Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

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:

I must've missed the "everyone make stuff up" memo circulating through media channels this week. Thankfully, I'm just a blogger. Tuesday, the Huffington Post published a post with the headline, Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed. There's just one problem though -- that's not what Jeb Bush said. Not in 1995 or otherwise. The post focuses on a book Bush wrote called Profiles in Character. The book was published in 1995. Gawker, Wonkette, Raw Story and others then reblogged using the same, incorrect headline. No, Jeb Bush did not say unwed mothers should be publicly shamed

Last week, the New York Times dropped the lamest "hit" piece in the history of hit pieces. Pretending a few traffic tickets from the 90s made Sen. Rubio and his wife unfit for public service, the NYT ended up the butt of the joke. On social media, #rubiocrimespree trending nationally for hours with submissions like, "drank milk after it expired," and "Didn't read Apple End User Licence [sic] Agreement but still clicked "I Agree"." Rubio's campaign got in on the fun, and celebrities publicly declared the NYT story dumb. Apparently that wasn't enough embarrassment for the NYT. Tuesday, the NYT released yet another 'scoop' on the good Senator from Florida. This time, the NYT suggested that Rubio had financial problems which have tainted his career. Those "financial problems"? "Student debt, mortgages and an extra loan against the value of his home totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars."

The New York Times yesterday featured an article on Hillary Clinton's electoral strategy for 2016. In short, she apparently is mimicking President Barack Obama's strategy for his second term.
Instead, she is poised to retrace Barack Obama’s far narrower path to the presidency: a campaign focused more on mobilizing supporters in the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on persuading undecided voters. Mrs. Clinton’s aides say it is the only way to win in an era of heightened polarization, when a declining pool of voters is truly up for grabs. Her liberal policy positions, they say, will fire up Democrats, a less difficult task than trying to win over independents in more hostile territory — even though a broader strategy could help lift the party with her.
There's a phrase in those two paragraphs, "era of heightened polarization," that's worth reflecting on. I know how all right thinking people lament the growing partisanship in politics, but there's a pretty clear cause and effect implicit here, though the Times won't admit it: Obama in his quest for reelection, pursuing a narrow strategy, has increased the polarization in politics. Clinton plans to follow suit. I question if this is a wise strategy for Clinton to pursue. I'm not alone.

Last week, reporters with NBC's Atlanta affiliate station crashed the Spring Task Force Summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC, an organization that works with state legislators, think tanks, and policy experts to advocate for limited regulation and reduced taxation, is a favorite target of left-leaning media outlets and reporters. The report published by 11 Alive, Atlanta's NBC affiliate, paints ALEC as a group of nefarious money-mongers who buy their way through state legislatures to accumulate power. 11 Alive also suggests ALEC was involved in a "secret back room meeting"... a secret back room meeting to educate part-time legislators.
What is ALEC? "It's really a corporate bill mill," said Sen. Nan Orrock, an Atlanta Democrat who has served in both houses of the Georgia General Assembly for years. "They're cranking out legislation, putting it into the hands of legislators who go back and file it." Orrock would know. She was once a member of ALEC. "The corporations that are there have equal standing with the legislators," Sen. Orrock said. "You mean they can vote?" we asked. "They absolutely can vote, and truth be told, they write the bills," she answered, referring to the lobbyists. There really are back rooms where corporate lobbyists have direct access to lawmakers completely out of sight, with no transparency or public filings. They're also wined and dined after hours at these events with nothing recorded on ethics reports. We know because we saw one of these back rooms with our own eyes, and were kicked out with the aid of off-duty police officers on orders from ALEC staff.
Orrock won awards from the Progressive States Network. It's also not uncommon for think tanks and policy shops to have sample legislation posted on their websites for state house use. But facts and things.