Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

After Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a funding bill for the National Institutes of Health, NBC Nightly News has run two feature stories about children and other patients who could not enroll in a cancer clinical trial at NIH because of the "shutdown." In neither story was the Republican funding bill or Democratic rejection of funding mentioned. The most recent feature story was last night. Those of you who read this blog, or pay even cursory attention to the news, know that House Republicans passed the NIH funding bill, over the objections of 170 Democrats who voted against it. House Vote NIH funding 10-2-13 Harry Reid then refused to agree to a consent motion in the Senate to approve the funding. Dana Bash at CNN even questioned Reid about it at a press conference, wondering why he won't just agree to the House funding bill since it might help a child. All of this took place against an Obama veto threat. Anyone who pays even a little attention knows that it is Democrats, and Democrats alone who have blocked funding for NIH child clinical trials. Yet in the entire segment on NBC tonight, not a word was mentioned about why there is no funding. All that is mentioned is a generic and presumably bi-partisan failure to reach an agreement. Here's the full video (full transcript here): NBC New Shutdown Blocks Girl From Clinical Trial

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The latest development. https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/385042956857511936 https://twitter.com/rickklein/status/385043012147216384 https://twitter.com/rickklein/status/385043509516197890 I think negotiating with empty chairs will be a good thing. Reid and Obama are riding high, convinced the media will convey their messaging. There's reason for them to think that: ...

From The NY Times, the media world has changed:
Ask conservatives what went wrong for them the last time the government shut down, and many of them will bring up the cover of The Daily News of New York from Nov. 16, 1995. Under the block-lettered headline “Cry Baby,” it showed a cartoon of Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the Republican-led House, in tears, clutching a bottle and wearing nothing but a cloth diaper. Back then, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel was a year from its debut, Andrew Breitbart was a lowly assistant at E! Online, and The Drudge Report was an obscure gossip and news digest sent by e-mail — to the lucky few who had e-mail. But today, a fervent group of conservatives — bloggers, pundits, activists and even members of Congress — is harnessing the power of the Internet, determined to tell the story of the current budget showdown on its terms.

 Newt Gingrich Cry Baby Daily News

That's true, but only to an extent.  The liberal mainstream media is not the only voice, but it's still the dominant voice.  What power it has lost has been filled by liberal non-mainstream internet media. It's why reporters can collude at a press conference just after four Americans were killed in Benghazi to make sure the appropriate "gotcha" question was asked not of the officials responsible for the safety of our personnel, but of ... Mitt Romney.

Twitter - Legal Insurrection - Romney Press Conf

With only a couple of exceptions, no mainstream media reporters were the least bit interested in the utter failure of the Obama administration from Obama on down to address the situation, or to demand an answer as to what Obama was doing that night.  Not the least bit of interest. Instead, we had two days of non-stop all-out Romney bashing from the media.  It was a circus that comes to town whenever an event threatens Obama and the Democrats.

I told you just a couple of days ago that the Gallup headline of a decline in Tea Party popularity was misleading. The misleading headline, ignoring the details of the poll, was picked up far and wide, Congrats @Gallup for inspiring these 5 misleading anti-Tea Party headlines. The Washington Post yesterday, however, revealed that the Tea Party popularity was rising, Obamacare fight reenergizes tea party movement (emphasis added):

WaPo Tea Party Support Rising

The tea party movement rose to prominence in the early years of Obama’s presidency, helping drive a surge of conservative activism that helped flip control of the House to Republicans in 2010. At the time, according to CBS-New York Times polling, nearly a third of Americans considered themselves tea party supporters. The movement’s popularity, though faded, shows signs of growing again: A quarter of Americans in a new CBS-New York Times survey between Sept. 19 and 23 said they support the tea party, up four points from two weeks earlier.
"Oddly" enough, it was really hard to find the poll to which WaPo was referring. The rise in Tea Party popularity in the CBS-New York Times survey didn't get the attention of the misleading Gallup headline.  I could not find any stories about that finding prior to the WaPo article. The rise in Tea Party support didn't get headlines at The Times, or at CBS News which ran this misleading headline about the Gallup poll instead, but nowhere in the article mentioned its own contrary findings:

CBS News Gallup Tea Party 9-26-2013

Eventually I found the poll, here it is. CBS-NYT poll cover The question about Tea Party support shows that Tea Party support rose rapidly this month, is higher than it has been for over a year, and is in the same range it has been in since early 2010, with the exception of the surge in support around the 2010 election:

I covered earlier the negative spin Gallup put on its recent Tea Party polling.  What showed a stable support/opposition over the last two years -- including a drop in opposition -- was spun as a negative only by comparison to three years ago. Gallup could have titled its report "No real change in Tea Party Support" or "Tea Party Support/Opposition Stable." Instead, Gallup put this spin on it:

Gallup Tea Party Support 9-26-2013

That misleading spin has been picked up and run with across the media, which is trying to tie the supposed decline to Ted Cruz's rise since 2012. But there was no meaningful decline since 2012 -- just 2% within the poll's 3% margin of error.  Support is actually 1% higher than in 2011.  You have to go back three years to the 2010 mid-term pro-Republican wave election, when Tea Party support peaked briefly, to see a substantial decline.  But that substantial decline took place prior to the 2012 election, long before Cruz was in the Senate.

Gallup Tea Party Support Chart 9-26-2013

Even with that, over 1 in 5 Americans still support the Tea Party and half of Americans are neutral.  Considering the demonization of the Tea Party in the media and Washington, D.C., a stable support/opposition is pretty amazing. No one is interested in the details, it's just political gamesmanship. Here are 5 profoundly misleading headlines inspired by Gallup:

1.  The Week -- Why does everyone hate the Tea Party?

Really? 73% of people supporting or being neutral on the Tea Party means everyone hates the Tea Party?

 

The Week - Gallup Tea Party 9-26-2013

2. Taylor Marsh - No One Supports the Tea Party Anymore:

Well, if by "no one" you mean over 1 in 5 Americans, slightly more than self-identify as liberal:

Taylor Marsh Gallup Tea Party 9-26-2013

That's not the headline you will see, of course. Instead, Gallup headlines its story about its most recent polling to emphasize the negative about Tea Party support, Tea Party Support Dwindles to Near-Record Low.

Gallup Tea Party Support 9-26-2013

But it you look at Gallups chart, it shows a 2% drop in support for the Tea Party in the past year and a 2% drop in opposition to the Tea Party, and both are near record lows.  Gallup Tea Party Support Chart 9-26-2013 There's only one brief time period when opposition to the Tea Party was significantly lower, but opposition now is right in the 25-29% range it's typically been in.  Tea Party support is significantly lower than three years ago, but about where it was two years ago.  So the drop took place two years ago, not recently as the Gallup headline (picked up in the mainstream media) would have you believe. Why highlight just the drop in support?  Because. Moreover, the percentage of people who consider themselves Tea Pary supporters is slightly larger than those who consider themselves liberal, as measured in Gallup's ideological self-identification survey from 2012. Considering the multi-year war on the Tea Party by Democrats, many Republicans, and the media, it is astounding that the Tea Party continues to stay more or less even in its support over the past two years.  A 2% drop is hardly meaningful, and could just be variations within the margin of error in the poll, which was +/- 3%. Also consider that half the electorate has no opinion one way or the other.  So put it another way, almost 3/4 of the American electorate is not opposed to the Tea Party! Think about it another way, if you were at a dinner table with four other people who represented the American electorate, one of the people at the table would be a Tea Party supporter.  And two others would have no opinion. Be afraid, be very afraid. Update: If Gallup wanted to be completely neutral, it could have written its headline as "Support and Opposition to Tea Party Stable." Instead, Gallup's anti-Tea Party spin is being picked up gladly at outlets such as TPM:

TPM Gallup Tea Party 9-26-2013

This is possibly the dumbest headline of all, from Taylor Marsh:

It happens in just about every mass shooting or terrorist event.  The initial media reports are inaccurate, yet those hurried inaccuracies feed a political narrative that is hard to break even after the facts are "corrected." In the Newtown shooting, the wrong person was identified as...

Every semester for the past couple of years I've been privileged to be a guest speaker at the Ithaca College course on Independent Media conducted by Prof. Jeff Cohen.  I get to regale students with stories about Legal Insurrection, some of which are true.  (FTR, all of...

I wish I had put this list together myself. But the credit goes to John Nolte of Breitbart.com on Twitter. [View the story "Top Ten Things Media Found More Important Than al Qaeda" on Storify]...

NBC is preparing a Hillary Mini-Series. While we don't know the content, it's predicted that it will be favorable to her. The RNC is protesting, sending a letter (embedded below) to NBC threatening no cooperation with NBC as to 2016 presidential debates:
I'm writing to you to express my deep disappointment in your company's decision to air a miniseries promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. As an American company, you have every right to air programming of your choice. But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded at your actions, which appear to be a major network's thinly-veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election.... There's ample cause for concern. Executives and employees of Com cast, NBC's parent company have been generous supporters of Democrats and Secretary Clinton. David Cohen, Comcast's EVP, raised over $1.4 million for President Obama's reelection efforts and hosted a fundraiser for the president. Comcast Corp. employees have donated $522,996 to the president and donated $161,640 to Secretary Clinton's previous campaigns.... Out of a sense of fairness and decency and in the interest of the political process and your company's reputation, I call on you to cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production. If you have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor.
According to Breitbart.com, a similar letter was sent to CNN.  (Letter added below, h/t Andrew Kaczynski) The RNC also has started a petition drive aimed at liberal media pro-Hillary bias:

RNC Website re Pro Hillary Media

Already the "waaahs" have started: https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/364410629857087488 https://twitter.com/aburnspolitico/status/364411364019671041

Now I remember why I detest the snide and smug insider attitude of the D.C. and liberal media. Noah Rothman has the story at Mediaite about a Daily Caller intern who asked a perfectly legitimate question at a press conference today and was mocked by much of the "professional" media:
The impropriety displayed on Wednesday by a high school-age intern who dared to ask White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a question relating to the security provided to the family of George Zimmerman knows no bounds. That is apparently the opinion of a number of members of the political press. After an intern had the temerity to ask Carney a question, the political media flew into a tizzy over the presumptuousness of the intern and turned to mocking him and the venue which credentialed him to be in the Briefing Room in the first place.... the 16-year-old intern, Gabe Finger, asked Carney about the security provided Zimmerman’s family in the wake of the controversial not guilty verdict handed down last Saturday. Carney said that President Barack Obama and the Martin family have called for a non-violent reaction to the verdict. “So, they’re on their own?” Finger followed up. “You can editorialize all you want, and I’m sure that you will, but that is a ridiculous statement,” Carney shot back.
That was a perfectly legitimate question, yet here is some of the insider reaction via Mediaite: Mediaite DC Caller Intern Update: The Daily Caller responds:
Some reporters in Washington are asking why The Daily Caller sent our intern Gabe Finger to the White House press briefing this afternoon. Talk about missing the point. The real question is, why did it take a 16-year-old intern to raise an obvious and important question that the White House press corps should have asked days ago? We don’t care how old Gabe Finger is. It doesn’t matter to us what his credentials are. All we care about is how well he does his job. Today he did it a lot better than most White House reporters.
... including this video: