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.
POLITICO 44
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: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40308_Page2.html#ixzz0uydPx8ki
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
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.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion=
By FRED BARNES
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.
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.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion=
By FRED BARNES
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
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM
By Terri Cullen
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --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.
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
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM
By Terri Cullen
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --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.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
NBC blasted for checkbook journalism
NBC blasted for checkbook journalism
Is there any wonder that the news media and the entertainment industry are generally one and the same. I see no reason to give any special privileges to news reporters.
NBC blasted for checkbook journalism on David Goldman story — echoes of Casey Anthony coverage
Caylee and Casey Anthony, NBC, Today, WESH — posted by halboedeker on December, 28 2009 4:37 PM
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/12/nbc-blasted-for-checkbook-journalism-on-david-goldman-story.html
NBC's interview with David Goldman has drawn a scathing review from the Society of Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee.
The panel says it's "appalled" because NBC News chartered a plane for Goldman and his son, Sean, to fly from Brazil to the United States. They were reunited after a five-year custody battle, and they arrived in Orlando on Christmas Eve. In paying for the plane, NBC News engaged in "checkbook journalism," the Ethics Committee says.
The journalists' group has a code of ethics that urges reporters to refrain from bidding for news.
"The public could rightly assume that NBC News bought exclusive interviews and images, as well as the family's loyalty, with an extravagant gift," Ethics Committee Chairman Andy Schotz said.
In a statement, NBC News said: "The Goldmans were invited on a jet NBC News chartered to fly home to the U.S. on Thursday, December 24. NBC News has followed this story since the Goldmans' story first ran on Dateline nearly one year ago — David Goldman since has appeared on Today seventeen times. NBC News has not and will not pay for an interview."
With its lavish gesture to the Goldmans, NBC News helped create the news and jeopardized its credibility, the SPJ Ethics Committee said.
"Mixing financial and promotional motives with an impartial search for truth stains honest, ethical reporting," Schotz said. "Checkbook journalism has no place in the news business."
The journalists' group is urging NBC News to show some transparency on the story. Meredith Vieira interviewed David Goldman on "Today" this morning. More of the interview will be seen in a two-hour "Dateline" at 8 p.m. Jan. 8.
From the beginning, NBC News has disclosed that it invited the Goldman family on the flight.
"NBC must now, belatedly, explain why it entangled its news reporting and corporate interests in this story, as well as the terms of any deal it made with the Goldman family," Schotz said. "NBC also is ethically bound to adequately disclose its active role in the story in each of its future reports on the Goldmans."
The Ethics Committee critique arrived after it was reported that CNN paid a licensing fee to Jasper Schuringa, the hero of Northwest Flight 253 who subdued a Nigerian man determined to blow up the plane. CNN paid for a cell phone image — and thus landed Schuringa for an exclusive interview.
The Web site Mediaite.com reported,"There's a reason Schuringa has not appeared any further on CNN or any other network – we hear he has asked for additional payment for any future interviews."
Many viewers have been appalled by fees that TV news organizations have paid for photographs and footage in the Casey Anthony case. The networks say they are not paying for interviews by paying the fees. But many observers have been infuriated that the Anthony family seems to be profiting from the death of a child, 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.
The Goldman story is an uplifting one, but paying for access is still paying for news. When money changes hands, that gives the appearance of compromising the reporting.
There should be one standard in journalism. No matter if the story is happy or tragic, checkbook journalism is wrong.
Is there any wonder that the news media and the entertainment industry are generally one and the same. I see no reason to give any special privileges to news reporters.
NBC blasted for checkbook journalism on David Goldman story — echoes of Casey Anthony coverage
Caylee and Casey Anthony, NBC, Today, WESH — posted by halboedeker on December, 28 2009 4:37 PM
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/12/nbc-blasted-for-checkbook-journalism-on-david-goldman-story.html
NBC's interview with David Goldman has drawn a scathing review from the Society of Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee.
The panel says it's "appalled" because NBC News chartered a plane for Goldman and his son, Sean, to fly from Brazil to the United States. They were reunited after a five-year custody battle, and they arrived in Orlando on Christmas Eve. In paying for the plane, NBC News engaged in "checkbook journalism," the Ethics Committee says.
The journalists' group has a code of ethics that urges reporters to refrain from bidding for news.
"The public could rightly assume that NBC News bought exclusive interviews and images, as well as the family's loyalty, with an extravagant gift," Ethics Committee Chairman Andy Schotz said.
In a statement, NBC News said: "The Goldmans were invited on a jet NBC News chartered to fly home to the U.S. on Thursday, December 24. NBC News has followed this story since the Goldmans' story first ran on Dateline nearly one year ago — David Goldman since has appeared on Today seventeen times. NBC News has not and will not pay for an interview."
With its lavish gesture to the Goldmans, NBC News helped create the news and jeopardized its credibility, the SPJ Ethics Committee said.
"Mixing financial and promotional motives with an impartial search for truth stains honest, ethical reporting," Schotz said. "Checkbook journalism has no place in the news business."
The journalists' group is urging NBC News to show some transparency on the story. Meredith Vieira interviewed David Goldman on "Today" this morning. More of the interview will be seen in a two-hour "Dateline" at 8 p.m. Jan. 8.
From the beginning, NBC News has disclosed that it invited the Goldman family on the flight.
"NBC must now, belatedly, explain why it entangled its news reporting and corporate interests in this story, as well as the terms of any deal it made with the Goldman family," Schotz said. "NBC also is ethically bound to adequately disclose its active role in the story in each of its future reports on the Goldmans."
The Ethics Committee critique arrived after it was reported that CNN paid a licensing fee to Jasper Schuringa, the hero of Northwest Flight 253 who subdued a Nigerian man determined to blow up the plane. CNN paid for a cell phone image — and thus landed Schuringa for an exclusive interview.
The Web site Mediaite.com reported,"There's a reason Schuringa has not appeared any further on CNN or any other network – we hear he has asked for additional payment for any future interviews."
Many viewers have been appalled by fees that TV news organizations have paid for photographs and footage in the Casey Anthony case. The networks say they are not paying for interviews by paying the fees. But many observers have been infuriated that the Anthony family seems to be profiting from the death of a child, 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.
The Goldman story is an uplifting one, but paying for access is still paying for news. When money changes hands, that gives the appearance of compromising the reporting.
There should be one standard in journalism. No matter if the story is happy or tragic, checkbook journalism is wrong.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Mainstream Media Misses ACORN, Other Anti-Obama Scoops — Bias or Incompetence?
Mainstream Media Misses ACORN, Other Anti-Obama Scoops — Bias or Incompetence?
It is like beating a dead horse, the Atheistic Liberal News Media is so jaded they can't even see their own bias.
---------------------------------
Mainstream Media Misses ACORN, Other Anti-Obama Scoops — Bias or Incompetence?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:57 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/acorn_media_beck_fox/2009/09/16/261056.html
Now that ACORN has lost its Census Bureau contract and Senate funding, grassroots conservatives are trying to decide what's more outrageous – the organization's wrongdoing, or the media's blatant reluctance to cover it?
"Truly shocking" is how The Los Angeles Times described the ACORN revelations on Tuesday.
Fox News viewers weren't shocked: They've known about the scandal since the leading cable news network broke it last Thursday. But the LA Times, the first major newspaper to offer an editorial on the latest ACORN scandal, is actually ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the mainstream media.
In fact, in the 24 hours after the controversial videos were first posted on BigGovernment.com, the collective mainstream response could be virtually summed up as follows: "Story? What story?!?"
Consider: According to Fox News' research, the ACORN coverage aired and posted by the various news outlets in the first day of coverage consisted of: Fox News, 19 stories; CNN, 3 stories; the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal – one story apiece.
MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC offered their online and television viewers exactly zero news stories that first 24 hours, as reports that ACORN employees offered to help a child prostitution ring dupe the IRS rocked viewers around the country – not to mention Census officials and U.S. Senators.
"These people are going to find themselves completely irrelevant very shortly if they don't pick up these stories," Fox News host Glenn Beck told viewers Tuesday. "You can't let these gigantic stories go by in this atmosphere …. You can't ignore it. It won't make it go away."
"A major national scandal and none of the broadcast networks is covering it," Dan Gainor, vice president for business and culture at the Media Research Center, told FoxNews.com. "This is the news media in the era of Van Jones and President Obama. The major outlets cover what they want and create the themes they want."
The ACORN lapse is but the latest in a series of embarrassments for the mainstream media lately. Others include the town hall protests, the resignation of Obama "green czar" Van Jones after his conspiracy theories about 9/11 came to light, and this weekend's 912 Project march on the nation's capital -- which the networks treated like a third-tier event rather than a grassroots conservative resurgence it so plainly is.
Yet it was the ACORN wrongdoing exposed by twenty-something journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, however, that several pundits are now saying revealed an out-of-step mainstream media that has been repeatedly beaten by the very news outlets they try hardest to dismiss.
"Issues initially dismissed or missed entirely by the national media have burst, if only fleetingly, onto the national agenda after relentless coverage on Fox News, talk radio, and in the blogosphere," Politico.com reported.
On Tuesday, five days after the story broke, ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson confessed to a Chicago radio station he didn't even know about the video exposes of ACORN. After giving a hearty laugh, Gibson stated: "I didn't even know about it. Um. So you've got me at a loss. I don't know. Uh. Uh…."
Conservative media critic and Fox News commentator Bernard Goldberg blasted Gibson's journalistic faux pas: "Because the story hadn't been in The New York Times, Charlie Gibson didn't know about it. They live in a bubble, a comfortable elite bubble, and inside that bubble, if it's not in The New York Times, it didn't happen. There might have been a time when that was somewhat true. But no more.
"Van Jones resigned under pressure even though The New York Times hadn't run a single word about it," Goldberg tells Newsmax. "Without any press from The New York Times, he still had to resign. That tells you how little influence the media has these days. Charlie, like the organization he works for, is a dinosaur."
The mainstream mishaps could hardly come at a worse time for them. Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that nearly two-thirds of Americans now believe the news stories they receive are frequently inaccurate. That compares to only 34 percent who believed stories were frequently adequate in 1985. Pew also found that a whopping 74 percent of voters believe news stories tend to favor one side of an issue over another. That's up from 66 percent just two years ago.
Being a day late and a few million dollars of ad revenue short on major stories like ACORN won't help matters, communications experts say.
"It goes back to the newsboys selling newspapers on the street corner," Boston University communications professor Tobe Berkovitz tells Newsmax. "'Extra! Extra! Read all about it.' Journalism has always lived by the scoop. You've now had this repeated problem of the media not recognizing the scoop until they can't avoid it, until it's no longer a scoop. That's what I find interesting."
What's behind this summer's phenomenon of the major outlets' faltering control over the news cycle? A host of excuses have been offered up: Declining news budgets and the constraints of a 22-minute news hole on the nightly news broadcasts among them.
Most pundits tell Newsmax another powerful factor is at work however: The networks and big city newspapers rue the appearance that they're taking their cues from Fox News.
"Clearly, this is a story that broke on Fox News and is being driven for now by Fox News," DePauw University communications professor Jeffrey McCall says. "These other media organizations, it seems to me, don't want get on board with a news story that would essentially have them following Fox News' lead. Most national journalistic outlets still consider, incorrectly, that Fox News is a journalistic lightweight, and they are unwilling to recognize Fox News as a news-agenda setter."
Berkovitz says the series of missed and underreported stories has mainstream media czars reeling.
"I think they're seriously shocked because they've let a front page story not be on their front page," he says. "I think it's the magnitude of the story that shocked them. They had to know this stuff's floating around, unless you are fly-fishing somewhere with no Internet."
Berkovitz contends the traditional news icons have been tripped up by their own view of what is and isn't news.
"They don't want to kick over certain rocks," he tells Newsmax. "Certain rocks they're delighted to kick over. When George Bush was president, no rock was too small to kick over. With Barack Obama, I think what you're seeing in the mainstream media is that, once a really big rock is turned over, and it's unavoidable, then they have to go with it."
Whether that amounts to bias, Berkovitz says, is in the eye of the beholder. But others aren't being quite so charitable.
On his radio show Tuesday, Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, told listeners: "If the Christian Coalition in 1995 had a sting operation carried on against it by a liberal group, I guarantee you it would have been front page, New York Times, the next day. And people like me would have been called out, people saying, 'How could you ever, ever justify supporting a group that would teach people how to violate the tax code and promote prostitution.'"
Goldberg, whose latest book on media coverage of the president is titled "A Slobbering Love Affair," isn't pulling any punches either. He notes that a major theme of the parse ACORN coverage is focusing on the scandal as a conservative smear campaign.
"It becomes a way to avoid what they want to avoid," he says, "that here's a liberal organization corrupt to its core that has ties to the president of the United States."
It is like beating a dead horse, the Atheistic Liberal News Media is so jaded they can't even see their own bias.
---------------------------------
Mainstream Media Misses ACORN, Other Anti-Obama Scoops — Bias or Incompetence?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:57 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/acorn_media_beck_fox/2009/09/16/261056.html
Now that ACORN has lost its Census Bureau contract and Senate funding, grassroots conservatives are trying to decide what's more outrageous – the organization's wrongdoing, or the media's blatant reluctance to cover it?
"Truly shocking" is how The Los Angeles Times described the ACORN revelations on Tuesday.
Fox News viewers weren't shocked: They've known about the scandal since the leading cable news network broke it last Thursday. But the LA Times, the first major newspaper to offer an editorial on the latest ACORN scandal, is actually ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the mainstream media.
In fact, in the 24 hours after the controversial videos were first posted on BigGovernment.com, the collective mainstream response could be virtually summed up as follows: "Story? What story?!?"
Consider: According to Fox News' research, the ACORN coverage aired and posted by the various news outlets in the first day of coverage consisted of: Fox News, 19 stories; CNN, 3 stories; the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal – one story apiece.
MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC offered their online and television viewers exactly zero news stories that first 24 hours, as reports that ACORN employees offered to help a child prostitution ring dupe the IRS rocked viewers around the country – not to mention Census officials and U.S. Senators.
"These people are going to find themselves completely irrelevant very shortly if they don't pick up these stories," Fox News host Glenn Beck told viewers Tuesday. "You can't let these gigantic stories go by in this atmosphere …. You can't ignore it. It won't make it go away."
"A major national scandal and none of the broadcast networks is covering it," Dan Gainor, vice president for business and culture at the Media Research Center, told FoxNews.com. "This is the news media in the era of Van Jones and President Obama. The major outlets cover what they want and create the themes they want."
The ACORN lapse is but the latest in a series of embarrassments for the mainstream media lately. Others include the town hall protests, the resignation of Obama "green czar" Van Jones after his conspiracy theories about 9/11 came to light, and this weekend's 912 Project march on the nation's capital -- which the networks treated like a third-tier event rather than a grassroots conservative resurgence it so plainly is.
Yet it was the ACORN wrongdoing exposed by twenty-something journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, however, that several pundits are now saying revealed an out-of-step mainstream media that has been repeatedly beaten by the very news outlets they try hardest to dismiss.
"Issues initially dismissed or missed entirely by the national media have burst, if only fleetingly, onto the national agenda after relentless coverage on Fox News, talk radio, and in the blogosphere," Politico.com reported.
On Tuesday, five days after the story broke, ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson confessed to a Chicago radio station he didn't even know about the video exposes of ACORN. After giving a hearty laugh, Gibson stated: "I didn't even know about it. Um. So you've got me at a loss. I don't know. Uh. Uh…."
Conservative media critic and Fox News commentator Bernard Goldberg blasted Gibson's journalistic faux pas: "Because the story hadn't been in The New York Times, Charlie Gibson didn't know about it. They live in a bubble, a comfortable elite bubble, and inside that bubble, if it's not in The New York Times, it didn't happen. There might have been a time when that was somewhat true. But no more.
"Van Jones resigned under pressure even though The New York Times hadn't run a single word about it," Goldberg tells Newsmax. "Without any press from The New York Times, he still had to resign. That tells you how little influence the media has these days. Charlie, like the organization he works for, is a dinosaur."
The mainstream mishaps could hardly come at a worse time for them. Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that nearly two-thirds of Americans now believe the news stories they receive are frequently inaccurate. That compares to only 34 percent who believed stories were frequently adequate in 1985. Pew also found that a whopping 74 percent of voters believe news stories tend to favor one side of an issue over another. That's up from 66 percent just two years ago.
Being a day late and a few million dollars of ad revenue short on major stories like ACORN won't help matters, communications experts say.
"It goes back to the newsboys selling newspapers on the street corner," Boston University communications professor Tobe Berkovitz tells Newsmax. "'Extra! Extra! Read all about it.' Journalism has always lived by the scoop. You've now had this repeated problem of the media not recognizing the scoop until they can't avoid it, until it's no longer a scoop. That's what I find interesting."
What's behind this summer's phenomenon of the major outlets' faltering control over the news cycle? A host of excuses have been offered up: Declining news budgets and the constraints of a 22-minute news hole on the nightly news broadcasts among them.
Most pundits tell Newsmax another powerful factor is at work however: The networks and big city newspapers rue the appearance that they're taking their cues from Fox News.
"Clearly, this is a story that broke on Fox News and is being driven for now by Fox News," DePauw University communications professor Jeffrey McCall says. "These other media organizations, it seems to me, don't want get on board with a news story that would essentially have them following Fox News' lead. Most national journalistic outlets still consider, incorrectly, that Fox News is a journalistic lightweight, and they are unwilling to recognize Fox News as a news-agenda setter."
Berkovitz says the series of missed and underreported stories has mainstream media czars reeling.
"I think they're seriously shocked because they've let a front page story not be on their front page," he says. "I think it's the magnitude of the story that shocked them. They had to know this stuff's floating around, unless you are fly-fishing somewhere with no Internet."
Berkovitz contends the traditional news icons have been tripped up by their own view of what is and isn't news.
"They don't want to kick over certain rocks," he tells Newsmax. "Certain rocks they're delighted to kick over. When George Bush was president, no rock was too small to kick over. With Barack Obama, I think what you're seeing in the mainstream media is that, once a really big rock is turned over, and it's unavoidable, then they have to go with it."
Whether that amounts to bias, Berkovitz says, is in the eye of the beholder. But others aren't being quite so charitable.
On his radio show Tuesday, Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, told listeners: "If the Christian Coalition in 1995 had a sting operation carried on against it by a liberal group, I guarantee you it would have been front page, New York Times, the next day. And people like me would have been called out, people saying, 'How could you ever, ever justify supporting a group that would teach people how to violate the tax code and promote prostitution.'"
Goldberg, whose latest book on media coverage of the president is titled "A Slobbering Love Affair," isn't pulling any punches either. He notes that a major theme of the parse ACORN coverage is focusing on the scandal as a conservative smear campaign.
"It becomes a way to avoid what they want to avoid," he says, "that here's a liberal organization corrupt to its core that has ties to the president of the United States."
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Cultural War
Cultural War
The following is proof of the Cultural War bias of the Atheistic Liberal News Media and a listing of the major Atheistic Liberal News Media groups. PBS has got their head so much up Obama's hiney they are beginning to look ridiculous.
Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, is another example of the corruption of the democrats that the Atheistic Liberal News Media will not discuss.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
-------------------------------------------------
The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.
The following is proof of the Cultural War bias of the Atheistic Liberal News Media and a listing of the major Atheistic Liberal News Media groups. PBS has got their head so much up Obama's hiney they are beginning to look ridiculous.
Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, is another example of the corruption of the democrats that the Atheistic Liberal News Media will not discuss.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
-------------------------------------------------
The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.
Friday, June 19, 2009
ABC Employees Donated Heavily to Obama
ABC Employees Donated Heavily to Obama
Friday, June 19, 2009 8:30 AM
By: Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/abc_donated_to_obama/2009/06/19/226987.html
As indignation turned to outrage Thursday among critics of an ABC News prime-time special on President Obama's health care policy, The Washington Times has learned that ABC employees gave 80 times as much money to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign for president than to his rival's.
According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.
The 60-minute ABC program, to air live from the White House on Wednesday, is sparking hardball politics in other ways. Grass-roots boycotts, Republican outcry and a study citing media bias are all part of the mix.
A study released Thursday by the Business & Media Institute (BMI) found that since Inauguration Day, ABC has aired news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy 55 times, compared with 18 times when the network highlighted negative reviews.
Citing Census Bureau figures, the BMI analyses also accused ABC of "exaggerating the breadth of the uninsured problem," saying the network's claim that up to 50 million Americans are uninsured is false.
"ABC is in bed with their source, so to speak. ABC is supposed to be a news organization, not a producer of infomercials for national health care. And I wonder what they would have done if the Bush administration had asked for positive programming to support the war on terror or Social Security initiatives," said Dan Gainor, BMI vice president of business and culture.
Longtime Democratic strategist Tad Devine, however, said he detected the vast right-wing conspiracy of the last Democratic administration, and warned Republicans that complaining could backfire.
"It's the same old, same old from Republicans. People who run political parties have a responsibility to get their side of the story out, and they're attacking ABC to do that. ABC is the vehicle," said Mr. Devine, whose Democratic roots go back to the presidential ticket of Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale.
"Republicans think they must undercut news organizations who give President Obama favorable coverage - or they will lose elections. They're going to go after anyone who gives Obama a showcase," Mr. Devine said. "But it could backfire. If the GOP keeps this up, everyone will tune into that ABC special on Wednesday."
An informal online poll at the New York Daily News on Thursday found that 75 percent of the respondents did not "trust" ABC to provide even-handed coverage. And conservative bloggers have been intensely critical of ABC in recent days.
"I'm not watching ABC entertainment, and I'm not watching their news programming either," said New York-based Karen Dougherty, who writes LonelyConservative.com, one of many blogs issuing a call for boycotts of ABC and its advertisers.
The broadcast, they say, is tantamount to an infomercial for the administration, made worse by the fact that ABC also will broadcast "World News Tonight" from the White House on Wednesday.
"It's not enough to say that ABC is exercising terrible journalistic judgment. The American public has to let ABC know that these decisions matter. As a believer in the marketplace, I think that an advertiser boycott is the way to deal with this unseemly display of media partisanship. After all, every American has a voice in the marketplace," said Sunny Berman of Bookwormroom.com, another conservative blog based in California.
An ABC executive responded to criticisms with the following:
"We welcome feedback from an audience in whatever form it might take. The top and bottom line is that we intend to produce a fair, probing and thoughtful discussion about a vitally important issue," said Jeffrey Schneider, senior vice president of ABC News communications.
The Republican National Committee disagrees.
Denied a chance to question Mr. Obama on his policy or buy advertising time on the program, Republicans said ABC denied them equal time for the town-hall-style event, accusing the network of turning over "its entire programming over to President Obama and his big-government agenda," RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele said in the organization's second public letter to the network in 48 hours.
ABC's Mr. Schneider called the Steele letter "a little sad. But that's how it all goes down. First you leak a letter from the RNC chief of staff to the press - all based on false premises - then the chairman writes something and riles everybody up. Then you ask for money. That's politics 101."
Friday, June 19, 2009 8:30 AM
By: Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/abc_donated_to_obama/2009/06/19/226987.html
As indignation turned to outrage Thursday among critics of an ABC News prime-time special on President Obama's health care policy, The Washington Times has learned that ABC employees gave 80 times as much money to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign for president than to his rival's.
According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.
The 60-minute ABC program, to air live from the White House on Wednesday, is sparking hardball politics in other ways. Grass-roots boycotts, Republican outcry and a study citing media bias are all part of the mix.
A study released Thursday by the Business & Media Institute (BMI) found that since Inauguration Day, ABC has aired news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy 55 times, compared with 18 times when the network highlighted negative reviews.
Citing Census Bureau figures, the BMI analyses also accused ABC of "exaggerating the breadth of the uninsured problem," saying the network's claim that up to 50 million Americans are uninsured is false.
"ABC is in bed with their source, so to speak. ABC is supposed to be a news organization, not a producer of infomercials for national health care. And I wonder what they would have done if the Bush administration had asked for positive programming to support the war on terror or Social Security initiatives," said Dan Gainor, BMI vice president of business and culture.
Longtime Democratic strategist Tad Devine, however, said he detected the vast right-wing conspiracy of the last Democratic administration, and warned Republicans that complaining could backfire.
"It's the same old, same old from Republicans. People who run political parties have a responsibility to get their side of the story out, and they're attacking ABC to do that. ABC is the vehicle," said Mr. Devine, whose Democratic roots go back to the presidential ticket of Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale.
"Republicans think they must undercut news organizations who give President Obama favorable coverage - or they will lose elections. They're going to go after anyone who gives Obama a showcase," Mr. Devine said. "But it could backfire. If the GOP keeps this up, everyone will tune into that ABC special on Wednesday."
An informal online poll at the New York Daily News on Thursday found that 75 percent of the respondents did not "trust" ABC to provide even-handed coverage. And conservative bloggers have been intensely critical of ABC in recent days.
"I'm not watching ABC entertainment, and I'm not watching their news programming either," said New York-based Karen Dougherty, who writes LonelyConservative.com, one of many blogs issuing a call for boycotts of ABC and its advertisers.
The broadcast, they say, is tantamount to an infomercial for the administration, made worse by the fact that ABC also will broadcast "World News Tonight" from the White House on Wednesday.
"It's not enough to say that ABC is exercising terrible journalistic judgment. The American public has to let ABC know that these decisions matter. As a believer in the marketplace, I think that an advertiser boycott is the way to deal with this unseemly display of media partisanship. After all, every American has a voice in the marketplace," said Sunny Berman of Bookwormroom.com, another conservative blog based in California.
An ABC executive responded to criticisms with the following:
"We welcome feedback from an audience in whatever form it might take. The top and bottom line is that we intend to produce a fair, probing and thoughtful discussion about a vitally important issue," said Jeffrey Schneider, senior vice president of ABC News communications.
The Republican National Committee disagrees.
Denied a chance to question Mr. Obama on his policy or buy advertising time on the program, Republicans said ABC denied them equal time for the town-hall-style event, accusing the network of turning over "its entire programming over to President Obama and his big-government agenda," RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele said in the organization's second public letter to the network in 48 hours.
ABC's Mr. Schneider called the Steele letter "a little sad. But that's how it all goes down. First you leak a letter from the RNC chief of staff to the press - all based on false premises - then the chairman writes something and riles everybody up. Then you ask for money. That's politics 101."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)