Image 01 Image 03

Media Bias Tag

Back in the good old days, the left loved to lecture us about civility. That time is over. In the course of the last few days, at least two writers from liberal outlets have tried to justify and even advocate for the violent rioting in Ferguson. First, we have Darlena Cunha of Time:
Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong? Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.
Next up is Matt Bruenig of Gawker:

Double standards are an unfortunate reality of the current media construct. Democratic flubs and gaffes seldom make headlines in mainstream outlets unless the offense is so egregious it can no longer be ignored. Of course their Republican betters aren't afforded the same white washing. This past week was a particularly inarticulate week for the Democrats fecklessly attempting to navigate their way through the amnesty cluster. Imagine for a moment the wailing and gnashing of teeth if a Republican uttered any of the following. So we present to you, What if a Republican said __________?

1. Just call me Emperor. Also, kiss my ring.

Obama being called emperor is a complement

Shushannah Walshe of ABC News notes that Republican governors are being hostile to Obama's immigration power grab:
GOP Governors Mostly Hostile on Obama Immigration Executive Action Potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates at the Republican Governors Association annual conference gave very different responses to the president’s decision to announce major executive action on immigration reform Thursday. At the gathering at the posh Boca Raton Resort and Club, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dodged, Texas Gov. Rick Perry threatened, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal accused the president of throwing a “temper tantrum” and Ohio Gov. John Kasich sounded a more moderate tone. Christie, the RGA’s outgoing chairman, refused to weigh in saying, “We will have to wait and see what he says and what he does and what the legal implications are.”
Is that a story? You know who else used to be hostile to that power grab?

An editorial in The New York Times today about the ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran warns about the dire consequences of the two sides not reaching an agreement.
The consequences of failure to reach an accord would be serious, including the weakening of President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who count as moderates in Iran, and who, like President Obama, have taken a political risk to try to make an agreement happen.
That would be terrible. Rouhani and Zarif would be weakened!  Or would it? How much political power does Rouhini have anyway? And if they have any real political power, how moderate are they anyway? As far as the first question, well, they don't call Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader for nothing. In an investigative report last year, Reuters showed that Khamenei using the organizations under his control has amassed a huge fortune by property seizures. David Daoud recently wrote:
More importantly, the Rahbar [the Supreme Leader] effectively decides who will or will not be the public face of his rule—that is, who will or will not be the president of Iran. Khamenei selects the 12 members of the Shura-ye Neghahban (“Guardian Council”), which is tasked with vetting and approving presidential candidates based on their allegiance to the ideals of the Vilayat-e Faqih. The Western media often calls Iranian leaders like ex-president Mohammad Khatami and current president Hassan Rouhani “moderates” or “reformers,” but the Guardian Council’s policies render such a characterization absurd. No genuine moderate or reformist candidate can get through the Council’s dragnet. In effect, then, the vetting process and the Rahbar’s ultimate authority negate any possibility of material change in Iran’s foreign or domestic policies.
In other words not only is Rouhani not the ultimate power in Iran, he wouldn't have achieved even his limited authority unless he was a true believer in the system. Rouhani is only a "moderate" in that he's willing to talk to the West to achieve his goals, but his goals and views are identical to those of Khamenei.

Desperate to find a silver lining in the 2014 Midterm shellacking, the media has come up with a new mantra: "The GOP's victory is short lived." 2016 is the GOP's to lose, and I would never put it past the Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; but to act as though a Republican loss of the Senate in 2016 is a forgone conclusion is premature at best. Yes, the map will be different, and yes, the GOP has no policy agenda carved in stone, yet neither of these ensure defeat in 2016. The truth is very simple: no one knows what will happen in 2016. And yet... "We were destroyed in the Midterms, what do we say?! What should we write?!" "I know, let's tell everyone that there's no way Republicans can win again in 2016." "Brilliant!" And then they got to work:

WaPo

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 2.38.43 PM  

Following an epic GOP whoopin' on Tuesday, the liberal media is in full pout mode. That the country would almost unilaterally reject President Obama's policies and a statist agenda is incomprehensible to some. There must be some other reason! Those that were kind enough to concede the shellacking tried their best to undermine its meaning. And so we present the 10 most delicious liberal election headline disasters. Extra credit to Salon who is kicking butt and taking names in the "Bitter Loser" category.

1. It was nice knowing you, polar bears.

Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 5.53.49 PM

2. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 5.57.34 PM

On this important election day let us not forget that Lena Dunham, who once described herself as the voice of her generation, wants everyone to Rock the Vote. And you can be sure it's not for Republicans. She didn't vote in the last midterm election but what does that matter? Hunter Schwarz of the Washington Post reported:
A lot of the celebrities who appeared in the midterm Rock The Vote PSA didn’t actually vote in the last midterm Celebrities are less likely to vote in midterm elections, just like us! Rock The Vote released a public service announcement last month with a parody of Lil Jon's "Turn Down For What" that featured public figures who explained why they planned to vote in the midterm elections, but according to public records, a number of them didn't vote in the last midterm election. At least five who appeared in the PSA — "Girls" actress Lena Dunham, comedian Whoopi Goldberg, "Orange is the New Black" actress Natasha Lyonne, "Rich Kids of Beverly Hills" star E.J. Johnson, and actor Darren Criss — did not vote in the last midterm, records from Los Angeles County and New York City show.
Of course, Ms. Dunham has bigger things to worry about at the moment. Kevin Williamson of National Review and Bradford Thomas of Truth Revolt had the audacity to review Lena Dunham's new book and (gasp) quote her. It's pretty creepy stuff. Thomas noted the passage where Dunham describes exploring her baby sister's genitals at the age of seven:

Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana made some stunning comments about her constituents this week. While speaking to NBC's Chuck Todd, she implied that if she loses her bid for reelection next week, it could be due to racism and sexism. The exchange was captured on video: Her remarks were certainly newsworthy but some people in the media saw a different angle to the story which was much more important; the Republican reaction. This happens quite often, as noted by Jim Treacher: The article in Treacher's tweet is by Melinda Deslatte of the Associated Press:
Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans Republicans are calling on Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu to apologize after she suggested Thursday that President Barack Obama's deep unpopularity in the South is partly tied to race. In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Landrieu was quoted as saying that the South "has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans."
Isn't it strange how the very first word in the AP article is "Republicans?" Surely that's an isolated incident, right? Nope.

Elder of Ziyon picked up on a recent bit of hypocrisy when Egypt began destroying hundreds of homes along the Sinai's border with Gaza. In So where are the Rachel Corries for Egypt?  Elder writes:
800 homes demolished in the next few days? Israel has never demolished so many in so little time. Yet over the years there have been numerous NGOs and reports about Israel's home demolitions - and no one cares about Egypt's. There are no groups popping up where young idealistic moronic college students volunteer to act as human shields to protect these homes. Indeed, no one cares about Egypt's demolishing homes for security purposes.
Rachel Corrie was a college student who didn't heed the IDF's warning to get out of the way during the demolition of a house in Gaza that housed a smuggling tunnel; Corrie was killed during the demolition. Elder is right in saying that there has been precious little protest of Egypt's actions. (Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch has been exception. In the case of Egypt, as with Israel, he sides with Hamas.) But what's frustrating is not just in the vastly different reactions to demolitions carried out by Israel as opposed to those carried out by Egypt, but also the contrast in how the world treats Israeli construction plans. This week the topic of Israel building in its capital, Jerusalem, has gotten the world worked up. From the New York Times (emphasis mine):
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Monday that Israel would fast-track planning for 1,060 new apartments in populous Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, a move that appears calibrated to appeal to the maximum number of Israelis while causing the minimum damage to Israel internationally, according to Israeli analysts. But as is often the case, Mr. Netanyahu’s decision prompted swift international condemnation at a time when Israel’s relations with Washington are already strained and risked further igniting Palestinian anger and tensions in Jerusalem. It was also unlikely to satisfy the right-wing political rivals it was intended to appease, the analysts said.
Though there was "Palestinian anger" there's no immediate consequence to this action. No one lost property. No one was displaced.

Earlier today, a Palestinian drove his car off the road into a group of people who had just gotten off Jerusalem's light rail at the Ammunition Hill stop, killing a three month old baby and injuring seven others. The Times of Israel reports:
“A private car which arrived from the direction of the French Hill junction hit a number of pedestrians who were on the pavement and injured nine of them,” police spokeswoman Luba Samri said in a statement. “Initial indications suggest this is a hit-and-run terror attack,” Samri said. The baby died at the nearby Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus a few hours after the incident. A spokesperson for Israeli rescue service Magen David Adom said a 60-year-old woman and seven other people, including the baby’s father, were also lightly and moderately wounded in the attack. ...
The suspect , Abdelrahman al-Shaludi, previously served time in jail and has been identified by Israeli government spokesman Ofir Gendelman as a member of Hamas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for partnering with Hamas and inciting violence.

Remember all the times Obama golfed, traveled to Hawaii, vacationed in Martha's Vineyard and the liberal media insisted that it was no big deal because an executive can do their job from anywhere? Apparently, that rule doesn't extend to Republican governors and while most Americans might think the government's poor handling of Ebola looks bad for Obama, Katie Glueck of Politico is pretty sure the real loser here is Texas governor Rick Perry:
Rick Perry's Ebola test AUSTIN, Texas — Ebola came to Texas. And Rick Perry went to Europe. Now the Republican governor, a likely presidential contender, is back in Austin and scrambling to avoid a damaging perception problem like the “oops” moment that doomed his first shot at the White House. At first, Perry seemed to have everything under control. When a man in Dallas was diagnosed with the deadly virus, Perry held an Oct. 1 news conference, assuring the public that “there are few places in the world better equipped to meet the challenges posed by this case.” When more people were quarantined, he launched a task force and told Texans to “rest assured our system is working as it should.” But then he left Sunday for a long-planned 7-day trip designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials. During his absence, two more cases of Ebola were confirmed, both of them involving Texas nurses who had dealt with the first patient. The governor cut his trip short and rushed home on Thursday, only to encounter criticism for leaving in the first place; Democrats charged that he was more focused on looking presidential overseas than on fixing a big problem at home.
See? It's all Rick Perry's fault, not Obama's.

In a recent appearance on MSNBC, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank suggested an inconsistency between Republican desires to remove Obama from office, and Republican complaints that the Secret Service was not adequately protecting Obama from harm. Why is that inconsistent? Can't we both oppose a president and want to protect the President? The Presidency is greater than the man or his policies. Noah Rothman of Hot Air reported:
Milbank: Why would GOP want Secret Service to protect Obama? Among the fears Milbank suggests the GOP is aggravating for political gain are concerns that the Secret Service is underperforming. “They’re even making a campaign issue of the Secret Service,” The Post columnist said, “saying things are so bad that even the President of the United States, the President of the United States we would like to remove from office by the way, is not being adequately protected by the Secret Service.” First, what a shocking and offensive insinuation to make. Yes, Republicans (and Democrats, I’d venture) can oppose a president of the opposite party and also not want any harm to come to them. Second, the suggestion that voicing concerns about the increasingly apparent incompetence in the Secret Service amounts to fear mongering is just as insulting.
Here's a video of the exchange: Of course, this could be a classic case of media projection.

The lead article in the October issue of Commentary by Omri Ceren is Yes, Israel Won in Gaza. Ceren's central premise is that Hamas built a huge terror infrastructure including tunnels, an enhanced rocket arsenal and specialized training for its terrorists, but "[a]ll of it was gone by mid-August." Hamas' plans for a spectacular terror attack against Israel and a coup against Fatah in the West Bank similarly were stymied. But what really grabbed me about the article was his description of the escalation:
In Gaza, Hamas radically escalated what had been, since the beginning of the year, a steadily increasing stream of rocket fire. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon had declared in January that Jerusalem would “not tolerate rocket fire” and that the “IDF and other security forces will continue to chase after those who shoot at Israel.” February saw more rockets and a large bomb planted on the border. In March, Hamas fired its heaviest rocket barrage since the conclusion of Israel’s 2012 incursion into Gaza—but then the fire steadily decreased throughout April and May.

Sharyl Attkisson is one of the few journalists working today who clearly puts her profession above partisan politics. She recently appeared on WMAL radio in Washington, DC to discuss the Fast and Furious scandal and others as well as the media's refusal to aggressively report these stories. From Larry O'Connor at the Washington Free Beacon:
Attkisson on Media Fast and Furious Coverage: ‘We Should All Be Embarrassed’ Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson thinks the media “should all be embarrassed” for not holding the Obama administration and the Holder Justice Department accountable for their lack of transparency in the Fast and Furious gun walking scandal. Appearing on WMAL radio in Washington, D.C., Friday morning, Attkisson provided a detailed account of Thursday’s court decision forcing the DOJ to finally reveal a list of documents the administration has concealed from Congress via a claim of executive privilege. The court order released on the same day as Holder’s surprise announcement of his resignation has led many to speculate that, perhaps, the two stories are not unrelated. When I asked Attkisson about the fact that the Holder has been forced to reveal the documents only after a FOIA request from the non-profit advocacy group Judicial Watch (the same group that successfully compelled similar disclosures in the Benghazi scandal as well as the IRS scandal) Attkisson turned her focus on the media’s apparent abdication of their traditional investigative role as the country’s Fourth Estate.
Here's the audio: