Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Media Bias Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on July 04, 2014 7 Comments
A few articles this week effectively absolve Hamas (and more generally the Palestinians) for the latest escalation in the Middle East and put the bulk of the blame on Israel. I'm only going to focus on two. Max Fisher wrote How Israel is punishing ordinary Palestinians for three murdered Israeli students for Vox. Fisher's premise is in the title. Israel is not justified in striking back, so any retaliation is "punishment." Of course this brought plenty of criticism. David Harsanyi sums up Fisher's illogical case against Israel.
In Fisher’s view, Israel is pining to kill, longing to occupy, aching to inconvenience. Israel wants to waste millions of dollars tracking down Hamas terrorists; it craves the international backlash that will inevitably follow, and it just never feels quite whole until hundreds of its own citizens, and thousands of Palestinians, are put at risk. There’s nothing quite like persecuting the elderly Arab shopkeeper. Mission accomplished!
The Free Beacon asks why GE is underwriting such anti-Israel propaganda and Twitchy put together the best critical tweets.

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 29, 2014 11 Comments
If anyone working in media today wants to help restore some of the damage done to the reputation of their industry, an apology like this would be a great start. Rather than using their influence to prop up Obama, the editors of the Billings Gazette in Montana are simply admitting they were wrong:
Gazette opinion: Obama earned the low ratings Sometimes, you have to admit you're wrong. And, we were wrong. We said that things couldn't get much worse after the sub par presidency of George W. Bush. But, President Barack Obama's administration has us yearning for the good ol' days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal polls show that Americans are giving Obama lower marks than in 2006 when Iraq was going poorly for Bush and a tepid response to Hurricane Katrina sunk Bush's ratings. It's not that popularity polling should be the final or even best measure of a president. There is that old saw that points out there's a difference between doing what is right and what is popular. For us, though, it's the number of bungled or blown policies in the Obama administration which lead us to believe Obama has earned every bit of an abysmal approval rating.
John Nolte of Breitbart summarizes the rest of the piece:

Posted by New Neo on June 28, 2014 11 Comments
Why has the mainstream media been so silent about the scandals in which the Obama administration has become embroiled? From Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media:
Obama is beside the point. They [the liberal media] don’t even like Obama anymore. Nothing could be more obvious. Almost nobody does. But they won’t say so in public because that would mean that they would be revealed as fools who believed the most banal tripe imaginable. It would also mean admitting Barack Obama never really existed, that they invented him. He was their projection. Barack Obama is the creation of the New York Times, et al. Without them he would never have happened and they know it. So the media are left in an untenable position. If you say Barack Obama is a mistake, then you yourself are a mistake. Who wants that? No wonder they won’t investigate the scandals. No wonder they won’t report any of this. They are too ashamed of themselves to speak.
I agree that the MSM is deeply disappointed in Obama, and deeply reluctant to say so. But I doubt they're as deeply disappointed as all that, not deeply enough to question their own role in the whole thing, or their belief system. That takes a great deal of courage and integrity, particularly for people with entrenched and vested interests---such as the Times editors and their ilk, as Simon points out---who would therefore be extremely reluctant to do it.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 19, 2014 20 Comments
Some privileges are permissible topics for discussion on campus and in the media. For example, White Privilege is the obsession of some faculty and students. George Will pointed out that there is another privilege on campuses -- false or contrived claims of victim status.  Will did not argue that real victims, be it of actual racism or sexual assault, share some special privilege, but rather, that there are people who contrive or encourage others to falsely create victimhood where none exists. We see it in theories such as microaggression, where in the absence of proof of actual racism, critical race theorists find racism in routine everyday interactions where the participants do not even realize they are being "racist," much less have any racist intent. We see it in repeated instances of fake, self-inflicted "hate crimes" in which the victim is, in fact, the perpetrator. We also see it in the lowering of the standards of proof and definitions of what constitutes sexual assault. I think everyone agrees that sexual assault as used in the criminal law deserves condemnation and punishment. But colleges, under pressure from the Justice Department and supposedly feminist groups, have started using definitions of sexual assault that can reach absurd results.

Posted by Bruce Carroll on June 17, 2014 42 Comments
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who has an increasing reputation as a shill for the left wing, viciously attacked the Heritage Foundation in a column on Monday evening. The column, "Heritage's ugly Benghazi panel" characterized the event as though it were a full-throated, Muslim-bashing hate-crime cleverly disguised as a public forum to discuss the Benghazi attack.
What began as a session purportedly about “unanswered questions” surrounding the September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya deteriorated into the ugly taunting of a woman in the room who wore an Islamic head covering. [...]  Then Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice. “We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam,” she told them. “We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.” Panelist Brigitte Gabriel of a group called ACT! for America pounced. She said “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.” She told Ahmed that the “peaceful majority were irrelevant” in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and she drew a Hitler comparison: “Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60 million died.” “Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.” “Where are the others speaking out?” Ahmed was asked. This drew an extended standing ovation from the nearly 150 people in the room, complete with cheers. The panel’s moderator, conservative radio host Chris Plante, grinned and joined in the assault. “Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?” he demanded of Ahmed. “Yeah,” audience members taunted, “yeah.” Ahmed answered quietly, as before. “I guess it’s me right now,” she said.
Milbank's account seemed to suggest an anti-Muslim witch hunt with one lone innocent standing at the back braving the torrent of hate. Except it wasn't true. Milbank's story was immediately challenged by those who know him best -- fellow political reporters in Washington, DC. Mollie Hemingway dissects Milbank's account versus the video excerpts first released by, ironically, Media Matters for America -- the famed leftist attack "media watchdog" group.

Posted by David Gerstman on June 12, 2014 17 Comments
As Bryan Jacoutot documented here three months ago, Maryland's health exchange was a complete failure. In private industry or nearly any other field of endeavor, an employee who is responsible for such a visible failure would be subject to demotion or firing. But this is politics. And this is Maryland. So the Washington Post recommended that the employee responsible for this fiasco ... should be promoted. In its endorsement ahead of the June 24 primary the paper with the largest circulation in Maryland endorsed (Lieutenant Governor) Anthony Brown for Maryland governor. The key paragraph in the endorsement is here:
No doubt, Mr. Brown, who is Gov. Martin O’Malley’s anointed successor, is a mainstay of the Democratic establishment and a paragon of the status quo. That status quo includes the state’s blatant failure to build a functioning online market for private health insurance — a failure over which Mr. Brown presided, or was supposed to preside. It also includes substantive accomplishments, including making the state more welcoming to gays and immigrants and replenishing the transportation fund in support of public transit.
So let's see if I get this. Despite the fact that Brown messed up his most significant assignment as Lieutenant Governor - concrete failure - that should be balance out by the fact that he made Maryland more welcoming - an ephemeral accomplishment at the best? As far as the transportation fund, taxing people is what government does best. Had he (and his boss, Governor O'Malley) replenished the fund while limiting the growth of government, that would have a real accomplishment. But taxing and spending is hardly a defining skill for an executive. Then there's the previous paragraph that's also kind of baffling.

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 08, 2014 9 Comments
Do you remember David Chalian? He was a reporter for Yahoo! back in 2012 and while covering the Republican National Convention he was caught on tape smearing the Romneys and implying that they were racists as to blacks suffering from Hurricane Isaac:
"They're not concerned at all. They're happy to have a party with black people drowning..."
CNN just hired him as their new political director. Geoffrey Dickens of News Busters has the details:
CNN's New Political Director in 2012: Romneys Would Be 'Happy to Have a Party with Black People Drowning' On Friday, CNN announced that David Chalian would be named as their new political director. Chalian is most famous for making an obnoxious remark about Mitt and Ann Romney during the 2012 Republican National Convention. On August 29, 2012, in live video inadvertently distributed by ABCNews.com, the-then Yahoo! News Washington bureau chief claimed the Romneys didn’t care about New Orleans residents being hit by Hurricane Isaac as he blurted: “They aren’t concerned at all. They are happy to have a party with black people drowning.”
Here's the clip. Nick Massella of Media Bistro broke the story on Friday:

Posted by David Gerstman on June 08, 2014 8 Comments
When Mahmoud Abbas's "moderate" Fatah movement first reached out to make an agreement with the terrorist Hamas movement, the response in the United State was "mostly nonchalant." Now that the two sides have announced the creating of a unity government, the response has continued to be muted. Certainly not outraged. Last week, of course, the administration didn't wait a day before endorsing the blatant violation of the American sponsored peace process. This was disappointing but hardly surprising given Barry Rubin's observation last September that the United States had gone to "backing the 'bad guys.'” In major American newspapers there was little initial editorial comment. However later in the week, the Washington Post endorsed the American response as did the New York Times. Though, surprisingly, the Times actually qualified their endorsement warning that "the United States has to be careful to somehow distinguish between its support for the new government and an endorsement of Hamas and its violent, hateful behavior," without actually offering a practical suggestion how distinguish that support. There are three main reasons why the administration was wrong to support the unity accord. 1) It is unpopular in the United States In the middle of May, The Israel Project conducted a poll of likely voters and their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One question dealt with the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government. When those originally saying they were undecided offered an opinion, the poll showed a massive rejection of the Palestinian reason for the cooperation.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 06, 2014 21 Comments
The NY Times ran an editorial on June 5, The Rush to Demonize Sgt. Bergdahl, excoriating Republicans for hypocrisy as to condemnation of the exchange of 5 top Taliban Gitmo detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. There are many all-too-typical Times sleights of hand, such as referring to Bergdahl as:
... a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
In condemning a rush to judgment as to Bergdahl by critics, The Times Editors rush to an alternative judgment. More important, the centerpiece of the Editorial, with which it begins, is a quote from John McCain (emphasis added):
Four months ago, Senator John McCain said he would support the exchange of five hard-core Taliban leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. “I would support,” he told CNN. “Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
NY Times Rush to Demonize Sgt Bergdahl 6-6-2014 9 30 am I've underlined the words "Obviously I’d have to know the details" because those words were not in the original versions of the Editorial.  Rather, it was a late correction which significantly scales back the notion that McCain previously supported this exchange deal. I've tracked the changes in the Editorial through a very useful service, NewsDiff.  The NewsDiff archive history page for the Times Editorial reflects that the Editorial originally had a less aggressive title, and also did not include the part of McCain's quote I've highlighted.  In omitting that language from the quote, the Times made it seem as if McCain supported the same deal that Obama struck.  That supposed support was the foundation for the Editorial, but when the foundation shifted, the Times made like nothing changed. Here's the edit history of the intro paragraph via NewsDiff:

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."
Accessibility by WAH