supposed news outlet named CNN. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
In an op-ed on their website, they have a clinic in logical fallacies by LZ Granderson, starting off with this appeal to authority:
LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and is a 2011 Online Journalism Award finalist for commentary.
Well, bully for him. I’m won the Breitbart Blogger Award. I don’t need to put it at the beginning of every article I write to help add credibility. I use logic and facts.
The article continues, admonishing Americans for being nosy, but giving them an out by blaming a media obsessed with the finer, intimate details of the private lives of even D-list celebrities. Then it goes off the deep end:
Heads should roll because of the Fast and Furious debacle. We don’t need every detail of that operation to be made public in order for that to happen.
If it were an isolated sting, maybe. But it is at least the third incarnation of a gun-running scheme stretching across two administrations, which means we could be pressing to open Pandora’s Box. We do not want to open Pandora’s Box, not about this and certainly not about a bunch of other potentially scandalous things the federal government has been involved with.
Heads should roll, but the American people don’t really need to know why?
This is honestly the premise of the article?
And how do you make the logical leap that if it only happened once it would be fine for Americans to know, but since this happened over two administrations, the people really don’t have any business snooping around here?
That makes no sense. If the scandal is bigger, doesn’t it make it more important that sunlight shine on it?
After all, if this was one guy in Arizona who decided to run guns, it’s not that big a deal. You fire him and move one.
If it’s being directed from Washington and people in the White House knew about it and lied, the American people should know the who, what, where, when and why of it and accountability should be handed down accordingly.
Bigger scandals demand greater transparency.
However, according to one award winning “journalist,” since we didn’t learn all the details of Iran-Contra, we shouldn’t learn all the details of Fast and Furious.
No, really. That’s his logic:
We still don’t have access to all of the messy facts surrounding the Iran-Contra scandal that erupted during the Reagan administration. All we know is that weapons were sold to Iran in exchange for hostages and that the proceeds from those sales were used to illegally fund rebels in Nicaragua who were supposedly fighting Communism.
This is known as the appeal to tradition:
In Granderson’s mind, since we have never learned the truth about scandals, there’s no reason to learn the truth here. It’s how it always has been.
His failure continues:
Lt. Col. Oliver North took one for the team back then, and there’s a good chance Attorney General Eric Holder will have to take one for the team in the Fast and Furious controversy. And by team, I’m not referring to Republicans or Democrats, but rather Americans.
You see, freedom isn’t entirely free.
It also isn’t squeaky clean.
And sometimes the federal government deems it necessary to get its hands a little dirty in the hopes of achieving something we generally accept as good for the country.
I didn’t see him making this argument when liberals were screaming about the “torture” being conducted on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. I looked. I found nothing.
This is how he justifies allowing known gun smugglers to buy large amounts of weapons, smuggle them across the border into Mexico, use them to kill hundreds of Mexicans, control sections of the Arizona countryside, and murder two Americans?
If this operation were truly about securing the freedom of Americans, I still wouldn’t support this plan. It’s madness.
But it wasn’t about protecting American freedom.
If it was, why weren’t the guns tracked? Why wasn’t even the most basic attempt at tracking them made?
The guns were allowed to pass into Mexico where authorities expected them to be used in crimes and recovered a little at a time, then traced back to America.
To what end? To keep America free?
How do you make that leap?
By removing logic from your argument, that’s how.
Such as the death of Osama bin Laden. We danced, we cried, but we did not make a big deal about a secret operation that was executed in Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani government. The Obama administration did what it thought was in the best interest of America.
Much in the same way, Project Wide Receiver and Project Road Runner — the earlier versions of Fast and Furious under President Bush — were executed with the hope that they will do more good than harm.
First off, this:
You can’t compare a targeted military operation with specific goals, conducted by highly trained military operatives, controlled by a command center with a live video and audio feed of the action with a program that just let thousands of weapons loose in a foreign country. The only similarity is neither foreign country knew what hit them. Other than that, they are apples and oranges.
Secondly, I reject the idea that a government action, no matter how illegal, immoral or irresponsible, is acceptable because they meant well. Granderson mentioned Pandora’s Box being opened if we truly investigated Fast and Furious. You want to open Pandora’s Box, tell the government that if they justify every action they take by claiming it was for our own good, we the people will excuse it.
Think about it: We have allowed weapons to cross the Mexican border and into the hands of criminals for years. Many of these weapons were involved in killing innocent Mexicans. There’s nothing very admirable about that. But the truth is, it’s very American.
You can see from this LZ Granderson doesn’t have a very high opinion of America. In his eyes, “very American” is something that has components of selfishness, irresponsibility, callousness and apathy. Nothing about charity. Nothing about compassion. Nothing about freedom.
“Very American” has no positive connotation. He has chosen only our faults to define us, also known as:
The premise of the article, that Americans shouldn’t be poking about in the federal government’s wet work because it’s done for our own good, is stunning, considering it was proposed by an award winning “journalist.” It disgusting in it’s political bias, it’s lack of respect for the rule of law and the overt disrespect of America’s history of good deeds.
Americans should not accept malfeasance, regardless of the good intentions. We would be better served heeding the words of James Madison, who said, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.”
All men, Republican or Democrat. In fact, when someone from the government tells you what they are doing is for your own good, that’s when you should question it most.
Charles Krauthammer says the upcoming contempt of Congress vote in the House of Representatives will force the mainstream media to cover the Fast & Furious scandal:
Tonight, the Big Three news networks–ABC, CBS, and NBC–covered today’s explosive Fast & Furiousdevelopments with sharply contrasting approaches. CBS News put together an informative and satisfying report while ABC and NBC spun and downplayed the story to minimize harm to the Obama administration.
ABC World News started tonight with the absolute most important story of the day–a heat wave in the northeast! Then there was talk of a brand new flood zone.
The Fast & Furious scandal and President Obama’s first-ever invocation of executive privilege received only third-highest priority during ABC’s broadcast.
Brian Williams did not look happy at the beginning of NBC Nightly News tonight, and I don’t blame him. The House Oversight Committee voted Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. This meant the controversy was, for the second time ever, too large for him to deny its newsworthiness.
Though Fast & Furious was the lead story for Nightly News, it was full of spin and jabs against Republicans. According to Mr. Williams, “Washington has blown up into a caustic partisan fight, and a showdown is coming over the power of the American president.” Mr. Holder was not found in contempt because of executive privilege. He was found in contempt for withholding documents.
Never misunderestimate the ability of the mainstream media to carry the water for a Democrat in the White House.
MSNBC tried to pull the wool over their viewers eyes by editing a video of Mitt Romney in a way that showed him to be out of touch.
Today, after their journalistic malfeasance was pointed out by Sooper Mexican, they attempted to explain why they did what they did.
Rush was not impressed:
“That was it?
They just didn’t have time to play the whole thing and that’s it?
Had time to laugh.
Wow. That’s pathetic.
No, that’s a “real journalist,” or so we’re led to believe.
There’s no excuse for this. This is journalistic malfeasance.
And these are “real journalists.”
There is only one reason to edit the video the way they did, and that was portray Romney as out of touch. This is not a “news” organization.
It’s a leftist propaganda channel. Truth does not reside there.
Shame on you, MSNBC. But worse, shame on the people who actually allow themselves to be duped by you.
Hat Tip: Just about everybody in the rightosphere, but I got the video on Breitbart.
UPDATE (by Andrew) Here’s a video without the context removed.
During one of the break out sessions at Right Online, Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft told a story of going to Prague, and compared how Soviet Union and China handled their media with how today’s corrupt media in America operates.
It’s a scathing rant, beautifully delivered: