Posts Tagged ‘bias’

Biased LA Times The Other Super Bowl Loser

February 6, 2012

The Los Angeles Times is a pathologically biased newspaper, which is why it went bankrupt and why I bought a weekend only subscription just for the coupons for something like fifteen bucks a year.  And got a $25 gift card at a major retail store for spending that fifteen bucks.  Oh, and then got “upgraded” for free to daily delivery without even wanting it.

I have to pay up the wazoo to get a legitimate newspaper like the Wall Street Journal even when it’s on a great sale, but the LA Times is going for birdcage liner money because it IS a birdcage liner.

Even the local rag the Desert Sun is a vastly superior newspaper just in terms of having articles that actually matter.

The Los Angeles Times has to give their papers away in order to maintain the facade of having any kind of subscription rate in order to be able to sell advertisement space.

This is a paper that is so filled with political/ideological bias that it creeps pretty much into everything.  For example, in their Calender section front page main story from Super Bowl Sunday, I read:

By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles Times Television Critic
February 5, 2012

When, during his recent State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules,” I wasn’t worried about the GOP response or changes to our tax codes. I was worried about Downton.

Everyone loves “Downton Abbey.”PBS‘ biggest hit in years,

And, of course, apparently everyone loves Barack Obama, too.  At least they do at the LA Times “reporting” staff.

Can’t I even read a reveiw about a television series set in early 20th century England without hearing about how wonderful the messiah-in-chief is?  Not if I read this bird cage liner, I can’t.

If you think that example of cover-to-cover LA Times bias is cheesy, here’s a better one I’m also talking about today.

So I never mind when the hoity-toity staff of Los Angeles Times looks like the fools they are:

You think you know, but you have no idea
February 04, 2012|Bill Plaschke

Reporting from Indianapolis — You’re wrong.

I know what you’re thinking, what most of America is thinking, and you’re wrong.

You’re thinking the New York Giants are going to win the Super Bowl against the New England Patriots on Sunday, and you’re thinking it might not even be close.

After watching the Giants roll through the playoffs by putting a “discount double check” on Aaron Rodgers and a postgame head slap on Jim Harbaugh, you feel it in your gut. After watching the Hoodie slowly wrinkle and Gisele’s husband slowly wilt, you know it in your soul.

 The Patriots are officially the favorites here, so it makes everyone feel smug and smarter to pick the Giants, and I understand, because I arrived in Indianapolis last week thinking the same thing.

 How could the horrible Patriots defense hang for four quarters against the best New York closer since Mariano Rivera? How could the Patriots offense move against a raging defensive line led by one guy who does Subway commercials and three other guys hungry enough to eat Jared?

 But after spending several days here being battered by cabbie-style Giants hype, then after witnessing Madonna literally halt her news conference to perform a Victor Cruz salsa, I thought, how could we all fall for this?

 So, um, yeah, you’re wrong.

 You’re wrong to give up on Tom Brady.

 That is what you are saying by picking the Giants. I can’t say that. History won’t say that. This is a guy who outplayed counterpart Eli Manning throughout the regular season — his passer rating was 13 points higher — and then threw for six touchdown passes in his first postseason game against the Denver Broncos, and yet he’s done?

 Yes, Brady conceded that he played like “crap” against the Baltimore Ravens in the AFC championship game, but he still pulled off a fourth-quarter comeback drive to win, he has still won 16 of 21 postseason games, he has still won the Super Bowl three times. A victory here would turn him into Joe Montana, and you’re going to pick against Joe Montana?

 You’re wrong to discount Bill Belichick.

 I don’t like him, but you don’t give up on a coach whose team has just rattled off 10 consecutive victories. And everyone says the Giants, who have won only five straight, are hotter? It’s also hard to quit on a coach who has lost only twice in 11 games after bye weeks. You give Belichick this much time, he’ll beat you. The drab coach showed up this week smiling and laughing and once even wearing a purple shirt, so he’s figured out something.

 You’re wrong if you think that Myra Kraft doesn’t matter.

 The wife of Patriots owner Robert Kraft was an integral part of the team culture, providing the players with a motherly figure whom they constantly reference. Her death this summer from cancer put a resolve in the locker room that has grown stronger over time. Her memory is more than just a patch on their jerseys — it’s a fire under their shoulder pads.

You’re wrong if you think that the Giants’ yapping wasn’t heard.

 This week the Indy streets have roared with 500 kinds of Giants trash talk. Antrel Rolle guaranteed victory, Chris Canty told New York fans to prepare for a parade, and Jason Pierre-Paul essentially said that Brady has been playing scared. The Patriots, as usual, have said nothing but have heard everything, if only because Belichick often turns them into battle cries by reading them in the locker room.

 You’re wrong if you think the Giants will run all over them.

 Vince Wilfork is playing like the league’s best defensive lineman after his defense, on consecutive weeks, held Tim Tebow to 2.6 yards per carry and Ray Rice to 3.2 yards per carry.

 You’re wrong if you think the Giants can win this game through the air.

 Yes, the Patriots secondary stunk for most of the year, but it has continually improved, Belichick’s halftime adjustments have been as brilliant as usual, and the Patriots have not given up a fourth-quarter touchdown in the postseason. Yes, Manning will throw for 300 yards, but most of it will be early, and without a solid running attack, it won’t be enough to keep Brady on the bench long enough to matter.

 You’re wrong if you think the New England tight ends can be stopped.

 Even with a bad ankle, Rob Gronkowski will play, and Aaron Hernandez will join him. They burned the Giants for 136 yards and two touchdowns in their first meeting, and they’ve only gotten better. Meanwhile, two weeks ago, the Giants’ 29th-ranked pass defense reeled against 49ers tight end Vernon Davis, allowing him three catches for 112 yards and two touchdowns.

 You’re wrong if you think that first game meant anything.

 In the Giants’ 24-20 win Nov. 6 at Foxborough, Mass., the Patriots outgained them by 77 yards, played them equally in the trenches, and lost it only in the final 15 seconds after committing four turnovers. The Patriots haven’t lost since, and history favors them here, as the last three Super Bowls contested by teams that met in the regular season were won by the team that lost that regular-season game.

 You’re wrong if you think my Super Bowl magic is going to end.

 Four years ago when these teams met in the Super Bowl, I correctly picked the Giants to defeat the unbeaten Patriots in one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history. The upset being, I actually got something right. But when it comes to this matchup, do you really want to go against me again?

 New England Patriots 31, New York Giants 28.

Hey, turd sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times:

YOU’RE WRONG.

I was rooting for the Giants, as much as I don’t care either for New York or the Giants.  The bottom line is that I’ve despised the arrogant New England Patriots for years, whereas the New York Giants simply hadn’t risen to the level of meriting such ire.

But if I hadn’t formed an opinion as to who I was going to root for prior to reading the Los Angeles Times lecture about my impoverished football epistemology, I certainly would have by the first sentence of the above article.

http://seg.sharethis.com/getSegment.php?purl=http%3A%2F%2Fstartthinkingright.wordpress.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost-new.php&jsref=&rnd=1328538435996

Advertisements

Pro-Liberal Mainstream Media Intentionally Distorts The Truth On A Daily Basis

January 3, 2012

It’s not enough to say that the media lies.  You also need to know how they lie and why they lie.

What stories are the media going to report and what stories are they going to ignore?  There’s fertile grounds right there; stories that favor conservatives tend to get ignored or underreported versus stories that favor liberals getting premium coverage – which gets brought up again and again until it enters the public consciousness (e.g. “Read my lips; no new taxes” by George H.W. Bush).

Another way to maintain a bias is to use ideology to select which stories get repeated and which end up in the purge bin.  When I find mainstream media articles that help conservatives, I copy and paste it to a Word file; because I have personally encountered hundreds of occasions when such stories get “purged” and I have learned from experience that you have to preserve a record.  You can’t merely allude to articles that help out conservatives and insert a link to the source, because that link will lead to nowhere in short order.  You’ve got to cite the relevant facts.  Versus pro-liberal stories which seem to live on forever.

Then there’s the issue of “fairness” that liberals invariably like to talk about – but never actually live out in their own lives and careers.  Fox News is routinely derided for it’s “fair and balanced” slogan.  But the fact of the matter is that Fox News IS fair and balanced when compared to any other news outlets; they allow liberals to have a substantial representation whereas the other networks allow virtually no conservative representation.

According to a nonprofit, politically neutral, non-partisan George Mason University Centre for Media and Public Affairs study, Fox News Channel’s evening news broadcasts provide more balanced news coverage than all other news shows on networks or cable.

I still remember getting into an argument with a local news reporter who defended  media exclusion of conservative ideas by comparing the debate to round earth versus flat earth.  With of course the “flat earth” view being held by conservatives.  And on this characterization, it is simply wrong to give coverage to the flat earth view.  So it wasn’t bias the media was showing in ignoring conservative positions, but simple intelligence.

It is for that reason that liberals such as John Kerry have publicly said that the media has a responsibility to NOT give equal time to conservatives:

SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”

The problem is that a whopping load of journalists agree with this view.

And most of these journalists voted for Kerry.  From the New York Times:

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

And:

Polling of MSM journalists showed they voted 9-1 in favor of Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992 and voted in the same margin for John Kerry versus George W. Bush in 2004. No surprise, then, that the Center for Media and Public Affairs found Kerry received 77 percent favorable coverage in 2004 while Bush received 34 percent favorable coverage — quite a chasm, in my view.

Hypothetical question: If Bush had instead received nine out of 10 votes of the MSM in 2004, does anyone really believe Kerry would have garnered that 77 percent favorable coverage compared to Bush’s 34 percent? One did not have to have a Mensa-level IQ in 2008 to ascertain the MSM were virtual cheerleaders for the Obama campaign.

Wouldn’t you like to have that kind of power to delegitimize the opposition and shut them out?  Then you should be a journalist, as long as you use your power to target conservatives and help liberals.

One of the other ways that I’ve found that liberal bias reeks out of news stories is when “experts” are used.  I swear these reporters will pick up a phone and call fifteen experts until they finally get the “expert opinion” they want.

We recently witnessed this with statements that Obama has repeatedly made – and which the mainstream media has repeatedly reported as fact – about the opinion of “economists.”  Obama has routinely said things like:

“…this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn here in America. This isn’t just my belief. This is what independent economists have said. Not just politicians. Not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and middle-class families all across America. But if we don’t act, the opposite will be true — there will be fewer jobs and weaker growth.”

Where has the barrage of fact checking been – you know, like there would have been if BUSH had said something like that?  Or if John Boehner said something like it today?

Well, there IS this

The same media that would have jumped all over such untrue statements by a Republican have repeatedly allowed Obama to say this crap without any challenge.  And that’s the Big Lie strategy that Hitler crafted and our own media propaganda perfected.

Here’s the truth.  And grab it while you can because one day you’ll click on the link and you will get the message, “Article no longer available…”:

(AP) WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gets mediocre marks for his handling of the economy, and Mitt Romney easily outpolls his Republican rivals in an Associated Press survey of economists.   […]

Half of the 36 economists who responded to the Dec. 14-20 AP survey rated Obama’s economic policies “fair.” And 13 called them “poor.” Just five of the economists gave the president “good” marks. None rated him as “excellent.”

That’s zero As, five Bs, 18 Cs or Ds and 13 Fs (you know they only had four rather than five “grade” criteria so that it would be impossible to nail down a grade point average. FWIW).  That’s a very low D average, friends.  But that’s like a 2.2 GPA.

The problem is that the mainstream media keeps using shockingly partisan “non-partisan” sources – such as the liberal Tax Policy Center – to provide “objective analysis.”

Yes, the Tax Policy Center is directly connected to the liberal Urban Institute and the liberal Brookings Institution, and this wouldn’t be one iota different than Fox News going to the Rush Limbaugh Policy Center for an “objective evaluation,” but what the hell.

I mean, yes, this does explain why Fox News gets better ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined, but of course the mainstream media says even though they’re relentlessly biased and no one watches them, Fox News is evil.

The media depicted Obama as the man who was somehow constantly crowned with a mystical halo of wonderfulness by the “objective” sources such as the AP and Reuters:

John McCain wasn’t quite so fortunate:

Politico had this to say about media “balance” in the coverage of Obama versus McCain:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?

Yeah, so what if the people calling themselves “journalists” are really just a bunch of Nazi Joseph Goebbels wannabes?

Americans have degenerated into a bunch of intellectually and morally stupid herd animals who can be told what to think just as surely as herd animals can be easily led to their own slaughtering.  And that’s basically the one and only truth that the mainstream media accurately understands.  Which is why you can count on them to keep shoveling manure and calling it “journalism” in this year that will determine whether America has a chance to survive or goes the way of the Dodo bird due to insane spending and the crushing debt that invariably accompanies such insane spending.

The media have been shockingly biased to the left going back to Walter Lippman, whose thoughts on mind-control is summarized as follows:

The intelligent minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

Not only is the American public  of today no more intelligent than was the pre-World War II German public, but any objective evaluation would show that the people who voted for Hitler were FAR better educated and FAR more “enlightened” than we are today.

Liberal education not only didn’t help Germany; it profoundly hurt them

“Indeed, about one-third of the (half million) officials and leaders of the Nazi Party in 1935 were teachers by profession.  Support for National Socialism, extreme nationalism and pan-Germanism was particularly marked among university students and professors (Kolinsky 1974: 87-8).  One quarter of the future SS had doctorates, while in the elections to student councils in German universities during the academic year 1930-1 Nazi candidates received 40 per cent or more of the votes cast in fourteen of the eighteen universities for which such data survive, and fifty per cent or more of the votes in nine of them (Kornhauser 1960: 188).  It does not necessarily follow that all highly educated people were inherently susceptible to fascism, but students and university professors were very strikingly over-represented within most of the major fascist movements…” [Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change: p. 380].

– just as it profoundly hurts the United States of America today as the same sort of vile people with the same sorts of vile beliefs and attitudes overwhelmingly inhabit our intelligentsia today.

You take a look at who is filling the ranks of the incredibly vile and toxic Occupy movement and you find college students and college professors.  And it was teaching physicians at the University of Wisconsin Madison who wrote fake sick notes – in abject disregard of their medical and professional ethics – to help the far-leftist cause in the Wisconsin riots.

And these same fools who have had their brains washed by an incredibly toxic pseudo-academic climate that is more intolerant of ideas than any other institution on earth bar none are the ones running our elite media.  If you want actual attempts to literally try to brainwash ideological opponents, if you want systematic exclusion and persecution of rival ideas, if you want the systematic denial of free speech, if you want to see a place where only liberals are allowed to have a voice – at least without being shouted down, if you want to see the fascist mindset that you are above the law until you get to make the laws that others must be forced to follow, then all you have to do is go to the universities that give Obama a 63-1 advantage in their newspapers.  Because that’s where you’ll find it today, just as it was where you’d find it in the Germany that became Nazi Germany.

And then realize that it is these same arrogant elitist snobs who dominate our journalism today who both created this climate and oozed out of it like the slime they are.

The media have done the same thing that the universities have done; it is a trick the left has long practiced: demand to be included in the interest of tolerance, or fairness, or rights, or what have you, obtain a foothold in an institution – and then slam the door shut in the faces of everyone they disagree with.  Because whether you’re talking about university faculty or journalists, it’s the same story: good luck getting a job if you are a conservative.

And then realize that these people have incredible power and influence over what the people think, even as they believe they have not only the right but the duty to intentionally shape what the unwashed masses think in the name of “objective journalism.”

I keep saying over and over again that the beast is coming.  And there are two things to say about that: 1) the beast will be a big government leader who will unite the world exactly as liberals have always dreamed about; and 2) the same liberals who are the loudest in their unbelief of the coming last days will be the very same ones who will one day most ardently worship that beast (Revelation 13:7-8).

Demagogue Obama Simply LIES When Demonizing Republicans Over Payroll Tax Cut. Mainstream Media Propaganda Helps Him Do It.

December 7, 2011

This is a liar:

“Last week virtually every Senate Republican voted against that tax cut.”

This is a liar getting caught lying:

“In fact twenty out of forty-seven republicans voted for a payroll tax cut extension last Thursday night.”

Of course only Fox News will reveal the constant stream of lies that fly out of Obama’s lying mouth.  You won’t get the facts watching the Joseph Goebbels media.

Barack Obama is the most dishonest, dishonerable demagogue who ever inhabited the White House.  And we’ve had a lot of dishonest, dishonerable demagogues in that House.

And this mainstream media is the most biased, most corrupt and most partisan propaganda that the world has seen since the fall of the Soviet Union:

Obama Lies….Claims “Virtually Every Senate Republican Voted Against Payroll Tax Cut”
By: Curt

Worst. President. Ever…

and a liar:

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

Of course it took Fox News to call him out on the lie.

The rest of the media?

Crickets…..or spin.

Kinda like this spin:

Take a look at these headlines:

The President’s Jobless Recovery
Frustrated Job Seekers Cause Jobless Rate To Drop
Economy Adds Few New Jobs
Low Jobless Rate Reflects Lost Hope
US Jobless Rate Drops But For Wrong Reasons

Recent headlines regarding the drop in the unemployment rate from 9% to 8.6% right?

Wrong.

Those are headlines from January 2004, when the jobless rate dropped to 5.7% and when President Bush was just starting a re-election campaign.

Here are headlines from Friday’s job numbers:

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% Raising Hopes
Jobless Rate Drop Could Boost Obama
Obama Gets Economic Indicator He Can Crow About
Good News On Job Front For Obama
Jobless Rate Lowest In 2.5 Years

No liberal bias my ass.

For the record, the payroll tax cut sounds like a good thing.  Until you consider the fact that it goes directly to Social Security(something like $250 billion a year), which is already $6 trillion in the red and which is going to collapse because of demagogues like Obama.

Obama wants to force the rich to pay even higher taxes (versus the lower 50% of Americans who pay NOTHING).  But here’s the problem: Obama is trying to argue that the payroll tax cut extension will create jobs, while simultaneously trying to pay for that tax cut with a tax HIKE on the actual job creators.

And the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda is helping him sell that message.

The fact of the matter can be summed up in the words of moderate Republican Susan Collins, “He [Obama] cannot continue to resort to offsets to pay for proposals that have been repeatedly rejected.”

Unless of course Obama is just a demagogue trying to divide America for his own political benefit rather than actually trying to help the American people, that is.

The beast is coming.

The mainstream media will celebrate him, and Democrats will vote for him. And then joyously take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads (Rev 13:16).

Perry’s Oops Moment? Obama’s Whole Career Is One Long ‘Oops’ Moment

November 19, 2011

If the media were even remotely fair Obama never would have been allowed to visit the White House, let alone actually live there.

New Video: Obama’s Own 53 Seconds of Oops
By Paul Bedard
November 14, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been on the receiving end of a ton of criticism for his self-described “oops” moment when, during a presidential debate last week, he forgot the third federal department he wants to kill. His 53 second brain freeze has made him the star of late night comedy.

But he’s not the only one who apparently suffers from memory loss, and conservative Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate, has just produced a video documenting several of President Obama’s wandering speeches. [Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

It’s full of a lot of “ums,” and presidential teleprompter errors that have sometimes had the president tongue-tied.

Bauer, chair of the Campaign for Working Families, kept his video to the Perry-length of 53 seconds. It starts showing a picture of Perry over the words, “You’ve heard about the 53 seconds that supposedly ended a presidential campaign,” followed by another screen showing the president over the line, “How about the 53 seconds that should end a presidency?” [See a slide show of 10 reasons Obama should be re-elected.]

Said Bauer, also president of American Values: “53 seconds of silence by a Republican is better than 53 seconds of blather from Barack Obama.”

Watch the video below:

And that doesn’t even include the one with Obama telling a crowd he’d visited 57 states with one left to go.

NBC Pollsters ‘Are Concerned’ With Obama’s Low Approval

September 8, 2011

This blatant demonstration of media bias and lack of objectivity is what “concerns” me.

From Real Clear Politics:

Posted on September 7, 2011
NBC’s Chuck Todd: “Our Pollsters Are Concerned” With Obama Approval

“Now this has taken a hit on the president politically. 44-percent approve of the job he’s doing, all time low of his presidency. A more important number that our pollsters say is in there is this idea that is this a long-term setback for him or a short-term one? 54-percent said long-term. Our pollsters are concerned. That’s kind of numbers you have when the public starts to give up on a president as a problem solver,” NBC’s Chuck Todd said on the “Nightly News.”

[See Real Clear Politics for the video]

Here’s your challenge, lefties: show me ANYWHERE where NBC pollsters were described as “being concerned” over George Bush’s poll numbers tanking.  You know, if you’re going to comment to this article suggesting that the media ISN’T in the fish-tank-biased to the left and you don’t expect me to laugh you right off planet earth.

I was glad I wasn’t drinking milk when I read a couple of takes on this story from Free Republic:

The public is giving up on Obama as a problem solver?  Pontiac wrote:

“The only problem that Obama has been working on is his golf swing.”

McGruff zeroed in on Chuck Todd as a leftwing media whore and hearkened him to Monica Lewinsky:

“I’ll bet Todd has a blue dress in his closet.”

I sincerely hope I never see Todd in that dress.  That gives me yet one MORE reason to keep NBC off my list of channels.

You kind of have to figure that NBC anchor Brian Williams has a presidentially-stained blue dress in his closet, too, given that it appears the man wishes he’d worn it to his fluff interview with Obama:

Obama bows down to foreign dictators, while the mainstream media bow down to Obama.

You see NBC, CBS and other “blue-dress” mainstream media networks selling their messiah’s memorabilia like the bunch of little Goebbels that they clearly are.

Which reminds me of a classic Goebbels quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

That was true in socialist Germany; and it is every bit as true in socialist America.

NBC is worried.  They’d better redouble their propaganda efforts.  Obama was elected on the basis of gigantic lies; that’s the only way in hell the fool would ever be re-elected.

Democrats/Mainstream Media On Debt Ceiling Negotiations: ‘Why Don’t We Just Start Telling Lies?’

July 27, 2011

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lied about his “plan” versus House Speaker John Boehner’s plan, saying that Standard & Poors had said that his plan would keep our AAA credit rating, but Boehner’s would not.

The DNC immediately packaged the lie for the press and sent it out to the world:

To: NATIONAL AND POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: DNC Press, +1-202-863-8148, dncpress@dnc.org

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today on CNN, Erin Burnett reported that she spoke with an investor who talked directly with the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. According to the Standard & Poor’s source, John Boehner’s debt plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of U.S. debt by the ratings agencies, raising interest rates for all Americans. Harry Reid’s plan, however, would preserve America’s AAA credit rating.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/25/278929/ratings-agency-source-boehner-plan-TTwould-lead-to-downgrade/

Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RXNrtUU-TQ&feature=player_embedded

SOURCE  Democratic National Committee

And then of course the mainstream media jumped in and immediately backed Harry Reid’s and the DNC’s lie.

I don’t know what the record is for a brand new CNN anchor to report lies as fact, but given that it’s CNN, it’s probably a matter of minutes.  New CNN anchor Erin Burnett reported:

Facts should never get in the way of a story that makes Democrats look good and Republicans look bad, so I almost hesitate to mention this, but … it wasn’t true:

And so legitimate media (i.e., sorry CNN and MSNBC, but you aint) began to correct the lie that Harry Reid, the DNC and the mainstream media had invented:

JULY 26, 2011, 4:07 P.M. ET.UPDATE: S&P: Reports That It Endorses One Debt Plan “Not Accurate”
By Stephen L. Bernard
Off DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Standard & Poor’s said Tuesday that reports that it would endorse one of two competing Congressional frameworks to secure an increase the U.S. debt ceiling are “inaccurate.”

“Standard & Poor’s has chosen not to comment on the many and varying proposals that have arisen in the current debate,” the ratings agency said in an official announcement. The official statement echoes comments a spokesman gave to Dow Jones earlier in the day.

Ratings agencies have repeatedly said throughout the ongoing debt debate that they do not endorse any specific deals to cut long-term U.S. deficits.

Reports early Tuesday indicated that S&P was said to prefer Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) plan over the one being pitched by House of Representatives Speak John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling or else the U.S. could default on its debt. Politicians have tried to tie the increase in the debt ceiling to cutting long-term deficits.

Reid’s plan calls for a $2.7 trillion increase to the debt ceiling, while cutting spending by a similar amount. Critically, that would increase the debt ceiling by a high enough figure that it would give the government space to spend through 2012 and the next presidential election.

Boehner’s plan, by contrast, calls for a two-step process. The first would cut spending and raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion to get through 2011. Then another increase of up to $1.5 trillion would be sought via a bipartisan commission’s recommendations and would have to be approved in 2012 with an equal amount of spending cuts.

Democrats have argued that Boehner’s plan would introduce uncertainty to markets and drive up U.S. borrowing costs.

S&P has previously said that even if the debt ceiling is raised, it could still cut the U.S. government’s perfect “AAA” rating if a long-term deficit-reduction plan is not enacted.

Fox News also reported the facts and further corrected the record of Harry Reid’s unprofessional and disgraceful lie:

After Reid claimed Tuesday morning that the rating agencies had endorsed his plan – which cuts $2.7 trillion at most — S&P reiterated through a spokesman that it has not endorsed “any particular plan.”

There is so much dishonesty and so many lies coming from Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists that it is positively unreal.

Here’s more on the actual story without the Harry Reid/DNC/mainstream media spin:

Deal or no deal? US downgrade looking likely
By MATTHEW CRAFT – AP Business Writer | AP – 8 hrs ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Could the U.S. lose its top credit rating even if a deal is reached to raise the debt limit?

Market analysts and investors increasingly say yes. The outcome won’t be quite as scary as a default, but financial markets would still take a blow. Mortgage rates could rise. States and cities, already strapped, could find it more difficult to borrow. Stocks could lose their gains for the year.

“At this point, we’re more concerned about the risk of a downgrade than a default,” said Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Belton said the loss of the country’s AAA rating may rattle markets, but it’s “better than missing an interest payment.”

Even with a deadline to raise the U.S. debt limit less than a week away, many investors still believe Washington will pull off a last-minute deal to avoid a catastrophic default. Washington has until Aug. 2 to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit or risk missing a payment on its debt. President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans have failed to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and pass a larger budget-cutting package. Politicians have tied raising the debt limit and spending cuts together.

But at least one credit rating agency has already made it clear that unless that agreement includes at least $4 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade, the country’s AAA rating could be lost. Right now, the proposals under discussion cut around $2 trillion or less.

Standard & Poor’s warned earlier this month that there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a “credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden.” S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said.

And why will our credit rating get cut?  Because Obama and his depraved administration have been lying and fearmongering the crisis:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down. […]

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

Thanks, Barry Hussein and Turbo Tax Tim!

That’s right.  We’re going to get our credit rating downgraded – which will have disastrous long-term consequences – because of Barack Obama’s fearmongering lies.  Harry Reid reports something that isn’t even remotely true, and the DNC and the mainstream media pick it up like a symphony.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could get halfway around the world before the truth could even get its boots on.  But I think even that famous cynic would be amazed and apalled by the liberal media complex.

Does Barack Obama Accept That Ultimately, He Is Responsible For This Gun Walking Fiasco? Should He Resign?

July 20, 2011

The media coverage of Rupert Murdoch (whose media corporation owns Fox News among many other assets) reminds me of the days when George Bush was president and the media had someone to attack.

I have seen non-stop coverage of this “hacking scanda” (which has exactly WHAT to do with the USA?) since the developments first broke out.  And there is a savage happy glee to the media “outrage” over the scandal.  The media’s on the side of “journalistic outrage” and Rupert Murdoch is routinely depcited as unwilling to acknowledge any personal responsibility.

The media is on top of every new development.  Every day marks a new front page story.  Outrage abounds.

I haven’t seen coverage like this since the Bush days.  Because that was the last time the media really went after somebody to try to take him down.

There was TWICE as much coverage of the Murdoch/”hacking scandal” as there was of the debt ceiling crisis in the New York Times, for example.  At last this biased propaganda rag has a target they can really attack.

The aspect of the coverage that is now getting the most media flurry and fury is the question that Rupert Murdoch was asked:

“Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?”

And Murdoch’s flat “No” was followed by a renewed gasp of sheer outrage from the mainstream media machine.

If the mainstream media had any honesty or integrity whatsoever, they would be treating Rupert Murdoch exactly like they’re treating Barack Obama, or they would treat Barack Obama exactly like they’re treating Rupert Murdoch.

Here’s my question: has ANYONE in the mainstream media EVER ONCE asked President Obama the question, “Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?” related to the various “gunwalking” scandals in which government agents under Obama administration control allowed thousands of deadly firearms to get into the hands of criminal drug cartels in at least two foreign countries resulting in the murder of scores of citizens including American agents???

See my article on that here.  This scandal is HUGE.  There is NO WAY Obama couldn’t have had any input whatsoever into a massive federal program involving several federal agencies at multiple locations that put thousands of guns into the hands of criminals in at least two foreign countries.

And now see here:

WASHINGTON — The head of the Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has admitted that his agency,  in at least one instance, allowed sales of high-powered weapons without  intercepting them — and he accuses his superiors at the Justice  Department of stonewalling Congress to protect political appointees in the  scandal over those decisions.

How would Obama answer that question if some mainstream media propagandist actually asked him?

Should he not say that, as president of the United States and the commander in chief, he is clearly “ultimately responsible?”  And should he not therefore resign from office to accept that responsibility?

This scandal hardly makes Rupert Murdoch look good (although his company News Corp. had a huge day on the stock market as investors clearly liked what they heard):

STAYING PUT: Rupert Murdoch said he was the best person to clean up News Corp. Investors agreed.

BIG DAY: News Corp.’s stock had its best day since the phone-hacking scandal broke, rising more than 5 percent Tuesday while Murdoch and his son and deputy, James, testified before a committee of the British Parliament in London

But you know who looks far, far worse in this?  The mainstream media, which once again proves they are hatchet men for anyone smacking of conservatism while mindlessly protecting their own leftwingers from the same sort of criticism they continually heap on their opponents all while claiming they are “objective.”

Just to provide a recent example of this profound liberal bias (is “today” recent enough?), here’s one dated 7/20/2011:

A Politico reporter who often penned stories about Sarah Palin and other  Republicans has quit journalism to work with the Democratic Party in Arizona,  sources tell The Daily Caller.

That reporter, Andy Barr, has covered national politics for the publication  since 2008. Barr leaving to help elect Democrats will likely fan the flames of  critics who say Politico has a liberal bias.

Politico – which sent a literal act to pretend he was a “reporter” to cover Republicans for three years – has a liberal bias?  Say it aint so!!!

Taken In By Gay Girl Amina: And How Media Fooled By Every Leftwing Lie That Reinforces Their Bias

June 16, 2011

Do you know why the release of tens of thousands of pages of Sarah Palin’s emails resulted in a media feeding frenzy – along with numerous “respected” newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post actually calling upon their readers to help them dig up any possible dirt – was a huge story, and the one about giant public pension (read as “liberal union”) outfit CalPERS has simultaneously been deleting all their old emails to destroy evidence barely raises eyebrows?

I mean, yes, California’s public pension is only a $500 billion – yes, you read that correctly: $500 BILLION – black hole of corrupt unfunded liability that will necessarily ultimately bankrupt the state as soon as all the gimmicks are exposed and Californians finally get a chance to stare into their open graves.  But so what?  That exposes the absolute corruption of liberalism, and that isn’t a project the mainstream media is particularly interested in.  Much better to target Sarah Palin in a three-year-and-counting unrelenting campaign of frothing, rabid media hatred.  Who CARES about CalPERS’ emails when we can look through Sarah Palin’s trash cans???

This, of course, the same corrupt media that crucified Sarah Palin because she couldn’t produce a “long form” of newspapers and magazines she’d read to Katie Couric – with the asinine but media-generated narrative that she was somehow too ignorant to read.  It’s the same media that is simply appalled at the ignorance of Sarah Palin’s alleged misunderstanding of the role of Paul Revere in his midnight ride, combined with their correspondingly indignant defense of Barack Obama believing that he’d visited 57 states with one more left to go.

The mainstream media has become a fascist propaganda arm of the fascist Democrat Party.  They aren’t fair; they aren’t capable of being fair.  They wouldn’t be fair if they could.

We see over and over again examples of the fact that the mainstream media swallows hook, line and sinker every single load of crap that is fed to them – as long as that load of crap reinforces their liberal biases and presuppositions.

Taken in by ‘Gay Girl’
The ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ hoax is worse than a lie. It’s propaganda.
By Jonah Goldberg
June 14, 2011

I’d barely followed “A Gay Girl In Damascus” until last week, when Daily Beast columnist Peter Beinart posted something to Twitter: “This is really important — this woman is a hero,” with a link to a story about Amina Abdallah Arraf, a Syrian American woman and the author of the blog “A Gay Girl In Damascus.” According to the story, Amina had been seized by Syrian security forces for her dissident writing.

Quickly, Amina’s arrest became a new Internet cause. Even the U.S. State Department joined the effort.

And soon thereafter, the whole thing fell apart. Amina never existed. The author of “A Gay Girl In Damascus” was in fact a 40-year-old straight dude from Georgia living in Scotland. Rather than the sexy young lesbian in the photos (stolen from the Facebook page of a Croatian expat living in London), the photo of him in the Washington Post shows a man who looks like the bearded comic-actor Zach Galifianakis — in a Che Guevara T-shirt, naturally.

Tom MacMaster was raised to be a peace activist. When he was a kid, the family trekked to the Pentagon to hand out origami doves to commemorate the bombing of Nagasaki. He’s the co-director of Atlanta Palestine Solidarity and claims to have visited Baghdad on a “student peace mission” to deter the Iraq war.

In an “Apology to Readers” posted on June 12 from his vacation in Istanbul, MacMaster writes, “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground.”

He explains that as a white guy with an Anglo name, people wouldn’t take him seriously in online discussion groups. So he made up Amina and her countless fictional experiences in Syria and America.

At first it sounds a bit like the old jokes swirling around the publishing industry: Lincoln sells. Medicine sells. Dogs sell. So let’s put out a book about Lincoln’s doctor’s dog! It’ll be a bestseller!

Except McMaster’s ploy really worked. People desperately wanted to believe in this “hero”: a saucy, sage, left-wing member of the LGBT community who likes to wear the hijab, can’t stand Israel or George W. Bush and who parrots every cliche about the romantic authenticity of the Arab people and their poetic yearning for democracy, peace and love. Whereas no one cared about McMaster’s “Anglo” arguments, Amina’s assertions succeeded with little effort. For instance, “she” writes of the Palestinians’ need to return to their homes in Israel: “It’s simple but, maybe, you have to be a Levantine Arab to get this. It makes perfect sense to me.” Of course it does!

CNN interviewed “her” — by email — for a story about gay rights and the Arab Spring. “She” said things were going great for gays. The feedback, even from Muslims, for her blog was “almost entirely positive.”

But the CNN story troubled her. The outlet encouraged the sin of “pink washing” — a term used by some anti-Israel critics to decry any attempt to compare Israel’s treatment of gays with that of Arab states. Israel is tolerant, even celebratory, of gay rights (Israel recently launched a gay tourism campaign with the slogan “Tel Aviv Gay Vibe — Free; Fun; Fabulous”). Syria punishes homosexual activity with three years in prison (In Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran, the punishment is death).

Who cares, Amina angrily responds. In fact, how dare “advocates of war, occupation, dispossession and apartheid” use Arab and Muslim hostility to gays as “‘evidence that the primitive sand-people don’t deserve anything other than killing by the enlightened children of the West.”

Besides, “she” has never been harassed by Arabs for being gay. But in America, “she” has been “struck by strangers for being an Arab” and “had dung thrown at me” for wearing the hijab.

Except that is a lie.

Worse, it’s propaganda. McMaster’s fake-but-accurate lesbian was perfectly pitched to Western liberals desperate to alleviate the pain of cognitive dissonance. No longer must you think too hard or make tough choices if you’re, say, anti-Israel and pro-democracy or pro-gay rights and in favor of the self-determination of Muslim fanatics. Heck, you can even stop worrying and love a lesbian feminist who sees no big deal in wearing a religiously required sack over her head.

Of course she was a hero. Of course she didn’t exist.

If this “Amina” was writing as a fundamentalist Christian instead of a leftwing lesbian ideologue, this story never would have gotten off the ground.  Because unrelentingly skeptical “journalists” would have exposed “her” as a fraud even if she was actually for real.

Let me assure you, the Daily Beast is über liberal.  I can state that from personal experience: in an article entitled, “Hunting the Obama Haters,” (somehow I missed their “fair and balanced” piece on “Hunting the Bush Haters”), the Daily Beast referred to yours truly as “one particularly unhinged culture warrior.”

Ironically, some wingnuts on the right are blaming Democrats’ techniques on their newfound commitment to tear down the next President of the United States. Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden of TheAmericanSentinel.com, who writes: “Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle…don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave Bush… It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.”

I actually liked that “one particularly unhinged culture warrior” part; not only did they spell my name correctly, but that was a rather catchy phrase they followed it with.  But there is no question that the “wingnuts on the left” who were completely comfortable with eight years’ of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” were self-righteously outraged and appalled that someone would actually dare suggest that the right treat Obama the same way the left treated Bush.

I got a chance to mock back in a piece I wrote here.  Now, of course, I get another one.

And of course “CNN” is a synonym for “Communist News Network.”  There are repeated examples (why, here’s one!  And see the ultimate conclusion of the anchor involved in that bogus and demagogic story here) of CNN suffering from “confirmation bias,” in which they believe exactly what they want to believe, while refusing to believe what they don’t want to believe.  CNN would believe a lie from the devil himself if it hurt a conservative; they will likewise believe a lie from the devil himself if it reinforces their liberal biases.

Both the Daily Beast and CNN (along with numerous other lefty sources, I’m sure) were fooled because they are fools who want to be fooled so they can in turn fool the American people.

These are profoundly stupid people, no matter how smart they think they are or now many college degrees and elitist positions they’ve given to one another.  They aren’t stupid because they have low IQs; no, they are stupid because they have willed themselves to be stupid by sheer brute force of will by rigidly committing themselves to a completely false and depraved view of the world.  They despise God, refuse to accept the God’s-eye view of the world as revealed in His Word and His Son, and therefore believe a hodgepodge of disproven leftwing theories which they constantly try to impose and reimpose on a world which they will never comprehend.  Even as they make that world worse and worse and worse with each new iteration.  Thanks to these people and their “theories,” our culture has become a gigantic reciprocating engine that makes us more and more morally stupid with every downward stroke.

I have nothing but naked contempt for these sneering self-congratulatory “wingnuts.”  And frankly I’m glad that they know it.

Biased Mainstream Media Yet Again Proven To Be In The Tank For Obama, Democrats

June 3, 2011

A couple of links scream about the rabid left wing media bias.  The first:

Diane Sawyer Steals Hannity, Fox Credit on Wright
By Jeffrey Lord on 6.2.11 @ 8:59AM

It was so brazen it was amazing.

ABC Anchor Diane Sawyer sits across from Bill O’Reilly last night and casually says that ABC broke the story about the tapes featuring the sermons of now radioactive and decidedly ex-Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright.

“You’re talking to the network…Obama White House remembers this… that broke the Jeremiah Wright tapes.”

The implication?

ABC News was Johnny-on-the-spot on the story of then-Senator Obama’s now infamous — and ex — pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In March of 2008.

Remember that date. March — 2008. Here’s the link to the story, filed on March 13 by ABC’s Brian Ross

This remark came about in the course of a conversation with O’Reilly in which Sawyer, discussing the role of ABC News in the last presidential campaign, insisted that her network was not populated by liberals who tilted the news leftward. O’Reilly had cited a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs on the network news coverage of the Obama-McCain campaign that showed the tilt in favorable coverage for Obama over McCain as follows:

Obama   McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56%   16%
ABC 57%   42%

ABC had fared best of the three broadcast networks, but the point of liberal media bias — the kind of reporting that dates as far back as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign — stood. So O’Reilly persisted.

And out popped the above statement on Jeremiah Wright.

Let’s be clear here. Sawyer used the word “tapes” — and strictly speaking she is correct.

The problem comes with the context — in which she is clearly trying to imply that ABC was the proverbial dog with a bone in uncovering the relationship of Wright to his famous congregant, and what the implications might be for the country if a man who sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years listening to Wright’s leftist political rants were elected president.

Bluntly put — this is poppycock.

The man — and the network — that did the background research on this was, yes indeed, Sean Hannity and Fox News.

On February 28, 2007 — over a full year before ABC first aired its Wright story — Hannity had located columnist Erik Rush, who had written an article on Senator Obama and his church. He put Rush on the air that night.

The very next night, Hannity had managed to corral Wright himself on his Fox show with liberal Alan Colmes. Here’s the clip.

Out poured the tale of Wright’s devotion to Black Liberation Theology and the radical writings of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. From this initial work the connections of Wright to Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Qaddafi were uncovered and more.

And on it went.

The role of ABC News here?

Zip, nada, zero.

And yet plain as can be, there sits Diane Sawyer, the anchor of ABC News, on the set of Fox’s O’Reilly Factortrying to pretend ABC was a prime mover in Hannity’s story — a Fox story that surely would never have seen the light of day anywhere had it not been for Hannity’s tenacity in digging it out and putting it on TV. And, as regular viewers will recall, being snickered at while doing it — snickering that stopped when Obama finally felt so much pressure on Wright he stopped going to the church and felt the need to publicly rebuke the man he had once said was like an “uncle” to him.

Ms. Sawyer insisted her network would be providing “fantastic coverage” of the 2012 race, citing the liberal ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as a key member of her team.

If this is an example of the work to come from ABC News on the 2012 presidential campaign… well, we report, you decide.

The second:

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Back of the Book” segment  tonight: As we reported last night, elements of the national liberal media have  begun their campaign to re-elect President Obama. The attacks on Fox News are  being stepped up, and we used an example of NBC News correspondent Andrea  Mitchell deriding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for criticizing Mr.  Obama.

Here now to talk about the Obama advantage in the media, Fox News political  analyst Charles Krauthammer, who is in Washington this evening. So how much of  an advantage? Because in my lifetime covering politics, 35 years now, I’ve never  seen a media as rabidly invested in a president as the liberal national media is  in Mr. Obama. Have you?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I  think that is true, and you can see it in a Pew study, Pew Center for Excellence  in Journalism that they did in 2008 election. They found that of the three cable  networks, Fox played it absolutely right down the middle, the same amount of  favorability to McCain as to Obama. CNN three times as favorable to Obama as to  McCain; MSNBC 5 to 1. So, I mean, and that was four years ago. Interesting, to  give you an idea of how biased the media is, when it issued a press release on  that study, Bill, it played it as CNN was the cable norm, with MSNBC on one side  and Fox on the other deviating from the norm. The norm being the pro-Obama bias  of CNN, rather than the norm that any objective American would say, which is  what Fox has done, which was to play it right down the middle.

O’REILLY: Sure. Now, there was another study done by the  Center for Media and Public Affairs that showed the network broadcasts — CBS,  ABC and NBC — were 68 percent positive for Obama, Senator Obama, then-Senator  Obama, 32 percent negative. For John McCain, it was the reverse: 36 positive, 64  negative. So, my contention is that nothing is going to change this time around.  That the national TV media and the big urban newspapers, like The New York  Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, will all be trying to get  President Obama re-elected. So the question then becomes: How much of an  advantage is it for the president?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it’s a major advantage, but you’ve got to  remember this. The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side.  They’ve had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the  presidency seven out of the last 11 elections, and that’s because what  Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a  center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades. So  what the media bias does is it slightly — it gives an advantage. It’s a major  advantage, but it’s undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have  because it’s a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal  message.

And as bad as it appears to be with the tilt in favorable coverage for liberal Barack Obama for, well, somewhat less liberal John McCain – (and here is the result of the study again):

Obama   McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56%   16%
ABC 57%   42%

– I believe it is actually FAR worse than that.

The reason I say that is there’s an implicit assumption that isn’t true; namely, that both John McCain and Barack Obama had exactly the same negative baggage or positive qualities.  As an example, if Tom and Dick had pretty much the exact same record, and the press covered Dick more favorably than Tom, you’d certainly be able to show bias.

But what if Dick had a long history of radical associations, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis, and including racist un-American bigots such as Jeremiah Wright and terrorists such as William Ayers?  What if Dick had all the political baggage of a Chicago thug, including dirty deals with criminal scumbags such as Tony Rezko?  What if Dick’s wife had all KINDS of dirty baggage?  What if Dick could be documented to have a radical history of being a communist?  Just as a couple of examples?  Would it be fair or legitimate to expect the coverage to be evenly “favorable” versus “unfavorable,” or would FAIR and OBJECTIVE coverage have skewed dramatically against Dick???

In the case of Barack Obama, the guy who deserved virtually ALL the negative coverage got virtually NONE.  Versus war hero John McCain who should have received very little unfavorable coverage and got virutally nothing BUT???

And that same overwhelming media bias that got Obama an undeserved victory and the presidency in 2008 is just as biased today in defending the failure’s record.

Obama Plays And Parties As America Is Literally Blown Away By Tornados

May 25, 2011

This headline grabbed me: “WWII Devastation” in Joplin, Missouri.  And here’s what that devastation looked like:

Not that Obama gives much of a damn.

There’s a famous picture that killed the Bush presidency.  It shows him flying over the Katrina devastation in a jet:

That one picture was all the mainstream media needed to frame their narrative that Bush was either uninvolved, uncaring, incompetent – or all three.  They showed it over and over.

Here are some pictures of Obama as tornadoes ripped across America and killed hundreds.  He didn’t HAVE to go on this trip; it wasn’t a major summit of any kind.  He visited distant relatives in Ireland, for Pete’s sake!

On his trip – while Americans were dying in droves and losing their homes by the tens of thousands – Obama enjoyed a nice game of ping pong:

Obama enjoyed a beer:

Why aren’t those photos about a gazillion times worse?  Other than the fact that the mainstream media would never do unto Obama what they repeatedly did unto Bush?

And, of course, there’s the story of Obama totally screwing up during the playing of the British national anthem and talking over it.

There’s the footage of Obama – who mocked the Republicans over the metaphor of their “driving the car of state into a ditch” – having this LITERALLY happen to his motorcade:

There’s the incredible picture of Obama not knowing what YEAR it was as he signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey:

Remember how many times the mainstream media replayed the footage of Bush going to the wrong door in China?  They mocked that Bush had “no exit strategy.”  How is this not about a million times more stupid???

All this happened while Americans losing their lives and having their homes’ destroyed by tornado after tornado.

Meanwhile, there are Americans who are suffering – and continue to suffer – the aftermath of that “World War II devastation,” who would LOVE their president flying over the ruins of their homes:

And:

And:

And:

You can bet that the same mainstream media that destroyed Bush one story and one picture at a time will never attack their messiah the same way – even though they have TWENTY TIMES the ammunition they had on Bush.

The most ideological and biased media since Adolf Hitler’s propaganda machine will keep on protecting their beloved Führer.