Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Media Bias Tag

Posted by New Neo on June 05, 2014 26 Comments
There's a growing sense that, at least for now, the Bergdahl/Taliban exchange and its fallout has the left spooked. Maybe Obama will wriggle out of this mess, too, either by way of the same tricks that have extricated him from so-called "scandals" such as Benghazi, or by distracting us in some new and horrific way. Or maybe there will be a hurricane somewhere that can provide a serendipitous photo-op to impress those Americans who have political attention-deficit disorder. But at the moment this story, probably more than any other incident of Obama's presidency, is one that makes him look bad. It appears to simultaneously expose his disregard for the safety of America and Americans, his sympathy for fundamentalist Islamist governments, his failure to do his homework, his drive towards greater executive power, his disregard for Congress (including some members of both parties) and the law itself, his mendacity, and the stupidity and collaboration of his advisors in all of the above. I may have left something out, but you get the idea. The military men and women who served with Bergdahl and on whom Obama counted to keep their mouths shut are (unlike the diplomats in Benghazi) speaking up and telling what they know. The NY Times and Time and other organs that normally can be counted on to carry Obama's water are spilling it all over the place. That leaves lonely folk such as TNR's Brian Beutler and Esquire's Charles P. Pierce doing their level best to convince the world that it's only vile Republicans complaining about the swap, and that their carping is motivated by petty politics and a cold attitude towards the suffering of prisoners of war.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on May 31, 2014 8 Comments
In the wake of Tea Party's initial phases of success and media attention in 2009, progressive counterparts astroturfed their own version: The Coffee Party. For me, the most troubling aspect of development is that the organizers usurped the beverage that powers my Tea Party activities. But, I digress. Recently, many elite pundits were gleefully pronouncing that the "Tea Party is dead", once again. For example, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin points to various Senate primaries where Tea Party candidates couldn’t raise money and couldn’t win. Nice to see such concern, Jennifer! Especially touching, as the Texas Tea Party just arranged a replacement for a 34-year-incumbent during the Republican primary runoff. As an analysis of the Tea Party's defeat of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst pointed out: The GOP, once dominated by business interests and Beltway insiders, is now driven more by local activists far from Washington watching their members like hawks. This got me to thinking: What ever happened to "The Coffee Party?" The last time I checked in on them (in 2011), the progressive version of the Tea Party had a schism so bad, that one group split up into two different booths at an event. Legal Insurrection's archives contain a few old grinds, too: Here is the latest statement from "Coffee Party USA". Frankly, I don't see much life left:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 26, 2014 23 Comments
A reader called to my attention this sentence  in a Washington Post report about the Obama administration outing the identity of the CIA Station Chief in Afghanistan (emphasis added):
The disclosure marked a rare instance in which a CIA officer working overseas had his cover — the secrecy meant to protect his actual identity — pierced by his own government. The only other recent case came under significantly different circumstances, when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq.
Scooter Libby was convicted for lying to prosecutors and obstruction of justice in the Special Prosecutor's investigation, under a contorted theory that nonetheless prevailed with a jury.  He was sentenced to jail, but the sentence was commuted by George W. Bush. Libby, a close confidant of Dick Cheney, however, was not the leaker. The leaker was an Iraq War critic in the State Department, Richard Armitage. Christopher Hitchens reported at the time:
As most of us have long suspected, the man who told Novak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department and, with his boss, an assiduous underminer of the president's war policy.
The prosecutors knew from the start who the leaker was, but went after those closest to the White House not for leaking, but for covering up a leaker the identity of whom already was known to the investigators.  It was a perjury trap.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 15, 2014 8 Comments
On May 14, 1948 David Ben Gurion declared Israel's independence and the modern state of Israel was born. And every year at this time the Palestinians commemorate Nakba. Not surprisingly, Jodi Rudoren, Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times spent May 14, writing about the iNakba app which was launched by the Israeli NGO, Zochrot. In Rudoren's account:
Zochrot, Hebrew for “remembering,” has for 13 years been leading tours of destroyed villages, collecting testimony from aging Arabs, and advocating the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. But it preaches almost exclusively to the converted. Israel is a country where government-funded organizations can be fined for mourning on Independence Day, and where the foreign minister denounced as a “fifth column” thousands of Arab-Israeli citizens who marked the Nakba last week by marching in support of refugee return.
The disconnect in this paragraph is unbelievable. Rudoren writes blithely about the Palestinian "right of return" and suggests the lack of Israeli acceptance of the right of return is due to the close-mindedness of Israeli society. But there is nothing benign about the right of return. It means the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. In fact a founder of Zochrot is rather explicit about his intent. (Strangely Rudoren hasn't reported that a Palestinian professor who took his student to Auschwitz was ostracized by the union at his university.) People aren't usually receptive to ideas that involve their own destruction. This is the New York Times so I hardly expect to read a corrective article. Maybe the paper will deign to publish a few dissents in the letters sections, but the case that Israel's war of independence is an ongoing disaster will remain the prevalent view at the New York Times.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 09, 2014 15 Comments
Hey, remember Journo-list? The Ezra Klein organized brigade of lefty bloggers and "journalists" who coordinated messaging in the 2008 campaign for Obama. Many of whom later were rewarded with perks such as meetings at the White House? They have received promotions, and now are embedded in the mainstream and well-funded new media. But Journo-lists don't change their spots (or is it stripes?). They are bigger than ever, are more numerous, and still are running interference for Obama, as detailed at National Journal by James Oliphant, Progressive Bloggers Are Doing the White House's Job:
When Jay Carney was grilled at length by Jonathan Karl of ABC News over an email outlining administration talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, it was not, by the reckoning of many observers, the White House press secretary's finest hour. Carney was alternately defensive and dismissive, arguably fueling a bonfire he was trying to tamp down. But Carney needn't have worried. He had plenty of backup. He had The New Republic's Brian Beutler dismissing Benghazi as "nonsense." He had Slate's David Weigel, along with The Washington Post's Plum Line blog, debunking any claim that the new email was a "smoking gun." Media Matters for America labeled Benghazi a "hoax." Salon wrote that the GOP had a "demented Benghazi disease." Daily Kos featured the headline: "Here's Why the GOP Is Fired Up About Benghazi—and Here's Why They're Wrong." The Huffington Post offered "Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi Is Stupid—for the GOP."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 30, 2014 21 Comments
Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News reporter shut down and cut off because of her dogged search for the truth, writes at her website, White House Directed Incorrect Benghazi Narrative:
Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened. One of the operative documents, which the government had withheld from ​Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, ​2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s ​Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor. (Disclosure: Ben Rhodes ​is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News, where I was employed until March.) ​ In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television ​ network political talk shows. The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” A court compelled the release of the documents, which were heavily-redacted, to the conservative watchdog group JudicialWatch, which has sued the government over its failed Freedom of Information responses. I have also requested Benghazi-related documents under Freedom of Information law, but the government has only produced a few pages to date. Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the Rhodes email the “smoking gun” showing the “political manipulation by the White House” after the attacks.
Kudos to Jon Karl, he has been on this case since the beginning, and has been the subject of administration intrigue, as I documented in May 2013, White House-created “doctored” war on Jon Karl and Stephen Hayes falls apart:

Posted by David Gerstman on April 25, 2014 9 Comments
In the wake of Fatah's embrace of Hamas earlier this week there has been a very interesting reaction. Actually, the reaction has been interesting because it's been mostly non-existent. Though the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on Fatah's betrayal of the American sponsored peace process, neither has published an angry editorial denouncing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for endangering or destroying the peace process. Few news events shatter perceptions more clearly than when a supposed moderate embraces extremism. And even given the fraught history of past Fatah-Hamas agreements the symbolism here is unmistakable. A week before Secretary of State John Kerry hoped to have a framework agreement, the Palestinian Authority came to an agreement with the terrorist Hamas organization and not with Israel. Let's do a few comparisons. Exhibit A: New York Times  In March 2010, when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Israel's Interior Ministry announced plans to build houses in Ramat Shlomo. Even though Ramat Shlomo is part of Jerusalem and a part of Israel's capital that everyone expects will be part of Israel in any final agreement with the Palestinians, the announcement precipitated a diplomatic crisis between Israel and the United States. An editorial in the New York Times two days later stated about the announcement, "And it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington." In 2010, the Israeli announcement didn't and wouldn't change anything about the Middle East materially and yet the New York Times criticized the Israeli action. That Fatah-Hamas agreement, on the other hand is a game-changer. Israel dropped its objections to the PLO when the PLO renounced terror. Of course, under Arafat that declaration was meaningless as he encouraged terror against Israel even after Oslo. Abbas was supposed to be the peaceful one. But now he's embraced a terrorist organization.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 22, 2014 22 Comments
On the most recent airing of the CNN Sunday talk show, Reliable Sources, former CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkinson, revealed a rather stunning accusation about the far left online news organization, Media Matters.
Media Matters, as my understanding, is a far left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent watchdog group. And yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories… And I was certainly friendly with them as anybody, good information can come from any source. But when I persisted with Fast and Furious and some of the green energy stories I was doing, I clearly at some point became a target… [Emphasis Added]
Of course, anyone who has read Media Matters would scoff at the idea that it is a politically “independent” media watchdog group. Given the obvious leanings of the organization, the revelation that Media Matters is actually assisting, in some manner, in producing content for one of the “Big 3” (ABC, NBC, CBS) network news programs carries significant implications. Most notably, these three networks are still viewed by many in the public as the place to get your least politically slanted news. For many Americans, the brief 30-minute or hour long nightly news program from these networks is the only news they get all day. In the immediate wake of Attikson's Sunday appearance, Media Matters elected only to respond to the assertion by Attkinson that she had been targeted by the organization:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 18, 2014 58 Comments
Chelsea Clinton has announced she's pregnant. Congratulations. Best wishes for mother and child. It would be perfectly natural for Hillary to show off the grandbaby, particularly if, as expected, she runs for President. I can envision the family, including grandbaby, on stage at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 as Hillary accepts the nomination -- maybe with Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow playing in the background Hillary more than anyone needs humanizing, in what already is a multi-year rebranding project. And Hillary isn't waiting for the arrival to publicly express her joy: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/456903198834700288 Will Hillary be treated like Sarah Palin was back in 2008, when Palin appeared with her own child Trig, and was accused of using him as a prop? From the Legal Insurrection archives:

Posted by Mandy Nagy on March 10, 2014 19 Comments
Sharyl Attkisson, investigative correspondent for CBS News, has resigned from the network.

From Politico (emphasis added):
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract, bringing an end to months of hard-fought negotiations, sources familiar with her departure told POLITICO on Monday. Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network's liberal bias, an outsized influence by the network's corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt like her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air. At the same time, Attkisson's own reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book -- tentatively titled "Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth in Obama's Washington" -- which addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the Obama administration. Feeling increasingly stymied and marginalized at the network, Attkisson began talking to CBS News President David Rhodes as early as last April about getting out of her contract. Those negotiations intensified in recent weeks, and her request was finally honored on Monday.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 09, 2014 4 Comments
Professor Jacobson made a very good point last week:
The BDS movement presents little real threat to Israel currently, while the European governments do present a potential threat, but it is a diplomatic, not boycott, threat.  Kerry, and the boycott movement, conflate the two.
The problem is that despite the fact that there's no evidence that the BDS movement is gaining mainstream acceptance there are many who pretend that it has. Let's look at the New York Times coverage of some recent BDS activity. Last May the paper reported, Stephen Hawking Joins Boycott Against Israel:
The academic and cultural boycott, organized by international activists to protest Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, is a heated and contentious issue; having Dr. Hawking join it is likely to help the anti-Israel campaigners significantly.
There are two items of note. The first is that the BDS movement is described in terms of being a "protest" against "Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians." It is not described as a movement to delegitimize Israel. The second is the assertion that Hawking's action "is likely to help the anti-Israel campaigners significantly." This is a judgment, but it is also somewhat quantifiable. Will subsequent reporting use similar standards? The article later noted that the Oxford student union overwhelmingly voted against an academic boycott of Israel. Later that month when Alicia Keys announced that she would defy the anti-Israel activists two months later, the New York Times reported:
Accessibility by WAH