Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Media Bias Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 25, 2015 10 Comments
As you can probably imagine, Ted Cruz's announcement about his plans to run for president in 2016 brought out a whole new level of crazy from liberals in media and most of it was very ugly. The fine folks at Newsbusters have done a tremendous job chronicling the MSM reaction in words and video. Here are a few choice examples. From Jeffrey Meyer:
Donny Deutsch Attacks ‘Scary…Dangerous…Slimy’ Ted Cruz Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, Donny Deutsch viciously attacked Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) following his announcement that he will be running for president, calling the Tea Party favorite “scary” and “dangerous.” After co-host Mika Brzezinski asked Erica Grieder of Texas Monthly about Cruz’s presidential prospects, Deutsch tore into the Republican senator and declared him “completely unelectable, obviously an interesting character and obviously he’ll have a place at the table but unelectable for a host of reasons.”
Here's the video: But wait, there's more....

Posted by David Gerstman on March 23, 2015 9 Comments
The nuclear negotiations between the West and Iran may have reached an impasse over the timing of Iran getting relief from sanctions. This is how The Guardian broke down the differences between the United States and the French on Friday:
Diplomats say the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, telephoned the French delegation in Lausanne to ensure it did not make further concessions, and to insist that the bulk of UN sanctions could only be lifted if Iran gave a full explanation of evidence suggesting it may have done development work on nuclear warhead design in the past.  ... The US offer on sanctions is to lift UN sanctions in layers in return each “irreversible” step Iran makes to scale down and limit its nuclear programme. There would be mechanisms in place by which sanctions would “spring back” if Iran violated the agreement, without the need for consensus in the UN security council. It is broadly supported by the UK and Germany, while Russia and China, the other members of the six-nation group, would offer more generous terms. Tehran is reluctant to accept sanctions relief based on milestones, but diplomats say the French position would be a complete deal-breaker. They say the Iranians would be very unlikely to admit past weapons work, which if revealed would demonstrate that the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, had misled the world. Better, US diplomats argue, to focus on limiting the current Iranian programme and worry about allegations about the past a few years down the road.
Focus on the current issues and leave the allegations for the future? Are they crazy? Let's take a couple of paragraphs from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696, which was passed in July 2006 and was the first of six resolutions passed against Iran for its violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Yes, we have to do this... again. Perpetual media malpractice requires searchable rebuttals to even the dumbest of mistruths, like the latest one about Ted Cruz. Speaking to the Strafford County Republican Committee in New Hampshire yesterday, Cruz was critical of the administration saying, "the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind... the whole world's on fire!" (managing to slide in a not so subtle Clinton dig). A little girl named Julia Trant was supposedly frightened by Cruz's statement and asked mid-speech, "The world is on fire?!" according to Adam Smith, political editor for the Tampa Bay Times, who attended the event. Senator Cruz took a moment from his speech to assure the little girl that Mommy was taking care of everything, "the world is on fire, yes! Your world is on fire. But you know what? Your mommy's here and everyone's here to make sure that the world you grow up in is even better." Ted Cruz has two young daughters of his own. The video was posted by Raw Story with the headline, "Ted Cruz scares the hell out of a terrified little girl in New Hampshire." CNN, New York Magazine, Bloomberg, Gawker, Salon and others had similar headlines. Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly mused that Cruz was using coded language and really meant Obama is the anti-christ or at the very least, one of his minions. Because referencing a "world on fire" is clearly an anti-christ dog whistle. Yes, seriously.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 15, 2015 7 Comments
As we recently noted, every problem for Democrats is ultimately spun as the fault of Republicans and Obama's policy on Iran is no exception. The panel on today's edition of Face the Nation began laying the groundwork for talking points which will soon become all too familiar. Ryan Lovelace of National Review:
CBS Panel Is Ready to Blame GOP Sen. Tom Cotton If Obama’s Foreign Policy Toward Iran Fails The panel on CBS’ Face the Nation appears ready to blame Arkansas senator Tom Cotton if the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran fall through. Cotton, along with 46 other Senators, penned a letter warning the Iranian regime not to rely on any agreement with President Obama that did not have the approval of Congress. “Yes, Cotton is well intentioned in doing this, but it’s backfiring,” said Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. “If the Ayatollah is going to give out the Ayatollah’s Medal of Honor this year, I think Cotton’s going to be a finalist because it gives them an excuse if they pull away from the agreement now.”
Watch the exchange below:

Posted by David Gerstman on March 12, 2015 3 Comments
In a lengthy report, investigative journalists Richard Behar and Gary Weiss exposed the various ways that the Associated Press (AP) discounted Israeli claims and promoted Hamas propaganda in its investigation last month into civilian casualties that occurred during last summer's Operation Protective Edge. Among the sins and omissions documented by Behar and Weiss are (1) misidentifying terrorists, (2) using children as props, (3) failing to acknowledge that pictures are posed, (4) cherry-picking quotes from Israeli officials, and (5) failing to disclose the anti-Israel bias of their sources. One incident recounted by Behar and Weiss involves the interactions between Reuven Ehrlich and an AP reporter; Ehrlich is the head of the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). Following Operation Protective Edge, ITIC carefully reviewed martyr claims made by Gaza-based terrorist organizations in order to identify which of the dead were terrorists and which were civilians. ITIC also kept a count of those whose status was unknown.
A few days before the AP article was published, one of its reporters, Karin Laub, telephoned Mr. Erlich of the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which has documented in several of its own probes that the Hamas-generated numbers for Gaza civilian casualties are grossly inflated. The organization found that Hamas is obfuscating the actual lists and affiliations, partly because of objective technical difficulties (poor paperwork and a lack of access to some bodies), and as part of its propaganda campaign against Israel. Thus, Meir Amit’s experts are closely examining the deaths, one by one, and its final tally won’t be available for many months—if not years. For now, the ratio of civilian-to-terrorist deaths has been averaging roughly 1:1 in its reports.

Posted by New Neo on March 12, 2015 49 Comments
I had thought that the press would stand by Hillary Clinton in the same way they've stood by Obama---through thick and thin. After all, Obama has committed acts far worse than Hillary's, has covered up more, and has been just as egregious in his lies. And yet I can't recall Obama having been subjected to questions even remotely as difficult as the ones Hillary faced (and answered poorly) this week, although the press could have grilled him that way any time he appeared before them. They chose not to do that, but they chose to ask some real questions of Hillary Clinton. Why the differential treatment? As soon as the email story broke, the NY Times led the attack. Originally it seemed that they may have wanted to get it over with in a perfunctory way and then let her candidacy continue, or that this was being done at the direction of Obama who wanted another candidate for various reasons. But now I've come to think that the first reason isn't operative (at least, not any more), and that although the second may be true, it doesn't account for the fervor of the criticism. Perhaps part of the reason this thing has gotten bigger is that Clinton has handled it poorly. Perhaps the MSM is piling on because they thought Hillary would be better at dealing with it than she has demonstrated so far, and they're panicking because her performance means she will be a bad candidate come 2016. Or perhaps they know of other scandals, and they want her out before the revelations multiply (and end up reflecting poorly on their favorite, Obama, or on liberalism itself?) If they can't put out this fire they may want to fan the flames so that the sacrifice happens more quickly and a new and more viable candidate is chosen, and they can get credit for "objectivity" (for hurting one of their own) into the bargain.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 04, 2015 38 Comments
In case you missed it, yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech before Congress eviscerating Obama's policy toward Iran and triggering a complete meltdown amongst Democrats and liberal talking heads. I included the rail-jumping from MSNBC institution Chris Matthews in a previous post, but something he said during his rant has been nagging at me ever since I blew it off and hit "publish":
Speaking to Thomas Roberts shortly after Netanyahu’s speech ended, Matthews said definitively, “This man from a foreign government walked into the United States legislative chamber and tried to take over foreign policy.” “He said you should trust me, not your president on this,” Matthews continued, describing the tone of Netanyahu’s remarks. “I’m the man you should trust, I’m your true leader on this question of U.S. geopolitics. If you want to protect yourself, you must listen to me and not this president.” Calling the situation “startling,” Matthews said, “It’s a remarkable day when the leaders of the opposition in Congress allowed this to happen. Think it through, what country in the world would let a foreign leader come in and attempt to rest from the president control of U.S. foreign policy?” “This was a takeover attempt by Netanyahu with his complying American partners to take American foreign policy out of the hands of the president,” he concluded.
Watch:

Posted by David Gerstman on March 01, 2015 28 Comments
The administration continues in its attempt to marginalize Prime Minister Netanyahu ahead of his speech on Iran. And the efforts appear to be backfiring. Jeffrey Goldberg tells some important truths in today's column, Danger Ahead for Obama on Iran:
I’m fairly sure Netanyahu will deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition. The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me—or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis—with confidence. Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium (a “right” that doesn’t actually exist in international law); it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I’m more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.) ... This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them—if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
And as Goldberg noted, three years ago Obama promised in one of Goldberg's columns, “We’ve got Israel’s back.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 28, 2015 24 Comments
Gawker Media website Deadspin helped Cory Gardner win the Colorado Senate race, and contributed to Republicans taking the Senate, by botching a gotcha story about Garnder supposedly faking his high school football record. Deadspin was dead wrong, and we said Thanks Deadspin! Now Gawker Media website Jezebel has done the equivalent for Scott Walker. "Senior Reporter" (what could that possible mean at Jezebel?) Natasha Vargas-Cooper thought she had a big, BIG scoop that proved Walker hated women, or something. You see, Walker supposedly didn't want sexual assault statistics reported by the University of Wisconsin because budget cuts would defund such reporting: Jezebel Scott Walker Sexual Assault Reporting Original It was the perfect WAR ON WOMEN narrative. But Vargas-Cooper didn't know the full story, perhaps because she was too busy dancing on Walker's political grave. The Daily Beast then picked up the story, and Scott Walker supposedly hating women spread like wildfire. Turns out the reporting cut was requested by the University of Wisconsin itself because it was redundant of federal reporting it already did -- why spend the money to report the same thing twice? And the world came crashing down on Jezebel and Vargas-Cooper, but she stood strong in the face of the patriarchy:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 22, 2015 13 Comments
An effort last week to marshal Congressional Democrats to urge House Speaker John Boehner to delay Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Congressional speech next month gained the support of only 23 out of 188 House Democrats. There is more than one way to explain this. Here's administration defender Greg Sargent of The Washington Post.
Some House Democrats have circulated a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner to delay the speech, on the grounds that it represents a partisan effort by Republicans to enlist the help of a foreign leader in scuttling one of the President’s chief foreign policy goals, i.e., reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, which Netanyahu bitterly opposes. ... All in all, the failure of more Democrats to sign this letter suggests many still fear the politics of appearing out of sync with whatever Israel wants. It’s true that a number of Democrats have said they will skip the speech. But many of those have clarified that this isn’t due to any organized boycott, and far more are attending. And, really, all the talk of a “boycott” is misdirection. It shouldn’t be all that difficult for Democrats to call for a mere delay in this speech, while rebuffing efforts to portray such a move as “anti-Israel,” given how egregious the circumstances surrounding this event really are.
(It's important to note that Sargent quotes a poll showing that most Americans are unhappy with the way the invitation was extended - i.e. dissatisfaction with Boehner's actions, other polls show strong American support for Netanyahu speaking.) Not surprisingly Sargent uses his cherry-picked data point to point out the the big bad Israel lobby as the culprit.(In blaming the pro-Israel lobby, Sargent took a page from the playbook of President Obama who, last month, according to The New York Times, effectively accused Sen. Robert Menendez of not loving his country enough, "The president said he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than make a move for short-term political gain, according to the senator.")

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 22, 2015 33 Comments
If you think the mainstream media is not out to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 every bit as much as it was for Obama in 2008 and 2012, then you need your head examined. The multi-day and ongoing demand that Scott Walker verify that Obama is Christian and loves America is a good example. Why is it that Republican candidates and politicians are required to verify the bona fides of Democrats? Here are three questions I have yet to hear Obama or any Democrat asked:

1. Should Joe Biden stop touching women without consent?

2. Is Elizabeth Warren Native American?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 22, 2015 30 Comments
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. The Washington Post's Robert Costa and Dan Balz interviewed Scott Walker yesterday. Of everything they had opportunity to ask, they chose to ask Walker whether he thought Obama was a Christian. How Walker's opinion on the matter is remotely relevant or newsworthy is unclear to normal people, who expect the press to do that whole "truth to power" thing. Walker, seemingly unamused by the obscure religion question, responded appropriately, saying he "didn't know."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott K. Walker, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said Saturday he does not know whether President Obama is a Christian. “I don’t know,” Walker said in an interview at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, where he was attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association. Told that Obama has frequently spoken publicly about his Christian faith, Walker maintained that he was not aware of the president’s religion. “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 21, 2015 14 Comments
Brian Williams' tragic exit meant that a right-leaning media behemoth must too, suffer the same fate, according to the leftist code of retribution. Last week, David Corn and Daniel Schulman of Mother Jones set their crosshairs on Fox New's Bill O'Reilly attempting to settle the score. MJ and crew accused O'Reilly of lying about his reporting of The Falklands War in 1982. As we discussed:
Their ‘scoop’ seems to revolve around how Mother Jones is defining, “war action” and other semantics they themselves haven’t yet pieced together. Namely that to cover The Falklands War and reporting directly from The Falklands are not mutually exclusive.
O'Reilly responded callng, David Corn a “despicable guttersnipe” and “a liar.” He denied any discrepancy, and called the entire Mother Jones reprt “a piece of garbage.” Yesterday, O'Reilly directly addressed Corn's accusations. He produced memos and letters from 33 years ago. He also addressed the issues that we pointed out above, as well as the obvious Brian Williams retributive angle.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 16, 2015 15 Comments
Almost immediately after news of the Chapel Hill shootings broke on major media outlets and social media, talking heads on the left seized the opportunity to turn the brutal murders of three muslim human beings into a political debate: And then this, just a couple of hours later:

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 14, 2015 3 Comments
A North Carolina man named Craig Hicks murdered three young Muslims last week over what appears to be a parking dispute. Some liberals in the media have consulted the Southern Poverty Law Center on the subject---but have failed to point out that Mr. Hicks is an apparent fan of SPLC. Jesse Walker of Reason reported. H/t to Instapundit.
The Killer, the Reporter, and the Southern Poverty Law Center Craig Hicks, the man who murdered three Muslims in North Carolina this week, had a Facebook page. One of the groups he liked on it is the Southern Poverty Law Center. An AlterNet article about Hicks—reprinted today in both Raw Story and Salon—includes several long quotes from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Guess what subject never comes up? No, I don't think the SPLC deserves any blame for the crime. That would be ridiculous. But the SPLC itself has a long history of throwing around blame in precisely that ridiculous way, so it would have been nice to hear how Potok reacts when an event like this lands in his own backyard. Double standards deserve to be challenged, right? By the way: While the AlterNet piece doesn't mention Hicks' apparent fondness for the SPLC, it does mention the fact that his Facebook likes lean liberal. But it dismisses this as unimportant, telling us the significant thing is that Hicks "appears to fit the psychological profile of violent extremists—regardless of their ideological stripes."
Patrick Poole of PJ Media recently made this observation:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 08, 2015 19 Comments
Hey, remember when Hamas was lobbing thousands of missiles at Israeli cities, trying to kidnap people, and killing when they got lucky? Of course you remember it. It has happened every couple of years since Hamas took over Gaza. And before that, the Palestinians strapped bombs on their loved ones and sent them to blow up restaurants, supermarkets, buses, and anything else they could sneak into. And before that .... But always the question is whether Israel's response is proportionate, like pointed out in this Al Jazeera column:
... on June 26, [2014] the UN Human Rights Council deliberated on the situation in Palestine and other Arab-occupied territories. During the deliberations, the council issued a warning to Israel that there may be serious repercussions as a result of its campaign against the Palestinian people, which constituted a continuing violation of international humanitarian law, following the abduction of three Israeli teenagers.
EU leaders on Gaza: 'Israel has right to protect itself but it must act proportionately':

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2015 37 Comments
In the past day, things seem to have changed in the Brian Williams story. The investigation of possible lies about being in a helicopter taking fire crossed two rubicons. First, the scope expanded to reports about his claims during Hurricane Katrina. Second, and more important, the mainstream media took up the call, with the NY Times and other outlets doing investigations, including NBC itself. From Twitter to Facebook to blogs to The Grey Lady, everybody seems to want a piece of Brian Williams. It has become internet sport at this point, a piñata onto which everyone is letting go their unrelated frustrations. Under other circumstances, I'd say he'd weather the storm. But this time it's different. Williams now is hurting his peers in the mainstream media, calling into question the honesty and integrity of the mainstream news industry. Brian Williams now is a liability to those who still manage to control so much of the narrative. Will he stay or will he go? UPDATE 2-7-2015 4:20 p.m. Eastern -- Williams announced he is removing himself from the daily broadcast for a few days. Not sure this changes our poll question. He hasn't resigned or been fired. Could just be strategic, hoping a week from now this has all blown over, like the vapor trails from the rocket fired, er, at his helicopter. (Poll open until Midnight Pacific Time, Saturday, February 7)
Accessibility by WAH