Archive for Media Bias

Heard On NPR [Update: Apparently The Islamic Terrorist That NPR Didn’t Know About Killed A Couple Folks

I was gobsmacked this morning during drive time when I heard the NPR news report on the Islamist hostage situation in Sydney. The NPR reporter said, approximately, that there was a hostage situation in Sydney and that the Australian PM says it is probably political in motive. That’s all. Every other news source that I checked correctly noted that there was something resembling an ISIS flag in the window, being held up by the hostages. NPR tried to shield its listeners from the unpleasant fact that the Religion of Peace (or a minority thereof) was carrying out a terror attack in Sydney. What in the world does NPR have to gain by covering this up? And no matter what the answer is, why do I have to pay for it?

And here’s the latest, which you can share with your NPR-disabled friends:

Sydney siege live: Loud explosions heard as police storm Lindt cafe
Updated 14 minutes agoMon 15 Dec 2014, 10:38am

Police have stormed the Lindt cafe in Sydney after an intense period of loud explosions or gunshots and flashes of lights.

Several ambulances are on the scene.

Earlier, police identified the man behind the siege as Iranian cleric Man Haron Monis.

Monis has been holding an unknown number of people hostage at the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Sydney’s Martin Place since Monday morning.

Three people emerged from the building about 4:00pm (AEDT) and they were followed by another two an hour later.

Hostages were earlier seen pressing a black flag with Arabic text against the cafe’s windows.

Monis is on bail for a string of violent offences and has a conviction for sending offensive letters to the families of deceased soldiers.

And this is from CNN

Chilling images from Australian media on Monday showed people, believed to be hostages, with their hands pressed against the cafe’s windows. They were holding up a black flag with Arabic writing on it reading, “There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God.”

Sounds like angry Congregationalists to me. Again, why are we spending tax money on NPR? They couldn’t find the news if it was handed to them in a brown paper bag.

Update: Two or three dead.

– Aggie

Comments

Why Isn’t This News?

George Bush and Dick Cheney made headlines for calling NY Times reporter, Adam Clymer, a major league a-hole.

This?

Crickets.

According to retired ABC News journalist Ann Compton, Barack Obama launches into “profanity-laced” tirades against the press in off-the-record meetings with reporters. In a C-SPAN interview, Compton also derided the President for leading “the most opaque” administration of “any I have covered.”

The journalist, who retired in August after a 40-year career, revealed to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb: “I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals.”

She explained, “And I don’t find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record and just give us hell.”

After Lamb wondered if the President had a point, she chided, “We cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don’t take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they reap what they sow.”

Earlier in the hour-long C-SPAN interview, which aired on Sunday night, but was recorded in October, Compton slammed the “opaque” administration:

ANN COMPTON: Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday. He is far less accessible on photo-ops with meetings. Even some meetings on the record, meeting in the Roosevelt room with financial leaders from, from Wall Street or on issues with environmental groups, or with issues with environmental groups, with public opinion leaders, I think most presidents have been far more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day and we almost never get photo-ops.

She added that it’s fine for the White House to take its own photographs, but “those same elements should not be blocked from the White House press corps.”

Since when does the president get to dictate what is and is not a scandal? And why do these guys cover up for this guy? Especially when he’s such a major league a-hole himself?

Comments (1)

Mr. Tingle-Down-My-Leg Comments: Hope ‘N Change Baby!

He must be worried about the MSNBC ratings…

– Aggie

Comments

Rolling Stone Apologizes For Accusing Frat House Of Rape

This reminds me of the Duke lacrosse scandal.

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

That’s OK, Mr. Dana. This is just another example of journalists being journalists.

– Aggie

Comments

Left Wing Civility Watch

I knew I had used this post title before, but this is the 22nd time:

The real haters are in the media, some of them the openly left-leaning media and some of them claiming to be mainstream. But oh, how vilely they spew their hatred.

They accuse us of being “haters.” They, by contrast, are rational, fair-minded, and kindly. Really, they are. Consider, for example, the gentlemanly Chris Matthews on Hardball on October 27, speaking of the Republican nominee for Senate from North Carolina: “What’s worse: Thom Tillis, or Ebola?”

Here’s Andrea Mitchell reporting on MSNBC on Election Night about why Republicans were winning: “It was a scare tactic by the Republican opponents of Democratic incumbents, who tried to focus on ISIS and Ebola in the scariest, most nonfactual ways.”

Here’s Alan Pyke, deputy economic policy editor for the far-left Think Progress blog in reaction to the Fox News Channel’s coverage of the unrest in Ferguson: “I hope Roger Ailes dies slow, painful, and soon. The evil that man has done to the American tapestry is unprecedented for an individual.”

Matthews (again), with regard to conservative support for voter-ID laws: “Believing they can’t convert the African-American vote, they’ve decided to slaughter it. . . . This is murder in broad daylight.”

But at least our economics aren’t lethal — merely bigoted. Just ask MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who on April 30 discerned our real motives: “I think not raising the minimum wage is a racist policy. . . . Not raising the wage, the minimum wage, is every bit as racist as comments made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. It’s just displayed in a different way.”

Charles Pierce, who wrote this blog post about Palin’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference: “[Senator John] McCain should pay a heavy price for unleashing this ignorant, two-wheeled bilewagon [Sarah Palin] on the country’s politics. If you think she’s a legitimate political leader, you’re an idiot and a sucker, and I feel sorry for you. . . . She is the living representation of the infantilization of American politics, a poisonous Grimm Sister telling toxic fairy tales to audiences drunk on fear and hate and nonsense. . . . It was the address of a malignant child delivered to an audience of malignant children. If you applauded, you’re an idiot and I feel sorry for you.”

Compared with that, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski was quite kind to Palin, calling her merely “a multimillion-dollar moron selling a message.”

Max Brooks on HBO with Bill Maher pretended to be a Deep Thinker delivering a sober analysis. The rise of the Tea Party “has happened before in history,” he sagely intoned. “In Germany in the ’20s and ’30s…

Gawker’s staff writer Adam Weinstein shared this bit of policy advice:

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . . . Denialists should face jail. They should face fines. . . . I’m talking about Rush and his multimillion-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I’m talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. . . . Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.

In case anybody missed the point, the blog post’s headline was “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.”

These are talking heads, but are they any different from our co-workers, our acquaintances, our family members? We called it Bush Derangement Syndrome back when Bush was president. But Bush hasn’t been president for almost six years. It should have been called Liberal Hate Syndrome, and there is still no known cure. (Of course, the first step is wanting to be cured.)

Comments

Lifting the Veil on Media Bias

If it’s the right guy, it takes only one:

During the Gaza war this summer, it became clear that one of the most important aspects of the media-saturated conflict between Jews and Arabs is also the least covered: the press itself. The Western press has become less an observer of this conflict than an actor in it, a role with consequences for the millions of people trying to comprehend current events, including policymakers who depend on journalistic accounts to understand a region where they consistently seek, and fail, to productively intervene.

Using staffing numbers, I illustrated the disproportionate media attention devoted to this conflict relative to other stories, and gave examples of editorial decisions that appeared to be driven by ideological considerations rather than journalistic ones. I suggested that the cumulative effect has been to create a grossly oversimplified story—a kind of modern morality play in which the Jews of Israel are displayed more than any other people on earth as examples of moral failure. This is a thought pattern with deep roots in Western civilization.

BOOM!

I should highlight every word. In the media, “the Jews of Israel are displayed more than any other people on earth as examples of moral failure.” Absolute killer.

Here’s one example he gives:

A rally in support of Islamic Jihad at Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem, in November 2013 (Courtesy of Matti Friedman)

The images from the demonstration were, as photo editors like to say, “strong.” The rally had, in other words, all the necessary elements of a powerful news story.

The event took place a short drive from the homes and offices of the hundreds of international journalists who are based in Jerusalem. Journalists were aware of it: The sizable Jerusalem bureau of the Associated Press, for example, which can produce several stories on an average day, was in possession of photos of the event, including the one above, a day later. (The photographs were taken by someone I know who was on campus that day, and I sent them to the bureau myself.) Jerusalem editors decided that the images, and the rally, were not newsworthy, and the demonstration was only mentioned by the AP weeks later when the organization’s Boston bureau reported that Brandeis University had cut ties with Al-Quds over the incident. On the day that the AP decided to ignore the rally, November 6, 2013, the same bureau published a report about a pledge from the U.S. State Department to provide a minor funding increase for the Palestinian Authority; that was newsworthy. This is standard. To offer another illustration, the construction of 100 apartments in a Jewish settlement is always news; the smuggling of 100 rockets into Gaza by Hamas is, with rare exceptions, not news at all.

It’s a long piece—one I haven’t finished myself—but let me leave you with one more taste:

There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere.

Aggie and I have covered this ourselves. We’ve highlighted “Pallywood”, the tendency of Arabs to stage scenes of carnage with healthy people walking around in other images; with people who died elsewhere, their corpses transported for the photo op; even with shots of other victims of other wars relabeled as victims of the Israeli military.

But even we let the press off the hook as merely ignorant and lazy. Complicity in a conspiracy to slander and libel a nation and its people was something we suspected, but lacked the hard evidence to prove.

Not anymore.

Comments

Blecch!

Why does this sound familiar?

NBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday night found a new way to compliment Barack Obama. Politicking host Larry King asked the Meet the Press anchor if he “liked” the President.

KING: Do you like him?

TODD: Oh, he’s a very likable guy. Yes.

KING: I agree.

TODD: He’s very friendly. I mean, he’s very easy to talk to – You do – you sit there and have these off-the-record sessions with him. You’ve had them. And – They’re just very nourishing conversations.

Edward R. Murrow is rolling over in his grave.

Remember this?

JEFF ZELENY, NEW YORK TIMES: During his [sic] first one 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?

OBAMA: Now, let me write this down.

(LAUGHTER)

I’ve got…

ZELENY: Surprised, troubled.

OBAMA: What was the first one, surprise?

ZELENY: Surprise, troubled.

OBAMA: Troubled.

ZELENY: Enchanted.

OBAMA: Enchanted. Nice.

(LAUGHTER)

ZELENY: And humbled.

OBAMA: And what was last one, humbled?

ZELENY: Humbled. thank you, sir.

OBAMA: All right.

I don’t know what acts Marilyn Monroe performed on President Kennedy, but they couldn’t have been more lewd and lascivious than that.

And then there’s Tingles:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Chuck Todd is in good company—well, company.

Comments (2)

Shameless

Scoot down, would ya Jay Carney? Make room, David Axelrod. Chris Matthews, Laurence O’Donnell, where are your manners?

C’mon Stephanopoulos, give the lady a seat!

MSNBC announced Friday morning that it hired the White House’s associate communications director to head up the network’s press shop.

Starting December 8, Rachel Racusen will be the cable news outlet’s vice president of communications. “I’m thrilled to add Rachel to our senior team. She has great experience, she’s creative, strategic and passionate about our brand,” said network chief Phil Griffin. “She’ll be a tremendous asset to the network.”

Who are we kidding? She already was.

As an associate communications director at the White House, Racusen works long days and nights promoting the White House’s messaging. On a typical day, Racusen arrives at the office around 7 a.m. for a flurry of meetings, prep sessions and events related to amplifying presidential initiatives.

On any given day, Racusen may help staff an interview for senior presidential advisers or oversee the press coverage of a policy rollout event. After 12- or 13-hour clock-ins at the office, she’ll return home only to log online and continue answering emails into the night.

She’s perfect for the “brand”! Thanks at least for not insulting us by calling it a “news” organization.

Comments

Epiphany

Who does Jonathan Gruber think is stupid – the Conservatives who never believed a word of ObamaCare nonsense or the NPR/NY Times/Boston Glob crowd who licked up every syllable and accused those who didn’t believe in it of racism? When he says that the American voter is stupid, he means them. Because the Limbaugh crowd and the Wall Street Journal crowd and the Libertarians and Fox News and the small business community and the Tea Party all knew that he, Obama, Reid and Pelosi lied about this every time they spoke. It was the Charlie Rose crowd, the Terry Gross crowd, the earnest little twits who gobbled this nonsense up with a spoon. No wonder the MSM isn’t covering any of this. It’s embarrassing.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

So, now that all hell has broken loose with Jonathan Gruber’s disgraceful, arrogant, elitist remarks about how ObamaCare was passed as the Law of the Land only by way of lies, obfuscations, and evasions…sorry, what did you say?

All hell hasn’t broken loose? The mainstream media are not touching it?

Not CNN? Nope.

The New York Times? Nope.

NPR? Nope.

USA Today? Nope.

NBC, CBS, ABC? Nope, nope, and nope.

You’ve all seen and heard the remarks. Not only did he call the American people a bunch of dopes, he called ObamaCare supporters a bunch of dopes. They bought it; the rest of us knew they were lying. We all said so at the time. (How dumb must Chief Justice Roberts feel right now? Not half as dumb as he should feel.)

It even turns out that Gruber made a habit out of bragging how smart he was, and how dumb we were.

And not one word in the “respectable” media. (To its immense credit, the Washington Post has plenty.)

I do try to keep hyperbole to a minimum (oxymoronic as that may sound), or at least tongue in cheek, but I do not inhabit the same world as my neighbors anymore. I may not be smarter (or dumber), but I know things they can’t even imagine. The most terrifying of which is that the institution of the press is as corrupt as any medieval pope or Roman emperor (or Massachusetts Speaker of the House). We are just as dumb as they want us—I never said Gruber was wrong.

PS: Gruber did appear on local PBS with liberal lioness, Emily Rooney. You won’t last past the sickening question, trust me, so it won’t take long.

Comments (1)

Wrong Nate

“I knew Nate Silver. Nate Silver was a friend of mine…

Nate Cohn, you are no Nate Silver.”

Polls show that the Republicans have an advantage in the fight for control of the Senate. They lead in enough states to win control, and they have additional opportunities in North Carolina and New Hampshire to make up for potential upsets. As Election Day nears, Democratic hopes increasingly hinge on the possibility that the polls will simply prove wrong.

But that possibility is not far-fetched. The polls have generally underestimated Democrats in recent years, and there are reasons to think it could happen again.

Oh well. We all get it wrong sometimes.

Care to try again?

The Republicans are looking forward to having a good week. They are favored to win the Senate, and they could pick up enough House seats to finish with their largest margin since 1928.

But perhaps more important to the party’s long-term prospects than Tuesday’s results is what unfolds in the presidential battleground states. If the night ends with tight races in Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia, as the polls suggest, then the results will not be as great for Republicans as many analysts will surely proclaim.

So, if I change my name to Nate, and write Democratic propaganda, can I get a job at the New York Times?

Former Timesman, Nate Silver, got the hell out off that rag, and saw the Republican tsunami coming. He also called out the biased polling (see below). This other Nate don’t know nuttin’.

Comments

How The Left “Thinks”

Yet another example of willful ignorance. Why are we obsessed with the religion of the Ottawa attacker?

Our obsession with the Ottawa shooter’s religion reveals more about us than about him

I kid you not; that is the title of the piece. Why, oh why, should we concern ourselves with his faith?

Yesterday, the media reported that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the man allegedly responsible for a horrifying shooting spree in and around the Canadian parliament, was a convert to Islam. News reports on the shooting then spent much of the day fixated on that unconfirmed fact — even though there is as yet no evidence that his religion was a motivation for his actions. More sensational coverage discussed dubious social-media connections to ISIS.

These reports imply that because Zehaf-Bibeau was Muslim, jihad is the likely motivation for his attack. But at this stage, without any actual evidence, it makes no more sense to come to that conclusion than it would to assume that he was motivated by Quebecois separatism, just because he was from Quebec. At this point, our focus on the Ottawa shooter’s religion says more about our own fears than it does about anything to do with Islamist terrorism.

On some level, of course, this feels like an obvious connection to make. ISIS dominates the news right now and we hear story after story of people from Western countries joining its jihadist campaign. Surely, it seems, Zehaf-Bibeau’s religion must be relevant to the terrible crimes he committed yesterday?

But those assumptions start to break down upon a little closer examination. Is the theory that the only reason a Muslim would kill is in the name of Jihad? Muslims are just like anyone else, for better or worse, which means that just as an act of generosity by a person who is Muslim does not mean that act was motivated by Islam, a murder committed by a Muslim was not necessarily driven by Islamist extremism.

And on it goes… The writer wishes to make herself (and the rest of us) as stupid as possible. This is just breathtaking stupidity. I don’t even have a way to categorize it or a decent simile. It isn’t like asking why we have to eat, or why the sky is blue, because those questions have interesting answers. Instead, it seems to be saying – screaming – LIKE ME BECAUSE I AM SO GOOD!!! What is wrong with this writer????

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »