Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 16, 2014, 08:32:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82480 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Media Issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 29 Print
Author Topic: Media Issues  (Read 194034 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #650 on: January 28, 2011, 08:05:45 AM »

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/journolist-lives-media-coordinates-sotu-response-networks-all-describe-lib-obama-as-reaganesque/

Don’t fool yourself… Journolist is alive and well.
It was apparent this week after Obama’s SOTU Address that the state-run media is still coordinating their message to the American people.

All three major networks described Obama’s confusing speech as being “Reaganesque.”
They want so desperately for the failed socialist they helped elect to appear like the beloved Ronald Reagan.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqGuzkUkU
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 08:10:08 AM by G M » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #651 on: January 28, 2011, 09:46:58 AM »

"failed socialist"

GM I ask you the above with tongue in cheek,

Did you see SoloDAD Obrien (one of CNN's partisan hacks pretending to be a journalist) going after a Republican congresman yesterday for calling Obama a "socialist".
It was one of those "keeping them honest" segments.  She wanted to know what the evidence is that he is a socialist.  When one of the answers was Obama-care she was beside herself and obviously bristling with anger, "more than 50% of the people want it", "so are you saying more than 50% of Americans are socialist?"  She could not trap him into acquesing and was clearly annoyed.

Just another jornolister attempt at labelling anyone who evens suggests Obama is in some way marxist as "radical", as "crazy".  Like it isn't obvious the Pres isn't a radical progressive - yeah right.

I used to think of myself as a moderate Republican.  I now have learned from this board and watching the media and the progressives what a mistake that is.

Progressivism is truly a form of cancer.  When they cannot ram it down our throats they scream "civility", "bipartisanship", "compromise", "good governance".

The right cannot compromise because there is NO compromise with them.  They do not stop, it is never enough, and their answer to everything is more government programs and regulation.

 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #652 on: January 28, 2011, 01:40:04 PM »

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/i_have_another_question_about_obama_and_the_new_party

The more you dig in to this, the more troubling it becomes.

In the 1996 election for the Illinois State Senate, Obama was running in a four way primary.

To make up ground, and pay attention here, to make up ground he sought the New Party endorsement as well. In that way, Obama calculated that he could get the Democratic left and the hard left to support him.

But Obama was running against Alice Palmer -- she was already hardcore left. So, and again pay attention, Obama *went to the left* of a hard core leftist to win. That's what he did by seeking the New Party endorsement.

Now here is where it gets interesting. At the beginning of 1996, Obama was able to get all of his opponents thrown off the ballot.

Mr. Hope and Change used the brass knuckles and ran uncontested as the Democratic nominee.

We've already established that the New Party had, by 1996, become the party of the hardcore leftist radicals -- an amalgamation of communists, socialist, and other reds — in other words, not something acceptable to mainstream America.

Why then, if he then did not need the New Party's support, did he keep up the relationship?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #653 on: January 28, 2011, 01:50:10 PM »

"At the beginning of 1996, Obama was able to get all of his opponents thrown off the ballot."

GM, Can you elaborate?  How did he do that and who helped him do this?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #654 on: January 28, 2011, 01:54:05 PM »

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.

So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog:

    In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.
     
    After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

    On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.
     
    From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
    "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

    Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link. More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:

    New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama's New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition:

    The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

    First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

    Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama's membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn't hesitate to report on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party.

UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama's close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters' Hermano who provided this link to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

    About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

    The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #655 on: January 28, 2011, 01:59:29 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/barack_obamas_campaign_of_the.html

Absent the ability to read minds and hearts, I can't really tell you if Barack Obama is uniquely dishonest.  What is for certain, though, is that his campaign is uniquely deceitful.  These two things are not synonymous. Politicians are famous for suppressing facts and manufacturing fantasies to hide their faults, and, while Obama certainly practices this sleight-of-hand, I can't say he is more inured to it that your average prevaricating pol.  But what is doubtless is that he has more faults to hide.

It's ironic that Obama has used the "lipstick on a pig" line, because Avon's whole inventory couldn't, sans media spin, cover up his true colors.  And color is a factor this election.  It's not that the senator is black, however, or that, as he said last debate alluding to McCain's criticism, he is "green behind the ears."  It's that he is red behind the ears.

Barack Obama may be the most radically-left major-party presidential nominee in our nation's history.  A recent analysis of voting records -- not words but actions -- showed that the senator owned the most left-wing record in the Senate in 2007, placing him ahead of even that body's one avowed socialist, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.  Now, if Sanders proclaims himself a socialist, and Obama is to the left of Sanders, what do you call Obama?

Of course, some question the methodology of the study, and, true enough, a different one might yield slightly different rankings.  But if Obama is within a sickle-length of socialist Sanders, does it really matter if he is a couple of spots above or below?  This is an instance where we definitely should remember second place.

Yet accusations of socialism are, well, just so hard to believe.  But a damning revelation just came to light that should leave no doubt about Obama's sympathies.  The blog "Politically Drunk On Power" (PDOP) discovered documents showing that the senator was a member of the "New Party," which is, the blog explains,

    ". . . a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards."


Now, listen to this.  The New Party tried its best to obscure Obama's ties to the organization and had scrubbed the relevant documents from its website; however, PDOP was able to find them at a non-profit Internet Archive Organization.  Quoting from the October 1996 New Party update, the blog reveals:

    New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races . . .

    Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).


PDOP then cites the November 1996 issue of Progressive Populist magazine, which reported on the results of the general election, writing:

    "New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago [emphasis mine]."


Providing further evidence, PDOP provides an excerpt from the DSA's July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter, which in part reads:

    . . . the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude . . . .  [One of them,] Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.


Citing yet another source, the 1996 Election Update from the Columbus Free Post, PDOP writes:

    "The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested."


Now there is an obvious question.  If Obama was a member of the New Party, why was he running as a Democrat in Illinois?  The answer is that these socialists were Machiavellian and understood that they could not as yet win power under their own banner.  This tactic was outlined in the New Party's 1997 Happy Birthday Update.  Here are parts of the PDOP excerpt:

    . . . the New Party would remain independent of the Democratic Party - but without undermining the Democrats.


    . . . the New Party's founders suggest, the left needs an organization that straddles the inside-outside fence. If the U.S. left is ever to make a meaningful decision on the third-party-vs.-Dems question, they propose, it must first take on the task of grassroots power-building.

    . . .  The party's strategy has been to build political organizations in a few targeted cities, working closely with labor and community organizations.


Does Obama's history as a "community organizer" still sound innocuous or even positive?  The above provides the strongest indication that he was a socialist community organizer.

Here is more from the update:

    "Chapters run candidates only where they have a real chance of winning, combine campaign work with organizing and education, and refuse to spoil elections by stealing votes from the better of two major party candidates [emphasis mine]."


Given this fact, is it any surprise that ex-weathermen terrorist and Obama ally Bill Ayers obtained a $50 million government grant (our tax money) for "education" and then gave it the senator, who, in turn, funneled it to ACORN, a group involved in "organizing"? 

The update continues:

    . . . Until major changes in the legal structure of the U.S. politics happen, we're stuck with a two-party system, and progressives -- if they want to win many elections -- will have to run, and vote, Democrat.

    . . . [Our affiliated] organizations can, from time to time, move their political muscle and know-how into Democratic primaries to back progressive candidates for state legislature and even Congress, but do not have the size or clout to field their own candidates for the Senate, the Governor's office, or the White House.


No, but it now seems they very well may soon have one of their number in the White House.

Next, PDOP provides evidence from an article written by New Party member Jim McGrath in 1997:

    ". . . Chapters generally require endorsed candidates to sign a contract, with requirements that they be NP members, identify as such, support the NP principles and program, and work to build NP chapters . . . ."


In other words, it's highly probable that Obama signed a contract with this socialist party and was a member.

More from the article:

    . . . For the New Party, whether progressives should run as Democrats is a tactical, not ideological, question . . . .  Regardless of whether our candidates run as "non-partisan" (in fact, the vast majority of our candidates, as we're generally running in local elections which are usually non-partisan), "New Party Democrats" (inside Dem Primaries), or independents, they all are New Party members . . . .


Note that all throughout these quotations, we see continual admissions that socialists are, in fact, running as Democrat candidates, using the major party as a political Trojan Horse.  These socialists have also won offices in many parts of the nation.  Thus, two ominous questions present themselves: Should Obama win the presidency, how many in the Democrat-controlled house will be fellow New Party travelers?  And, with both the legislative and executive branches in their hands and the election past, will the lipstick come off?  Will they feel free to legislate a radical socialist agenda?   

Lastly there is the Chicago DSA Press Release New Ground 69, which tells us (in the Endorsements Section) of how ". . . Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity . . . ."

What does "YDS" stand for?

Youth Democratic Socialists.   

I understand that some of you are enraptured by Barack Obama.  He is a charismatic leader at the center of a cult of personality, and you may not want to think ill of him.  But we all want to be responsible voters, and this requires placing country before oratory, before image, before personality, before party, and considering evidence presented.  And in Obama's case it is overwhelming; it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a socialist.

Thus, responsible citizens must demand two things before giving the senator their vote.  First, he must come clean about his socialist past and exhibit some contrition.  Second, he must convince us that he has renounced these socialist beliefs and will not push the DSA agenda from the Oval Office.

We also must be mindful of the old saying, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."  As for the Chicago surprise's past, he cultivated his political career in a very bad neighborhood.  A bad ideological one.  And if he wants to now occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the onus is on him to truly prove he has left it behind.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #656 on: January 28, 2011, 02:04:16 PM »

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Obama%20and%20the%20New%20Party.html

Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters.  By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body.  Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995.  He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals.  But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand.  In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters.  Printed names were not allowed.  Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot.  By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement.  The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party.  Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to.  The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #657 on: January 29, 2011, 05:24:06 PM »

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=57742

Flip side.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #658 on: February 03, 2011, 12:36:42 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/03/video-koch-protests-include-calls-to-lynch-clarence-thomas/



I'm sure the MSM will be all over this.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #659 on: February 03, 2011, 01:25:08 PM »


I have no words that aptly describe my frustration with those people at this moment.   
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #660 on: February 04, 2011, 01:36:01 PM »

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/03/civility-watch-another-day-another-round-of-anti-conservative-threats/

More leftist goodness.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #661 on: February 07, 2011, 01:24:53 PM »

Going back a couple of days to the white Common Cause progressives calling for the lynching Clarence Thomas, the issue (not mentioned I think) they were so upset about was the Citizens United decision.  I would have thought it was war, torture or Roe v. Wade fears, not opposition to freedom of political speech. 

The media aspect of this is that these comments (largely unreported) are somewhat consistent and documented on video, whereas the racist allegations at a Tea Party rally were widely reported, totally unverified and likely untrue.

Lynching, tie them up, and torture them ideas are beyond racist and likely apply to Scalia and others as well as Thomas.  Racism as more like saying you won't play with someone or work with them because of skin color.  These comments strike me more as terroristic, and the incitement trail (for anger, not violence) leads directly to publicly made falsehoods uttered by the chief in the 2010 SOTU.  http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/the-truth-about-president-obama-and-citizens-united/  (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Disclosure to be consistent: I cannot guarantee that I would not make similar utterances at a far-right-wing-hate-rally regarding Kelo, if I was the rallying type.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #662 on: February 11, 2011, 05:04:30 PM »



Stop the hate!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #663 on: February 13, 2011, 08:17:51 PM »

Crafty I don't know specifically what your beef was when you came down so hard on Time magazine recently (mindless liberal drivel?), but they have embarrassed themselves beyond belief on this one - falling for a Sarah Palin spoof and going to press without even clicking on the source, much less having someone listen to it.  The National Enquirer's coverage of John Edwards is Pulitzer material compared to this slop they call journalism.  Most of the past criticisms of what Palin has said came down to quotes of Tina Fey.  This one was a hoax marked COMEDY at the original source and Time bought it hook, line and sinker.  Dan Rather had higher standards.  The correction apologizes to the singer not the character they were trying to assassinate.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028356.php
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #664 on: February 17, 2011, 12:30:22 PM »

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1317384&format=text

CBS complicit in news coverup
By Michael Graham  |   Thursday, February 17, 2011  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Op-Ed

Dateline — Egypt:

“[60 Minutes] correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, ‘Jew! Jew!’ as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo’s main square Friday.”

Powerful reporting on an important story. Two problems: It didn’t run until yesterday, and CBS didn’t run it. The quote is from the New York Post. And it was The Wall Street Journal that reported “the separation and assault lasted roughly 20 to 30 minutes.”

But CBS? They sat on their own story. For five days, as reporters reveled amid giddy celebrations in Tahrir Square, and as President Obama praised President Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis, CBS reported nothing.

Only when other media had the story did CBS break the news that its own chief foreign correspondent was the victim of “a brutal and sustained sexual assault.”

**Read it all.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #665 on: February 19, 2011, 12:24:22 PM »

First a comment on the previous. "CBS...sat on their own story. For five days, as reporters reveled amid giddy celebrations in Tahrir Square..."

 - That I think is how Matt Drudge got his start; he had insiders tell him the stories networks were holding.
-----
We heard ad nauseum the tea party rallies were racist because attendees were predominantly white.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028403.php

in no MSM coverage I have seen is there ANY note that the crowd is "predominantly white".... Why is that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re6hcOmHpzs&feature=player_embedded
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #666 on: February 19, 2011, 01:13:55 PM »

""predominantly white"

Except for Jesse Jackson who took time off from his work for Obama.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #667 on: February 22, 2011, 04:46:42 PM »

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102180032
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #668 on: March 04, 2011, 03:51:43 PM »

I want my Al Jazeera!   rolleyes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/04/national/main20039266.shtml?tag=strip
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #669 on: March 07, 2011, 10:03:10 AM »

Marc Levin forshadowed Bachman on Meet the Press this weekend.
Marc Levin predicted that on Meet the (Liberal) Press Michelle Bachman would would get attacked for something.  He thought she would be question endlessly, like Boehner to criticize the "birthers".  Instead Liberal Democrat David Gregory kept shoving her "gangster" description of the way Obama leads in her face.  Over and over again he made it a point demanding she retract it.  HOw can she be compromising if she speaks like this?  He asks. 


My points,

First,
I didn't hear him calling and demanding for *compromise* when the Dems controlled government.
Second,
I didn't hear him demand an apology from the One for comments like, "we reward our friends and punish our enemies".
Third,
Instead of harping on one comment why doesn't he just let her give her opinions and stance?
Fourth,
Just the fact this is discussed in the following piece is exactly what the liberal media was after.  Get her to say somethng that could be taken out of context  or not to apologize and make THAT the issue to distract from her real points.  The MSM does this to every conservative.



Bachmann Stands by ‘Gangster Government’ Description
By Melanie Starkey
Roll Call Staff
March 6, 2011, 1:39 p.m.
  Print
E-mail
Reprints

   Text size
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) refused Sunday to retreat from her characterization of the Obama administration as a "gangster government."

The House Tea Party Caucus founder said, "I don't take back my statement on gangster government," a phrase she used at a tea party gathering in April. "I think that there have been actions that have been taken by this government that I think are corrupt," she said during her appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

She hammered at the administration Sunday for $105 billion included in last year's health care overhaul law for its implementation, regardless of the questions put to her. Bachmann called on the White House last week to apologize for the funding, which the Congressional Research Service reported in October.

The money was "hidden in various parts of the bill," she said Sunday. "Members of Congress didn't even know this money was in the bill, because we couldn't read the bill before it was passed, because it wasn't given to us but hours before we had to vote for it," she said.

Bachmann said she hasn't "made a decision either way about plans for" entering the 2012 presidential election.

"We can do so much better, she said. "And that's what I'm talking about with people in the next few months. We need to think very strongly. A second administration of Jimmy Carter wouldn't have done this country any favors. We need to make sure we don't have a second Barack Obama administration."

When asked if she had a timeline for making a decision about running, she responded, "I think there's a normal course of events when a decision like that will be made. And if I choose to go down that road, I'll make the decision."

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #670 on: March 07, 2011, 05:40:13 PM »

CCP,  I watched most of that segment.  Quite a standoff.  I thought she was daring him to take her off the air for not answering his questions.  She was determined to make a point (quoted below) and repeat that point, and in a way her point was relevant to every question that he asked.  Bachmann has gone through this before, I think it was with Chris Matthews who was determined to get her to say un-American with reference to anything to do with candidate Barack Obama.  Once she said the word, they chopped off all chance for context or explanation and the media ran full speed in all directions with their sound bite.  Here she did the opposite, walked in with a smile and a script and gave them only one sound bite to play no matter how bizarre the questions.

I defend her plenty but she is not going to be the next President; she doesn't have crossover appeal. More likely would just split conservative vote.  If she feels she has broad enough appeal she can run uphill for senate in MN against little Amy, a Hillary clone who is Al Franken's senior senator.

This is the point she was repeating: "We discovered that secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation to fund the implementation of Obamacare." This is something that wasn't known. This money was broken up, hidden in various parts of the bill." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/06/michele-bachmann-obama-ne_n_831986.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #671 on: March 08, 2011, 01:18:51 PM »

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/08/searching-for-marizela-an-update/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #672 on: March 09, 2011, 07:45:08 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/08/npr-places-schiller-on-administrative-leave-over-okeefe-video/
 

NPR Stung!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #673 on: March 09, 2011, 10:51:27 AM »


Is this but a local affiliate or is this the big FOX News?

Either way, it looks quite bad.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/ja021903.htm


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #674 on: March 09, 2011, 11:50:31 AM »

Yesterday it was NPR VP Ron Schiller out, the guy in the video.  Last night I heard James O'Keefe (the film director) on Hugh Hewitt radio say there is more material coming.  Today it is NPR CEO Vivian Schiller out (no relation). http://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134389342/vivian-schiller-ceo-of-npr-steps-down?ps=cprs Isn't government bias media a little creepy in free economy?  Which article authorizes that power of congress?  I love the part where he says we would be better off without federal funding.  Take him at his word. 

From the NPR link: "...Vivian Schiller's resignation. I'm told by sources that she was forced out — that this was, I guess, the final shoe dropping, you could say."  - No, there is more material coming that they know and we don't.  The final shoe is total government divestiture.

In the information disclosed about the group to NPR, they are working to spread Sharia Law across the globe.  What could go wrong with that, can we count on your donation??
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #675 on: March 09, 2011, 01:07:14 PM »

CNN was on the liberal offensive this AM going after Rep. King for his investigating Muslim extremism in the US.
Going into his past such as saying he supported the IRA which while on Fox he explained he did not support their terrorism but was roundly commended for bringing peace there even by Clinton.  Even Obama recommended him to be ambassador to Ireland.  Does anyone think that if he had ties to Irish terrorism the One would offer him the ambassadorship to Ireland?

Of course CNN's the "soloDAD" is off on another lopsided show trying to gain sympathy for the minority of the month.

It was Latinos, Blacks and now of course it is Muslims.

"Unwelcome in America" is the title.

The jornolist crowd appears to have King in their sights.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #676 on: March 09, 2011, 01:54:42 PM »

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/09/juan-williams-calls-disgraced-npr-exec-racist-bigoted-sexist-and-anti
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #677 on: March 10, 2011, 03:14:22 PM »

I can't imagine what this is like:

http://michellemalkin.com/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #678 on: March 10, 2011, 04:30:05 PM »

The odds of her being found alive are dim indeed. Very sad.  cry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #679 on: March 13, 2011, 07:01:51 PM »

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/13/abc-cbs-msnbc-nbc-and-npr-ignore-death-threats-wisconsin-republicans

ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC and NPR Ignore Death Threats to Wisconsin Republicans
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #680 on: March 14, 2011, 02:36:06 PM »

"Wisconsin's Governor Wins, but Is He Now Dead Man Walker?"

What is interesting is that author Dawn Reiss points out on her website she does NOT pick the headline.  In other words the headline was chosen by Times editors.

Amazing how the MSM points out how peaceful the protests were.  I guess chalk outlines with body parts drawings are peaceful.  Get a load of the last paragraph from the union members in tears as though not getting her pay raise or  totally free health care is some sort of human rights violation.  Indeed.

*****Wisconsin's Governor Wins, but Is He Now Dead Man Walker?
By Dawn Reiss / Madison Saturday, Mar. 12, 2011
 
 
Protesters march outside the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison on March 11, 2011

Scott Olson / Getty Images
Comment Print Email Reprints Facebook Twitter MORE
Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace 

The Wisconsin State Capitol had taken on an eerie quiet by late Friday. Gone were the throngs of protesters who had occupied its marble floors like it were a summer campground. The midnight honking of cars circling the white building had ceased. The chalk outlines around fake dead bodies etched with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's name remained in dismembered parts, not yet completely washed away by hoses.

It was the governor, however, who had walked away the legislative victor in the showdown. On Friday, as angry protesters chanted "Shame" and blew horns and vuvuzelas, Walker took up a dozen pens, one at a time, to sign into law a bill that not only takes away the ability of unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care but also limits pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation and ends automatic union dues collection by the state. It also requires public unions to recertify annually. It was a coup by Wisconsin Republicans against the labor movement in one of its strongholds.
(See how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker got his way.)

The governor allowed himself a moment to reflect on how his signature might play historically. "Some have asked whether this is going to set a national precedent," he said. "And I don't know ... but if along the way we help lead a movement across the state for true fiscal reform, true budgetary reform to ultimately inspire others across this country, state by state and in our federal government, inspire others to stand up and make the tough decision to make a commitment to the future so that our children across all states don't have to face the dire consequences we face because previous leaders have failed to stand up and lead, I feel that is a good thing." He also attempted to be magnanimous toward the thousands of protesters who had gathered in Madison since he first announced his legislative intentions on Valentine's Day. "I think we've had a civil discussion," he said. "It's been passionate, but it's been civil along the way."

The public outcry had been unexpected and brought out many first-time protesters who stayed on or returned again and again, even as observers thought the remarkably peaceful demonstrations would dissipate. And so, for the many who showed up, some at great sacrifice, were the protests in vain? "No," says Kenneth Mayer, who teaches political science at the University of Wisconsin. "It was pretty clear that the protests, as massive as they got, weren't going to change the governor's mind. Even though they didn't succeed in getting what they wanted, they mobilized a lot of people and made this a salient issue. A protest doesn't have to succeed in its immediate goal to have a long-term impact."
(See pictures of the showdown in Wisconsin.)

That probably means the protesters are going to turn from slogans to pocketbooks, funneling millions of dollars in donations into the state's unions. Their anger will likely also provide momentum for recall petitions. Wisconsin allows for the recall of elected officials once they have been in office for a year. According to Mayer, signatures amounting to 25% of the original voters must be gained to start a recall election. Getting rid of Walker would be tough. The governor was just voted into office and therefore could not be subject to a recall until Jan. 3, 2012. And it would require about 540,000 signatures to get his name on a recall ballot. Wisconsin has never recalled a governor in its history. Still, the threat of a recall — to Walker and his allies — could keep the governor in check. Democrats need to gain three seats in the state senate to win back control of the body; there are eight GOP senators who are now eligible for recall.
(See pictures of the Japan earthquake.)

The anger and activism could also propel legal challenges regarding the way Republicans may have violated open-meetings law and internal procedures to get the bill passed without a quorum (Democratic senators fled to Illinois specifically to prevent passage). But Mayer says that such claims are unlikely to succeed because "there is case law where the state courts have declined to get involved and force a legislature to enforce its own rule." A constitutional challenge on the basis of whether the Republican reclassification of the bill from fiscal to nonfiscal were legal may have a better chance, says Mayer, but "it's not a slam dunk."

The protesters have a lot of contained anger to vent. The demonstrations — a "quiet riot," according to some — managed to avoid turning violent. Though tensions mounted toward the end, there were never any door-busting, glass-breaking riots. It was horn blowing and button wearing instead of fistfights. There was drum beating and dancing instead of destruction. There were baby strollers and wheelchairs decked out with snarky signs. When Bill Hoyt, 52, saw his middle- and high school daughters and their friends banging on glass panels on the capitol grounds, he reminded them to be respectful of government property, saying destruction wasn't a good use of their frustration and that it would only create more problems.
(Comment on this story.)

The frustration from the defeat will be channeled elsewhere. Wiping tears from beneath her dark-rimmed glasses, Anne Moser, 47, who works for the University of Wisconsin-Madison's science-based Water Library, said, "People know that violence doesn't get you anywhere. The attack the Republicans have made is violent and a violation of human rights. It is an attack on the middle class. We teach our children to follow rules and to sit at the table and work it out, but that certainly hasn't happened here." And so she and her allies may seek their revenge elsewhere: in a court of law or, most likely, a polling booth.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2058601,00.html#ixzz1GbWOMOYE*****
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #681 on: March 16, 2011, 11:32:28 AM »

Miami mayor recalled for raising taxes.  HIs recall was rightly called a tax revolt by Fox yet liberal news outlet *Time* twists the truth saying he was fired for bravely increasing taxes so as not to cut government benefits and trying to claim it was to preserve "critical departments like fire and police".   Libs are also trying to tie this somehow in their favor to the recall attempt by Democrat machine operatives in Wisconsin saying politicians better watch out.  Thye must be sorely frustrated that the MIami mayor is recalled for raising taxes not cutting government benefits:

Alvarez Recall: Miami-Dade Prepares to Vote Out Mayor
 By TIM PADGETT / MIAMI Tim Padgett / Miami – Mon Mar 14, 6:45 pm ET
Politicians often do the right thing wrongly. Democrats are mistaken to think we can stanch our hemorrhaging budgets without cutting entitlements, but Republicans are just as delusional to suggest it can be done without raising taxes. Carlos Alvarez, the Republican mayor of Miami-Dade County, or greater Miami, understood this. And so, staring at the revenue free fall caused by South Florida's housing collapse, he engineered a property-tax increase last year to plug a near half-billion-dollar budget hole and keep critical departments like fire and police from being, as he said, "gutted."

Problem was, taking that step during the Great Recession, when Miami-Dade unemployment was approaching 13%, meant that you and your administration better be models of fiscal responsibility. But it turned out that Alvarez, one of the few Miami politicos with a reputation for probity, was at the same time raising high-level staffers' salaries as high as 15% while calling for a 5% cut for county workers; he also used his government car allowance to help pay for a new luxury BMW 550i Gran Turismo. Couple that with the fact that the Miami-Dade County Commission, which passed Alvarez's tax hike, is widely considered a feckless body - many of its members recently ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in police overtime costs with the all-too-common practice of using cops as their personal chauffeurs - and you can expect a bruising backlash. (See 25 crimes of the century.)

It looks like that's coming on March 15, when Alvarez will face a recall vote. "We've all been complaining about the quality of our government for a long time, and now we finally have a chance to do something about it," said Norman Braman, the Miami billionaire who led the recall-petition drive, after casting his anti-Alvarez ballot when early voting opened last week. Polls indicate that Alvarez probably won't be parking his beemer in the mayor's downtown-Miami space much longer. According to a March 6 Bendixen survey, 67% of Miami-Dade voters want to dump him. And when and if they do, Miami and its dysfunctional civics are likely to become a new rallying point for the antigovernment wave that swept so many ultra-conservative candidates - including Florida's controversial new governor, Rick Scott - into office last year.

The fall of Alvarez, who was first elected in 2004, would be resounding. Before the recession hit, he was riding high: Miami's housing boom was like a never-ending South Beach party, and in 2007 he won a referendum that gave the mayor, occupying a then relatively weak post, broad new powers that residents hoped would check the incompetent county commission. (Alvarez aides say that was the reason for the staff raises: the new mayoral powers thrust additional duties on the office.) (See "40 Under 40: The Rising Stars of American Politics.")

But though he handily won re-election in 2008, Alvarez may have overestimated Miami-Dade's new mayoral mandate as the recessionary hurricane bore down on South Florida. Even his accomplishments soon came under critical scrutiny, including the deal he and the county commission inked with the Florida Marlins for a new downtown baseball stadium, which in many respects now looks like a sweeter arrangement for a fat-cat sports franchise than for a struggling, low-wage county. Meanwhile, the 13-member county commission remains as clueless as ever. It hardly blinked, for example, when the Miami Herald last fall reported that Commissioner Jose "Pepe" Diaz is the director of a construction firm hired to do work at Miami International Airport, which is overseen by the commission. Diaz claims he never directly voted to give the firm contracts, but the Herald found that companies that have won airport concessions have in turn employed his firm.

All of which was too much for Braman and other Alvarez critics, who were able to secure almost twice the number of petition signatures needed to force a mayoral recall vote. Commissioner Natacha Seijas, who reportedly warned a political rival in 2002 during a debate that she'd "leave here in a body bag," also faces a recall, and four other commissioners may confront one soon. After exhausting his appeals to nullify the petition last month, Alvarez curtly stuck by his fateful tax-increase decision. "I recommended a budget that preserves services," he said. (See the top 10 unfortunate political one-liners.)

But he did it, as far as many if not most Miamians are concerned, while he and the county commission preserved their privileges. In the process, they handed more leverage to controversial watchdogs like Braman - who, as an owner of car dealerships, has used his financial clout to kill sales-tax levies for badly needed public-transportation improvements in Miami. If Alvarez and Seijas (who voted with seven other commissioners for the property-tax hike) are toppled on March 15, their political tone-deafness will only have made it harder for the next politician to do the right thing when it's warranted.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #682 on: March 16, 2011, 11:44:34 AM »

Tangent: If I remember correctly Miami had a mayoralty election voided in 199? for vote irregularlities-- which greatly added to my suspicions during the Bush-Gore recount of 2000.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #683 on: March 18, 2011, 04:03:51 PM »

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/17/ny-times-mag-promotes-hoax-of-the-holocaust-cleric-yasir-qadhi-as-face-of-moderate-american-islam/

NY Times Mag promotes “Hoax of the Holocaust” cleric Yasir Qadhi as face of “moderate” American Islam
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #684 on: March 23, 2011, 11:32:21 AM »

A long piece on Powerline by John Hinderacker.  A very good read about how biased media works.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028666.php
(This is the conclusion.  You need to read the whole story to judge the facts for yourself.)
"What we see here is incest to the third degree. The disgusting morass of left-wing blogs, funded by far-left billionaires like George Soros, spew up an endless stream of slimy attacks on mainstream citizens, like Charles and David Koch, and mainstream politicians, like Mike Pompeo. Democratic Party outlets that are generally presumed to be more respectable, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, watch the dirt flow by and periodically, when they see something promising, pluck it out of the swamp and take it mainstream in order to benefit their party. The Post isn't as bad as some--I have referred to it as the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party--but when it follows this disgusting practice, plucking out the vilest unsubstantiated smear and promoting it for purely partisan purposes, it is hard to distinguish the Post from the most disreputable far-left rags, like Think Progress and the New York Times."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #685 on: March 24, 2011, 07:27:05 AM »

We search for Truth around here.  Does anyone have anything on the assertion here about The Blaze's saying that O'keefe misled?
================

By STEVE INSKEEP
On the day NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller lost her job, I was reporting from Egypt. That evening, I had dinner with employees from NPR's Cairo bureau. I wasn't eager to talk shop, but I didn't have to. The conversation barely touched on news from home.

Instead we spoke of Egypt's revolution. And we talked over the logistics of supplying our colleagues in nearby Libya with body armor.

When I had time to think about it, I noticed a contrast between the news that NPR reports from the Arab world and the news NPR has lately made at home. Each news story revealed the values of the people reporting it.

Here the story was reality TV. A video editor created a faux organization, set up a meeting, and secretly recorded the bone-headed remarks of an NPR executive. The editor, activist James O'Keefe, spliced together clips to suggest that NPR was prepared to take money from an Islamist group allegedly founded by members of the "Muslim Brotherhood in America."

Emails show that NPR refused the money, and the conservative website The Blaze discovered that the executive's remarks were repeatedly lifted out of context. Nevertheless, the executive and his CEO were dismissed.

I congratulate Mr. O'Keefe for upholding his values: faith in the power of video to mislead. As columnist Michael Gerson noted in the Washington Post, by selectively misquoting the executive's words, rearranging events, and other devices, Mr. O'Keefe made him sound sympathetic to Islamic radicals and unfairly tarnished NPR with "an elaborate, alluring lie."

At the same time, my NPR colleagues in the Arab world were reporting on the actual Muslim Brotherhood and many other players involved in the uprisings. My colleagues' reporting technique demonstrates their values. Suppose you're NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, one of the first reporters into Libya after its rebellion began. You need to know if the rebels are advancing. The only way to find out is to drive toward the front lines until the artillery shells exploding around you make it clear that they're not. Next, you figure out how to get back alive. Then you try to rest, because you'll do it again tomorrow.

With those values in mind, let's consider the fundamental question: the accusation of "liberal bias" at NPR, which drives many critics calling to eliminate its federal funding. It's not my job as a reporter to address the funding question. But I can point out that the recent tempests over "perceived bias" have nothing to do with what NPR puts on the air.

The facts show that NPR attracts a politically diverse audience of 33.7 million weekly listeners to its member stations on-air. In surveys by GfK MRI, most listeners consistently identify themselves as "middle of the road" or "conservative." Millions of conservatives choose NPR, even with powerful conservative alternatives on the radio.

View Full Image

Getty Images
 .I've met an incredible variety of listeners in my travels. The audience includes students, peace activists, and American soldiers I met in Iraq. They're among many people in the military who rely on NPR's international coverage. When I was NPR's Pentagon correspondent, I discovered that it's a prize beat, because on every base you meet people who already know who you are. Many other Americans are listening in places like Indiana, my home state, or Kentucky, where I first worked in public radio. Not much of the media pays attention to the middle of the country, but NPR and its local stations do. Many NPR stations have added news staff as local newspapers have declined.

Members of Congress listen too: A few months ago I was interviewing a Republican lawmaker who quoted an NPR story he'd heard that morning. And there are people like the woman I met at a Sarah Palin debate party in 2008, in rural western Virginia. She said she listened during long drives required by her job with a railroad. The same programs she hears in Virginia have also reached an audience abroad. In Egypt last week, a young man told me he so admires the quirky reporting of my colleague Robert Krulwich that he plans to translate it into Arabic.

Conservatives in our diverse audience let us know when they disagree with our coverage—as do liberals, who've sent notes for years to advise me that I am conservative. Most listeners understand that we're all figuring out the world together, calmly and honestly, in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

NPR's audience keeps expanding because Americans want more than toxic political attacks. They want news. Think again of my colleagues in Libya, going forward to bear witness amid exploding shells. Is that liberal or conservative? Maybe it's neither. It's an honest and honorable effort to keep Americans informed.

Mr. Inskeep is co-host of NPR's "Morning Edition."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #686 on: March 24, 2011, 10:08:55 AM »

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/09/we-call-on-the-msm-to-adopt-the-james-okeefe-standard-of-journalistic-excellence/

We Call On the MSM to Adopt the ‘Rose/O’Keefe Standard of Journalistic Transparency’
Posted by John Nolte Mar 9th 2011 at 10:58 am in media bias | Comments (100) With their most recent undercover video investigations, independent journalists James O’Keefe and Lila Rose have set a new standard of transparency in the field of journalism — a standard I call on all media outlets — print, online, and broadcast — to adopt and to institute immediately. Within hours of releasing what the AP called “heavily edited” video footage of a high-powered NPR executive’s troubling statements with respect to the Tea Party, conservatives, and Jewish control of the media, Mr. O’Keefe then released to the public the full, unedited two-hour video of the entire conversation. Another New Media pioneer, Lila Rose, also released the full video of her undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood.



While the biased AP apparently only whips out the term “heavily edited” when the institutional left is under fire, it’s difficult to disagree with them on principle, especially when we live in a world where  on a daily basis the network nightly news programs, Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and every facet of the MSM broadcast and publishing world release reports no less “heavily edited” than Rosa and O’Keefe’s initial video releasse. However, unlike Rose and O’Keefe, the mainstream media never allows the public to view the full, unedited material in order to judge the full context for ourselves.

This can and must end today.

With New Media once again leading away, let’s start a new era of responsible journalism that we’ll call The  Rose/O’Keefe Standard of Journalistic Transparency, where the insidious practice of “heavily edited” interviews and reporting  finally  comes to an end. If the mainstream media is as devoted to transparency, truth, and context as James O’Keefe, here are some examples of how it can work….


Within hours of a “heavily edited” broadcast report or interview on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric and CBS will release online any and all video used to compile that report. Within hours of the Associated Press or Politico releasing an article quoting an interview subject, the AP and Politico will release the notes and/or audio recordings of the full unedited interview. The same with Rachel Maddow, and because he’s The New Murrow and awfully concerned with how the media behaves — Jon Stewart himself should lead the way with the release of the full video of any and all interviews within hours of his wacky editors making the latest “Daily Show” target look like a fool.

Because Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Rose have led the way in journalistic transparency and taken the first step, as a show of good faith  from the MSM in accepting this offer, we call on Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric to release every frame of video involving their 2008 interviews with then Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.

Veritas, anyone?
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #687 on: March 29, 2011, 11:05:48 AM »

JACOB LAKSIN
The Worst of Times
William McGowan chronicles the long decline of the paper of record.
25 March 2011
Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America, by William McGowan (Encounter, 288 pp., $25.95)

Abe Rosenthal, the long-serving former executive editor of the New York Times, used to have a recurring nightmare: that he would wake up someday to find that the Times had ceased to exist. It is a commentary on the paper’s much-diminished prestige that many now dream of such a day.

William McGowan doesn’t. While critical of what he considers the paper’s decline, he writes as an admirer of the Times and its place in American history. In his view, the Times once stood as a model of fair-minded, responsible journalism and an important civic and political institution in its own right. The problem, as he points out in his book, Gray Lady Down, is that the Times has remained a hugely influential organization even as it has abandoned its once lofty journalistic standards.

It was not always thus. Recalling the paper’s glory days, McGowan pays tribute to the late Rosenthal’s editorship. Though a political liberal, Rosenthal didn’t want the paper to become a sounding board for left-wing politics. He checked the paper’s drift to the left, particularly in its Washington bureau, by insisting that reporters conduct objective reporting and avoid potential conflicts of interest. Rosenthal memorably summed up his editorial policy: “I don’t care if my reporters are fucking elephants, as long as they aren’t covering the circus.” It’s a testament to Rosenthal’s dispassionate approach to news reporting that in 1972, William F. Buckley’s National Review—hardly a reflexive ally of the Times’s progressive politics—called for other media to emulate the paper’s standards.

If it’s hard to imagine a similar endorsement today, it’s because the Times, in McGowan’s view, has become a very different, and much less worthy, enterprise. McGowan attributes the paper’s decline to two main causes. The first is its embrace of so-called lifestyle journalism in the 1970s. Designed to give the staid “Gray Lady” a trendy makeover and lure a younger demographic, the focus on soft news failed to increase readership. It did, however, open the door for the left-wing politics that Rosenthal had resisted and which would gradually shape the paper’s cultural coverage. A case in point is the Times Book Review, a once-diverse forum for intellectual debate that now often shuns conservative titles, even when they top the paper’s own extended bestseller list.

The second factor in the Times’s decline was the ascension of Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. to the perch of publisher in 1992. Having come of age in the sixties counterculture, Sulzberger moved to shift the paper’s focus from its historical commitment of reporting the news “without fear or favor” to the more activist promise to “enhance society.” In particular, Sulzberger wanted the paper to promote “diversity” and to move beyond what he disparaged as the “predominantly white, straight, male version of events.” As the author of Coloring the News, a critical look at the politically correct mania for “diversity” and its damaging effect on the news media, McGowan writes as an authority on the Times’s transformation. The change was most obvious in the paper’s increasingly strident editorial pages, but the news content, which began taking its cues from editorial, suffered as well. Times veterans groused that the paper risked compromising its news coverage with a newly ideological agenda, but Sulzberger dismissed such concerns, declaring that he was “setting a moral standard.”

The paper’s diversity obsession culminated in the calamitous tenure of Howell Raines. Admired by Sulzberger for his uncompromising and outspoken leftism, Raines became executive editor in 2001 and presided over a series of journalistic disasters that badly tarnished the Times’s editorial brand. The biggest of these, which would cost Raines his job, involved a young black reporter named Jayson Blair. Recruited through a minority internship, Blair was promoted over the objections of his editors as part of the paper’s diversity drive. A national correspondent by the time he was 27, Blair wasn’t ready for the role. During his seven months on the job, Blair fabricated details in at least 38 of 73 stories, conning editors by lifting details from photos and other news stories and appending datelines of locations from which he had not reported.

The fallout from Blair’s fraud in May 2003 ended not only Raines’s Times career, but also that of Gerald Boyd, the paper’s first black managing editor. Sulzberger called the scandal the “low point in the paper’s 150-year history.” The Blair affair was a damning indictment of the paper’s “diversity” agenda, but it was not an isolated incident. McGowan shows how the Times’s ideological hobby horses make it uniquely susceptible to such hoaxes. A more recent example was the paper’s scandalously prejudicial early coverage of the 2006 Duke University “rape” case, in which a black stripper accused three white Duke lacrosse players of raping her at a team party. Because the Times covered the story through the prism of race, sex, and class, much of its initial reporting echoed the baseless charges of radical professors like Duke’s Houston Baker, who claimed that the lacrosse players were “white, violent, drunken men . . . veritably given license to rape.” As evidence mounted that the players’ accuser had made up her story, the Times corrected the record, but not before it had done grave damage to the reputations of three innocent young men.

On the cultural side, the Times’s weakness for diversity cant has made it an easy target for literary con artists. In 2004, the paper was taken in by “J. T. LeRoy,” the supposedly transgendered cult novelist whose background as a “young truck-stop prostitute who had escaped rural West Virginia for the dismal life of a homeless San Francisco drug addict,” as described by the Times’ Warren St. John, had impressed credulous reporters and reviewers at the paper. It later emerged that none of these biographical details was true—not least that “he” was actually a (non-transgendered) “she,” Laura Albert. That revelation must have been especially embarrassing for St. John, who didn’t discover it even after dining with “LeRoy” in broad daylight.

McGowan mocks such PC-inspired faux pas, but his most compelling chapters chronicle a more serious failure: the paper’s biased, politicized, and often damaging reporting on national security and the domestic threat of Islamic terrorism. Though it will come as no surprise to regular readers, McGowan shows that the Times has consistently failed to explore the religious motivations of Islamic jihadists. When Army major Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 at Fort Hood in November 2009, the Times’s editorialists lamented that “no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling outrage.” In reality, Hasan, a self-styled “Soldier of Allah,” had a long track record of Islamic extremism that left little doubt about his motivations. Yet one wouldn’t know it from the paper’s coverage, which failed to explore the religious angle and to investigate how Hasan was able to rise through the army’s ranks despite countless warnings about the danger he posed to his fellow soldiers. McGowan also considers a number of other cases where the paper’s apparent political sensitivities have prevented it from doing hard reporting about Islamic extremism in America. Plainly, not all the news is fit to print.

Where Islamic extremism inspires timidity at the Times, national-security measures aimed at keeping the country safe from terrorism bring out the paper’s adversarial worst. In December 2005, the Times on its front page broke the story of the National Security Agency’s classified program monitoring the phone and email communications of terrorist suspects in the United States. The paper not only published the story over the appeals of the Bush administration, which warned that it could compromise terrorist surveillance, but it also suggested that the program had limited security value. Not until the release of a classified report by five inspectors general in 2009 did the paper get around to acknowledging that the NSA surveillance program had in fact been a useful early detection tool for counterterrorist agencies. The paper’s coverage of the PATRIOT Act and the SWIFT banking surveillance program, which monitored the transactions of suspected terrorists, was similarly one-sided and antagonistic. The skeptical reader might muse here that such coverage would seem par for the course for a news organization that published the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War in 1971. But as McGowan reminds us, the Times agonized over that earlier decision and agreed to publish the documents only after it determined that current military secrets would not be exposed. No such restraint governs the paper’s national-security coverage today.

Fed up with the Times’s political agenda and its ideological crusades, many on the right have sworn off the paper. McGowan believes that this is a mistake. While less influential than it once was, the paper still shapes much of the coverage that other media follow, and it remains a major influence on the country’s political and intellectual elite. The day the New York Times is no longer around may not be the nightmare that Abe Rosenthal imagined, but we ignore the paper at our peril.

Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Front Page Magazine.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/bc0325jl.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #688 on: March 30, 2011, 11:15:44 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on_nbc_the_missing_story_about_parent_company_general_electric/2011/03/29/AFpRYJyB_story.html?wprss=rss_politics

On NBC, the missing story about parent company General Electric
 
Bebeto Matthews / Associated Press - The story that General Electric did not pay federal taxes last year was widely reported everywhere but NBC.
 
Paul Farhi, Tuesday, March 29, 8:24 PM
It’s the kind of accountability journalism that makes readers raise an eyebrow, if it doesn’t raise their blood pressure first. General Electric Co., reported the New York Times last week, earned $14.2 billion in worldwide profits last year, including $5.1 billion in the United States — and paid exactly zero dollars in federal taxes.

The front-page story drew widespread commentary in newspapers and on many Web sites. ABC News and Fox News, among others, were all over it.

But the story was conspicuously absent from the reportage of one news organization: NBC.

During its Friday broadcast, “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” had no time to mention that America’s largest corporation had essentially avoided paying federal taxes in 2010. Or its Saturday, Sunday or Monday broadcasts, either.

Did NBC’s silence have anything to do with the fact that one of its parent companies is General Electric?

NBC News representatives say that it didn’t. “This was a straightforward editorial decision, the kind we make daily around here,” said Lauren Kapp, spokeswoman for NBC News. Kapp declined to discuss how NBC decides what’s news or, in this case, what isn’t.

But to others, NBC’s silence looks like something between a lapse and a coverup. The satirical “Daily Show” on Monday noted that “Nightly News” had time on Friday to squeeze in a story about the Oxford English Dictionary adding such terms as “OMG” and “muffin top,” but didn’t bother with the GE story.

Ignoring stories about its parent company’s activities is “part of a troubling pattern” for NBC News, said Peter Hart, a director at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal media watchdog group that often documents instances of corporate interference in news. He cited a series of GE-related stories that NBC’s news division has underplayed over the years, from safety issues in GE-designed nuclear power plants to the dumping of hazardous chemicals into New York’s Hudson River by GE-owned plants.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #689 on: April 04, 2011, 04:31:08 PM »

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/04/la-times-announces-obamas-new-campaign.html

Monday, April 4, 2011
L.A. Times Announces Obama's New Campaign Website - http://www.latimes.com
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #690 on: April 07, 2011, 04:43:27 PM »

Pasting here BBG's post from the Health Care thread:

===================

Wash. Post, CBS, NBC Should Disclose Receipt of ObamaCare Subsidies
from Cato @ Liberty by Michael F. Cannon
1 person liked this
By Michael F. Cannon

It's not an easy period for major media organizations, what with all this creative destruction revamping that sector of the economy.  So the Washington Post Co. couldn't help but be pleased when it received a $570,000 bailout from ObamaCare's Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  That program allows the Obama administration to run up the national debt another $5 billion by doling out cash to corporations that provide retiree health benefits.   The CBS Corporation received more than $720,000.  General Electric, a part owner of NBC Universal, Inc., cleared nearly $37 million.

Since The Washington Post, CBS News, NBC News, and MSNBC have now received subsidies (the latter two indirectly) from this very controversial law, their reporters should disclose that fact to their audiences when reporting on ObamaCare.  A disclaimer like this should suffice: "The Washington Post Corporation has received subsidies under the health care law."  That would be consistent with how NBC discloses its relationship with General Electric:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-24-2011/family-matters

Oh, and kudos to the marketing whiz who decided to call all these ObamaCare spending programs "slush funds."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wash-post-cbs-nbc-should-disclose-receipt-of-obamacare-subsidies/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #691 on: April 09, 2011, 11:09:05 AM »


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/08/let-them-buy-new-cars/

Let Them Buy New Cars

Rick Richman 04.08.2011 - 3:11 PM


Glenn Reynolds, James Taranto, and Scott Johnson have all covered this story masterfully. Consider what follows a simple footnote for the historical record.
 
This week President Obama replied to a man who told the president that he is hard-pressed to buy gasoline for his van that he ought to trade it in for a new car with better mileage. Obama assured him he’d probably get a great deal these days—from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, he added. The Associated Press first reported this incident and then scrubbed it from its story; most of the media did not care about it at all, because Obama is awesome.
 


Some might be tempted to shrug this off as an anecdote about a clueless ruler and his palace-guard press, unsympathetic to people clinging to their vans and religion. But we all occasionally say silly things—we’re only human, not  sort of a deity—and it would be unfair to equate the president’s response with Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” remark, because Marie Antoinette did not actually say that.
 
The phrase is commonly misascribed to Marie Antoinette, but there is no record of her ever saying it; it may have originated in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, completed in 1769 when Marie Antoinette was only 13, attributed to a “great princess” who may have been a fictional character. The  misattribution came later:
 

One factor that is important to understand when studying how this phrase came to be attributed to Marie Antoinette is the increasing unpopularity of the Queen in the final years before the outbreak of the French Revolution. .  . . Her Austrian birth and femininity were also a major factor. . . . In fact, many anti-monarchists were so convinced (albeit incorrectly) that it was Marie Antoinette who had single-handedly ruined France’s finances that they nicknamed her Madame Déficit.
 
So Marie Antoinette was the victim of the tea partiers of the day, who attributed to her a remark she never made. Monsieur Le Deficit, on the other hand, actually made the remark that historians will not be able to find in the Associated Press. The video is  here and the screenshot is here.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #692 on: April 09, 2011, 11:46:27 AM »

GM,

Do you remember when Bush senior didn't know what a bar code was on groceries and how the msm railed against him using this as an example of how out of touch he was with "average" "folks"?

Can you imagine if a Republican had said what bamster said in your example above?

The hypocracy and double standard is truly infuriating.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #693 on: April 09, 2011, 12:09:33 PM »

This is why the Obama-koolaid is turning bitter in many mouths, no matter how hard the MSM shills for him.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #694 on: April 18, 2011, 08:50:53 PM »

1.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1377550/Caroline-Davis-paid-250-act-Natalie-Portmans-body-double-Your-Highness.html


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #695 on: April 21, 2011, 10:21:28 AM »


Donald Trump isn't going to run for president.

He is rich, enjoys himself, says bold and often stupid things, trades his wife in for a younger model every few years, and calls Rosie O'Donnell a "big fat pig." What's not to like?

But President The Donald Trump? Really?!

He couldn't take the scrutiny. Given his swashbuckling life and the media's heightened scrutiny of things Republican, Trump would spend his entire campaign putting out fires. Whether it be shady-side-of-the-line business deals, "bimbo eruptions," tax shenanigans, enemies looking to get even, or Lord knows what else, he'd barely have time to round up enough B-listers to keep "Celebrity Apprentice" afloat.

Then there is the matter of his ideology -- as in, what exactly is it? Trump has alternately called Jimmy Carter the worst president ever, then George W. Bush the worst president ever, and now Barack Obama the worst president ever. This nouveau "conservative Republican" supported "universal health care"; advocated a tax on the rich; stood pro-choice on abortion; supported Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; called George W. Bush "evil"; proposed a 25 percent tariff on Chinese imports; and has contributed more money to Democrats than to Republicans. Whew!

Like Ross Perot -- an earlier rich, thin-skinned businessman-turned-presidential-aspirant -- Trump barks out orders, says jump and expects people to do so. Doesn't work that way in politics. Try jabbing an index finger at an obnoxious New York Times reporter or a pesky rival Republican and saying, "You're fired!"

Nor will he run as an independent -- as he once threatened and then un-threatened to do. An indie candidacy would siphon votes away from the Republican candidate, requiring Trump to spend the rest of his life deflecting the blame for Obama's re-election. No fun being the next Ralph Nader, who, after costing Al Gore Florida and the presidency in '00, can't get a table at Chuck E. Cheese's.

This brings us to the only reason to pay attention to The Donald. He's turning over rocks the media can't even locate with a guide dog and a treasure map.

Take the "wacky" birther issue. Polls show that most Republicans question whether Obama was born in America. The Supreme Court calls this a "political question" and, therefore, outside of its power of judicial review. So legally, the birther issue is deader than Elvis. Besides, Obama's principal 2008 primary opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, couldn't nail him on the issue. If there were something there, the hounds of the Clintons would have found it.

But are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 or are unsure that he did?

Are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe that "Bush Lied, People Died" our way into the Iraq War or are unsure that he did?

Are they wackier than the majority of Democrats who, in 2008, held Bush responsible when gas prices hit $4 a gallon?

What's the point? When people are unhappy with a politician and/or his policies, they sometimes see the worst -- whether or not there is a factual basis. But the media do not even have a name for the Democratic equivalent of "birthers," despite these vicious, unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of Bush.

On the birther issue, however, there is at least some legitimate head scratching.

Hawaii's new governor, incensed over this "demonization" of Obama, vowed to put the issue to rest by releasing the relevant documents. Oops. The governor learned that under Hawaii's privacy laws, no one could obtain the records without a "tangible interest." Who could release the records? Barack Obama. And he apparently refuses to waive his right of privacy. This kind of thing fuels speculation and suspicion.

Trump, while he's at it, might want to turn his investigators onto Obama's academic records -- high school through Harvard Law -- which remain top-secret.

Trump might want to confirm or refute Obama's campaign assertion that he and his mother used food stamps -- a tale of hardship strangely missing from Obama's autobiography.

Trump might want to question members of Obama's former church to find out how, during his 20 years as a member, Obama managed to miss every single sermon in which his "spiritual adviser," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, shouted the anti-Semitic, anti-American, racist statements widely seen on YouTube.

We know Bush's grades. We know his brand of whiskey before he kicked it. We know he eats pork rinds. Dan Rather nuked his own career trying to prove Bush got high-hat treatment in the Texas Air National Guard -- a contention Rather still holds. But Obama? Nothing to see here.

No, the real story about Trump isn't Trump.

It's the pass given Obama by the media. Whether it's regarding Obama's birthplace, whether Obama personally heard Wright's racist and anti-Semitic sermons, or whether unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers wrote Obama's first book, Obama manages to avoid careful examination from the adoring media.

Trump would not be relevant -- if the media had been.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #696 on: April 23, 2011, 10:34:29 PM »

And/or it is intimidated by Islamic Fascism, just as Mussolini's Brown Shirts intimidated in the streets of Italy.

Andrew, you are a good person, but in my opinion your opinion is the result of being denied both sides.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/youtube_jihad/

Perhaps intimidated is more correct.

GM-- would you please post that link on Media Matters as well please?  TIA, Marc
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31221


« Reply #697 on: April 24, 2011, 10:17:35 AM »

Pasting here BBG's post from the China thread:

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/ministry-of-truth/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4069


« Reply #698 on: April 25, 2011, 11:29:41 AM »

Aaron Klein noted how Stephenapolous made a "fool" out Michelle Bachman who backtracked about Bama's birth record.
I tend to conclude she made a fool out of herself.

And Mark Levin thinks she is great?

The journolist media is out in full force going after anyone who  questions why Obama is not revealling all his records.

It is really a sight to behold how they have circled the wagons around him defending him tooth and nail.

The pattern we keep seeing from the MSM:

If someone says all he has to do is show the long form the answer would be:

"are you suggesting he was not born here?"

I don't know why not just show the long form?

"so you are saying he was not born here?  Despite this certificate posted online that the State Department accepts and two contemperaneous newspaper announcements?"

Well why does he not just show the "long form"?

"SO you believe he was not born here and are part of the radical, fringe crazy stupid right?"

You continue to NOT answer the question as to why he doesn't simply show the long form?

"The Hawaii governor states he remembers his birth.  We have an official in Hawaii who has attested to have seen the form."

What is Obama hiding? Why not just show the form?  He is obviously hiding something?

Do you think the Republican party can win chasing the "birther" issue?

etc etc etc.



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12035


« Reply #699 on: April 25, 2011, 11:33:45 AM »

The Hawaiian gov. (who is a dead ringer for Krusty the clown) has backed off his statements about Obama's birth and long form BC.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 29 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!