Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Media Bias Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on May 03, 2015 16 Comments
You can tell 'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer has touched a nerve by the amount of push back he's getting from the media. U.S. News & World Report wonders if the book is just a hatchet job, while Newsweek has written an "Everything you need to know" piece on the book. Schweizer appeared on the FOX News program Media Buzz this morning, and Howard Kurtz grilled him about assertions made in the book. Towards the end of the interview, Kurtz makes an issue out of Schweizer's political affiliations as evidence of his inability to be objective. That never seems to be an issue on the other side, even though the Obama administration has been a virtual revolving door for members of the media. Watch the entire exchange below:

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 26, 2015 15 Comments
George Stephanopoulos worked in the Bill Clinton administration as a senior adviser. In what way is he qualified to question the author of a book which seeks to expose alleged corruption of the Clintons? Peter Schweizer holds his own in this interview despite the aggressive and skeptical questions hurled at him throughout the discussion. Stephanopoulos is not so much a journalist, he's a member of the palace guard. It's quite clear which side he's on in this situation.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 19, 2015 44 Comments
Breitbart News caused a stink when it reported on presidential candidate Marco Rubio's alleged comments on Obama's unilateral executive immigration programs. The headline inaccurately suggested that Rubio supported President Obama's executive immigration overreach. As we will discuss, this was only one of numerous mistranslations. Screen Shot 2015-04-19 at 5.55.35 PM The latest offense involves Senator Rubio's recent interview about immigration policy with Univision. Senator Rubio reiterated his well documented position on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programs. Rubio clearly says the programs will have to end. Interestingly enough, Sen. Cruz shares Sen. Rubio's opinions on DAPA and DACA.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 17, 2015 13 Comments
Yesterday Gawker Media's staffers announced their open flirtations with unionization. While union strongholds nationwide are diminishing in favor of greater employee choice and right to work, Gawker is hoping to be the first online publication subject to union demands. Hamilton Nolan explained why he finds unionization appealing because he wanted to get ahead of the gossip. Yes, really. But then what is Gawker if not gossipy?
Every workplace could use a union. A union is the only real mechanism that exists to represent the interests of employees in a company. A union is also the only real mechanism that enables employees to join together to bargain collectively, rather than as a bunch of separate, powerless entities. This is useful in good times (which our company enjoys now), and even more in bad times (which will inevitably come).
Speaking from personal experience, I've never been employed by an entity with unionized employees. But when you live in a great right to work state like Texas, that whole organized labor problem solves itself. Perhaps I've been exceptionally fortunate or maybe it's because I've always understood my roll as an employee is simply to complete the job I was hired to do, but not once in my professional life have I encountered a workplace situation where I thought, "Gee, a hoard of angry people picketing, striking, and demanding the boss capitulate is a GREAT idea! Let's do that!" Nor have I ever felt I needed the assistance of groupies to convey a point. I've never felt 'powerless' because my expectation of work was not to garner power, but to do a job, and then get paid because I did the job I was hired for. I'm also not a pansy. But I digress... back to Nolan's union rationale:

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 17, 2015 21 Comments
By now, you've probably noticed that most of our completely unbiased media is treating Hillary Clinton with the same hard hitting scrutiny they're applying to Republicans candidates. Don't take my word for it. Here's Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post: According to Cillizza, it's all in our minds:
Look, I get it. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Conservatives have been convinced for a very long time that the media is populated almost exclusively by Democrats who, because they are secretly rooting for that party's candidates, are willing to overlook things that they would never overlook if it was a Republican. And, there is no Democrat this side of Barack Obama that drives Republicans crazier than Hillary Clinton.
Doug Powers responds: You've probably seen the media's mad dash for Hillary's "Scooby" van:

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 16, 2015 18 Comments
MSNBC's Chris Matthews has never had much love for conservatives, but he's been on a roll lately. Here's what Matthews had to say about the current GOP field on his show yesterday. Ken Shepherd of News Busters:
Chris Matthews's 'Snake-Charmer' Dog Whistle?; Will Leftists Complain About Racist 'Microaggression'? MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews loves to slander Republicans as often speaking in code or blowing racial "dog-whistles." Of course, doing that should open him up to charges of the same when he speaks carelessly. Before I continue, I must add that I don't in any way think Matthews was making a veiled reference here to Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Indian ethnic heritage, but even so, given his network's political correctness, it seems pretty odd that Matthews feels comfortable comparing the GOP primary field to a Middle Eastern bazaar that's just missing its "snake charmer." Here's the relevant transcript:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 14, 2015 41 Comments
The Hillary Chipotle story is either one of the most amazing unintended earned-media campaign stories ever, or a contrived set up. Regardless, put points in Team Hillary column. Maggie Haberman at The NY Times broke the story about Hillary's supposedly secret trip to Chipotle on her Scooby trip to Iowa. The story goes like this:
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is all about “everyday Americans,” she made clear in announcing it on Sunday. On Monday, she showed how unassuming she herself could be. Driving to Iowa for her first campaign swing, Mrs. Clinton’s van — with two aides and Secret Service agents aboard — pulled into a Chipotle restaurant for lunch in Maumee, Ohio, a suburb of Toledo. And no one recognized her. Maybe it was the dark sunglasses. Or maybe she had a certain je ne sais — qui? But nobody took notice of the celebrity in front of the counter. Fellow patrons paid her no more attention than a driver would get from a toll taker. Nor did the restaurant’s staff notice Mrs. Clinton, until this reporter, tipped off that she had dined there, telephoned. The Chipotle manager, Charles Wright, insisted at first that the tip must have been false. But he offered to review his security-camera recordings, and quickly reversed himself. There was Mrs. Clinton, in a bright pink shirt, ordering a chicken burrito bowl — and carrying her own tray. “The thing is, she has these dark sunglasses on,” Mr. Wright said. “She just was another lady.”
Haberman explained in a different column:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 13, 2015 41 Comments
Yesterday we featured Carly Fiorina's instantaneous reaction to Hillary Clinton's announcement. Or should we say John Podesta's announcement followed up by Hillary. Fiorina exhibited what is becoming her trademark: Taking the fight right to Hillary Clinton's supposed strength, the gender card. Fiorina, as the only woman likely to become a Republican candidate for President, is uniquely able to make the argument that Hillary is abusing the gender card to cover up lack of actual accomplishment. It was only a matter of time before Fiorina's audaciousness would make her a target. So when I read Jazz Shaw's tweet that Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe went after Fiorina, it didn't surprise me one bit. What's most important is not that she was attacked, but that she responded well: Here is the video:

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 12, 2015 12 Comments
John Dickerson of CBS News has been named to replace Bob Schieffer as the new host of Face the Nation. Hadas Gold of Politico:
CBS News political director John Dickerson has been named the next host of “Face the Nation,” host Bob Schieffer announced Sunday. Dickerson’s first turn in the anchor chair will take place this summer, when Schieffer retires after nearly five decades in journalism, more than two of them as host of the Sunday news show. “I couldn’t be happier,” Schieffer said on Sunday’s broadcast. “‘Face the Nation’ is going to be in good hands.” Dickerson’s connection to the show and network is deep: His mother, Nancy Dickerson, was the first female correspondent in the CBS News Washington bureau and an associate producer on “Face the Nation.” “I’m honored and really excited. Mom would’ve been excited too. She was an associate producer on this show on the very first airing on this broadcast,” Dickerson said.
Republican viewers are right to be concerned whether they can expect a fair shake from Dickerson. Ed Driscoll of PJ Media:
New Host of Face the Nation Advised Obama in 2013 to ‘Destroy the GOP’ John Dickerson, replacing Bob Schieffer as the new host of Face the Nation, will continue the same level of objectivity that CBS has brought to viewers for half a century. In 1964, when CBS was one third of all television news, Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr repeatedly smeared Barry Goldwater as a crypto-Nazi. His successor, Dan Rather, blew himself up in spectacular fashion with RatherGate in 2004, as dissected by all those bloggers in their Pajamas, to coin a Website name. In 2007, Rather’s successor, Scott Pelley, violating 32 flavors of Godwin’s Law in the same fashion as Cronkite, “was asked why he refused to include global warming skeptics in his reporting. He responded, ‘If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?’”, as NewsBusters noted.

Posted by Jay Caruso on April 10, 2015 18 Comments
ALEC, or the American Legislative Exchange Council is an organization that is described as such:
"...is a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that drafts and shares model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States. According to its website, ALEC "works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public".
To many Democrats and others on the left, however, ALEC is some kind of modern version of the Illuminati, secretly working to take over the United States, using the people within their organization to brainwash public officials into doing their bidding.

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 09, 2015 17 Comments
The Republican "War on Women" isn't over and if liberals have their way, it never will be. Newly announced presidential candidate Rand Paul appeared on the Today Show yesterday morning and had the nerve to push back when Savannah Guthrie put words in his mouth. Nick Gass of Politico:
Rand Paul clashes with Savannah Guthrie over changing views Sen. Rand Paul clashed with “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie over her line of questioning during an interview Wednesday morning, criticizing her for editorializing over perceived changes in his political views since his election to the Senate. “You have had views on foreign policy in the past that were somewhat unorthodox, but you seem to have changed over the years,” Guthrie told the Kentucky Republican, who was appearing via satellite from Nashua, New Hampshire. “You once said Iran was not a threat, now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel, now you support it, at least for the time being, and you once offered to drastically cut … defense spending.” Paul attempted to speak as Guthrie continued.
MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who once referred to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham as a "right wing slut" is just beside himself over all this misogyny:

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 04, 2015 6 Comments
During a recent visit to New Hampshire, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker said that he bought a sweater at Kohl's department store for one dollar. Politifact felt it was necessary to make sure the story was true:
Gov. Scott Walker says he bought a sweater for $1 at Kohl's When Gov. Scott Walker took his presidential ambitions to New Hampshire, he shared a penny-pinching story that would have been right at home in bargain-hunting Wisconsin. At the center of the story: A new sweater, a dollar and Menomonee Falls-based Kohl’s. The department store chain is well known for its deep discounts -- ones so deep that the company has faced legal challenges over its pricing practices in Kansas, Massachusetts and California. At issue in the California case, for instance, was complaints that the retailer listed "normal" prices for products but never sold them for that price. Walker likes to point out that shortly after he was married, his wife, Tonette, was mortified because he didn’t know the drill at Kohl’s. In Concord, N.H., he told the crowd at a March 14, 2015 workshop about a "critical mistake" he made while shopping at a Kohl’s store... Now, we grant this is not the most important topic in politics today. But we decided to fact check it for two reasons. First, we heard from readers from around the country who thought it was an unbelievable story -- as in, literally impossible to believe. Second, it goes to what has been a major theme of Walker’s visits to some of the early primary states -- that he is just an average guy...

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 31, 2015 27 Comments
Is NBC up to its old—and I do mean old—tricks? Way back in the early 1990s the network’s “Dateline NBC” program ran a "news" story claiming that certain General Motors pickup trucks would explode in flames when involved in an accident. They demonstrated this propensity to their viewers by filming a controlled crash involving one of the GM trucks in question. Sure enough: kaboom! and fire! The only problem? The kabooming and fire were helped along by NBC’s surreptitious placement of incendiary devices hidden inside the vehicle. In February of 1993 the show’s hosts, Jane Pauly and Stone Phillips, would be forced to deliver a humiliating three and a half minute on-air apology to GM, as the network agreed to pay GM to settle a suit brought against NBC over the story. (LA Times: “NBC Admits It Rigged Crash, Settles GM Suit). Now claims are being made that NBC is using a similar dirty trick once again to falsely dramatize another explosive "news" story, this time on a different “news” show, the Today Show, and by a different “news" reporter, Jeff Rossen.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 25, 2015 10 Comments
As you can probably imagine, Ted Cruz's announcement about his plans to run for president in 2016 brought out a whole new level of crazy from liberals in media and most of it was very ugly. The fine folks at Newsbusters have done a tremendous job chronicling the MSM reaction in words and video. Here are a few choice examples. From Jeffrey Meyer:
Donny Deutsch Attacks ‘Scary…Dangerous…Slimy’ Ted Cruz Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, Donny Deutsch viciously attacked Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) following his announcement that he will be running for president, calling the Tea Party favorite “scary” and “dangerous.” After co-host Mika Brzezinski asked Erica Grieder of Texas Monthly about Cruz’s presidential prospects, Deutsch tore into the Republican senator and declared him “completely unelectable, obviously an interesting character and obviously he’ll have a place at the table but unelectable for a host of reasons.”
Here's the video: But wait, there's more....

Posted by David Gerstman on March 23, 2015 9 Comments
The nuclear negotiations between the West and Iran may have reached an impasse over the timing of Iran getting relief from sanctions. This is how The Guardian broke down the differences between the United States and the French on Friday:
Diplomats say the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, telephoned the French delegation in Lausanne to ensure it did not make further concessions, and to insist that the bulk of UN sanctions could only be lifted if Iran gave a full explanation of evidence suggesting it may have done development work on nuclear warhead design in the past.  ... The US offer on sanctions is to lift UN sanctions in layers in return each “irreversible” step Iran makes to scale down and limit its nuclear programme. There would be mechanisms in place by which sanctions would “spring back” if Iran violated the agreement, without the need for consensus in the UN security council. It is broadly supported by the UK and Germany, while Russia and China, the other members of the six-nation group, would offer more generous terms. Tehran is reluctant to accept sanctions relief based on milestones, but diplomats say the French position would be a complete deal-breaker. They say the Iranians would be very unlikely to admit past weapons work, which if revealed would demonstrate that the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, had misled the world. Better, US diplomats argue, to focus on limiting the current Iranian programme and worry about allegations about the past a few years down the road.
Focus on the current issues and leave the allegations for the future? Are they crazy? Let's take a couple of paragraphs from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696, which was passed in July 2006 and was the first of six resolutions passed against Iran for its violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Yes, we have to do this... again. Perpetual media malpractice requires searchable rebuttals to even the dumbest of mistruths, like the latest one about Ted Cruz. Speaking to the Strafford County Republican Committee in New Hampshire yesterday, Cruz was critical of the administration saying, "the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind... the whole world's on fire!" (managing to slide in a not so subtle Clinton dig). A little girl named Julia Trant was supposedly frightened by Cruz's statement and asked mid-speech, "The world is on fire?!" according to Adam Smith, political editor for the Tampa Bay Times, who attended the event. Senator Cruz took a moment from his speech to assure the little girl that Mommy was taking care of everything, "the world is on fire, yes! Your world is on fire. But you know what? Your mommy's here and everyone's here to make sure that the world you grow up in is even better." Ted Cruz has two young daughters of his own. The video was posted by Raw Story with the headline, "Ted Cruz scares the hell out of a terrified little girl in New Hampshire." CNN, New York Magazine, Bloomberg, Gawker, Salon and others had similar headlines. Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly mused that Cruz was using coded language and really meant Obama is the anti-christ or at the very least, one of his minions. Because referencing a "world on fire" is clearly an anti-christ dog whistle. Yes, seriously.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 15, 2015 7 Comments
As we recently noted, every problem for Democrats is ultimately spun as the fault of Republicans and Obama's policy on Iran is no exception. The panel on today's edition of Face the Nation began laying the groundwork for talking points which will soon become all too familiar. Ryan Lovelace of National Review:
CBS Panel Is Ready to Blame GOP Sen. Tom Cotton If Obama’s Foreign Policy Toward Iran Fails The panel on CBS’ Face the Nation appears ready to blame Arkansas senator Tom Cotton if the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran fall through. Cotton, along with 46 other Senators, penned a letter warning the Iranian regime not to rely on any agreement with President Obama that did not have the approval of Congress. “Yes, Cotton is well intentioned in doing this, but it’s backfiring,” said Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. “If the Ayatollah is going to give out the Ayatollah’s Medal of Honor this year, I think Cotton’s going to be a finalist because it gives them an excuse if they pull away from the agreement now.”
Watch the exchange below:

Posted by David Gerstman on March 12, 2015 3 Comments
In a lengthy report, investigative journalists Richard Behar and Gary Weiss exposed the various ways that the Associated Press (AP) discounted Israeli claims and promoted Hamas propaganda in its investigation last month into civilian casualties that occurred during last summer's Operation Protective Edge. Among the sins and omissions documented by Behar and Weiss are (1) misidentifying terrorists, (2) using children as props, (3) failing to acknowledge that pictures are posed, (4) cherry-picking quotes from Israeli officials, and (5) failing to disclose the anti-Israel bias of their sources. One incident recounted by Behar and Weiss involves the interactions between Reuven Ehrlich and an AP reporter; Ehrlich is the head of the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). Following Operation Protective Edge, ITIC carefully reviewed martyr claims made by Gaza-based terrorist organizations in order to identify which of the dead were terrorists and which were civilians. ITIC also kept a count of those whose status was unknown.
A few days before the AP article was published, one of its reporters, Karin Laub, telephoned Mr. Erlich of the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which has documented in several of its own probes that the Hamas-generated numbers for Gaza civilian casualties are grossly inflated. The organization found that Hamas is obfuscating the actual lists and affiliations, partly because of objective technical difficulties (poor paperwork and a lack of access to some bodies), and as part of its propaganda campaign against Israel. Thus, Meir Amit’s experts are closely examining the deaths, one by one, and its final tally won’t be available for many months—if not years. For now, the ratio of civilian-to-terrorist deaths has been averaging roughly 1:1 in its reports.
Accessibility by WAH