You are browsing the archives of media bias.

The squashing of dissenting voices continues as the Obama campaign tells the NY Post, Washington Times, and Dallas Morning News to take a hike. They have been kicked off the campaign plane, reportedly so documentary workers and other Obama-friendly media can join “The One” on the last few days of the campaign.

Do you think it is a coincidence that all three publications who have had their credentials revoked had editorial boards endorse John McCain? I think not.

The pattern continues.  If this is how candidate Obama treats dissenting voices, imagine how dissenting voices will be treated when he has power.

Via Glen Reynolds:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: “Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.” I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

Anyone have Charlie Gibson’s e-mail address?  I’d sure like to send him a copy of this.  After framing Sarah Palin as a relgious zealot and misquoting her in his interview, it would be nice to set the record straight and frame Governor Palin’s response AND prayer in the proper context.

Excellent video.  H/T: Instapundit

Are we fighting a Holy War?  Against the media?  Maybe So.

Great video via Copious Dissent (h/t: Instapundit).

As the media wanted to remind us during the lipstick debacle… context matters (of course they still got the context wrong).  So maybe the American people should be privelaged enough to read the entire transcript of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Governor Palin and not just garbled, edited mess that ABC wanted you to see.  Thankfully we have Mark Levin to highlight the stuff that ABC didn’t want you to see.

Context matters as do complete and ACCURATE quotes.  I guess that doesn’t really matter when you are more concerned with pushing and agenda instead of reporting the news.

>>Transcript here.

I’m about sick of it.  OK, I’m actually well past being sick of it.  And you should be too.

The AP wire now has an “analysis” from Ron Fournier titled “Analysis: McCain camp plays sexism card for Palin“.  Unfortunately for the readers, Mr. Fournier just regurgitates Leftist, Daily Kos like talking points that have already been rebutted by others.  Of course Mr. Fournier doesn’t mention those rebuttals, and just spits out his lies and attacks against McCain and Sarah Palin as if they are true.

So-called news organizations and media outlets pay for this drivel from the “Associated Press” don’t they?  I’d suggest they ask for their money back, except we know they are all playing the same game.  Lying, Smearing, Distorting and Attacking all to get their “Chosen One” elected President.  And Mr Fournier, suggests all of us who are pissed off about this treatment of Sarah Palin and the media smears and Mr. Fournier’s lies are just being used by the McCain campaign and we’re too stupid to realize it

Read this garbage for yourself if you want, but here are some of the lies or smears that have already been refuted time and time again, yet Mr. Fournier presents as if they were the gospel truth.

1. “Palin waited until last week to tell the McCain team that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant.”
    
   Not True says the McCain Campaign, even though Mr. Fournier doesn’t bother to mention that here.
    
2. “Palin didn’t submit to a face-to-face interview with the head of McCain’s search team until a few days before her announcement.”
    
   That comment seems to presume that Mrs. Palin was asked for a personal interview and denied it.  But that’s not the case.  John McCain met her in February 2008 and had personal conversations with her then.  Then the vetting process took 4-5 months.  She was on a short list that started with 21 people and got widdled down.  At all points, Governor Palin remained on the list.  She submitted everything the McCain campaign asked her for, including financial documents with completed, hand-prepared tax returns.
    
3. “[S]he’s accused of improperly ordering the firing of the former public safety commissioner.”
   
    
   This is true, she is “accused” of improperly ordering the firing of a public safety commissioner… but nowhere, NOWHERE is there an answer to this charge even though Palin has said she was an openbook on it and welcomed an investigation.  There is a wealth of information about what really happened, about how the deadbeat tropper had tasered an 11 year-old, drank in his patrol car, etc… but Fournier doesn’t want to tell you that because he’s too busy carrying Barack Obama’s water.  Mr. Fournier could have at least mentioned this affidavit in his “analysis” and offer “fairness” to the other side.  But that wouldn’t fit his agenda.
    
4. “[S]he supported the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and other pork-barrel projects before telling the nation on Saturday that she was against them.”
   
    
   Apparently only liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama are allowed to change their position on an issue.  First, I would submit that changing your position on a pork-barrell project is not the same as changing your position on a war or funding troops.  But even if you assume this line from Mr. Fournier is true… so what?  She TURNED DOWN federal money (read your tax dollars and my tax dollars) because she didn’t feel the project was necessary or responsible.  Sounds like the kind of judgment we want from our elected officials who spend our money.  But its not exactly a flip-flop anyway.  During the campaign she said she was open to alternatives to the bridge project, and when the cost estimates rose to $400 million and above, she decided it was only responsible to look to more fiscally responsible options.
    

Of course I can’t rebut Mr. Fournier, Katie Couric, Campbell Brown or all the rest of the ridiculous liberal media taking shots at Sarah Palin as good as Peggy Noonan can… always elevating the debate… always showing class.

The mainstream media, which has been holding endless symposia here on the future of media in the 21st century, is in danger of missing a central fact of that future: If they appear, once again, as they have in the past, to be people not reporting the battle but engaged in the battle, if they allow themselves to be tagged by that old tag, which so tarnished them in the past, they will do more to imperil their own future than the Internet has.

This is true: fact is king. Information is king. Great reporting is what every honest person wants now, it’s the one ironic thing we have less of in journalism than we need. But reporting that carries an agenda, that carries Bubblehead assumptions and puts them forth as obvious truths? Well, some people want that. But if I were doing a business model for broadsheets and broadcast networks I’d say: Fact and data are our product, we’re putting everything into reporting, that’s what we’re selling, interpretation is the reader’s job, and think pieces are for the edit page where we put the hardy, blabby hacks.

That was a long way of saying: Dig deep into Sarah Palin, get all you can, talk to everybody, get every vote, every quote, tell us of her career and life, she may be the next vice president. But don’t play games. And leave her kid alone, bitch.

Maybe if the media talked to more women like Suann Therese Maier, they would realize how ridiculous their coverage of Sarah Palin has been since Friday.  I do feel sorry for Governor Palin and her family for the treatment they are receiving by the media, but I suppose it shouldn’t be a huge surprise.  Let the media, the DNC, and the so-called feminists on the left continue keeping their heads in the sand… they’ll understand soon enough that real Americans see them for what they really are.  November isn’t that far away.

…As a woman, mother, wife, and lifetime professional educator, I will vote, enthusiastically, for Sarah Palin as vice president this November. Even if the media pressure forces her from the ticket, I will vote against the Democratic party—partly because I respect John McCain and believe him to be the better candidate, but equally because I’m tired of the intransigence and condescension of the Democratic leadership on the abortion issue.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because I don’t need the Democratic platform’s belated affirmation of motherhood. Thanks, but I already know that motherhood is good, several times over. Moreover, the party’s rediscovery of motherhood seems rather cynical in the current news cycle, while Democratic-friendly bloggers and media types bash Palin about her daughter’s pregnancy and her own busy schedule while bringing up children. How can a real sympathy for motherhood come from the same people who wrote a platform that hardens the party’s addiction to a phony right to kill the unborn?

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.

In fact, while we’re on the subject, I also know what it means to have two grandchildren born out of wedlock, a son struggling with alcohol, two grandchildren with serious disabilities, putting myself through graduate school while simultaneously caring for a husband and children and teaching full time—and a whole lot more. This is the stuff of real human love; this is the raw material of family life. And those who think that Palin’s beliefs and family struggles are funny or worth jeering at, simply reveal the venality of their own hearts.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.

Read More Here.  (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

First Andrea Mitchell said we were all too stupid to understand sattire.  Now, apparently, “only working class women, not college educated” will move to support Governor Palin as VP.

Is Andrea Mitchell aware of how pompous and elitist she continues to sound?  Maybe she just doesn’t care.  From the network that brings you Keith Olberman every night, Andrea still looks like a saint.  But she’s also a bafoon.  Everywhere I look, I see women energized by this decision.  Some of them were Hillary supporters and some of them not… but most of them seem to relate to Governor Palin and seem proud of her.  Maybe Andrea needs to step out of her “cone of silence” and realize she is the one out of touch with real Americans.  Because from my point of view, college educated or not… right or left… women and men alike seem to find someone on the ticket who has a real family and offers real promise, not just false hope.

If you are opposed to abortion, you can not be a woman or don’t support women. That appears to be the logic of much of the media, the National Organzation of Women, and apparently the DNC as they begin to attack John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President. These same hacks also accuse McCain and the RNC of thinking woman don’t care about issues… only identity politics.

What a crock.

While NOW and the liberal left want to tell all women what they must believe and what their issues must be… Like John McCain, I believe women are smarter than that. The pick of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee says something to women that NOW and the leftists never would… it says women are individuals who can decide for themselves what is important. Just because you have a uterus doesn’t mean you have to believe in infanticide.

But the left doesn’t get it. They think all women must vote in a block just like they believe all black Americans must vote in a block. If you are black and don’t vote for Obama, liberals will call you Uncle Tom. And if you are a woman and are not pro-abortion, apparently you want to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.

What the left doesn’t get is that most Republicans don’t think like that, and neither do most Americans. When you believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility, two ideas paramount in conservatism, you virtually eliminate racism and bigotry from the equation. And when you believe that people can have their own opinions and achievements, regardless of their race or gender, you empower them and promote an equal playing field. But Democrats believe your color, race, gender or sexual orientation dictates what you must believe. That doesn’t sound real progressive, does it?

I don’t believe all women support abortion anymore than I believe all black Americans support reparations or all immigrants support illegal immigration. I don’t look at a woman and presume to know what she thinks nor do I presume I know what is best for her. I happen to believe that women are smart enough to choose what is important to them for themselves and they don’t need Barbara Boxer, Gloria Steinem or Hillary Clinton to tell them how to think. That doesn’t make me a sexist, it makes me a feminist.

Here’s the thing, I find it hard to believe most women support abortion in the first place. But even if they do, certainly most don’t support leaving babies to die in soiled utility rooms. A woman who does believe in abortion or infanticide isn’t less of a woman… but she is wrong.

Conversely, Sarah Palin isn’t any less of a woman because she thinks abortion is an abomination. It’s certainly your place to disagree with her, but its not your place to question her intelligence or revoke her high heels.

The ironic thing is that Democrats don’t presume that all white guys must believe the same things… but they think every other segmented group must. Women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, Union Workers, Teachers, etc all must believe what the DNC tells them to believe. And if they don’t they are ridiculed on MSNBC, attacked by the DNC and ostracized by those on the left. But somehow we Republicans are the bigots?

Whatever.

Sarah Palin is a great choice for women because, among other things, she never let her gender limit her achievement. Sarah Palin raised a family and reformed a government. She competed in a beauty padget and on a basketball team. She can hunt and fish and have babies while keeping her faith. She can give one hell of a speech and fight the most corrupt men and wear a dress while doing it. She’s not affraid of a challenge or questioning the status quo, even if that means going against her own party. And she does it all without affirmative action or her husband’s coat tails to get her there.

Sarah Palin breaks all the molds and all the stereotypes and for that reason alone she should be the darling of feminists. Instead, she is being demonized by them. Unlike the liberal left, I believe real women are smart enough to see that. Apparently so does John McCain.

But Sarah Palin is more than that. She is the embodiment of what our citizen government was meant to be. Sarah didn’t set out to be President and isn’t a career politician. She is a mom who got involved in the PTA because she cared about her community and her schools. The PTA led to city council which led to mayor and then to governor. She made each step of the way not because of personal ambition but because of an ambition to make changes and a willingness to serve. Rather than sit on the sidelines and complain about problems, Sarah Palin took charge, ran for office and did something about it. Isn’t that what our elected officials are supposed to do?

The real beauty of Sarah Palin is that her resume would be just as impressive if she were a man. And that means she is a great choice for all Americans, identity politics be damned. Does her gender add something to the ticket? Sure. It shows that you can have real change and not just look like it. Barack Obama got his party’s nomination because he is black. But Sarah Palin will get her party’s nomination because she is right. You can talk about change, but McCain/Palin can actually deliver it. Real reform with real results, offered in part by our Vice Presidential nominee who has more experience and more accomplishments than Barack Obama even though she is a few years younger, doesn’t have a law degree, and is a woman. Shocking.

…for quotes like this from David Gergen:

David Gergen, former White House advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, strongly rebuked the candidate for releasing a statement outlining his discussions with the Prime Minister of Iraq. “We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. [President Bush] is the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign in which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position of negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country. I think he leaves himself open to the charge that he’s meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic but he’s not the negotiator. We have a president who does that.”

…and much more about Barack Obama’s arrogance, the media’s bias, and more.

available here: Patriot Post

The media’s love affair with Barack Obama just won’t end. And while the liberal media is all hot-and-bothered, the rest of us see the Chosen One for what he really is… an unaccomplished egomaniacal socialist.

The best way to fight the ridiculous devotion the media has for their buddy Barack is to point out just how pathetic it is. So here’s a parody design sure to make your legs start to tingle. I’d send one to Chris Matthews, but I’m not sure anyone at NBC is sophisticated enough to get the joke.

**See this and more Anti-Obama T-Shirts Here**

And here’s the B-Side.

Vote for your favorite here.

Last week, Democratic Presidential Hopeful, Barack Obama penned an editorial that was published in the New York Times.  Republican Presidential Presumptive Nominee, John McCain submitted his own in rebuttal, but was rejected by the Times.

The entire editorial, in its submitted form, is available via Drudge.

I’m glad Obama is finally going to Iraq to assess to facts on the ground. Thankfully Barack Obama is a “new kind of candidate” who doesn’t play politics with something as important as the war. And thankfully we have professional American media outlets who practice nothing but the highest caliber of journalism and strive to cover this historic political contest in a fair and balanced manner.

Oh wait…. none of that is true… except that Obama is going to go to Iraq… finally.

Often vilified by the liberal elite, Ann Coulter has been showing more journalistic talent in her columns lately than most liberal rags contain in a weeks worth of papers. This continues in her column in today’s Human Events, The New York Times vs. Helms, Part 529,876.

Like Ann tells us, most people didn’t know Senator Helms and his wife Dot adopted a 9-year old son with cerebral palsy. Having already had two children, and Senator Helms in his early forties, the couple adopted their son Charlie when they read his Christmas wish in the News and Observer. For Christmas, all Charlie wanted was a mom and a dad. In Senator Helms and Dot, he found just that.

I just learned about that story this weekend, buried amongst all the liberal whining and name-calling that most pieces decided to interject about Senator Helms’ life. I’m glad someone had the courage to speak more than talking points and gave those of us who admired him but never met him a greater insight into his true character. But that isn’t even the greatest story about Senator Helms never told. His history with Harvey Gantt is much more intriguing.

The media couldn’t spend 10 seconds talking about Helms without calling him a racist, in part because of the ad he ran in 1990 against Harvey Gantt and Gantt’s support for Racial Quotas. First, the ad isn’t racist… just because you oppose racial quotas does not make you a member of the KKK… it just means that like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, you want people to be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. But the ad isn’t the point… the point is that the media never seems to mention that the Senate race of 1990 wasn’t the first time Harvey Gantt was associated with Senator Helms… and in 1963 Jesse Helms was a big fan of Mr Gantt.

In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.

Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had “stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero” and had “turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him.” Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and “Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one.”

Ann Coulter is right… “[f]unny how that little tidbit didn’t make the Times obituary”… or virtually anywhere else for that matter. You would think the local press here in Raleigh would have at least mentioned it once or twice, but they’ve been too busy making a hero out of some Jackass trying to spit on Senator Helms’ grave.