Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

This week the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its supporters will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the supposedly grassroots launch of the BDS movement by Palestinian "civil society" organizations. The Associated Press, through its writer Tia Goldenberg, has a lengthy article on the BDS movement. The article is receiving a lot of attention, including a Drudge link, and because it is AP is being reprinted (under varying titles) at numerous news website. The article starts with BDS's supposed grassroots beginnings, Boycott Israel drive gains strength, raising alarm:
Ten years ago, a small group of Palestinian activists had a novel idea: inspired by the anti-apartheid movement, they called for a global boycott movement against Israel as a nonviolent method to promote the Palestinian struggle for independence.
That narrative of how the BDS movement began is false, and demonstrably so. The boycott call issued in July 2005 was not the result of a small group of activists getting together, it was the result of a multi-year organized effort for a global boycott of Israel, most prominently in a boycott call issued at the 2001 UN Durban Conference which was so anti-Semitic the U.S. walked out. We have explored this history many times at Legal Insurrection. Here is the actual history of the BDS movement:

Media bias is no longer a problem perceived only by conservative bloggers. A Gallup poll last fall found 60% didn't trust mass media but a new survey from USA Today and the Newseum Institute finds that 70% of Americans believe the media is biased. Clearly, the scandals of Brian Williams and George Stephanopolous played a role. Bradford Thomas of Truth Revolt:
Media Fail: 70% Believe News Reporting Intentionally Biased A new survey by USA Today and the First Amendment Center found that Americans' distrust of the news media has skyrocketed over the last year, the number of American adults believing news reporting is biased jumping up to 70 percent, while less than a quarter now say they trust the news media. The 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey released Friday found that only 24 percent of American adults believe that "overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias," a 17-point drop from last year and the lowest number since the poll began in 2004. More than two-thirds, 70 percent, disagreed with that statement, a 15-point increase since last year.
One positive finding in the survey was an increase in support for the First Amendment.

Somewhat overshadowed by the Independence Day holiday weekend, Rick Perry's unorthodox jobs and economic growth speech ruffled all the right feathers. Candidate job plans tend to blur together because regardless of party affiliation, they're virtually indistinguishable. Reduce/raise taxes, decrease/increase regulation, "get America working again!", "yada yada yada middle class!" Then there's always "something strangling something." Whether it's speech writer laziness or well tested imagery I don't know, but there's always something being strangled. "Bring jobs back to America!" [insert story of someone candidate met while campaigning and how current administration/elected official's policies have made it hard for anecdotal individual to find work] and so on. And that's pretty much every single economic policy speech in modern history. Or at least it was until last Thursday. Perry's economic opportunity speech at the National Press Club last week was unlike any other speech of its kind and brilliantly so.

Earlier this month, the EPA lost big when the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had erred during implementation of new regulations governing coal-fired power plants. That blow came on the heels of Congressional action against the EPA's new "Waters of the United States" rule, which opponents rightly argue amounts to little more than a power grab legitimized under the trappings of "environmentalism." It's an agency under fire; and while it may not be teetering on the verge of total self-destruction, evidence released today suggests that the EPA may be more nervous than they'd like to admit about maintaining a hold on private enterprise. E-mails obtained from the EPA via a FOIA request submitted by the Environment & Energy (E&E) Legal Institute show that agency officials used talking points provided by a left-wing special interest group to sway prominent journalists covering controversial new power plant regulations. From Lachlan Markay at the Washington Free Beacon:

Remember when Scott Brown was chastised for questioning another type of Indian candidate? He was uniformly raked over the coals by the media. When the candidate is a Republican however, their ethnicity and race are considered worthy of attack. Case in point, Annie Gowen of the Washington Post:
From Piyush to Bobby: How does Jindal feel about his family’s past? Jindal’s status as a conservative of color helped propel his meteoric rise in the Republican Party — from an early post in the George W. Bush administration to two terms in Congress and now a second term as Louisiana governor — and donors from Indian American groups fueled his first forays into politics. Yet many see him as a man who has spent a lifetime distancing himself from his Indian roots. As a child, he announced he wanted to go by the name Bobby, after a character in “The Brady Bunch.” He converted from Hinduism to Christianity as a teen and was later baptized a Catholic as a student at Brown University — making his devotion to Christianity a centerpiece of his public life. He and his wife were quick to say in a “60 Minutes” interview in 2009 that they do not observe many Indian traditions — although they had two wedding ceremonies, one Hindu and one Catholic. He said recently that he wants to be known simply as an American, not an Indian American. “There’s not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal,” said Pearson Cross, a political science professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who is writing a book on the governor.

When a 2 or 3 year old is caught doing something wrong, they often react with complete shock they did something wrong. They genuinely believe whatever it is they were doing was perfectly fine and cannot comprehend why they're being scolded. The media is often like that of a small child. A toddler. At the start of June, the NY Times and Washington Post weighed in with articles about Marco Rubio's finances. The headline at the NY Times read, "Marco Rubio’s Career Bedeviled by Financial Struggles." Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post quipped, "Here’s the real issue with Marco Rubio’s finances" and wrote:
That's all totally fine. If Rubio wants a boat, he can buy a boat. The issue for Rubio is that he is investing so much of his appeal on his "I have lived the American Dream" story that he necessarily has to accept that that story will be inspected closely to see what it tells us about him and how he might run the government if he is entrusted with doing so.

Defenders of the Confederate Flag, prepare to feel really, really uncomfortable---you have an unlikely ally(ish). MSNBC's Ed Schultz is a dependable progressive shill. When Republicans retook the Senate last year, he was apoplectic; when he encounters right wing opposition, he blatantly shuts it down. All in all, he's a belligerent with a bullhorn; but this past week he accidentally made a little bit of sense when he weighed in on the Confederate Flag debate. Addressing the breathless purge of the "stars and bars," he said that "[t]he desecration of our nation's history, I think, is dangerous and I think it's unproductive." Listen: Newsbusters has the transcript:
You know, I understand the effort to remove the Confederate flag from state capitols in the South and anywhere else in this country. There's no doubt about it that it sends the wrong message. But at this point, I asked the question, is it overboard? And I don't understand the attempt to erase American history as if it's going to change our course as a nation. It's not.

At least no one got hurt this time. But Gaza Flotilla III was a complete flop. Meant to break Israel's perfectly legal naval blockade of Gaza (more on legality here), designed to stop Iranian shipments of weapons, the flotilla avoided the disaster of Gaza Flotilla I, in which 9 people were killed when they attacked Israeli commandos boarding a ship. This time, when it appeared Israel would prevent the flotilla from getting to Gaza, three of the boats called it off. The main boat, from Sweden but bearing an Israeli Arab lawmaker and the former President of Tunisia, proceeded, and was boarded by Israeli commandos. The IDF posted the following announcement:

Today, The NY Times turned its entire front page above the fold to celebrating yesterday's Supreme Court decision on gay marriage: NY Times Supreme Court Gay Marriage Headline Front Page Many national and major regional papers did the same. But is any diversity of news coverage permitted on such a huge cultural victory? If you want to know what the future of the post-SCOTUS SSM culture war looks like, take a look at this tweet by former MSM exec. Betsy Fischer Martin (h/t @bryanjacoutot) complaining that a north Louisiana paper had a larger headline about a local pageant than the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. The Supreme Court decision was front page, above the fold, right hand side, double column, and was followed just below it with another report about the impact of the decision. But that a local pageant story had more column space apparently was unacceptable:

Ah yes, the media and gun control. Senator Cruz joined PBS host Tavis Smiley Tuesday. Smiley seized the opportunity to peg Sen. Cruz on gun control. "To me and to others who've seen this, it seemed in bad taste, but maybe that's my assessment," Smiley said. "We all know what happened in Charleston the other day, and you were on the campaign trail after this happened, here's what you said on the campaign trail." Smiley then showed Sen. Cruz a clip bearing a HuffPo watermark, dated June 19 when Cruz was addressing a crowd in Iowa. "We need a second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. You know the great thing about the state of Iowa, I'm pretty sure y'all define 'gun control' the same way we do in Texas -- hittin' what you aim at," Cruz explained as the audience chuckled. "Gun control is hitting what you aim at. Those comments were made after this tragedy the other day in South Carolina the other day, was that in bad taste?" Smiley asked.

This week's attack on a historical black church in Charleston has sent the liberal political and media classes into a political feeding frenzy. The families of the dead, by contrast, has defied the odds embraced love and forgiveness. Here are five examples how some people sought to exploit the murders for political gain:

1. When in doubt, blame Fox News

The left has always had an abusive relationship with the journalists at Fox News, and never waits long before trying to tie the latest domestic tragedy to the "hate filled rhetoric" "spewing" from the conservative network. South Carolina Democratic Representative Todd Rutherford all but blamed the Charleston massacre on "things like Fox News," and when confronted by Bill O'Reilly, doubled down. Watch: Newsbusters has the breakdown:

Because I am a glutton for punishment, I read the anti-Zionist Mondoweiss website. I do it, so you don't have to. One of the authors there posted this video put out by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, apparently one in a series, as if it were a bad thing. Seems pretty much on target to me. [NOTE - The video was taken down after furious complaints from the international media, including The NY Times. Here is a version captured by another outfit] This comes, of course, in anticipation of a hit job on Israel by the UN Human Rights Commission in a report to be released this week regarding the 2014 Gaza conflict. In that conflict, the media played a key role in covering up Hamas use of civilians as shields:

Monday, Daily Mail designated print pool reporter, David Martosko, was denied access to a Hillary Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire.

It's too late to undo the massive propaganda campaign surrounding the 2014 Gaza conflict, which Israel called Operation Protective Edge. False statistics about civilian casualties were put out by Hamas ministries and then adopted without question by the UN, "human rights" groups, and the media to create the narrative that "most" or "almost all" or the "vast majority" of deaths were civilian. Critics of Israel have yet to explain how Israel was supposed to stop Hamas from firing rockets, tunneling under the border, or landing commandos by sea without firing into the civilian areas from which Hamas was operating. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, we covered the deliberate Hamas tactic of firing from civilian areas (including those next to hospitals and apartments,) as well as how Hamas used the main Gaza hospital as a military headquarters. Almost all of this was covered up by the media: http://youtu.be/Nu-e5qWXx-k Round two in the propaganda war against Israel will take place this week, when the U.N. Human Rights Council releases its report on alleged Israeli war crimes. The UNHCR is the body completely obsessed with Israel.

On Saturday, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield slipped in a puddle of gaffe when she described the man who shot up the Dallas police department headquarters as "very courageous and brave, if not crazy as well." I wrote about her initial comments here: CNN Anchor Power-Gaffes Dallas PD Shooting Story The reaction was swift and vicious. (My own comments, linked above, weren't exactly gentle.) Even the Houston and Fort Worth police officers' associations jumped on the pile, demanding an apology from CNN and Whitfield:

Early Saturday morning, a man planted explosives outside of, and fired an automatic weapon at, the Dallas police headquarters. Fortunately no one was injured, but the ensuing chase lasted for hours and put both the police and the community in danger. The ordeal ended in a standoff, which ended in a dead perpetrator, which has led to the requisite barrage of commentary. This wasn't a little thing, or a "statement"-type crime. He did major damage: The media, of course, can always be counted upon to twist an emergency into a knot and make it a laughingstock. CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield even went so far as to call the shooter "courageous and brave." Yes, really. Behold:

I enjoy reading or hearing stories that humanize candidates. The story of Mitt Romney helping to remove a stump from a neighbor's yard was a good one, or how the Perry family adopted Marcus Luttrell -- also a heartwarming, warm fuzzy inducing tale. Even John McCain recounting his time as a POW was powerful stuff. These stories provide insight into how candidates live beyond the flashy lights, teleprompter flanked podiums, and soundbites of the politisphere. They're meaningful. In many ways, these stories explain a core part of who they are. But that's not the case with Politico's latest slobberfest. Thursday morning, Politico published a story called Every wedding should have a Hillary Clinton Bible reading. Obvious disagreement with the premise aside, what are we supposed to take from this story? What does it say about Hillary? That we now have proof Mrs. Clinton can read?

The NYT published an article last week pretending Sen. Rubio's traffic tickets from the 90s were scandalicious. Mockery of the "troubling" allegations ensued and the NYT was rightly mocked. This week, the NYT again dropped a ridiculous "scoop." This time, they portrayed the Rubios as spendthrifts who had luxury speed boats and a house with extra-large windows... As these things go, the NYT report found its way into national and local news coverage, providing perfect mashup fodder. Yesterday, the NYT received the Jon Stewart treatment: