Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 31, 2014, 05:25:20 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82095 Posts in 2246 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Media Issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] Print
Author Topic: Media Issues  (Read 189987 times)
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1400 on: August 14, 2014, 04:50:38 AM »
Power User
Posts: 4048

« Reply #1401 on: August 14, 2014, 10:16:04 AM »

David Brock

Very odd.  A conservative and then suddenly he is not.   He is a flaming liberal.   He reminds me of that other white haired turn coat named Crist from Florida:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 2, 1962 (age 51)
Washington, D.C., United States

University of California, Berkeley

journalist, author

David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American journalist and author, the founder of the media group Media Matters for America.[1] He was a journalist during the 1990s[2] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.

In the late 1990s, Brock's views shifted significantly towards the left, although he still considers himself a conservative Democrat. In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[3]

  [hide] 1 Background
2 Shift to the left
3 Books
4 References
5 External links


Brock was born in Washington, D.C., and was adopted by Dorothea and Raymond Brock.[4] He has a younger sister, Regina. Brock was raised Catholic; his father held strong conservative beliefs.[4]

Brock grew up in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, where he went to Our Lady of the Assumption School, and later attended Paramus Catholic High School in Paramus, New Jersey.[5] He then attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked as a reporter and editor for The Daily Californian, the campus newspaper, sometimes expressing conservative views. He was an intern at The Wall Street Journal. He graduated from Berkeley with a B.A. in history in 1985.

In 1986 he joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times. After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas's accuser, Anita Hill, in The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill's claims of sexual harassment.

The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in The American Spectator.

In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate.[2] Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named "Paula" who state troopers said offered to be Clinton's partner.[2] Jones called Brock's account of her encounter with Clinton "totally wrong," and she later sued Clinton for sexual harassment, a case that became entangled in the independent counsel's investigation of the Whitewater controversy and eventually led to the impeachment of the president. The story received an award later that year from the Western Journalism Center, and was partially responsible for a rise in the 25-year-old magazine's circulation, from around 70,000 to over 300,000 in a very short period.[citation needed]

Shift to the left[edit]

Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another bestseller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point: he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been friends at all because of the open secret that Brock was gay.[6]

In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.[7][8] Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year.

Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade.[2] He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2002 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project's efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill.

In 2001 Brock accused one of his former sources, Terry Wooten, of leaking FBI files for use in his book about Anita Hill. Brock defended his betrayal of a confidential source by saying, "I've concluded that what I was involved in wasn't journalism, it was a political operation, and I was part of it. . . . So I don't think the normal rules of journalism would apply to what I was doing."[9] Also in 2001, only months before Brock finished production of his book, "Blinded by the Right," he was committed to the psychiatric ward of Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington.[10]

Brock directly addressed the right-wing "machine" in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed an alleged interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods. Also in 2004, he featured briefly in the BBC series The Power of Nightmares, where he stated that the Arkansas Project engaged in political terrorism.

About the same time he founded Media Matters for America, an Internet-based progressive media group "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

Brock announced in 2010 that he was forming a super-PAC, American Bridge, to help elect liberal Democrats, starting with the 2012 election cycle.[11] In describing Brock's intentions for the super-PAC, The New York Times referred to Brock as a "prominent Democratic political operative"[1] (mirrored by The Washington Post's characterization of him as a "former journalist-turned-political operative")[12] and New York Magazine referred to Brock's "hyperpartisanship."[13]

In 2010, Brock's assistant, Haydn Price-Morris, carried a concealed Glock handgun while attending events with Brock. He even illegally brought the gun to events in Washington, D.C. Price-Morris said he carried the firearm to protect Brock.[14] In the same year, Media Matters donors had "restricted" $612,500 to be applied to “gun and public safety issues." [15]

In a 2011 interview with Politico, Brock vowed to wage "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" against Fox News.[16]

In early 2014, Brock was named to the board of Priorities USA Action as the super-PAC also announced its support for a possible Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2016.[17]

The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story. Free Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-02-904656-2
The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. 1996, Free Press. ISBN 978-0-684-83770-3
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. 2002, Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4000-4728-4
The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. 2004, Crown. ISBN 978-1-4000-4875-5
Free Ride: John McCain and the Media with Paul Waldman. 2008, Anchor. ISBN 0-307-27940-5
The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine with Ari Rabin-Havt. 2012, Anchor. ISBN 978-0-307-94768-0


1.^ Jump up to: a b Luo, Michael (23 November 2010). "Effort for Liberal Balance to G.O.P. Group Begins". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Reporter Apologizes For Clinton Sex Article". CNN. March 10, 1998. Archived from the original on 2008-06-14. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
3.Jump up ^ "Who We Are". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Stated in Brock's Blinded by the Right
5.Jump up ^ Brock, David. "Blinded by the right: the conscience of an ex-conservative", p. 14. Random House, 2003. ISBN 1-4000-4728-5. Accessed January 30, 2011. "... when I arrived at my all-male high school, Paramus Catholic High School in Paramus, New Jersey, I was singled out and ridiculed for being different."
6.Jump up ^ Bruni, Frank (2002-03-24). "Sorry About That". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-11.
7.Jump up ^ Alicia C. Shepard , "Spectator's Sport", American Journalism Review, May 1995. Retrieved February 15, 2008.
8.Jump up ^ David Brock, "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man", Esquire, July 1997.
9.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Howard (2001-09-01). "Jerry's Kidding, Edited Out". The Washington Post.
10.Jump up ^
11.Jump up ^ Ruggiero, Mark (14 January 2011). "Bridge to Somewhere: Democrats Launch Fundraising Super-PAC". Campaigns & Elections. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
12.Jump up ^ Farhi, Paul (3 December 2010). "Outfoxed by Fox News? No way.". The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
13.Jump up ^ Zengerie, Jason (22 May 2011). "If I Take Down Fox, Is All Forgiven?". New York Magazine. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
14.Jump up ^
15.Jump up ^
16.Jump up ^
17.Jump up ^ Confessore, Nicholas, "Biggest Liberal 'Super PAC' to Fund Possible Clinton Bid", New York Times, January 23, 2014. Retrieved 2014-01-23.

External links[edit]
Media Matters for America
David Brock at the Internet Movie Database
Appearances on C-SPAN Booknotes interview with Brock on The Real Anita Hill, June 13, 1993.

Works by or about David Brock in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
Anti-Drudge, Brock Profile in Guernica Magazine
Right-Wing Journalism dialog with David Brock and Tucker Carlson, Slate (June 25, 1997)
David Brock, "His Cheatin’ Heart," The American Spectator (January 1994) (The "Troopergate" Story)


Power User
Posts: 31017

« Reply #1402 on: August 16, 2014, 06:46:53 AM »

[Hamas Lied About Everything. And the media believed

Click here to watch: [Hamas Lied About Everything. And the media believed

It’s the Mideast equivalent of "Dog bites man," but it took the media nearly a month
to recognize its sheer obviousness: Hamas lies. Hamas lies systematically,
instructing civilians to misinform the foreign press. It lies habitually, with a
formidable record of mendacity from previous conflicts. And it lies guiltlessly,
convinced that the objectives of ‘resistance’ supersede quaint notions of
truth-telling. Nonetheless, since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge over a
month ago, Western media have relied on Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry – as here,
here and here – for casualty tallies. As one reporter told the Washington Post, when
it comes to body counts, the Hamas Health Minister Ashraf Al-Qidra is "the only game
in town." For his part, Qidra has acknowledged that he considers any fatality who
has not been claimed by an armed group as a civilian. And for its part, the Hamas
leadership almost never admits its operatives have been killed – and instructs
Gazans to do the same. Consequently, Qidra’s running total labels three-quarters of
Gaza deaths as civilians. The result has been thundering condemnation of Israel for
“indiscriminate” bombing (according to the United Nations Human Rights Council), and
even targeting civilians deliberately (as per The Guardian). “The world stands
disgraced,” bellowed the head of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency on July 30, in
words run by The Guardian in a banner front-page headline the next day. Human Rights
Watch charged Israel with "collective punishment," and even the United States – the
Jewish state’s closest friend – lamented, "Israel has to do a better job to avoid
civilian loss of life." After nearly a month, however, the media has belatedly
cottoned to the Hamas game. Over the last week The New York Times, Al Jazeera and
the BBC – none of them traditional redoubts of Zionist fervor – have begun casting
doubt on their own previously reported statistics.


In a front-page story on Wednesday, the Times compared and analysed data provided by
both Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations. That analysis
determined that the population most over-represented in the death toll – men ages 20
to 29 – were also those most likely to be militants: Though they make up just 9
percent of Gaza’s overwhelmingly young population, they account for more than a
third of its fatalities. By contrast, women and children under 15 – the least likely
to be combatants – account for 71 percent of the population, but one-third of its
deaths. The following day Al Jazeera published the names – provided by the Hamas
Health Ministry – of all of 1,507 known fatalities. Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar,
one of Hamas’s chief benefactors and diplomatic champions, and yet a breakdown of
the names’ age and sex reveals the same pattern: Men of combat age are
disproportionately represented. On Friday, the BBC’s head of statistics released his
own breakdown, based on data provided by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights. He concluded: "If the Israeli attacks have been ‘indiscriminate’,
as the U.N. Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed
so many more civilian men than women." The U.N.’s figures, in other words,
effectively disprove its own damning allegations of indiscriminate force. In
response, the office of the high commissioner offered merely that it "would not want
to speculate about why there had been so many adult male casualties." It had no
similar qualms, however, in republishing its own purely speculative estimates as
hard data: the "Facts and Figures" section of its website says 1,407 Gazan civilians
have been killed – roughly the same number cited by Hamas. The U.N., after all, uses
the Hamas-supplied figures as a starting point for its own, to which it adds
information from media reports (which, again, often rely on those same Hamas
numbers) and reports by Palestinian nongovernmental organizations. Many of those
NGOs, however, are also of suspect credibility. The oft-cited and reassuringly named
Palestinian Center for Human Rights, for example, defines anyone not actively
conducting militant activity – say, a Hamas sniper on a tea break – as a civilian.
Its figures for civilian casualties are higher even than those of Hamas. Objective
analysis of the available data reveals that rather than civilians making up the
“vast majority” of Gaza deaths – as the media regularly reported – the proportion
appears closer to half. Hundreds of dead civilians are hardly reason to celebrate,
but a 1-to-1 civilian casualty ratio is remarkably low by the grim standards of war.
Coalition efforts in Afghanistan, for example, produced a 3-to-1 ratio, and 4-to-1
in Iraq. Given Hamas tactics of firing rockets from densely populated civilian
areas, the toll in Gaza could have been immeasurably higher. Why, then, do the media
continue to accept Hamas propaganda unchallenged? Partly because the death of any
civilian – particularly children, who are half of Gaza’s population – is
heart-rending. Partly because the heat and fog of war make precise figures
unknowable until well after the fighting. Partly because the narrative of a
guerrilla militia confronting a modern military makes for compelling copy, and
partly – perhaps mainly – because of Hamas intimidation and restrictions on the
ground. Hamas mendacity, however, is old news. During its first major clash with
Israel in 2008-09, for example, the organization claimed that fewer than 50 of the
dead had been combatants. Years later, it conceded that the total had been identical
to that acknowledged by Israel: between 600 and 700. It is therefore all the more
extraordinary that journalists cast their usual skepticism to the winds and instead
followed the script of an unrepentant, unreliable terror outfit. Hamas has taken a
beating in its latest battle with Israel, but so too has media credibility.

Source: [US







Be the first of your friends to like this.

Hamas now says it deported foreign journalists from Gaza for documenting rockets
launches from civilian areas, according to a video translated by the Middle East
Media Research Institute (MEMRI). In an interview with Mayadeen TV, Isra
Al-Mudallal, head of foreign relations in the Hamas Information Ministry, confirms
that Hamas security personnel would confront journalists suspected of filming its
terrorist operations.

"So when they were conducting interviewers, or when they went on location to report,
they would focus on filming the places from where missiles were launched. Thus, they
were collaborating with the occupation," al-Mudallal said. "These journalists were
deported from the Gaza Strip. The security agencies would go and have a chat with
these people. They would give them some time to change their message, one way or

"Some of the journalists who entered the Gaza Strip were under security
surveillance. Even under these difficult circumstances, we managed to reach them,
and tell them that what they were doing was anything but professional journalism and
that it was immoral," added Al-Mudallal.

Throughout the latest conflict, Hamas has threatened and interrogated Western
journalists, preventing them from covering the terrorist organization's use of human

Recently, a Spanish journalist confirmed that Hamas launched rockets from the press
hotel in Gaza, according to the Algemeiner website. Fernando Gutierrez, writing for
Metilla Hoy, tweeted in Spanish: "On Saturday, 9th of August, Hamas launched a
batter of rockets from press hotel. What was their intent? To provoke Israel to kill
us? #SaveGazaFromHamas."

Related Topics: Media | IPT News

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental
agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative
Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project
on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2014, 06:48:49 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Power User
Posts: 31017

« Reply #1403 on: August 17, 2014, 04:14:10 PM »

by Steven Emerson
The Jerusalem Post
August 16, 2014

The performance of the media in covering the Israel-Gaza conflict remains the one
area of investigation that is sorely needed.

As is the historical pattern concerning Israel, last week began the growing tsunami
of groups - representing the United Nations, The Hague, the European Union, human
rights groups, and other non-governmental organizations - announcing their intention
to "investigate and review" the military actions under taken by Israel and Hamas
during the past five weeks to determine if "war crimes" were committed.

We know from past history the demonstrable manifestation of the vitriolic anti
Israeli (and some might add anti-Semitic) bias by nearly all of these organizations
clamoring to declare Israel guilty of war crimes, as they have repeatedly accused
Israel in the past of everything from massive human rights violations to war crimes
to genocide.

No other country in the world - even those like the Sudan, North Korea and Iran -
who have committed genuine massive human rights violations - have ever been the
object of such massive condemnations as Israel has selectively been. And as far as
the official inclusion of Hamas actions into the investigative agenda of these
groups, we know that their inclusion is only window dressing, designed to give the
false veneer that their investigations are "even handed."

Yesterday, the UN announced that nearly 2,000 civilians were killed in the Ukrainian
battle with the pro Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine in the past 2 days alone.
Two-thousand in two days? In five weeks, Gaza suffered 1,957 deaths, of which most
were actual terrorists, not civilians, as the mainstream media and UN agencies had
speciously alleged. But don't expect any onslaught of investigations by the UN or
human rights groups. And where was the international media coverage of the 2,000
deaths in eastern Ukraine? AWOL of course.

Indeed. the performance of the media in covering the Israel-Gaza conflict remains
the one area of investigation that is sorely needed. And if truth be told, why
should the media be afraid of an assessment of its performance? After all, it is a
profession that claims the moral high ground, asserts that it is only pursuing "the
truth," claims that it is the only institution in a free society that can provide
accountability to the actions of the government, hence the moniker "Fourth Estate"
for the media, and portrays any criticism of its performance as somehow an attack on
"free speech."

But who watches over the watchers?

Well, no one actually does. Yet the media likes to proclaim they are self-policing
and that any external oversight would be a violation of the fundamental right to
free speech. So from time to time, ever so rarely, we actually witness the media
admitting to mistakes and inaccuracies in its coverage. Generally speaking however,
those admissions of wrongdoing are initiated not by the high priests in the
mainstream media but by "lesser" media on the periphery of the priesthood, outside
observers and critics who have caught the media with their hands in the cookie jars
and by truly honest journalists, few as they are, snubbed and derided by the
mainstream media. Just look at how established journalists Bernard Goldberg and
Sharyl Attkisson were viciously denigrated and attacked by the mainstream media
after they had the chutzpa - actually integrity - to criticize the performance of
their own co-religionists.

What is at stake here is the very honesty and accuracy of the mainstream media's
coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. Specifically, how honest, fair and accurate was the
mainstream media - such as The Washington Post, National Public Radio, The New York
Times, and CNN - in covering Hamas actions in Gaza, Hamas human rights violations
and atrocities, and Hamas threats to journalists. We know all too well how they
covered Israeli actions in Gaza. Coverage of the deaths and damage in Gaza was
covered wall to wall by both print and television, often without providing the
critical context that the Israeli targets were Hamas terrorist missile launching
sites, Hamas command and control headquarters, and Hamas military sites - all
embedded in Gaza's civilian population centers, from schools to hospitals to UN

In the coverage provided by those above named media outlets, there was not one photo
of one Hamas terrorist, not one photo of a Hamas missile site embedded in a civilian
area, such as a UN school, hospital, apartment building, kindergarten. There was not
one story or photo of Hamas executions of Palestinian dissidents. And there was not
one story about direct Palestinian threats to and harassment of journalists if Hamas
suspected them of actually showing any of the above. Thus, it was with amazingly
refreshing candor that we witnessed Foreign Press Association (FPA), an organization
of 480 international journalists covering Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, actually
issue a statement last weekcondemning the threats by and intimidation of journalists
by Hamas.

It's worth reprinting the actual text of the FPA statement, known for its antipathy
to Israel than for any criticism ever issued of Hamas.

"The FPA protests in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and
unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives
against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month. The
international media are not advocacy organizations and cannot be prevented from
reporting by means of threats or pressure, thereby denying their readers and viewers
an objective picture from the ground. In several cases, foreign reporters working in
Gaza have been harassed, threatened or questioned over stories or information they
have reported through their news media or by means of social media.
We are also aware that Hamas is trying to put in place a 'vetting' procedure that
would, in effect, allow for the blacklisting of specific journalists. Such a
procedure is vehemently opposed by the FPA."

A truly extraordinary statement. But did the mainstream media in the US actually
report on this self-indictment? Not one mainstream media outlet said a word. Not

Worse, some journalists like the Jodi Rudoren, New York Times bureau chief in
Israel, dismissed the FPA statement with total disdain. In a blog posted by the
media oversight group CAMERA, Rudoren's response to the FPA statement was short and
sweet: "Every reporter I've met who was in Gaza during war says this Israeli/now FPA
narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense."

The CAMERA blog then went on to cite the numerous reports by journalists, after they
left Gaza, of how Hamas threatened, intimidated and manipulated them.

But all that must have been part of a fabricated Zionist narrative according to
Rudoren. And so must have been the report about the planned massive Hamas multi
tunnel attack that was to occur near the period of the high holy days. This planned
attack was intended to kill up to tens of thousands of Israeli civilians. But in the
more than 800 stories filed by The New York Times during the five-week war, the
Times never reported a word of it. Why? According to an email that I obtained that
sent by Rudoren, she claimed she spoke to an Israeli military official who dismissed
the planned Hamas attack as "totally false, a rumor, no evidence whatsoever."

When I asked Peter Lerner, an IDF spokesperson about this plot, he said, "Israeli
military intelligence confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hamas had planned to
carry out this multi-tunnel attack in order to kill thousands and thousands of
Israeli civilians." Nearly every single Israeli media outlet--even those like
Ha'aretz known for their ultra left views--reported on this mass murder Hamas plot.
But left unreported for readers of the Times, thanks to a manifestly pernicious
ideological agenda of its bureau chief in Israel.

Rudoren was interviewed on CNN's Reliable Sources on July 30, 2014 The show's host,
Hala Gorani, revealed CNN's own unvarnished anti Israeli bias in the questions she
asked of Rudoren: "Jodi, we have been showing our viewers and international networks
have been running these images of absolute devastation and the humanitarian disaster
in Gaza. Are Israelis in their own country seeing these same images?

Rudoren responded: "Not as much. I mean, certainly some. But in some ways you have
to seek it out. I -- someone told me that they were watching Al Jazeera so that they
could get the other side as well."

In fact, as anyone watching Israeli television, there was extensive coverage of the
damage inflicted by the IDF in Gaza. Rudoren's statement that Israelis had to sneak
viewing of Al-Jazeerah was simply a fabrication. But to CNN, it was incredulous that
Israelis could not disown their own government for defending them from the thousands
of rockets reigning down on the entire population and the dozens of tunnels dug into
Israel to carry out mass murder attacks. Unlike CNN, Israeli television also showed
how Hamas had stored munitions and launched missiles from mosques, hospitals,
schools and UN facilities. Israeli TV also showed photos of Hamas command and
control facilities at Al Shifa hospital as well as photos of the actual munitions
and missile launching sites embedded in civilian areas.

On another CNN Show that aired on August 3, 2014, host Brian Stelter acknowledged
that viewers had complained that CNN was deliberately refraining from showing
pictures of Hamas terrorists or how they operated out of civilian areas.

Stelter: "So are reporters in Gaza under pressure from Hamas? Are they being
intimidated into only showing civilians, and not the people Israel calls terrorists?

Well, I asked the executive in charge of international here at CNN, Tony Maddox. And
he says no.

Let me put his comments up on screen: "Our in-field reporters have repeatedly say
that Hamas militants are rarely to be found on the streets of Gaza. We have had no
intimidation from Hamas and received no threats regarding our reporting. They have
so far refused all requests for interviews in Gaza.

Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1404 on: August 17, 2014, 08:19:57 PM »

Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1405 on: August 17, 2014, 08:47:32 PM »
Power User
Posts: 4048

« Reply #1406 on: August 18, 2014, 12:00:47 AM »

Did Brown double back and rush the officer?  He was shot 6 times all from the front.   An 18 y.o. who just manhandled a much smaller store clerk might think he was indestructible.  It wouldn't surprise me if the robbery is dropped from the evidence as prejudicial.  We'll see:
Power User
Posts: 31017

« Reply #1407 on: August 18, 2014, 01:46:34 AM »

Let‘s keep the merits of this fascinating case on the Race thread please.
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1408 on: August 18, 2014, 12:36:21 PM »
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1409 on: August 18, 2014, 06:20:54 PM »

Comment BD?
Power User
Posts: 2165

« Reply #1410 on: August 20, 2014, 04:48:29 PM »

Oh, man, I didn't realize we were still talking about this. I hope we don't judge an entire organization based on one person. If so, that could seriously skew the results of any organization.

And, I know you've said that we should never trust HuffPo, but within hours of you posting the quoted article, I received this from a person who knows stuff:

Weird that a former director of the CIA CTC would publish in a completely "untrustworthy" source.
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1411 on: August 21, 2014, 02:52:15 AM »
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1412 on: August 21, 2014, 02:56:58 AM »

Oh, man, I didn't realize we were still talking about this. I hope we don't judge an entire organization based on one person. If so, that could seriously skew the results of any organization.

And, I know you've said that we should never trust HuffPo, but within hours of you posting the quoted article, I received this from a person who knows stuff:

Weird that a former director of the CIA CTC would publish in a completely "untrustworthy" source.

Yeah, actually it is weird, especially when you look at the other Huffpo stories that pop up next to it. Such as the performance artist that is going to sleep with a different man every day for a year.
Power User
Posts: 2165

« Reply #1413 on: August 21, 2014, 06:07:30 AM »

Not really. Newspapers often include the News of the Weird column, for example.
Power User
Posts: 5871

« Reply #1414 on: August 21, 2014, 07:45:48 AM »

I am not bothered by bias (or wierdness) at the Huffington Post in the same way I am with ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, Mpls Startribune, etc., so called mainstream.  They can do what they want with their brand name, and we can call them out on it.
Power User
Posts: 5871

« Reply #1415 on: August 21, 2014, 08:34:51 AM »

Interesting media question posed, what would happen to the level of protests and violence in Ferguson if the media cameras were not rolling? Certainly the race baiters would go home.
Power User
Posts: 31017

« Reply #1416 on: August 21, 2014, 12:34:47 PM »

It would be nice if little details like the deceased being 6'4" and 280 pounds got mentioned , , ,

Power User
Posts: 2165

« Reply #1417 on: August 22, 2014, 05:49:05 AM »

The hippies at Red State are questioning media reports from Ferguson:
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 09:34:11 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1418 on: August 22, 2014, 09:32:03 AM »

The hippies at Red State are questioning media reports from Ferguson:

Well, there is an archaic concept of suspending judgement until all the facts are known and possibly waiting for the due process under law to take it' s course.
Power User
Posts: 4048

« Reply #1419 on: August 24, 2014, 10:52:13 AM »

somewhat selective:
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1420 on: August 25, 2014, 02:15:54 AM »
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 10:47:02 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1421 on: August 25, 2014, 08:18:30 PM »
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1422 on: August 26, 2014, 12:18:15 AM »
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1423 on: August 26, 2014, 01:29:20 PM »
Power User
Posts: 11990

« Reply #1424 on: August 27, 2014, 09:28:30 AM »
Power User
Posts: 31017

« Reply #1425 on: August 28, 2014, 04:50:26 PM »
Power User
Posts: 31017

« Reply #1426 on: August 30, 2014, 04:18:58 PM »
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [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!