Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

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.

Last Friday MSNBC used an anti-Israel series of maps [Featured Image] frequently spread by "pro-Palestinian" boycott activists. The map sequence purports to show "Palestinian Loss of Land" since 1946. As we documented in our post, MSNBC uses anti-Israel propaganda map, the maps are a lie both individually and in sequence. The land in the first map was part of the British Mandate of Palestine, not a country of Palestine, and most of the land on the map was public land, not land owned privately by Palestinian Arabs. The second map, the UN partition plan, was the division of land the Arabs rejected and went to war over. The third map, post Israel Independence, purports to show the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian, but in fact that land was controlled by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. The last map, showing Palestinian control under the Oslo Accords, represents a gain of land, not loss. This annotation of the maps has some of the details. Map That Lies - Annotated With all that in mind, here's the original MSNBC broadcast:

There is a standard fixture at anti-Israel BDS rallies and events -- a map purporting to show loss of Palestinian land to Israel. But it's a completely misleading and false map. Yet MSNBC used it on air today -- a demonstration of how Big Lies become truth when repeated often enough: The map has been debunked so many times in the past, a simple Google search would have demonstrated the problem. Elder of Ziyon blog has written a definitive taken down of the map in 2012, The Map That Lies. The Tower magazine has an exhaustive research post on why the map is a lie, The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian “Loss”.  Even The Economist had an explanation why the map was deceptive in 2010, when blogger Andrew Sullivan used the map. Most important is that Map 1, which purports to show "Palestinian land" as comprising most of the British Mandate (after Britain already has lopped off most of the Mandate land to create Jordan) does not show "Palestinian" land at all. As Elder of Ziyon explained, that land was mostly public land, and there was no country of Palestine:

In the recent spate of knifings, firebombings and rock attacks, the international press has done a masterful job of portraying the Palestinian attackers as the victims through misleading headlines. This is consistent with the international media bias seen during the 2014 Gaza conflict. The international press plays a critical role in instigating attacks for the cameras. This video posted in 2012 shows how the theater takes place: Nonetheless, the international press is free to roam in areas controlled by Israel. So this should come as a shock to the international press -- a Palestinian wearing the type of clothing (including a large "PRESS" sign) worn by reporters stabbed an Israeli soldier:

Sometimes anti-Israel media bias is blatant, like the NY Times disgusting attempt to deny that Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount. A serious backlash forced the Times to issue a correction -- but why did it even attempt to feed into the incitement that denies the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount? Other times it is more subtle, like the the headline from The Independent in Britain about the shooting of a 16 year old Palestinian boy in Jerusalem. The headline, which is what most people read and sets the theme of an article, portrays the boy as the victim, and only obliquely references some connection to stabbings in Jerusalem. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-unrest-seventh-palestinian-killed-by-security-forces-after-jerusalem-stabbing-as-wave-of-a6688781.html In fact, the 16 year old had just stabbed two elderly religious Jews on their way home from Shabbat prayers at the Western Wall. They survived, but one is in serious condition. Here's that 16 year old as he went on his stabbing spree, and then attacked a policeman. At that point he was shot dead. (Images via @IdoDaniel Twitter)

CNN's Ashleigh Banfield spoke to Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman about the upcoming Democratic primary debate yesterday. They considered the unthinkable possibility that Bernie Sanders will bring up Hillary's email scandal, which Banfield quickly suggested isn't really a scandal. Matthew Balan of NewsBusters reports (emphasis is his):
CNN's Banfield: Hillary E-Mail Scandal 'Not Even A Scandal' On Friday's Legal View, CNN's Ashleigh Banfield did her best to downplay Hillary Clinton's ongoing e-mail scandal. Banfield asked Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman if Bernie Sanders would bring up the issue at the upcoming Democratic presidential debate.

Over at College Insurrection, we posted a story about Harvard's recent debate loss to a team of inmates from New York. Fox News reported Tuesday that the inmates who beat Harvard's team are gaining quite the reputation having also beat teams from West Point and the University of Vermont. Unlike most debate squads, the inmates had no Internet access to assist in their debate prep.
A group of New York inmates has toppled Harvard's prestigious debate team. It took place at the Eastern New York Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison in Napanoch. The Ivy League undergrads were invited last month to debate the inmates who take in-prison courses taught by Bard College faculty. Harvard's team won the national title this year and the world championship in 2014. But the inmates are building a reputation, too. The club has notched victories against teams from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the University of Vermont. Against Harvard, the inmates were tasked with defending the position that public schools should be allowed to turn away students whose parents came to the U.S. illegally. Harvard's team responded, but a panel of neutral judges declared the inmates victorious.
Tuesday, hosts of ABC's Good Morning America covered the story, only to mock the inmate debate squad:

Carly Fiorina is now polling ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa so naturally, the liberal media has sharpened its claws for new attacks on her. The Washington Post recently filed this report:
Carly Fiorina’s first political campaign had a surprising problem: Money Famed California pollster Joe Shumate was found dead in his home one month before Election Day 2010, surrounded by sheets of polling data he labored over for the flailing Senate bid of Carly Fiorina. Upon his death, Fiorina praised Shumate as “the heart and soul” of her team. She issued a news release praising him as a person who believed in “investing in those he worked with” and offering her “sincerest condolences” to his widow. But records show there was something that Fiorina did not offer his widow: Shumate’s last paycheck, for at least $30,000. It was one of more than 30 invoices, totaling about $500,000, that the multimil­lionaire didn’t settle — even as Fiorina reimbursed herself nearly $1.3 million she lent the campaign.

Tragic deaths seem to dredge up the worst kind of discourse from liberal punditry. The national conversation, particularly in regards to calls for increased gun control tends to go something like this: "Someone broke a law." "WE MUST MAKE MORE LAWS. WE MUST DO SOMETHING." "Yes, but these individuals didn't follow the law to begin with." "WE MUST MAKE MORE LAWS. WE MUST DO SOMETHING." "Because criminals will follow a new law when they're already ignoring all the others?" "WE MUST MAKE MORE LAWS. MOAR LAWS. ALL THE LAWS. SOMETHING. GUNS. SOMETHING. YARRRRGHH." "We must do SOMETHING," is tired mantra and one beginning to show signs of wear and tear. Friday morning, National Review's Charles Cooke joined Morning Joe to discuss the horrific Oregon community college shooting. Cooke writes extensively about second amendment liberties.

Jeb Bush is being raked over the media coals for supposedly expressing a callous disregard for the Oregon mass shooting victims by saying "stuff happens." But those words in a long dialogue were taken completely out of context and promoted by New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza. It was then picked up by others in the media based on Lizza's tweet about it, which was shared over 1000 times on Twitter. Here's how it went down. Former Governor Jeb Bush was questioned about Thursday's UCC tragic shooting during a press conference held Friday afternoon. Ryan Lizza, a reporter for the New Yorker and CNN contributor pulled two little words from Bush's answer, pretended they were indicative of Bush's statement as a whole, and then kept digging. Lizza tweeted:

Arutz Sheva, Israel National News, reports Christian community leaders in Bethlehem believe that Islamist extremists are responsible for a fire at St. Charbal Church this past Saturday:
In its sole statement, the [Palestinian Authority] said that the fire at the St. Charbal church in the city was caused by an “electrical malfunction” - a description that is at odds with an account by Israeli Christian Arab Father Gabriel Naddaf, who said that the church was burned down Saturday night by “Palestinian extremists." . . . According to Christian community leaders in Bethlehem, the fire was started by extremist Islamists who for months have been threatening community members with harm. As a result of the fire, several rooms on the church's second floor were completely destroyed. No one was killed or injured. Sources quoted by Naddaf said that the fire was just another in a long series of attacks by Muslims against Christians in Bethlehem.
While the culprits -- or whether it was some other cause -- are not yet known for sure, Father Naddaf has called out the PA and its President for failure to condemn the fire:

While riding the Sunday talk show circuit, Hillary Clinton encountered what should've been a brutal segment on her long-standing history of philosophical changes. On Meet the Press, a damning mashup called Clinton vs. Clinton would have been an uncomfortable for just about anyone one else, but not for Hillary. The former Secretary of State was at ease watching and addressing video footage of her ever-changing beliefs. Of course it didn't hurt that Todd didn't ask one single challenging question, either.

I'm glad that I'm late to the story of Ahmed Mohamed, because others have done the work to debunk much of the media narrative of a young tinkerer and inventor wrongly singled out because he is Muslim and abused by police and the school for the crime of "being brown." The story has unfolded much like prior racial media and activist narratives. Trayvon Martin was not shot because he was a black teenager wearing a hoodie by someone who "shot first and asked questions later." That media narrative was demonstrably proven false through a lengthy public trial at which the evidence showed that Trayvon Martin was shot as he beat the crap out of George Zimmerman, Mixed Martial Arts style, as Trayvon had Zimmerman pinned to the ground, after smashing Zimmeran's head into the concrete repeatedly. The eyewitness and forensic evidence (including ballistic analysis) fully supported that Zimmerman used legally justifiable deadly force. So too, the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson was not as the media initially portrayed. An exhaustive investigation and analysis by Eric Holder's Justice Department proved that Brown was shot while grabbing Officer Darren Wilson's gun, after having assaulted Wilson as Wilson sat in his police vehicle. The Justice Department also concluded that Brown did now have his hands raised at the time of the shooting. The "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" narrative was pure mythology, yet it persists as a slogan of the Black Lives Matter movement. So getting back to Ahmed, the original racial and religious narrative played out immediately, and is believed as the gospel truth by liberals.

Those tuned in to Wednesday night's GOP debate hosted by CNN and Salem Media (though mostly CNN) were left wondering what happened to Scott Walker. To be fair, it's a difficult, if not impossible task providing equal airtime to eleven people in any given debate setting. CNN chose to lead with questions about what other contenders thought of Donald Trump. Time that should have been used testing candidates on policy knowledge and prodding their hypothetical handling of various scenarios, was spent goading them into attacking either Trump or one another. A report released by the Media Research Center prior to Wednesday's debate provides an explanation for CNN's unusual line of questioning: CNN loves them some Trump. The MRC analyzed CNN's coverage of the Republican presidential primary and found that 78% of that total coverage was spent on Donald Trump. 7-8-%.

Just in case you were wondering, no, this is not from The Onion. I know it's hard to tell these days, but this is an actual thing that happened. According to Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon, the New York Times has provided a nifty new tool, a Congressional 'Jew Tracker.'
The New York Times has come under fire from Jewish organizations for launching a website aimed at tracking how Jewish lawmakers are voting on the Iran nuclear agreement. The online chart, which tracks whether lawmakers who opposes the accord are Jewish, is being criticized as anti-Semitic in nature and an attempt to publicly count where Jews fall on the issue, which some have sought to turn into a debate about dual loyalty to Israel. The feature, titled “Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal,” includes a list of legislators currently opposing the deal.
On the outset, the NYT article seems harmless enough, "Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal," it's called. But then there are the charts...

Team Hillary has a sad because the New York Times published articles that were critical of the embattled former Secretary of State. Clinton's response? Declare war on the NYT and any other publication that publishes content portraying Mrs. Clinton in a negative light, naturally. Heaven forbid a newspaper do their one and only job. Never mind that the NYT endorsed Hillary over Barack in 2008, or that they've largely danced around the whole FBI investigation thing. WAR. The best part? That while Team Hillary is launching mortars at "hostile" press, Mrs. Clinton is publicly declaring she's infinitely and sincerely transparent. Tuesday, the Weekly Standard noted how the NYT recent editorial shakeup followed complaints from the Hillary Clinton Fan Club.
Ever since the start of the campaign, Hillary Clinton boosters have been complaining about coverage of their candidate in the New York Times. And today the paper announced that Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan is being demoted -- or shifting roles! -- at the paper. As the Huffington Post outlines, "The New York Times announced Tuesday that Elisabeth Bumiller, a veteran reporter and current Washington editor, will take over as Washington bureau chief -- one of the paper’s most prestigious posts. Carolyn Ryan, who was named bureau chief in late 2013, will transition to a new role as senior editor for politics." Hillary boosters are publicly connecting what they see as bad coverage with Ryan's new role at the paper.