Image 01 Image 03

A new cloak for media bias: the fact-check segment

A new cloak for media bias: the fact-check segment

The media have fully deployed their defenses to protect President Obama after his dismal debate performance last night. So far two tactics have been employed, the first is the thinly veiled “fact check” attacks, while the other is calling Romney a bully for his take-charge performance.

It is unsurpising that the same people who oohed and aahed when Obama went on a worldwide apology tour would find it off-putting that Romney exuded strength and a mastery of facts during last night’s debate. The left has a much-adored term for it, one that Ahmadinejad has also picked up, which he used to describe the U.S.: “Bullying.”

The best example of this defense in action comes from a video published today by the DNC:

(Note how the DNC selectively edited Chris Matthews’s epic rant against Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights performance into an attack on Romney.)

In any case, this first line of attack closely mirrors the game-time reaction on twitter by most on the left, that the debate was unfair mainly because of the way Romney took charge from Lehrer:

Even David Gregory chipped in to do his part with the Obama defense:

All in all, not a stretch to find that those who support Obama would react negatively to a leader who exudes strength and principle. As one person tweeted, all that was missing last night was Obama bowing to Romney.

The second line of defense against the Obama fail is to undermine Romney’s comments now, since Obama was unable to muster any attacks during the actual debate.

Enter the “fact-check segment.”

The “fact-check” segment has replaced the unbiased network farce as a way to pull for candidates without seeming to. It’s an attempt to regain the lost respect by cloaking bias by calling it fact. Do a google search for “fact check debate” and you’ll see all the news outlets in line with the same message: Politico, Huffington Post, ABC, Salon…. Quite amazing message pull-through, really.

The Weekly Standard has an excellent piece on “fact-checking the fact checkers.”

So last evening and today we have the theme presented to us that Mitt Romney’s performance needs to be fact-checked (again, where was Obama to do it during the debate?) The “Obama Truth Team,” or Ministry of Propaganda, put together a montage of fact-check segments from their favorite media outlets like CNN, ABC News, and MSNBC. Except that the substance of their fact-checking falls flat; they mainly appear to claim that Romney either was vague, or needs to provide more information. See for yourself.

A key component to the “fact-check” defense is that the media maintain to their public the mask of respectability. So-called “fact-checking” is the latest veil of truth the media would place over themselves, and it is just as biased and subject to spin as anything else they do.

Andrew Breitbart cautioned the war is not with the Left, as everyday Americans don’t support their radical agenda. The war is with the lapdog media, which Sarah Palin warned last night won’t let Obama’s failure be the last word.

And while they may not have retweeted him, media folks like David Gregory proved they have “Obama’s back.”

It’s time we treat the media as we do our elected officials. Next time you write a letter or give a call to your congressman, try calling your local ABC, NBC, or CBS news station. It’s time we treat them like the politicians they are.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Henry Hawkins | October 4, 2012 at 2:47 pm

It looked less like a debate than a courtroom wherein Romney was the prosecutor and Obama was the defendant who knew damn well he’s guilty.

“Fact checking” has the stench of a quantum leap in media sanctimony.

It has proven in the last few months to be…in general…no more truthful or “factual” than any of their other crap.

Breitbart called the tune on this; smash-face, full-tilt, push-back with the REAL facts.

Long and hard.

    TeaPartyPatriot4ever in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Exactly.. This is a tactical ploy that has been used by despots and crony regimes for centuries.. Set up crony artificial yes men backers, giving the public the perception of legitimacy and credibility, so they can continue their insidious policies and actions that further their agenda and end goal.

Joan Of Argghh | October 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Obama bullied his way to four extra minutes over Mitt and not one of those minutes helped him a bit.

It was like Romney was arguing with an empty chair

Chutzpah! What nerve to complain about the moderator not stopping Romney from fighting for equal time (and failing in the end by four minutes). Obama arrogantly ignores every time call, and gets helped with his answer by Lehrer hints at least three times, but it wasn’t enough.

These leftist sycophants no longer even bother to hide it. But sooner or later the corporations which own their networks and newspapers will begin to wonder why they keep sinking millions into money-losing operations that have declining ratings, circulations, revenues, and respect.

From the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist dictionary:

“FACT CHECK” = a load of slime, lies, misrepresentations and BS thrown at any non-socialist who dares tell the truth, the facts or describes the mess created by the lunatic-left. It’s often used by the lamestream stooges of the d-cRAT socialists in what is jokingly called “reporting” or “analysis”. NB: when done for ANY STATEMENT by ANY lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist the “fact check” ALWAYS concludes that the d-cRAT socialist is 100% absolutely, positively, unquestionably correct – so nothing to see there, just move along, folks.

Romney is a bully Romney is a bully. Jesus what are these people 10 years old? Obama: Victim of bully tactics.
Oh wait..the other good one..he wasnt accustomed to the altitude in Denver.
Denial amazingly moved from Egypt to Denver.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to jimzinsocal. | October 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Long has it been said that Barack Obama is just a big old simpering wussy, fronted by goons with rented ‘nads.

    That a seasoned Chicago politician gets bullied by a Mormon teetotaler named Willard and cries about it, proves without a doubt Barry O is definitely a wussy… or something that rhymes with it.

    Go get ’em Mitt!!

    DemNoMore in reply to jimzinsocal. | October 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    It likely won’t be long before the “Romney is a bully” chant escalates to “Romney is trying to incite violence against Obama” like they did against McCain and Palin last time.

SmokeVanThorn | October 4, 2012 at 3:19 pm

He was bullied by Romney but is the better choice to deal with Putin, Ahmadenijad, Morsi, et al?

In the media’s defense (something I rarely do), most of the members were simply never taught that there’s a difference between a fact check and a counter-argument, between “I disagree with your conclusion” and “You have used a false premise.”

Remember, these are not smart people. Believe it or not, many of them really do believe their fact checking is unbiased, fair and a service to the public.

Of course, even if they did understand how full of it they are, they would still act the same way.

(Yes, that’s me defending them)

    DemNoMore in reply to irv. | October 4, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Not smart people indeed. I believe them to be absolutely incontrovertible evidence that hair spray causes brain damage.

These people are beyond fiction. They’ve become a lurid, living national nightmare. This is beyond anything Orwell, Twain, Tom Wolfe and Chayefsky combined could come up with. Bullying? Are you kidding? Bullying is their metier. Hatred and demonization are their lifeblood. Now they’re smearing the essential characteristics of leadership — clarity, coherence, persuasive fact-based argumentation — as “bullying”, after the past 20 years of their wanton and vicious character asssinations of Bush, Palin, Cheney, Petraeus, Breitbart and every conservative agency or remotely traditional entity operating in the world including chicken sandwich franchises?

Sickness beyond belief. A true social menace. How does one possibly reconcile these people with civilized society?

Observations about the Presidential debates:

Obama was demonstrating “Leading from behind”.

Obama’s facial expressions to Romney were saying, “Who are you to question me, The One, who has haloes on my head put there by the MSM?”.

As soon as the elite media starts fact checking Fast & Furious and Libya, then that’s the time I will take them fact checking the debate seriously.

I love the title of the video! In a derogatory way, they refer to Romney as “What a GUY!” Libs really don’t like the assertive, professional, prepared, masculine side of GUYS, do they?

Well done, President Romney! The left recoils from strength, competence, and assertiveness. They much prefer their pussified, propped-up, incompetent apologist AND his TelePrompter–the source of his pseudo-brilliance.

I can’t wait to see Vice President Ryan similarly dismantle Biden.

” Do a google search for “fact check debate” and you’ll see all the news outlets in line with the same message: Politico, Huffington Post, ABC, Salon…. Quite amazing message pull-through, really. ”

JournoList crowd at work?

TrooperJohnSmith | October 4, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Yeah. What a guy: P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L.

Mitt Romney, the Anti-Community Organizer.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, the DNC would’ve played the same silly-assed music over clips of Romney stumbling and bumbling. Instead of “bully” the Left-O-Sphere would’ve played the “amateur” card, instead. I’ll wager both ads were ready to go, sans the b-roll footage.

[…] the Goreacle says Obama lost due to the altitude, the DNC says that Romney won because he was just pure bobcat piss mean and MSNBC, shock of all shocks, says that Romney won because to respond to Obama in complete and […]

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm

A leader will always dominate the discussion! It is clearly obvious who that was ! All the media spin won’t save Obama from himself. I felt Romney needed to win big last night. They should have used the 10 run rule and called it in the 5th inning! But on second thought….. I don’t want a 10 run, not even a 100 run rule. I want to see Obama and the dems so whipped that they never come back.
No mercy ! Bring it Romney!!!!

It gets worse for Obama. I just read at Right Scoop that AARP has informed Obama to stop using them as some stamp of approval. For what thats worth.
And Axelrod calls on media to refute everything Romney said.
Whats next a news takeover by the administration?

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to jimzinsocal. | October 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    No takeover is necessary. This Administration specifically, and the Left in general, took over the Fourth Estate long ago and retooled it to be a willing Fifth Column of the DNC. American are wise to this, and that is why legacy news organizations are in their death throes everywhere we look.

They say call ABC, NBC etc, well I have tried to do this over and over again without any success. This is a story about lawyer abuse, Federal Judge abuse and the whole legal system up for grabs. We are in trouble if this test case goes on.
Here is the story.:
This test case involves a quietly successful entrepreneur named Jeff Baron.
For years, this entrepreneur owned an Internet startup corporation that he established. Ultimately, the entrepreneur found the corporation on the receiving end of litigation by a former business partner. Nine of 10 lawsuits filed by the former partner were dismissed. The tenth lawsuit, overseen by U.S. District Judge Royal Ferguson, resulted in Jeff’s corporation filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This is when the courts embarked on a series of unconstitutional decisions.

At the first appearance in court, the judge made the following unprovoked statements in court:

“any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death…I’m telling you don’t screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me.

During the course of this civil case, the District Court placed not only the Company, but the entrepreneur himself under the power of the judge’s friends whom he made “trustees/wardens” and placed the entrepreneur into a bizarre “civil lockdown”. This means that ALL of the entrepreneur’s personal and professional assets – bank accounts, property, clients, even the clothes on his back – have been seized. And the Court ruled that the entrepreneur CANNOT under any circumstances hire legal counsel. And he may not earn an income. His “person” is also under the complete control of the “trustees/wardens” in which the Court deemed a personal “receivership”. This is the first time, to my knowledge, an individual has been “legally” placed under involuntary receivership since the abolition of slavery in 1865.

All of these rulings were made without due process. Without a trial. Without representation. And without a crime! The entrepreneur has never been accused of committing any crime. Yet, his constitutional rights have been stripped. The rulings in this test case violate the 4th, 5th and 7th and 13th Amendments to our U.S. Constitution. To my knowledge, this is the only case of such a situation in US history.

This is not only a case of federal power gone awry, but is setting precedent. Now that the Judge has ruled that “civil lockdowns” are legal, unless it is overturned, it may be used as a precedent for future cases, giving judges the ultimate power to strip citizens of their Constitutional rights and of their property without due process. And it can happen to any one of us. For any reason. Or no reason at all.

I implore you to investigate this case and expose the unlawful acts that threaten our freedoms and rights as U.S. Citizens.

The only news coverage of this case thus far has been by the Washington Examiner’s columnist Barbara Hollingsworth which can be read here: This will give you a sense of the story. In addition, the website contains certified court documents along with some editorialized content.

If you are interested in pursuing this, I can provide court papers and other legal documents related to the issues, including the rulings that violate the Amendments mentioned above. I will call you to follow up, or you may reach me any time at: (972-424-8400)

P.S. Without being accused of any crime, several lawyers and judges got together in ex parte to create a new precedent with total disregard of Civil rights. This is a precedent setting test (Canary in a coal mine) case designed to become legacy for the Federal Judge. He, instead of following the law, he is following his own agenda.

No one with any brains is buying the bull these libs are spewing today.

I’ve been confronting the local media for several years. One station has listened and gotten more balanced. Another is not as biased as it was by avoiding some stories it used to cover. The third ignores me. Alot of the problem in the past has been they were unaware they were biased until I pointed out specifically how they were.

TrooperJohnSmith | October 4, 2012 at 4:53 pm

The Media equivalent of a Poll Tax or a Literacy Test?

Here’s a fun take on last night’s debate: The Taiwanese Cartoonist’s rendition –

I love Sarah Palin’s new glasses. She is drop-dead gorgeous.

I also want to point out Daily Kos’ “11th Dimension Chess 101” answer about Obama’s performance. The Kos Kids think he did it on purpose.

Today Obama again is implying that somehow Mitt wrote the tax laws that he uses to reduce his taxes. When the 2011 Romney tax return was released, the libs screamed that he deliberately didn’t take all the charitable deductions to which he was entitled in order that his tax rate would be higher. I guess they can have it both ways. If I were Mitt, I would file an amended return to take all permitted deductions,

    janitor in reply to gad-fly. | October 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Obama also seemed at a point in the debate with the “we” word, to be attempting to take credit for the Clinton administration successes — which were largely due to Newt Gingrich.

I gotta hand it do David Gregory, because the first thing I think of when I hear the word “debate” is ‘avoid fiesty exchanges.’

Or, maybe not. Maybe I only think that way when my brain is starved for oxygen…

These “fact checkers” are another Gramscian ploy. No more, no less.

Romney was not being aggressive, but appropriately assertive. Lehrer commenced, right at the start of the debate, to attempt to cut Romney off, interrupt him, and micromanage his responses, whereas he coached Obama with suggestions and then let him blather on every which way, without interruption.

    ALman in reply to janitor. | October 4, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    I can remember when being “aggressive” wasn’t a bad thing. Then, it came to take on negative connotations. So, we began to use the term “assertive”. This worked for awhile. Now, it seems as though we live in an era that is characterized by being unable to make distinctions. Of course, when some people live by the definition-of-the-month club, what can we expect?

TrooperJohnSmith | October 4, 2012 at 7:15 pm

If you watched Obama’s appearance in Denver today, it had all the trappings of somebody who got his ass kicked. Yes, he was all talking tough, acting defiant and calling out “that other fella on the stage last night”. Spoken like a little boy that spent all night licking his wounds and thinking of what he SHOULD have said.

I just hope Mooch didn’t spend a lot of money at Victoria’s Secret on an anniversary surprise yesterday…

There’s no way Obama could have fact-checked Romney during the debate. In order to do that he would need to have a grasp on reality. He doesn’t. He’s spent four years partying, playing golf and impersonating a president. He doesn’t have a clue and it showed.

Exclusive photo: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney after the first presidential debate, October 3, 2012…

In a situation where trying to keep tax rates where they are is called a tax cut, what indeed is “fact checking”?

It’s clear that that the fact checkers are now supporting their own biases under the cloak of authority. How could we expect anything else when the same editors write *and* fact check?

Last week I set up WeCheck ( ), the people’s fact check that anyone can edit, to cut out the middleman and to put fact checking back in the hands of the people. WeCheck is like a Wikipedia for fact checking: anyone can edit, add sources or links to support or rebut claims made by politicians and their media friends. Please join me so we can create an unbiased source of facts about the campaigns.

[…] excuses poured out. Oh it was the altitude, oh Jim Lehrer didn’t do his job (apparently this job is to carry the Democrat Candidate see David Gregory and the 2nd part of the […]

Had a chat with an acquaintance about this post, in which he voiced his concern with:
“Oh goodness gracious me, the President of the world’s super power being bullied by a lowly Governer. What a picture those on the Left are painting of the Superpower.”

And then to crown it all, the day after, we see on TV the “bullied one” denouncing the “bully” (was it hands on hips?) who had already left the scene.