Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Atheistic Liberal News Media

Atheistic Liberal News Media

For many years, I have stated my concern about the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry that I believe has perverted America from being a Christian Nation.

It is good to see other people agree (see comments to news story) with my position on the Atheistic Liberal News Media.

Some would say that it is unfair to add, "Atheistic", but I believe there is a symbiotic relation between liberalism and Atheism.


Evening News Ratings: 2009-2010 Season
By Chris Ariens on Sep 21, 2010 11:45 AM

The ratings are in the for just-completed 2009-2010 network evening news season. And when compared to 2008-2009 season, "NBC Nightly News" ABC's "World News" and the "CBS Evening News" have lost a combined 739,000 Total Viewers and a combined 338,000 A25-54 viewers.

"Nightly News with Brian Williams," which finishes at #1 for the 14th season in a row, lost the least: -138K Total Viewers (8.698M in 08-09 v. 8.560M in 09-10), while Katie Couric's CBS program, lost the most: -343K (6.053M in 08-09 v 5.710M in 09-10). "World News" which saw Charles Gibson anchor the first few months of the season, and Diane Sawyer picking up in December, lost the most younger viewers: -221K (2.351M in 08-09 v. 2.130 in 09-10).

BiggEd - What do you expect? They shoved an ill qualified presidential candidate, Barak Obama down our throat, "for our own good". Never asking the hard questions, even once. Just fawning over him and his platitudes, with "chills running down their legs".
Meanwhile they beat the snot out of a more qualified female conservative, Governor Palin, taking cheap shots and with careful editing they made her look silly.
The American public is not stupid, it's time to pay the piper Katie, Charlie, Chris and Keith. We're mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it anymore!
94 people liked this.

Jamalagrin - The three, so called main news media, is nothing but a mouth piece for the Obama Administration and liberalism. The American people by the droves are turning to fair and balanced news from Fox News, The Internet, and Talk Radio.
Very soon, the only ones watching these loser news stations will be hard core socialists and these loser network people themselves.
80 people liked this.

amplover1 -Who cares. Thinking people do not watch network news. These networks' teleprompter readers simply regurgitate the talking points supporting the dictatorship. Most people watch their local news (biased against the citizens as it often is) and this leads into these leftist Marxist biased broadcasts. If it wasn't for local news, nobody would watch it. When they bring back journalists, and stop cheerleading the destruction of our nation, perhaps their fortunes will improve. Frankly, the success of CNN and MSNBC on cable should also tell them something. Williams, Sawyer, Couric - - these are not journalists. They are Democrat party propaganda experts.
37 people liked this.

John Steinbeck -
The network news work hand in hand with the democrat/socialist party.

Everything they do or report is driven by that fact.

If it helps democrats report it loudly. If it helps GOP bury it. If it hurts democrats bury it, if it hurts GOP scream it loudly.

Anyone with a brain knows this is true and the networks trying to deny this truth just makes them more and more irrelevant.

For years the networks tried to hide this fact but during the last decade and certainly during the election of Obama, the networks came completely out of the closet and showed their collusion with the cheer-leading they did for Obama.

When the final nail is driven into the coffin of the liberal biased media and they're buried 6 feet under, I will dance on their grave.
114 people liked this.

alvinjh - The news networks never believed that people were offended by their constant left wing preaching. They never even TRIED to be fair in their coverage. I stopped watching them about 4 years ago. I don't miss them. And yes, I watch a lot of Fox News, and I read the International press online. Couric in particular irritated me with her disrespectful and haughty treatment of President Bush. We are a polarized people now. We have chosen sides. Too bad the network executives thought their job was to lead us to a particular destination rather than provide information and let us decide where we wanted to go ourselves. Well, that was their choice.
90 people liked this.

Friday, September 3, 2010

BBC had "massive bias to left:" director general

BBC had "massive bias to left:" director general

The Atheistic Liberal News Media of America needs to make the same confression.

It is about time young journalists use Matt Drudge as a roll model instead of Walter Cronkite..

BBC had "massive bias to left:" director general
Sep 2 05:37 AM US/Eastern

The director general of the BBC admitted that his organisation had been gui...

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster.

Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher."Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC," he added.

The 2007 report criticised the organisation?s slow response to the rise of Euroscepticism and immigration concerns, which it said were considered "'off limits? in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone."

Outlining his hopes for the relationship between the national broadcaster and thenew Conservative-led coalition government, Thompson said: "What we want is an effective and businesslike relationship with government -- it's not about personal relations."

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Another journalist wakes up

Another journalist wakes up

Politics and journalism is a symbiotic relationship where most journalists in America support the Socialistic positions of the democratic party.

The symbiotic relationship is evil, but the support for Atheism by most journalists has been even more devastating to America.

The major question is whether the Atheistic Liberal News Media is the propaganda wing of the democratic party or the democratic party is the political wing of the Atheistic Liberal News Media.

A good journalists is a person that presents both sides of an issue and lets the reader decide which side to support. The journalist should state which side of the issue they support, so the bias of the journalists is clear.


Journolist veers out of bounds

By ROGER SIMON | 7/28/10 4:36 AM EDT
Updated: 7/28/10 5:25 AM EDT

Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein appears on a television show.
Ezra Klein founded Journolist in 2007.


This may be the most embarrassing thing I have ever written — and looking back on my writing, there is a lot of competition for that dubious distinction — but when I became a reporter, it was almost a holy calling.

We really believed we were doing good. We informed the public and helped make democracy work. We exposed wrongdoing wherever we found it. We reported without fear or favor. As a columnist, I tried to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

I warned you that this would be embarrassing.

We loved what we did, and we did it with passion. We were proud. We felt — I am just going to go ahead and say it — honorable.

There were wrongdoers. Fakers, plagiarists, those with private agendas who wished to slant the news. When found, they were often fired. Even when they were subjected to a lesser punishment, their sins were made clear as a lesson to the rest of us. (At a few papers, those who wished to slant the news were publishers or editors who wished to please their publishers. They were rarely fired. But their numbers were few.)

The lines were not muddy. You played it straight. Even if you were a columnist and allowed to publish your opinions, you were expected to be fair and accurate.

At the end of the day, you often went home feeling good. And when people asked what you did, you replied with pride, not shame.

It was, as I said, almost a holy calling. (And often accompanied by a vow of poverty.)

Somewhere along the way, things have gone terribly wrong. Journalism has become a toy, an electronic plaything. I do not blame technology. The giant megaphone of technology has been coupled with a new, angrier, more destructive age. (Yes, you can find extremely angry, extremely partisan times in our past, but I always thought the goal was to progress over the centuries, not regress.)

Until recently, there was a semisecret, off-the-record organization called Journolist. It was a listserv, which is a bunch of people who sign up (if allowed) and then get the same e-mails and can reply to everybody on the list.

Journolist was founded by Ezra Klein in early 2007, when he was 22 and working for the liberal publication The American Prospect. Klein continued running it when he went to The Washington Post in 2009. The Post is a mainstream publication, but Journolist was limited to those "from nonpartisan to liberal, center to left."

Klein determined who would get on Journolist — political reporters, academics, think tank members, left-wing bloggers — and it grew from a manageable 30 members to a pretty unmanageable 400. There was no censorship, but if Klein felt you had gone too far, he would tell you to stop it. You could be threatened with expulsion, but nobody was ever expelled.

The first story revealing the existence of Journolist was printed by POLITICO in March 2009, but while the names of a few members (including three people at POLITICO) were revealed, and some talked about it, most would not. (I was never a member and learned about it when the public did.) No actual e-mails were printed.

Recently, however, the conservative website The Daily Caller, run by Tucker Carlson, got hold of many Journolist e-mails and printed the most provocative, which to some gave every appearance of a left-wing conspiracy to slant news coverage in favor of Barack Obama. Journolist posts by Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel, who was helping cover the conservative movement, that were critical of conservative icons, including Matt Drudge, prompted Weigel to resign.

The result was explosive, and Klein closed down Journolist, while denying there was anything evil about it. "If people had been getting together and deciding on a message and then publishing that message, that would have been clearly unethical, and I would not have allowed it, and it didn't happen," Klein told me Tuesday.

Tucker Carlson e-mailed me: "What they did discredits journalism in general, and honorable liberal journalists in particular. I know plenty of progressives who have a healthy skepticism even of candidates they voted for. Most of the members of Journolist didn't."

In any case, the hubbub is now virtually over. The buzz is done buzzing, and the media have moved on from Journolist to WikiLeaks.

And yet some are still troubled.

Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News, who was not part of Journolist, told me this:

"I am sure Ezra had good intentions when he created it, but I am offended the right is using this as a sledgehammer against those of us who don't practice activist journalism.

"Journolist was pretty offensive. Those of us who are mainstream journalists got mixed in with journalists with an agenda. Those folks who thought they were improving journalism are destroying the credibility of journalism.

"This has kept me up nights. I try to be fair. It's very depressing."

I know how he feels. Klein appears to be a very honorable guy, but I think he created a Frankenstein monster without meaning to do so. I vowed I would never pine for the Good Old Days — I believe the Good Old Days are ahead of us — but let me end with the words of Stanley Walker. He was a famous newspaper editor in the 1920s and '30s and wrote the following, which I have edited for space. (And if he were writing today, I am reasonably sure he would have included women.)

"What makes a good newspaperman? The answer is easy. He knows everything. He is aware not only of what goes on in the world today, but his brain is a repository of the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

"He hates lies and meanness and sham, but keeps his temper. He is loyal to his paper and to what he looks upon as his profession; whether it is a profession or merely a craft, he resents attempts to debase it.

"When he dies, a lot of people are sorry, and some of them remember him for several days."

Or at least for several news cycles.

Roger Simon is POLITICO's chief political columnist.

Read more:

Thursday, July 22, 2010

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

The only real question is whether the Left-Wing Media is the propaganda wing of the democratic party or the democratic party is the political wing of the Left-Wing Media.

Anyone that listens or watches a news/views broadcast must realize that what is being presented is biased.

A bias/spin is not a lie. A bias/spin is to tell that part of the story that supports your position and to not tell that part of the story that does not support your position.

Until Fox, the news/views were all biased for the democrats and now with Fox there is a bias for the Republicans.


The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

Everyone knew most of the press corps was hoping for Obama in 2008. Newly released emails show that hundreds of them were actively working to promote him.


When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Limbaugh Award for Excellence in Conservative Journalism

Limbaugh Award for Excellence in Conservative Journalism

Obama's Relatively True Statements

Obama said he was not going to raise taxes on the Middle Class and that was a relatively true statement, but the following article shows it is also relatively a lie.

Until Fox came along, the democrats could get away with relative truth, but with Fox in the picture, you get a complete picture of what is going on.

I had always hoped the liberal news networks and newspapers would become more honest, but that just doesn't seem possible. If you want the liberal spin, you watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, but if you want the conservative spin, you watch Fox or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I watch PBS for the liberal spin and Fox for the conservative spin. I am beginning to see more and more news articles like the following that present conservative information.

What conservative news needs is the "Limbaugh Award" for excellence in conservative journalism similar to the "Pulitzer Award" for excellence in liberal journalism.

I would nominate Glen Beck for 2009 because of his excellent coverage of ALCORN and the Obama Czars.

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM

By Terri Cullen

NEW YORK ( --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.