Media Bias | Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Part 58
Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

I noted the other night that Donald Trump may have opened the "Overton Window" for Ted Cruz, by making Cruz acceptable to both Republican establishment types and general election voters who otherwise would have considered him Cruz conservative. I noted the fear of a liberal who wrote:
Donald Trump looks like the warm-up act. Whoever follows him from the Republican party looks reasonable (and sane) by comparison.
How will the mainstream media react if Cruz's current poll surge holds and he looks like a viable challenger to Trump? We know the answer, because there's a history here, one I documented back in August 2013. And ironically, it's a theme Trump appears to be taking up in a recent attack on Cruz. I called it the crazying of Ted Cruz, focusing on a Daily Beast article trying to portray Cruz as "creepy":
A lifetime of achievement that would normally be heralded by liberals if achieved by a liberal Hispanic, devolves into creepiness on the slimmest of pretexts. This is all part of the crazying of Ted Cruz by liberal publications like the Daily Beast. It doesn’t matter what the substance is, they just want to associate the word “creepy” with Ted Cruz in the minds of the public, many of whom don’t read past the headline.

Here's something you may have missed over the weekend. While most Americans are concerned about terrorism and the growth of ISIS, President Obama and other world leaders met in Paris to discuss climate change. When an agreement was reached, journalists reacted like excited teenage girls. T. Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner has the story:
Reporters shout, jump for joy after climate change agreement Journalists appeared to erupt in cheers Saturday afternoon after representatives from nearly 200 countries agreed to adopt the Paris Agreement, a major accord vowing to fight global warming.

In the early days of blogging there was a blog called Oh, that liberal media, which regularly exposed instances of liberal media bias. In fact in the early days of blogging that was one of the top achievements of the blogosphere, to point out the easy political bias most supposedly objective news sources engaged in. I used to think that the blogosphere would serve as a necessary corrective to the media, but that hasn't happened. In recent years, I don't think that the criticism has had the same effect, even if in some ways the media cocoon has worsened. I think that conservative media critics have convinced all those who can be convinced of the bias and now either people accept the bias because they agree with it or look to alternative news sources because they don't trust the MSM. And the MSM started paying less attention to the criticism. Most of those who were persuadable have been persuaded. (As far as those who deny that such bias exist ... it's hard to deny when prominent journalists have boasted of the bias.) But I still believe that it's possible for the media to jump the shark. At some point the media will show that they are so hopelessly out of touch with most voters, that even non-ideological types would cease to believe them.

You may have noticed that the narrative around violent crimes changes depending on who committed the act. When someone with a Muslim sounding name is the suspect, we're repeatedly told by the media and public officials not to rush to judgement. If however, there's even the slightest chance that the perpetrator is in any way conservative, people start talking about violent Republican rhetoric and everyone right of center is suddenly urged to reexamine their views. It's a scenario we've documented on this blog multiple times: Ted Cruz is sick of this narrative and talked about the issue with Hugh Hewitt.

Monday, Robert Dear, the 57-year-old suspect in the Colorado Springs clinic shooting attended an advisement hearing alongside his public defender. Dear will be represented by the same public defender who defended the Aurora theater shooter some months back. The hearing contained no discussion of motives.
Colorado local news reported:

In a look at the history of the tensions between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, The New York Times several days ago started with an interesting anecdote.
For President Obama, it was a day of celebration. He had just signed the most important domestic measure of his presidency, his health care program. So when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel arrived at the White House for a hastily arranged visit, it was likely not the main thing on his mind. To White House officials, it was a show of respect to make time for Mr. Netanyahu on that day back in March 2010. But Mr. Netanyahu did not see it that way. He felt squeezed in, not accorded the rituals of such a visit. No photographers were invited to record the moment. "That wasn't a good way to treat me," he complained to an American afterward. The tortured relationship between Barack and Bibi, as they call each other, has been a story of crossed signals, misunderstandings, slights perceived and real. Burdened by mistrust, divided by ideology, the leaders of the United States and Israel talked past each other for years until the rupture over Mr. Obama's push for a nuclear agreement with Iran led to the spectacle of Mr. Netanyahu denouncing the president's efforts before a joint meeting of Congress.
It's interesting because this is not at all how I remembered it. I remember that the lack of attention to the meeting was perceived as an intentional slight of Netanyahu. A quick check of the contemporaneous reporting confirmed this.

Tuesday night, Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal hosted a Republican Presidential debate. Making a concerted effort to keep questions substantive and issue focused, moderator Neil Cavuto went so far as to say the debate was, "not about the moderators." Imagine that. A candidate debate in which candidates actually debate issues. What a novel idea! Fox Business nailed it. Questions were issue oriented and highlighted candidate policy differences. CNBC's handling of the last Republican presidential debate was so terrible, the debate highlight reel consisted of candidates channeling their inner Gingrich to swat back at absurd questions. The network's handling of the debate caused the Republican National Committee to suspend their relationship and any future debate arrangements. But because Tuesday's Fox Business debate ran as planned, political writers found the lack of entertaining, non-policy moments dull. Like Politico's Glenn Thrush:

Back in October, the ladies of "The View" decided to take out their political frustrations on Carly Fiorina's...appearance. The height of discourse, this show is not. At any rate, their comments ignited a firestorm of intense politicking that culminated with a second appearance for Fiorina---and a panel in high dudgeon. Whoopi Goldberg kicked things off by bringing up View-gate, and Fiorina took the ball and ran with it. Via Fox News:
“You know what, look I’ve been called all kinds of things, Whoopi… I’ve been called a bimbo from the time I was a secretary to the time I was a CEO. I think we need to be able to have civil conversations in this country about our differences… so I'd just like to have a conversation about where we agree and where we disagree,” Fiorina said.

I first heard about this story in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh. It sounded bad. Politico was reporting that a supposedly central part of Dr. Ben Carson's personal narrative was fabricated, EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point Scholarship [link to Wayback Machine preserved version since edits made by Politico later on]. The issue was whether Carson had lied about applying for and being granted admission to West Point on a scholarship (emphasis added):
Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
I don't know how central it was to his narrative - I had never heard about it, but then again, I don't follow Carson that closely. Here was the passage in question from Carson's autobiography:

In this particular tale of media hit job turned embarrassment, we have what might be one of the best public displays of gun ignorance presented as fact I've ever seen. The only things missing are a barrel shroud and a couple rounds of rubber bullets. Gizmodo reporter Wes Siler thought he'd pegged Republican Presidential Candidate Senator Ted Cruz as a gun safety hypocrite. Last weekend, the Junior Senator from the Lone Star State went pheasant hunting. Note the unloaded, break-action shotgun resting on Cruz's shoulder.

Back in October, I covered a Gallup poll that showed the majority of Americans don't support a handgun ban. At the time, only 27% of Americans said they would support such a ban. Two studies covered by Legal Insurrection later that month revealed that the Obama Administration's renewed push for stricter controls and limited carry actually runs contrary to the social science of controlling violence and keeping people safe. The thing is, you'd never know it with the way the mainstream media covers issues like gun control, urban violence, and the Second Amendment. The scope and tragedy of deaths due to gun violence aren't just fodder for "very special episodes" of shows like Dateline---they're chum in the water for an opportunistic media determined to forward the interests of anti-gun, pro-regulation activists. Case in point: in the wake of the Umpqua Community College shooting in Rosebud, Oregon, the New York Times unleashed an apparent expose on Sheriff John Hanlin, drawing out his past, pro-gun thought crimes and using them to turn the conversation away from mental illness and toward the Brady Campaign's push for Hanlin's firing---and a strict, anti-gun agenda. We saw it coming from a mile away, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating. We as conservatives have learned not to trust the media when it comes to reporting on guns---which is what makes this next video so refreshing. Atlanta-area journalist Ben Swann has committed a cardinal sin: he looked directly into the camera and defended the Second Amendment. Watch:

The CNBC debate has sparked a number of conversations on the very real issue of liberal bias in the media. As Professor Jacobson pointed out last night, this is an opportunity for Republicans. When the issue is being discussed seriously on MSNBC, you know we've reached a turning point. Yesterday on Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough challenged his panelists to answer a simple question. Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters has the story:
Scarborough: No Republican Has Hosted Network Sunday Show or Newscast in 50 Years In the wake of the CNBC debate debacle, Joe Scarborough went on an epic rant on liberal media bias on today's Morning Joe. He summed things up this way, in challenging the panel: "you can't do it and nobody here can do it: name the single Republican that has hosted a Sunday show, that has been an anchor of a news network for the big three networks over the past 50 years: you can not do it."

On Saturday night, I wrote that the GOP needs to make an example of NBC News after the CNBC moderating debacle. The point was not that NBC News is the worst offender, it's that it was the wrong place at the wrong time for NBC News, and the right place at the right time for the GOP to pick a fight with the media. The RNC decision to pull NBC News (and its affiliate, Telemundo) from the debate to be co-moderated with National Review was a first step. But it is not enough. The GOP needs to reset the narrative of the networks being in control. For too long GOP presidential candidates have been subjected to Democrat-agenda journalists during Republican primary debates. George Stephanopoulos' grilling of Mitt Romney in the 2012 Republican debate was a classic of the genre:

October's CNBC-hosted Republican debate threw into full relief the bias inherent in the mainstream media's handling of electoral politics. In the wake of the broadcast, both the MSM and RNC leadership fielded comments and accusations from candidates (and conservative bloggers...) rendered beyond frustrated at the CNBC moderators' questions, tone, and approach to a slate of candidates they treated like a lineup of hostile witnesses. Donald Trump has spent a great deal of time since that debate lashing out at the media over its treatment of conservatives, and his latest move is one that his supporters hope will set him further apart from the pack. Republican campaign reps gathered together this weekend in a meeting organized by GOP attorney Ben Ginsberg to craft a list of demands the entire slate of GOP candidates could present to network executives before the next debate. Representatives from Trump's campaign attended this meeting---then promptly announced their intention to independently negotiate with the networks apart from Ginsberg's efforts.

The GOP has a long history of subjecting its candidates to abuse by debate moderators. From George Stephanopolous to Candy Crowley, debates are a time for network journalists to earn their battle badges by damaging Republicans. And the GOP just sucks it up and takes it. So why would the CNBC moderators have thought the most recent Republican Primary debate should be any different? CNBC did what it thought it was supposed to do -- mock and snicker at Republican candidates. Belittle them. Dismiss their intelligence and portray them as kooks.

Jonah Goldberg points out something that the MSM has been purposely ignoring:
Carson has the highest favorables of any candidate in the GOP field. But...most analysis of Carson’s popularity from pundits focuses on his likable personality and his sincere Christian faith. But it’s intriguingly rare to hear people talk about the fact that he’s black. One could argue that he’s even more authentically African-American than Barack Obama, given that Obama’s mother was white and he was raised in part by his white grandparents... He was a towering figure in the black community in Baltimore and nationally — at least, until he became a Republican politician. And that probably explains why his race seems to be such a non-issue for the media... How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.
Not strange at all.

It turns out that instead of a snoozefest, the third debate was fascinating. And it was all thanks to the incredibly clear anti-GOP bias of CNBC. What am I talking about? Group dynamics, that's what. I've studied groups and I've run groups. Groups don't happen just because you get a bunch of people together in a room, even if they're sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." There comes a time in the life of a collection of people when they become a group, even if only temporarily---even a group of people that's pitted against each other in competition, like the candidates last night. If you give them a common enemy against which to unite, they sometimes become a group, and that's what happened Wednesday evening. It took a little time. Even though the candidates knew they were in enemy territory with these moderators, I think even they were surprised at the extent of the bias and the sharpness of the "gotcha" questions. So it took a while to know how to react. Trump had already called one question "not nicely asked," but Cruz was most definitely the leader, the first to go on a lengthy offensive against the moderators. And what an attack it was! Take a look:

We have seen various levels of incitement in recent weeks, frequently involving false claims of Israeli murder of Palestinians. Palestinian knife-attackers who are shot dead frequently are portrayed as the victim. The most infamous example of such incitement was when Mahmoud Abbas claimed in a televised speech that a 13-year old Arab boy who stabbed a 13-year old Jewish boy was executed by Israel. In fact, the 13-year old Arab boy was alive and being treated (he was not shot, a car hit him during the attack) in an Israeli hospital; he since has been discharged. When Israel showed video of him in the hospital to dispel Abbas' lie and to try to calm the situation, Israel was accused of violating the boy's privacy (seriously). Another incitement took place yesterday, over the death of Hashem Azzeh, a 54-year old Palestinian live in the section of Hebron (H2) which by a 1997 agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is under complete Israeli security control. Hashem is described as a "peace activist" struggling to survive with his family in the Israeli-controlled section of Hebron. That section, as I reported from my trip to Hebron and the Cave of the Patriarchs last June, is part of what was a several-hundred year old Jewish community which was driven out during 1929 Arab riots, in which 67 Jews in Hebron were massacred. That small section of town has been reclaimed by a few hundred Israeli Jews, causing daily strife and requiring a heavy Israeli military presence. There are tall metal sniper shields to protect people and armed soldiers almost at every corner. There have been attacks on Arabs as well as on Jews, and Hebron is one of the most difficult situations of conflict.