Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

The campaign finance provision of the #CRomnibus spending bill has refocused bipartisan ire on the scourge of "money in politics," and has renewed progressive mouth-foaming over the allegedly infamous influence of the Koch brothers on the rise of conservative politics in America. Barbara Walters has included billionaire David Koch in her list of 2014's "Most Fascinating People," and in a recent interview held Koch's feet to the fire over his support for conservative candidates who don't subscribe to his admittedly socially liberal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Mediaite has the video:
Koch told Walters he was a fiscal conservative but social liberal. Walters pointed out that the candidates he funded were staunchly opposed to positions he supported, such as the legalization of gay marriage and a right to choose. “That’s their problem,” Koch replied. “What I want these candidates to do is support a balanced budget. I’m very worried that if the budget is not balanced inflation could occur and the economy of the country could suffer mightily.”
Watch:

Had I not known Tomasky's piece in The Daily Beast was not in fact, parody, I'd have thought I was reading something straight from the annals of The Onion. Bereaved over Mary Landrieu's Louisiana Senate loss to Senator-elect Cassidy, Tomasky made the case (and I use that term loosely), that the Democrats should ditch Dixie (emphasis added to highlight adventitious hilarity):
I don’t remember a much sadder sight in domestic politics in my lifetime than that of Mary Landrieu schlumpfing around these last few weeks trying to save a Senate seat that was obviously lost. It was like witnessing the last two weeks of the life of a blind and toothless dog you knew the vet was just itching to destroy. I know that sounds mean about her, but I don’t intend it that way. She did what she could and had, as far as I know, an honorable career. I do, however, intend it to sound mean about the reactionary, prejudice-infested place she comes from. A toothless dog is a figure of sympathy. A vet who takes pleasure in gassing it is not. And that is what Louisiana, and almost the entire South, has become. The victims of the particular form of euthanasia it enforces with such glee are tolerance, compassion, civic decency, trans-racial community, the crucial secular values on which this country was founded… I could keep this list going. But I think you get the idea. Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.) With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.
Gee, what electoral use could Democrats possible have for Florida, or Texas, or Virginia?

We've been skeptical of Rolling Stone's recent and controversial story about a coed simply referred to as 'Jackie' who claimed to have been brutally gang raped at a University of Virginia frat party in 2012. Sabrina Ruben Erdely, the Rolling Stone reporter covering the UVA gang rape story, failed to contact the alleged attackers and corroborate Jackie's story. Any 'new information' Rolling Stone is referring to is simply the product of basic journalistic due diligence. In a reactionary response, and without first conducting an investigation of their own, UVA suspended all campus fraternities until January as a result of the Rolling Stone expose. Today, Rolling Stone posted the following note to readers (emphasis added):
To Our Readers: Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations. Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence. In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story. Will Dana Managing Editor

Yesterday, the Washington Post published a story about Donny Ray Williams, Jr. Williams is a convicted serial sexual abuser and former Democratic Senate aide. Ah what magic that little 'D' affiliation possesses. There was no story on Good Morning America, no major network news coverage of a serial rapist who will not be serving jail time, just a short form piece in the Washington Post. That's it. Mind you, the Washington Post and other media scalped Elizabeth Lauten, the Republican Congressional aide who was mildly critical of the Obama daughter's scant wardrobe choice on her personal Facebook page. Likely at the behest of the White House, WaPo assigned foreign policy reporters to cover Lauten. They began digging into her college papers, sealed juvenile record, and staking out her parent's home. Lauten quit and is currently in self-imposed exile. Credible sources indicate the White House was actively pitching the story of Lauten's unforgivable indiscretions to their favorite media outlets. Amazingly, the obscure Tennessee Congressman who employed Lauten was left completely out of the fray. Forgoing the "guilty by association" schtick, it was Lauten with the glowing red dot on her back. Make an example of Lauten and no one will dare throw shade at the Obama's again, seems to be the message in all of this. Nothing else explains the disproportionate use of force. Watching the inequity in media coverage got me all riled up (as we say in Texas). So I took to Twitter.

The madding crowd has claimed another meaningless scalp, and it couldn't be happier about it. The internet exploded on Thanksgiving after Congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten criticized the First Teens for their less-than enthusiastic attitude at the annual Presidential Turkey Pardoning. Yesterday, nearly a week after the offending Facebook post, Lauten resigned her job rather than allow the backlash to harm the reputations of her boss and fellow staffers. Anyone who has ever worked for an elected official knows that the slightest slip up can quickly turn from foible to gaffe to complete professional nightmare. In terms of self-preservation, staffers are defenseless, which makes them easy targets and a mess-free launchpad for a larger agenda. Let's be clear: the Right has engaged in plenty of staffer-shaming over the years, but it's been a long time since a member of a Congressional office has been so completely and utterly destroyed over comparatively mild Facebook commentary. The media's (both old and new) scalping of Elizabeth Lauten started on Twitter, blossomed in the quirky world of internet news, and then roared to life as mainstream news outlets roused themselves from their tryptophan stupor to engage in some serious journalism. Since that night, Lauten has been targeted online by both the mainstream media and private citizens, and doxed by professional "journalists" at home and abroad. In an act of ruthless messaging, the White House took charge of the situation and pitched the story to national news outlets. We're now at a point where no one knows what Elizabeth said, and furthermore no one cares what she said; her rude comment has been twisted and transformed into a rabid attack on the First Daughters, and there's no amount of commentary that can unring the bell.

Matti Friedman again explains how NGO's and the media prepare the ground for anti-Israel propaganda...

Back in the good old days, the left loved to lecture us about civility. That time is over. In the course of the last few days, at least two writers from liberal outlets have tried to justify and even advocate for the violent rioting in Ferguson. First, we have Darlena Cunha of Time:
Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong? Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.
Next up is Matt Bruenig of Gawker:

Double standards are an unfortunate reality of the current media construct. Democratic flubs and gaffes seldom make headlines in mainstream outlets unless the offense is so egregious it can no longer be ignored. Of course their Republican betters aren't afforded the same white washing. This past week was a particularly inarticulate week for the Democrats fecklessly attempting to navigate their way through the amnesty cluster. Imagine for a moment the wailing and gnashing of teeth if a Republican uttered any of the following. So we present to you, What if a Republican said __________?

1. Just call me Emperor. Also, kiss my ring.

Obama being called emperor is a complement

Shushannah Walshe of ABC News notes that Republican governors are being hostile to Obama's immigration power grab:
GOP Governors Mostly Hostile on Obama Immigration Executive Action Potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates at the Republican Governors Association annual conference gave very different responses to the president’s decision to announce major executive action on immigration reform Thursday. At the gathering at the posh Boca Raton Resort and Club, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dodged, Texas Gov. Rick Perry threatened, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal accused the president of throwing a “temper tantrum” and Ohio Gov. John Kasich sounded a more moderate tone. Christie, the RGA’s outgoing chairman, refused to weigh in saying, “We will have to wait and see what he says and what he does and what the legal implications are.”
Is that a story? You know who else used to be hostile to that power grab?

An editorial in The New York Times today about the ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran warns about the dire consequences of the two sides not reaching an agreement.
The consequences of failure to reach an accord would be serious, including the weakening of President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who count as moderates in Iran, and who, like President Obama, have taken a political risk to try to make an agreement happen.
That would be terrible. Rouhani and Zarif would be weakened!  Or would it? How much political power does Rouhini have anyway? And if they have any real political power, how moderate are they anyway? As far as the first question, well, they don't call Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader for nothing. In an investigative report last year, Reuters showed that Khamenei using the organizations under his control has amassed a huge fortune by property seizures. David Daoud recently wrote:
More importantly, the Rahbar [the Supreme Leader] effectively decides who will or will not be the public face of his rule—that is, who will or will not be the president of Iran. Khamenei selects the 12 members of the Shura-ye Neghahban (“Guardian Council”), which is tasked with vetting and approving presidential candidates based on their allegiance to the ideals of the Vilayat-e Faqih. The Western media often calls Iranian leaders like ex-president Mohammad Khatami and current president Hassan Rouhani “moderates” or “reformers,” but the Guardian Council’s policies render such a characterization absurd. No genuine moderate or reformist candidate can get through the Council’s dragnet. In effect, then, the vetting process and the Rahbar’s ultimate authority negate any possibility of material change in Iran’s foreign or domestic policies.
In other words not only is Rouhani not the ultimate power in Iran, he wouldn't have achieved even his limited authority unless he was a true believer in the system. Rouhani is only a "moderate" in that he's willing to talk to the West to achieve his goals, but his goals and views are identical to those of Khamenei.

Desperate to find a silver lining in the 2014 Midterm shellacking, the media has come up with a new mantra: "The GOP's victory is short lived." 2016 is the GOP's to lose, and I would never put it past the Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; but to act as though a Republican loss of the Senate in 2016 is a forgone conclusion is premature at best. Yes, the map will be different, and yes, the GOP has no policy agenda carved in stone, yet neither of these ensure defeat in 2016. The truth is very simple: no one knows what will happen in 2016. And yet... "We were destroyed in the Midterms, what do we say?! What should we write?!" "I know, let's tell everyone that there's no way Republicans can win again in 2016." "Brilliant!" And then they got to work:

WaPo

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 2.38.43 PM  

Following an epic GOP whoopin' on Tuesday, the liberal media is in full pout mode. That the country would almost unilaterally reject President Obama's policies and a statist agenda is incomprehensible to some. There must be some other reason! Those that were kind enough to concede the shellacking tried their best to undermine its meaning. And so we present the 10 most delicious liberal election headline disasters. Extra credit to Salon who is kicking butt and taking names in the "Bitter Loser" category.

1. It was nice knowing you, polar bears.

Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 5.53.49 PM

2. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 5.57.34 PM