Archive for Media Bias

Thank a Vet

Just make sure they keep their distance:

An unsigned Wednesday article in the Military Times spotlighted how veteran groups have rebuked the New York Times for an opinion piece that played up the recent shootings at two Jewish community centers as apparent proof that white veterans are susceptible to joining hate groups. Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America hammered the liberal newspaper for its “sensational, slanderous and incredibly offensive” attack on his peers.

In the Wednesday op-ed, author Kathleen Belew cited a controversial 2009 Department of Homeland Security report that hyped the potential for “right-wing extremists…to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities,” and targeted conservatives for their criticism of its findings. Belew even threw the race card into the mix:

…This short document outlined no specific threats, but rather a set of historical factors that had predicted white-supremacist activity in the past — like economic pressure, opposition to immigration and gun-control legislation — and a new factor, the election of a black president….The agency was “concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

Makes sense to me. Everyone knows vets are crazed killers—pro-gun, anti-immigrant, economically-pressed, racist, crazed killers. So what’s the problem?

“Both the title — ‘Veterans and White Supremacy’ — and an accompanying graphic joining service members with KKK members are shameful,” Rieckhoff said in a statement to Military Times on Wednesday. “And the piece relies on weak research and sweeping generalizations about veterans. Especially coming right after so much irresponsible journalism that surrounded the [April 2] Fort Hood shooting, this is stunning and sad to see.”

“How could the New York Times publish such a hurtful piece?” Rieckhoff said. “Veterans deserve answers from the Times — and an apology. After more than a decade of sacrifice, no veteran should have to open the newspaper and read an op-ed linking them to hate groups. In contrast to this op-ed, we should focus on telling the story of veterans doing amazing, inspiring work across the country and addressing the real challenges veterans face, including high rates of suicide and unemployment.”

You want to be treated with respect for volunteering to serve and defend your country, including these liberal pukes who repay you by calling you a psychopath? Get your own newspaper. Call it the Military Times.

PS The US military is in good company. Israelis and conservatives are similarly routinely slimed in the pages of the Times.

Comments (1)

Out: “Nobody Messes With Joe” In: “Joe is a Hot Mess”

You may have seen in the news a couple of days ago Joe Biden’s inspiring words in Boston on the anniversary of the marathon.

You probably didn’t see this:

It was worth it?

To the Richard family? To Jeff Bauman who would have bled out from his femoral artery had total stranger Carlos Arredondo not clenched shut the gushing orifice.

Their stories are inspiring. But they would rather have lived lives of quiet desperation the past year than have served as inspiration to this maroon. Four of them would rather have lived, period.

Bashing Biden isn’t the point; everyone knows he’s a dolt. But the media covering up for him is a big effing deal.

Comments (1)

9.3 Million Healthy People Can’t Be Wrong

But liberal, government-sponsored, public radio can be—and usually is.

I briefly listened to the Friday episode of On Point, a daily Boston NPR news magazine, when they turned to ObamaCare. One of the panelists, Jack Beatty (former editor of the Atlantic, which should be a clue) raved what a huge success the program was. I expected him to trumpet the 7 million—make that 7.1, no wait, 7.5 million—who had signed up. But no, he blared on about the 9.3 million more people who had insurance. Success, he insisted, runaway success (audio here, no transcript)!

So, I had to go look it up:

RAND published the full report yesterday; it indicates that Obamacare’s exchanges only enrolled 1.4 million previously uninsured individuals.

That 1.4 million is out of a total of 3.9 million exchange enrollees overall. That is to say, a little over a third of enrollees—36 percent—were previously uninsured. RAND’s figures don’t take into account the last few weeks of the Obamacare open enrollment period, and they contain a substantial margin of error, due to the study’s small sample size.

[T]he CBO estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the first-year enrollees would come from the previously uninsured population. Instead, it appears to be more like 24 to 36 percent.

We’ve seized on that 1.4 million ourselves. All this ruckus for 1.4 million newly insured people? Couldn’t we have sent fruit baskets instead?

And where’s the 9.3 million?

RAND finds that, overall, 9.3 million more U.S. residents have health insurance in 2014 relative to 2013. That figure has a margin of error of 3.5 million. But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is that 8.2 million of that comes from growth in employer-sponsored insurance. Labor force participation has been steadily declining, especially among younger individuals, which would seemingly make this result unlikely. Other surveys from ADP and Aon Hewitt have found that employer-sponsored coverage among the young has been flat to down.

On the other hand, it’s theoretically possible that Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates have convinced millions of Americans to sign up for health insurance. But those mandates have been repeatedly delayed and laced with loopholes and exceptions.

A third possibility is that RAND’s survey is simply inaccurate. The authors note that “people may not report having Medicaid because their state uses a different name for the program or because they do not understand the true source of their insurance.” We just don’t know.

So, Beatty seized on generalized data that can’t be corroborated elsewhere—and was unchallenged by the host or other guests. Sounds like settled science to me!

Comments (4)

What Am I Missing?

I should rephrase the question, as it is so open-ended that it would take an Encyclopedia Thirstania to answer it as posed.

What am I missing in regard to the tragic fatal fire in Boston’s Back Bay of two weeks ago?

A team of four federal investigators will be looking for answers in the Back Bay blaze late last month that killed two Boston firefighters.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, also called NIOSH, which has investigated two other fatal firefighting incidents in Boston in recent years, announced Friday that it would look into the deaths of Lieutenant Edward J. Walsh Jr., 43, and firefighter Michael R. Kennedy, 33.

But we already know how they died, and why:

Walsh and Kennedy were killed March 26 after they became trapped in the basement of 298 Beacon St. during a nine-alarm fire. Frantic calls for water to douse the fire were heard on audio recordings.

Last week, authorities disclosed the cause and origin of the blaze: It was ignited by sparks from welders working on an iron handrail at the building next door.

The workers had been working without a city permit, which usually requires a Fire Department official to inspect the work site for potential hazards and decide whether a fire detail should be present.

Investigators determined that fierce winds blew sparks from the welding job at the back of 296 Beacon St. onto the clapboards at the rear of 298 Beacon St. The fire smoldered, traveled up inside the walls, and fed on the dry wood, authorities said.

Two brave men died gave their lives in the most heroic and heartbreaking manner imaginable, and we don’t name the welders, or even the company for which they worked, responsible for starting the fire? Even when they omitted a crucial safety step that might have prevented the fire? Even when they persisted on welding (without a permit) on an unusually windy day?

What am I missing? Pope Francis asks us to forgive pedophile priests even as we condemn their evil, and he’s got a point (in Christian theology).

But why are we so forgiving of these unnamed welders, whose negligent actions (confirmed on surveillance tapes) surely bordered on criminality? But for their violation of city fire regulations, Kennedy and Walsh—sons, fathers, brothers—would be alive today. Yet we prance around with these “investigations” and “inquests”.

What am I missing?

PS: What I might be missing—the only thing that makes any sense—was provided by a caller to local talk radio the day it was revealed two un-permited welders had started the fire: they themselves were un-permited. They were illegal aliens. I have no evidence; as far as I know, none exists. But in the absence of any explanation why the negligent actions of these two have gone unexamined, I can think of no other explanation. However protective of pedophile priests the Catholic Churdh was, that’s nothing compared to the protective shield the liberal media holds over illegal immigrants and their crimes.

I’ll revisit this post if and when anything further is revealed.


Obama’s IRS Lies And The MSM

In fact, the IRS did not hassle “progressive” groups

IRS agents testified before Congress that the agency’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa.

IRS agents testified before Oversight that ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations applying as new ones. Emerge America was scrutinized for potential “improper private benefit.” No evidence exists that the IRS requested additional information from any Occupy Wall Street group.

“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,” according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

“[T]he Administration and congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the IRS’s targeting was not just limited to conservative applicants,” the report states. “These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, the Administration’s chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from the truth about the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants.”

“[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” the report stated.

Big surprise.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

Globe Logic

I think I’ve just discovered the purest example of an oxymoron in nature. (You can do better in the lab, but the artificiality of “black white” or “here there” lessens the impact).

It’s a small example, to be sure, but no less impressive in its imbecilic impact:

It seems a bit unfair that David Letterman’s legacy is marked so indelibly by the fact that he lost out on “The Tonight Show.” Yes, when Johnny Carson retired in 1991, NBC gave the seat to Jay Leno, whose upbeat comedy was deemed a better fit for a broad national audience than Letterman’s deadpan, minor-key brand of humor. It was striking that Leno, who grew up in Andover, seemed to speak more to Middle America, while Letterman, an Indiana native, resonated with cheeky coastal elites. Sure enough, after Letterman — whose show “Late Night” followed Carson — decamped to CBS and started a rival show in Leno’s time slot, Leno generally came out on top in the ratings.

Leno beat out Letterman for the plum job, and then beat him in the ratings consistently, for decades.

So, who’s the winner?

Even so, it’s Letterman who will leave the more memorable legacy.

Why? Because of “Stupid Pet Tricks” and “Top Ten” lists.

Taste and preference are one thing—Ginger or Mary Ann, Coke or Pepsi. But to declare the clear runner-up as the winner simply because his “hip” style appeals to you is weird. That’s “cheeky coastal elite” logic for you. (Btw, how “hip” is a man who practices a style honed forty years ago? When’s the latest Elliot Gould flick coming out?)

And I seriously have to ask in what other departments they employ this method of analysis. Chris Christie may (or may not) have known about the malicious placement of traffic cones in New Jersey (oh, the humanity!), but Leland Yee is caught dead to rights running guns in California. Christie’s the lead story because… just because. Israel treats Syrian and other Arab sick and injured in its hospitals; it has returned more than 90% of land taken in ’67; it refrains from praying at its holiest site out of respect for Muslim sensitivities. The Arab occupiers of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, meanwhile, mortar, murder, and kidnap Jews with genocidal abandon. But they are “equivalent” because… well, do you really have to ask why?

Letterman was funny, no doubt, and “ironic” was just the word. But I think something else influences the Globe’s choice of him over Leno (especially as Jay was a local boy).

PS: Mary Ann and San Pellegrino, if you even have to ask.

Comments (1)

Just Plane Trutherism

I started to post this story a few days ago, but dropped it.

After George Galloway’s rabid assertion that Israel caused the ructions in the Ukraine, who needs another antisemitic diatribe?

But what the hell:

An American commentator who appeared on state-owned Iranian Press TV suggested that Israel was responsible for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which went missing on March 8.

The comments by the commentator, Dr. Kevin Barrett, were made during an interview which aired on March 30. They were posted to YouTube by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“Why are they giving us photoshopped pictures of Iranian passengers?” said Barrett, referring to the two Iranian nationals who boarded the flight with stolen passports.

“Obviously there was some kind of a set-up to try to blame this on Iran,” he continued. “Precisely what that is we don’t know, but the Israelis have been using their assets, including the head of El-Al security, who was a 9/11 suspect – he lives in New Jersey, I forget the gentleman’s name…”

“He and other Israelis have been putting out as much media propaganda as they can, trying to blame this on Iran, saying it is a waste of time to look at this as being anything other than an Iranian hijacking,” said Barrett.

“Well, Christopher Bollyn just found that there is an identical twin of this plane. It has been sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv, Israel, for the past couple of months. There was a shell-game played with this aircraft. It was in the south of France, and then they moved it down to Israel. Speculation is that there was some sort of false-flag plan afoot, perhaps another planes-into-buildings deception like 9/11,” he claimed. “We have so many parallels between this event and 9/11.”

If you’ve got the stomach, here’s another fevered imagining of Israel’s perfidy. I picture Tom Cruise or Matt Damon as the Israeli PM, fighting off trained Iranian assassins with his bare hands before pouring mind-controlling drugs in the world’s water supply.

So, why did I change my mind. Why give bandwidth to noted Israel-haters like George Galloway and this other fellow?

For a laugh? To hold them up to ridicule?

Sure, but…

If this is the kind of nonsense in the water supply, what else is there? We may turn up our noses at such putridity, but what can we not smell due to the overwhelming stench? My answer is: everything the New York Times prints about Israel.

Demonized as terrorists by Israelis and lionized as freedom fighters by Palestinians, prisoners like Mr. Salah have become a flash point in the troubled peace talks . . .

One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, is that it?


Israeli court records show Mr. Tenenbaum was found about 7:30 a.m. on June 14, 1993, lying on his back in a bed near the hotel bar, a pillow covering his bloodied face. According to the 29-page verdict convicting him of murder, Mr. Salah told investigators that he and another man had gone to Netanya in search of a Palestinian suspected of collaborating with Israel, and happened upon the guard.

The other man said, “Let’s kill him so that we did not make the trip for nothing,” the verdict quotes Mr. Salah having said. “Only when we saw the guard sleeping did we decide to kill him as a protest against the occupation.”

How inspiring.

The self-styled “paper of record” can print as seeming fact that a random thrill-kill of a 72-year-old Holocaust survivor by two Arab maggots (with apologies to maggots and their doting mothers everywhere) is somehow a protest against the occupation. That’s what I’m talking about.

People as smart as Simon Schama and as dirt-clod dumb as Alice Walker can bemoan the Israeli treatment of the “Palestinians”, but based on what? Not on conspiracy theories about the covert Israeli operation against the polar bears. But on slanted, twisted, backward “news” coverage they read, see, or hear in the media every day.

Maybe the Jews didn’t bring down the Malaysian plane, but those bastards are guilty of something, I just know it!



On behalf of the entirety of Red Sox Nation, I apologize for this shameless publicity stunt that demeaned the integrity of the office of the President of the United States:

The selfie was taken during a visit to the White House this week by the 2013 World Series winners. Ortiz, who has an endorsement deal with Samsung, put the photo on Twitter, and the electronics company re-tweeted the post to its 5.2 million followers.

“I can say that as a rule, the White House objects to attempts to use the president’s likeness for commercial purposes,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday. “And we certainly object in this case.”

Understandable. The president’s likeness should never be exploited.


Imagine using his likeness so crassly:

It’s unbecoming:

Besides, that’s their job:



Left Wing Food Fight!

Nate Silver and Paul Krugman duke it out

FiveThirtyEight was an independent blog prior to joining The New York Times on Aug. 25, 2010. Mr. Krugman referred to FiveThirtyEight or Nate Silver on seven occasions during its independent period. Four of these mentions were favorable, two were neutral, and one was unfavorable.

During FiveThirtyEight’s tenure with The New York Times, Mr. Krugman referred to FiveThirtyEight or to Nate Silver 21 times. Over all, 15 of these references were favorable, as compared to five neutral references and one unfavorable one.

But Mr. Krugman’s views of FiveThirtyEight have changed since it re-launched March 17 under the auspices of ESPN. The columnist has mentioned FiveThirtyEight four times in just nine days, all in negative contexts. (Mr. Silver has frequently criticized what he calls “pundits” and “opinion journalists,” including those who write for The Times.)

To be sure, the difference in Mr. Krugman’s views could reflect a decline in quality for FiveThirtyEight. The web site has brought on almost two dozen new employees and contributors. And it has expanded its coverage beyond politics into sports, economics and other areas.

While it can be easy to extrapolate a spurious trend from a limited number of data points, the differences are highly statistically significant. At his current pace, Mr. Krugman will write 425 more blog posts about FiveThirtyEight between now and the 2016 presidential election.

Graph at the link. Very amusing. Krugman liked him just fine when Nate Silverman was predicting a democrat win in 2012. Now he says Republicans have a 60% chance of taking the Senate. And he’s lost popularity. Hmmm.

- Aggie



In many a police state, pesky journalists are bundled into an unmarked car or dragged into a dark alley and never seen again. We’re not like that here, oh no.

We’re much more civilized:


How does CBS News thank its star reporter on the current presidency? By questioning her ideology and integrity and forcing her to leave. That’s rich, coming from the RatherGate network.

CBS Goodbye

Renowned investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson was the beam in the CBS Eye. Now, her persecutors running CBS News are no doubt euphoric she finally is leaving.

It’s a textbook case of the major media’s liberal slant to devalue a versatile winner of five Emmys on everything from bank bailouts to Republican congressional fundraising to mismanagement at the Red Cross, apparently because she’s too tough on the biggest power grabber in the history of the U.S. presidency.

Politico reports Attkisson had grown frustrated not just with CBS’ bias, but also with “an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said.”

Dan Rather didn’t worry about CBS’ “corporate partners” when, just before the 2004 presidential election, he used forged documents to call into question President George W. Bush’s Air National Guard service.

Attkisson is nearly alone within the broadcast media in pursuing Obama scandals, like the Benghazi attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans; the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal that left U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry dead; and the Solyndra scandal that wasted over a half-billion dollars of taxpayer money on a failed solar-panel maker. Last year, her computer was mysteriously hacked.

Who are those creepy “corporate partners”, and what are their motives and goals?

I can’t wait for the Oliver Stone film about this victim of a fascist government!

Comments (1)

Shopping Like It’s 1992!

This would seem merely mildly amusing and vaguely humiliating:

President Obama dropped by The Gap in midtown New York Tuesday to shop for Michelle and his daughters.

Not seen here is a potential “king doesn’t get the masses” moment. From the pool report:

When Sonya told him that he could swipe his own card on the countertop card reader, Obama quipped, “Oh wow. So, you can sign the machine?” As the reporters in the pool started scribbling, he said he was teasing, adding, “They had these around the last time I shopped.”

Won’t make the papers.

Why not? This did:

As President Bush travels the country in search of re-election, he seems unable to escape a central problem: This career politician, who has lived the cloistered life of a top Washington bureaucrat for decades, is having trouble presenting himself to the electorate as a man in touch with middle-class life.

Today, for instance, he emerged from 11 years in Washington’s choicest executive mansions to confront the modern supermarket.

Visiting the exhibition hall of the National Grocers Association convention here, Mr. Bush lingered at the mock-up of a checkout lane. He signed his name on an electronic pad used to detect check forgeries.

“If some guy came in and spelled George Bush differently, could you catch it?” the President asked. “Yes,” he was told, and he shook his head in wonder.

That was from the New York Times—in 1992! H. W. Bush. 41. And he was mocked and ridiculed for years afterwards.

But Obama gets a pass for being out of touch 22 years later. Now do you know why I think people who read the New York Times and listen to NPR are the very model of the low information voter?


¿Quien es Mas Macho?

I wrote recently about conservatives looking beyond politics to the culture of the country for impact and change. I cited Glenn Beck’s recent comments, as well as Mark Steyn’s.

Rush Limbaugh, too, has recently published two children’s books on American history to correct the corrosive effect of liberalism on young skulls full of mush.

Keep writing, Rush.


In a very competitive field, Seth Meyers is making a strong case that he is the most liberal host in the late night game.

Like a little girl having Justin Bieber over for a tea party, Meyers slobbered over MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow during her appearance on his “Late Night with Seth Meyers” Wednesday morning.

“You’re like basically my dream woman,” the NBC host gushed at one point.

Doesn’t a “dream woman” have to be, you know, a woman?

Isn’t that Pajama Boy (aka Ethan Krupp)?

Of course, the next time I watch Seth Myers will be the first. I’ll get right to it—right after I watch every Seth Rogen film and every Family Guy (Seth MacFarlane) episode.

PS: And purchased a Seth Aaron Henderson design.

PPS: And reset every Seth Thomas clock.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »