Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Media Bias Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on February 22, 2015 13 Comments
An effort last week to marshal Congressional Democrats to urge House Speaker John Boehner to delay Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Congressional speech next month gained the support of only 23 out of 188 House Democrats. There is more than one way to explain this. Here's administration defender Greg Sargent of The Washington Post.
Some House Democrats have circulated a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner to delay the speech, on the grounds that it represents a partisan effort by Republicans to enlist the help of a foreign leader in scuttling one of the President’s chief foreign policy goals, i.e., reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, which Netanyahu bitterly opposes. ... All in all, the failure of more Democrats to sign this letter suggests many still fear the politics of appearing out of sync with whatever Israel wants. It’s true that a number of Democrats have said they will skip the speech. But many of those have clarified that this isn’t due to any organized boycott, and far more are attending. And, really, all the talk of a “boycott” is misdirection. It shouldn’t be all that difficult for Democrats to call for a mere delay in this speech, while rebuffing efforts to portray such a move as “anti-Israel,” given how egregious the circumstances surrounding this event really are.
(It's important to note that Sargent quotes a poll showing that most Americans are unhappy with the way the invitation was extended - i.e. dissatisfaction with Boehner's actions, other polls show strong American support for Netanyahu speaking.) Not surprisingly Sargent uses his cherry-picked data point to point out the the big bad Israel lobby as the culprit.(In blaming the pro-Israel lobby, Sargent took a page from the playbook of President Obama who, last month, according to The New York Times, effectively accused Sen. Robert Menendez of not loving his country enough, "The president said he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than make a move for short-term political gain, according to the senator.")

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 22, 2015 33 Comments
If you think the mainstream media is not out to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 every bit as much as it was for Obama in 2008 and 2012, then you need your head examined. The multi-day and ongoing demand that Scott Walker verify that Obama is Christian and loves America is a good example. Why is it that Republican candidates and politicians are required to verify the bona fides of Democrats? Here are three questions I have yet to hear Obama or any Democrat asked:

1. Should Joe Biden stop touching women without consent?

2. Is Elizabeth Warren Native American?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 22, 2015 30 Comments
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. The Washington Post's Robert Costa and Dan Balz interviewed Scott Walker yesterday. Of everything they had opportunity to ask, they chose to ask Walker whether he thought Obama was a Christian. How Walker's opinion on the matter is remotely relevant or newsworthy is unclear to normal people, who expect the press to do that whole "truth to power" thing. Walker, seemingly unamused by the obscure religion question, responded appropriately, saying he "didn't know."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott K. Walker, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said Saturday he does not know whether President Obama is a Christian. “I don’t know,” Walker said in an interview at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, where he was attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association. Told that Obama has frequently spoken publicly about his Christian faith, Walker maintained that he was not aware of the president’s religion. “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 21, 2015 14 Comments
Brian Williams' tragic exit meant that a right-leaning media behemoth must too, suffer the same fate, according to the leftist code of retribution. Last week, David Corn and Daniel Schulman of Mother Jones set their crosshairs on Fox New's Bill O'Reilly attempting to settle the score. MJ and crew accused O'Reilly of lying about his reporting of The Falklands War in 1982. As we discussed:
Their ‘scoop’ seems to revolve around how Mother Jones is defining, “war action” and other semantics they themselves haven’t yet pieced together. Namely that to cover The Falklands War and reporting directly from The Falklands are not mutually exclusive.
O'Reilly responded callng, David Corn a “despicable guttersnipe” and “a liar.” He denied any discrepancy, and called the entire Mother Jones reprt “a piece of garbage.” Yesterday, O'Reilly directly addressed Corn's accusations. He produced memos and letters from 33 years ago. He also addressed the issues that we pointed out above, as well as the obvious Brian Williams retributive angle.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 16, 2015 15 Comments
Almost immediately after news of the Chapel Hill shootings broke on major media outlets and social media, talking heads on the left seized the opportunity to turn the brutal murders of three muslim human beings into a political debate: And then this, just a couple of hours later:

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 14, 2015 3 Comments
A North Carolina man named Craig Hicks murdered three young Muslims last week over what appears to be a parking dispute. Some liberals in the media have consulted the Southern Poverty Law Center on the subject---but have failed to point out that Mr. Hicks is an apparent fan of SPLC. Jesse Walker of Reason reported. H/t to Instapundit.
The Killer, the Reporter, and the Southern Poverty Law Center Craig Hicks, the man who murdered three Muslims in North Carolina this week, had a Facebook page. One of the groups he liked on it is the Southern Poverty Law Center. An AlterNet article about Hicks—reprinted today in both Raw Story and Salon—includes several long quotes from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Guess what subject never comes up? No, I don't think the SPLC deserves any blame for the crime. That would be ridiculous. But the SPLC itself has a long history of throwing around blame in precisely that ridiculous way, so it would have been nice to hear how Potok reacts when an event like this lands in his own backyard. Double standards deserve to be challenged, right? By the way: While the AlterNet piece doesn't mention Hicks' apparent fondness for the SPLC, it does mention the fact that his Facebook likes lean liberal. But it dismisses this as unimportant, telling us the significant thing is that Hicks "appears to fit the psychological profile of violent extremists—regardless of their ideological stripes."
Patrick Poole of PJ Media recently made this observation:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 08, 2015 19 Comments
Hey, remember when Hamas was lobbing thousands of missiles at Israeli cities, trying to kidnap people, and killing when they got lucky? Of course you remember it. It has happened every couple of years since Hamas took over Gaza. And before that, the Palestinians strapped bombs on their loved ones and sent them to blow up restaurants, supermarkets, buses, and anything else they could sneak into. And before that .... But always the question is whether Israel's response is proportionate, like pointed out in this Al Jazeera column:
... on June 26, [2014] the UN Human Rights Council deliberated on the situation in Palestine and other Arab-occupied territories. During the deliberations, the council issued a warning to Israel that there may be serious repercussions as a result of its campaign against the Palestinian people, which constituted a continuing violation of international humanitarian law, following the abduction of three Israeli teenagers.
EU leaders on Gaza: 'Israel has right to protect itself but it must act proportionately':

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2015 37 Comments
In the past day, things seem to have changed in the Brian Williams story. The investigation of possible lies about being in a helicopter taking fire crossed two rubicons. First, the scope expanded to reports about his claims during Hurricane Katrina. Second, and more important, the mainstream media took up the call, with the NY Times and other outlets doing investigations, including NBC itself. From Twitter to Facebook to blogs to The Grey Lady, everybody seems to want a piece of Brian Williams. It has become internet sport at this point, a piñata onto which everyone is letting go their unrelated frustrations. Under other circumstances, I'd say he'd weather the storm. But this time it's different. Williams now is hurting his peers in the mainstream media, calling into question the honesty and integrity of the mainstream news industry. Brian Williams now is a liability to those who still manage to control so much of the narrative. Will he stay or will he go? UPDATE 2-7-2015 4:20 p.m. Eastern -- Williams announced he is removing himself from the daily broadcast for a few days. Not sure this changes our poll question. He hasn't resigned or been fired. Could just be strategic, hoping a week from now this has all blown over, like the vapor trails from the rocket fired, er, at his helicopter. (Poll open until Midnight Pacific Time, Saturday, February 7)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 23 Comments
From Politico, Dan Rather backs Brian Williams:
Brian Williams is "an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor--and a brave one," veteran newsman Dan Rather told POLITICO on Thursday. Rather's note of support comes after the revelation that Williams falsely claimed to have been aboard a helicopter that was shot down during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Williams admitted Wednesday that he was on a different helicopter, and apologized to viewers and crew members of the 159th Aviation Regiment. Like Williams, Rather has been the subject of public controversy. In 2004, he was forced to retract a report on George W. Bush's National Guard service after the authenticity of his source documents were called into question. Rather retired from CBS News the following year, ending a 24-year run as anchor of the Evening News. He now anchors "Dan Rather Reports" on the cable channel AXS.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 04, 2015 41 Comments
It certainly looks that way. NBC News Anchor Brian Williams has long claimed he was on a helicopter forced down by RPG fire while reporting from Iraq in 2003. An exclusive report in Stars and Stripes, a military publication, tells the story of Williams' indiscretion. Williams was forced to recant when a soldier protested Williams' rendition of the story. As recently as Monday, Williams claimed, on national news, that he was under fire on a Chinook. Take a look: It was during this commemoration that those involved in the incident stepped up to correct the record:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 02, 2015 9 Comments
Yesterday was Andrew Breitbart's birthday. It's amazing to me to see how that man's legacy has lived on, even as the conservative movement has changed so much over the past few years. I listen to the stories and wild career paths of activists and bloggers who were inspired by him, and I can't help but wonder where we would all be had Andrew not made the conscious decision to be brave in the face of what sometimes seems like insurmountable bias and recriminations from the media and the institutional left. I wrote yesterday about Scott Walker's ridiculous interview with Martha Raddatz, and while I was writing, I slid down the 2008/2012 rabbit hole remembering the disparate treatment of the conservative candidates who dared to challenge Barack Obama and paid for it with chunks of their reputations. Obviously, we're in for more of the same as the race to 2016 heats up, and it's important to remember that the same sort of bias we saw in previous cycles has already begun. Walker's Radditz-ing was just the start. Progressives are freaking out over his breakout performance---wasn't he supposed to be the boring midwestern governor that would never break out of the middle of the pack? But strong candidates like Walker, and creative firebrands like Rand Paul, are already causing trouble for an increasingly desperate Democrat narrative.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 02, 2015 12 Comments
There are some narratives that not even MSNBC should be expected to screw up---and yet, here we are. Today, Tamron Hall hosted former New Mexico Governor and UN Ambassador Bill Richardson to talk about Kim Jong Un's barely-precedented call for a summit between between the leadership of North Korea and South Korea. Throughout the interview, Richardson did a good job of pointing out how erratic the actions of North Korean regime has been, and was quick to put a damper on hopeful expectations that this proposed summit could mean a change in how the divided countries interact with one another. Then, of course, whatever is in the water over at MSNBC's studios seeped in to Richardson's consciousness and took the wheel. When asked about the possibility of Kim Jung Un wanting to define himself as a leader, Richardson went off the rails and blamed the media for North Korea's problems: Politico has the money quote:
“He has been the victim, Kim Jong Un, of a lot of bad press, a lot of bad international attention, with the Sony hacking, with [being] taken to the International Criminal Court by some U.N. countries, a number of other very destabilizing moves that he has made, shooting the missiles, nuclear testing,” Richardson said on Friday on MSNBC’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall.”
Watch it here:

Posted by David Gerstman on January 01, 2015 3 Comments
Today the New York Times, predictably, blamed Israel for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to internationalize the Palestinians conflict with Israel. According to the Times, it is Israel's fault that Abbas attempted to get the United Nations Security Council to impose an agreement on Israel and, failing that, to apply to join the International Criminal Court (ICC). In an editorial today, The Palestinians' Desperation Move, the Times argues:
Mr. Abbas began this week by insisting that the Security Council approve a resolution to set a deadline for establishing a Palestinian state, including the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank by the end of 2017. After heavy lobbying by the United States and Israel, the resolution received only eight of the nine votes needed to pass in the 15-member council. The fact is, the United States, which voted against the measure, supports a Palestinian state. And France, which broke with the Americans and voted in favor, acknowledged reservations about some of the details. Following this defeat, Mr. Abbas moved swiftly on Wednesday to take an even more provocative step in joining the International Criminal Court, through which the Palestinians could bring charges against Israeli officials for cases against their settlement activities and military operations. While he was under strong pressure from his constituents to do this, he knew well the cost might be great. “There is aggression practiced against our land and our country, and the Security Council has let us down — where shall we go?” Mr. Abbas said at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
Note that the Times describes these moves not as wrong, but as counterproductive.

Posted by David Gerstman on December 26, 2014 3 Comments
Prof. Jaccobson blogged yesterday about the tribulations of Israeli Member of Knesset Haneen Zoabi, who is privileged and free to serve in the legislature of the country that she reviles. But there's another Zoabi, in fact a distant cousin, who also has been in the news. Mohammad Zoabi. He's a teenager who describes himself as a "A Proud Israeli Arab Muslim Zionist." Mohammad first came to my attention when he released the video below, a plea to return Eyal Yifrach, Gil-ad Shaar and Naftali Fraenkel, in English, Hebrew and Arabic.

Posted by David Gerstman on December 24, 2014 1 Comment
In his column yesterday, anti-Israel columnist Roger Cohen of The New York Times talked to Tzipi Livni, candidate for prime minister and Israel's peace negotiator, about why the John Kerry-sponsored peace talks failed earlier this year. Livni tells of the three ways the Palestinians destroyed the peace talks. The administration in March had presented a framework for both sides.
Livni considered it a fair framework, and Netanyahu had indicated willingness to proceed on the basis of it while saying he had reservations. But Abbas declined to give an answer in what his senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, later described as a “difficult” meeting with Obama. Abbas remained evasive on the framework, which was never made public.
One part of the framework was to accept the 1967 lines (really the 1948 armistice lines) as the basis of negotiations. In other words, Netanyahu made a major concession here and Abbas still refused to play ball. Still at the behest of the administration talks continued and a few weeks later, the Palestinians were at it again.
Then, Livni said, she looked up at a television as she awaited a cabinet meeting and saw Abbas signing letters as part of a process to join 15 international agencies — something he had said he would not do before the deadline.
Abbas offered the excuse that Israel was stalling. Still, this was a unilateral action outside the framework of negotiations and a broken promise. Finally, there was this:
Accessibility by WAH