I was glad to see Michelle Malkin raking the New York Times over the proverbial coals for their dishonest reporting in re: to the Haditha trials. Over the past two years The Times has written 35+ stories (along with headlines in giant font) re: the alleged crimes of these Marines while editorializing that the incident was the “defining atrocity” of the war, yet has posted only two small blurbs noting that seven of these eight officers have now been acquitted (one still awaits trial).
The blatant bias and lack of integrity at the NYT continues to be appalling. And while we’re talking about character assassination and biased, irresponsible journalism, how about MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s characterization of the “willful targeted brutality” of these Marines before the trials even began? Or The Nation’s conclusion that the regiment “perpetrated a massacre”? Or similar comments in The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the L.A. Times? Will any of these entities, or Congressman Murtha, who also slandered these Marines, now apologize for their propaganda? Honesty and integrity not being on their agenda, we won't hold our collective breath.
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
23 June 2008
21 June 2008
What a Difference the Messenger Makes
The liberal media is praising Obama for making some critical statements about black fathers in front of a predominantly black audience. Addressing the congregation of a large black church, Obama mentioned his own absentee father and said “we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” He went on to state, “more than half of all black children are living in single parent households” and “too many fathers are MIA” and “the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” Obama is being widely credited with making a speech that was “striking for its bluntness” and is being applauded for his courage in presenting it to a black audience.
So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.
So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.
11 June 2008
Where's Voltaire When We Need Him?
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire
Just read an interesting commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor @ the Culture and Media Institute, in re: this report and all the talk about the possible resurrection of the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” The old rule, done away with under Reagan, required radio stations that aired op-eds to give free, equal time to opposing views. The regulation was intended to benefit the public by providing diverse information on controversial issues on the airwaves. Now, thanks to the Internet, the addition of hundreds of newspapers, a plethora of new-ish radio broadcast stations, and nearly a dozen news/opinion television networks, people can access information (and varying opinions) any time they wish. As such, there is simply no need for a Fairness Doctrine.
Lefty allegations that talk radio is dominated by conservatives and subsequent claims that we need to reinstitute the Rule are pretty silly. Fitzpatrick rightly points out that of the roughly 2,200 radio stations that do talk radio, more than one third feature predominantly left-liberal programming. More to the point, a balance exists in every single major market: the talking points of the Left are on the airwaves along with conservative radio shows, and listeners can make their choice. (Anyway, only about 7% of the American public even listens to talk radio, so what is all the hype about?)
As for the major news networks, news magazines, and daily newspapers, they are already primarily dominated by the Left and/or Center – but you don’t hear Conservatives trying to insisting that these forums give us a free voice on their dime and time. Instead, conservatives and libertarians plug away as best they can in the forums that exist, or try to create new forums through private and non-profit funding, trusting the public to seek out the type of news and information it wants.
In re: to the fact that there are about twice as many conservative as liberal radio talk shows, someone ought to tell the Left about a jazzy little economic concept called Supply and Demand. Radio stations can’t survive indefinitely without listeners to support them, plain and simple. No audience means no air time, and that is as it should be. Air America Radio and others have stumbled because of an overly progressive and often caustic bent, not because anyone on the Right has impeded them vis a vis federal rules and limits. I think Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that the Left fears the strong influence of conservative talk radio, and that their desire for raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead is mainly motivated by a desire to “hush Rush” et al – or at least to set limits re: how many stations can broadcast how many hours of conservative talk across the nation. If so, they are allowing their personal political motives to trump general respect for freedom of speech and free markets. This is glaringly un-Democratic and ought to confound and concern the minds of intelligent, honest Democrats. Once again, by being on the wrong side of an issue like this, the Left reveals itself to be a group of hyper-controlling, moralizing busybodies who value winning over Liberty.
Just read an interesting commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor @ the Culture and Media Institute, in re: this report and all the talk about the possible resurrection of the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” The old rule, done away with under Reagan, required radio stations that aired op-eds to give free, equal time to opposing views. The regulation was intended to benefit the public by providing diverse information on controversial issues on the airwaves. Now, thanks to the Internet, the addition of hundreds of newspapers, a plethora of new-ish radio broadcast stations, and nearly a dozen news/opinion television networks, people can access information (and varying opinions) any time they wish. As such, there is simply no need for a Fairness Doctrine.
Lefty allegations that talk radio is dominated by conservatives and subsequent claims that we need to reinstitute the Rule are pretty silly. Fitzpatrick rightly points out that of the roughly 2,200 radio stations that do talk radio, more than one third feature predominantly left-liberal programming. More to the point, a balance exists in every single major market: the talking points of the Left are on the airwaves along with conservative radio shows, and listeners can make their choice. (Anyway, only about 7% of the American public even listens to talk radio, so what is all the hype about?)
As for the major news networks, news magazines, and daily newspapers, they are already primarily dominated by the Left and/or Center – but you don’t hear Conservatives trying to insisting that these forums give us a free voice on their dime and time. Instead, conservatives and libertarians plug away as best they can in the forums that exist, or try to create new forums through private and non-profit funding, trusting the public to seek out the type of news and information it wants.
In re: to the fact that there are about twice as many conservative as liberal radio talk shows, someone ought to tell the Left about a jazzy little economic concept called Supply and Demand. Radio stations can’t survive indefinitely without listeners to support them, plain and simple. No audience means no air time, and that is as it should be. Air America Radio and others have stumbled because of an overly progressive and often caustic bent, not because anyone on the Right has impeded them vis a vis federal rules and limits. I think Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that the Left fears the strong influence of conservative talk radio, and that their desire for raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead is mainly motivated by a desire to “hush Rush” et al – or at least to set limits re: how many stations can broadcast how many hours of conservative talk across the nation. If so, they are allowing their personal political motives to trump general respect for freedom of speech and free markets. This is glaringly un-Democratic and ought to confound and concern the minds of intelligent, honest Democrats. Once again, by being on the wrong side of an issue like this, the Left reveals itself to be a group of hyper-controlling, moralizing busybodies who value winning over Liberty.
05 June 2008
great comment from OvercomingBias.com
From a post on yesterday's Overcomingbias.com:
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
21 May 2008
How DARE You Call Me That!
We all know the New York Times has a track record of running fast and loose with the label "conservative" while severely limiting their use of the word "liberal." The Times also recently apologized for using the word "Democratic" to describe a Democratic organization. The nerve!
19 May 2008
Media Bias Alive and Well at NBC News
On the Corner earlier this week, K-Lo provided a transcript of a letter from Ed Gillespie @ the GOP to the president of NBC News. It’s a must read for anyone interested in (or who still denies) Media Bias. The lack of journalistic integrity over at NBC News is truly outrageous. I'd threaten to stop watching, but I haven't watched in years. Anyway, the letter begins thusly:
This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
Gillespie's subsequent points were that W's remarks before the Knesset were the same as all his past policy statements, the "appeasement" line needed to be put in context, and the U.S. has a long-standing policy position against negotiating with terrorists...so all the whipped-up frenzy was unnecessary. He referred to NBC's "deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline" as "utterly misleading and irresponsible." Gillespie then went on to say the following:
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
How nice to know that Matt Lauer, our nation's foremost expert on military and political affairs, was part of the careful deliberation that led to this "news." We certainly approve of such an accomplished foreign policy expert as Where-In-The-World Lauer. I mean, we've all seen his Tango, so, 'nuf said. Gillespie continues:
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?
Gillespie's letter ends thus:
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olberman at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
Gillespie's subsequent points were that W's remarks before the Knesset were the same as all his past policy statements, the "appeasement" line needed to be put in context, and the U.S. has a long-standing policy position against negotiating with terrorists...so all the whipped-up frenzy was unnecessary. He referred to NBC's "deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline" as "utterly misleading and irresponsible." Gillespie then went on to say the following:
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
How nice to know that Matt Lauer, our nation's foremost expert on military and political affairs, was part of the careful deliberation that led to this "news." We certainly approve of such an accomplished foreign policy expert as Where-In-The-World Lauer. I mean, we've all seen his Tango, so, 'nuf said. Gillespie continues:
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?
Gillespie's letter ends thus:
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olberman at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
