Looking at the headlines for the September 1 test of the missile defense system, I decided to look at how two reliably biased and un-American news outlets covered the news: the BBC and al-Jazeera.

While the former nudged viewers with a bit of bias in the headline "US missile defence test 'success,'" al-Jazeera conceded the test went off without a hitch.

"U.S. successfully tests missile shield," it read.

Oddly enough it was the BBC that noted in its write-up that the test did more than Missile Defense Agency planners hoped it would, albeit towards the end of its story:

Apparently responsibility isn't a subject that the Philadelphia Daily News is interested in propagating. In an irreverent piece called Freshmen alert: Beer is more complex than you think, writer Don Russell who bills himself as "Joe Sixpack", is advising students to dispense with all the worrying over all the "Alcohol is Evil' speech" stuff.

I have to question this attempt at "common man" humor when directed at people who are a tad less than the "men" (read adult) that such a pointed satire of an adult point of view might be more properly aimed. Should we really be minimalizing alcoholism and binge drinking in articles pointed at our college students who are already too prone to taking chances with their health, not to mention their schooling, already?

Based on the Jose Antonio Vargas account of the MTV video music awards bash in The Washington Post,  I'm spurred to ask the following:

1. When Vargas reports that MTV still knows how to create awards-show moments such as "Al Gore, to wild applause, giving a short lecture on the effects of global warming," is the audience reaction due to Gore's cause, or were the cheers for the brevity of the lecture?

2. When Vargas describes MTV News diva Suchin Pak as the "Katie Couric of MTV," is that a compliment? Or was her apparent failure to ask the Juicy Big Questions about dueling female singers Couric-esque?

3. Now, based on the MTV website, is Al Gore signaling hard enough that he's eager to be seen as un-presidential? I refer to this report of "chilling" with the "Jackass" crew:

"The sky is blue and the Pope is Catholic. I want to see how you spin that phrase."

"A new species of dinosaur is discovered, the Mediasaurus, extinct because it could not adapt to change."

This week, the MRC’s Megan McCormack brought us a second-by-second account of Kyra Phillip’s now infamous "bathroom chat." She also did a follow-up on FNC’s "Fox and Friends" parody of the event. Soon, the story became a full blown media sensation.

Of course, the media heavily focused on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Harry Smith discussed how the residents of New Orleans feel "abandoned" and "forgotten."

CNN’s Bill Schneider said that the disaster mad the President look "clueless." The BBC stated that the hurricane showed how in the United States, too many blacks are "at the bottom of the pile."

During the course of a conversation with former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin on this afternoon's show, Tucker Carlson described himself as "a real conservative."

But it was just a few minutes earlier, chatting with New Republic editor-at-large Peter Beinart, that Carlson mentioned in passing that he hadn't supported President Bush for president in 2004.

When Carlson stated that he had been wrong to support the war in Iraq [and now opposes it], Beinart retorted:

"You've just made a statement which almost guarantees that you're going to have to support the Democratic candidate in 2008 because there's virtually no chance we're going to have a Republican candidate who says they were wrong to support the war in Iraq. So I congratulate you on flipping over to the other side."

Replied Carlson: "Well I doubt I'm going to support the Democratic candidate. Whether I'll support the Republican candidate is a whole separate question. I didn't last time, I may not this time."

If you want to force propaganda onto young people, shouldn't you at least find an entertaining messenger? During last night's MTV Video Music Awards, Al Gore lectured about global warming and what that generation needed to do to fix the problem.

Nekesa Mumbi Moody of the Associated Press said the award show "had about as much spontaneity as an episode of 'Cribs.'" Viewers did "NOT watch for lectures from former Vice President Al Gore on global warming. When does the phrase 'here's a photo of a glacier melting' ever fit into an awards show?"

Ankle Biting Pundits says the former vice president also remarked, "The environment was the number one response when you were asked what the biggest problem your generation will face. We can solve it but we must act quickly."

MSM bias against the Bush(43) Administration has been well documented here at NewsBusters.  One of the more egregious deceptions by the MSM is the “No WMD” lie, followed by “Saddam was not a threat” in a close second.  I have taken an existing CASUS BELLI list of mine and combined it with information gathered by other diligent NB-ers to create what I hope is a comprehensive list demonstrating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Tonight (Friday) at 9pm EDT/PDT, CBS will re-air its special, Dan Rather: A Reporter Remembers, that first ran on Wednesday March 9, 2005. The program showed the MRC's logo on screen at one point as Rather, dismissing a series of efforts to "intimidate" him, drew a line from being called "an 'N-lover'" during the civil rights movement to the Vietnam war years when critics tagged him with a "bad name: 'anti-military, anti-American, anti-war,'" and "then, when Watergate came into being was the first time I began to hear this word 'liberal' as an epithet thrown my way." Viewers then saw a montage of video clips and shots of Web sites with text accusing Rather and CBS of being "liberal," including the Media Research Center's logo and a headline over an MRC page on Rather. Without addressing evidence of his liberal tilt on policy, Rather charged that "people who have very strong biases of their own, they come at you with a story: 'If you won't report it the way I want it reported, then you're biased.'" On the Memogate affair, the CBS special touted how the review panel found "no political agenda."

Video clip with Rather's claims about "intimidation" with the MRC's Web site featured on screen (1:30): Real (2.6 MB), Windows Media (3 MB) plus MP3 audio (450 KB)

In a September 1 piece for the "Today" show, NBC reporter Keith Miller sought out Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago professor, to discuss the struggle between science and religion, since it's now being debated in front of Pope Benedict XIV. NBC labeled him simply as a "evolutionary biologist." This is what he had to say about the mixing of faith and science:

Jerry Coyne: "The scientific way of looking at the world, which defends on evidence, and the religious way of looking at the world, which depends on faith, are fundamentally incompatible."

Coyne: "And if there is anything the history of the church should show, it's that if they fight scientific advances, they lose."

Who is Jerry Coyne really? He’s a leftist professor who attacked Ann Coulter for her new treatise on liberals and religion, "Godless." Writing in the "New Republic," he called her a "beached flamingo" and went on to compare Coulter to a zoo animal, saying:

"This beast draws crowds by its frequent, raucous calls, eerily resembling a human voice, and its unearthly appearance, scrawny and pallid."

Much like the UN's credibility, this cluster bomb seems to be hanging by a thread.

But, for starters, is it really likely that it landed there by itself? Or is it more likely that someone identified it as a dud and hung it from a tree?

And secondly, how's this for moral equivalence: Is there ANY distinction between Israel "raining down cluster bombs when a cease-fire was in sight," and Hezbullah "firing rockets at Haifa AFTER THE CEASE-FIRE WENT INTO EFFECT?"

Why is one REGULARLY condemned in articles written by the dhimmis in Europe, and one REGULARLY ignored?

Jan Egeland, who according to the caption accompanying this picture, is shocked and appalled at Israel's "completely immoral" behavior. strike this...[Jan presumably has no problem whatsoever with terrorists hiding behind civilians, as he has yet to utter a single word condemning that behavior]... (Correction: As pointed out by reader "truth squad," Jan Egeland has in fact condemned that behavior:

But a day after criticizing Israel for "disproportionate" strikes against civilians, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" among Lebanese civilians.

Thanks for pointing that out, TS. Sorry for the mistake on my part!)

Figures.

Cross-posted over at Snapped Shot. While you're waiting for the press to cover events in the middle east fairly, you might try seeing if you can find Li'l Kim.

I'm not good at poring over the Corrections box in the Washington Post, but Patrick Gavin of Mediabistro's FishBowl DC blog captures this priceless item about ye olde liberal New Republic scandal in today's "Corrections":

An Aug. 29 Business article incorrectly referred to Stephen Glass, subject of the movie "Shattered Glass," as a plagiarist. Glass did not steal material; he fabricated it.

Gavin suggested "Stephen Glass Calls the Post in Protest...or least we suspect that he did." For those of you to young to remember Glass's high-profile rise and fall, here's one example from our man Bozell on his so-called journalism:

As Brent Baker noted, Thursday marked the end of Bob Schieffer’s reign as anchor of the CBS "Evening News." And like the "Evening News," the Friday "Early Show"played Katie Couric’s tribute video to Mr. Schieffer. After morning viewers watched the video, "Early Show" co-host Harry Smith sat down with Mr. Schieffer to discuss the future. Smith began this morning’s Schieffer tribute by taking a shot at the "Evening News" former anchor, Dan Rather:

"When Bob Schieffer stepped down as anchor fo the CBS "Evening News" on Thursday, he left the place in a lot better shape than he found it..."

It could be a sign of the classic Stockholme Syndrome, as New Zealand native and Fox News camerman Olaf Wiig said he was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause after being kidnapped and held by the "Holy Jihad Brigades."

Reports ABCNews.com.

Despite being taken hostage at gunpoint in Gaza by a jihadist group and held captive for 13 days, Fox News cameraman Olaf Wiig says he can't condemn his captors.

"It's really complex," Wiig said on "Good Morning America."

"In some ways, I feel such sympathy for the Palestinian cause. You know, in my heart. You know, I can't hate them for what they did. I resent on behalf of my family what they did. But there's a funny bit of me that's sympathetic to them still"....

Some have speculated that the "a--holes" CNN anchor Kyra Phillips referred to in her ladies'-room chat might have been President Bush and other Republicans. The folks at the liberal group Media Matters for America, however, don't view Phillips as a GOP-basher. In fact, Media Matters has posted on its web site several items taking Phillips to task for supposed conservative bias. For example:

July 12, 2005: "...Philips [sic] responded to a call by Democratic senators for President Bush to fire White House senior adviser Karl Rove for his alleged role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame by saying [that there is] 'definitely a major smear campaign going on [against Rove].'"

Valerie who? The New York Times seems to need a reminder.

Judging by its sparse coverage, the Times is apparently trying to pretend the Valerie Plame "outing," (which for three years was a matter of national import on its editorial page, news pages, and among its stable of liberal columnists), is no longer even newsworthy, now that the inconvenient truth (Armitage?) is out.

NBC's Norah O'Donnell, substituting for host Chris Matthews on last night's Hardball, demanded White House counselor Dan Bartlett defend Donald Rumsfeld's comparison of war critics to Nazi sympathizers. O'Donnell claimed the criticism smacked of "desperation" and cited an L.A. Times editorial to Bartlett that called Rumsfeld's speech, "inane."

The following are the full questions from O'Donnell to Bartlett:

Norah O'Donnell: "Fascists, Nazis, communists. The new e-mail from the RNC that I saw today called Democrats, 'defeatocrats'. Some may argue that all of this name-calling reeks of desperation."

Michelle Malkin provides today’s LOL moment in supposed corporate conservatism. The Chicago Tribune reports that Miller Brewing paying out $30,000 to sponsor an illegal-alien advocacy march from Chicago to Denny Hastert’s office in Batavia. Their motto: “Live responsibly.” (Perhaps that might be contradicted a bit by the illegal immigrating.) What next? The coyotes bringing illegal aliens across the border with teams of Budweiser Clydesdales?

In the Tribune story, a Hispanic marketer warns: "A company sponsoring one of the two sides of the immigration debate is no different than a company sponsoring groups for or against abortion [rights]. It's one of those heated political debates that companies should stay clear of." You have to love the Tribune throwing "rights" in brackets after the word abortion. The Trib's headline calls this an "immigrant rights march."

Fill 'er up, guys.

The news photo of MSNBC's Queen of Sensationalist Journalism, Rita Cosby, stalking weirdo John Mark Karr as he is being transported to the Boulder County jail, has already achieved legendary status. All over the web and in the blogosphere, this photo, captured by AP photograper, Jack Dempsey, has become a source of universal mirth, whether from the right or the left. Looking at it one wonders who appears to be more obsessive, Rita or Karr? Proving that a picture is worth a thousand word, this photo is providing much commentary of a humorous nature on the web. One example of such commentary came in the form of a caption contest at the Free Republic. Here is a sampling of the Freeper captions for this photo:

The Wall Street Journal has a good editorial on CBS's latest ratings ploy, dividing contestants on its "Survivor" show up by race. The board argues, correctly in my view, that this isn't good for America:

Last week CBS revealed that its reality program "Survivor" would divide competing teams (or "tribes") by race. Sometime this fall we could thus be treated to an announcement like, "The white team has managed to vote the black team off the island."

To more than a few people, not surprisingly, this didn't exactly seem like a great idea. In fact, it seemed like a very bad one, playing up identity-politics divisions in a crude and potentially rancorous way. "This idea is so ill-conceived that it would be funny--but for the fact that racism does still sometimes rear its ugly head," New York City Councilman John Liu said.

Still, network executives have not backed down, even when GM, a major "Survivor" sponsor, announced this week its decision to pull its advertising from the program. (GM claims this had nothing to do with the show's new season.) Mark Burnett, the producer of "Survivor," has defended his race-based concept by noting that the show has been criticized in the past for not having enough diversity. "We're always hearing about how we only have two token blacks on the show."

But surely Mr. Burnett and his colleagues realized that their new effort at "diversity" would not pass without controversy. They probably welcomed it, for the show's ratings are in need of a boost. And, like it or not, the ploy will probably work. You don't have to survey every American family, or even every Nielsen family, to find out that people like watching people who look like themselves on TV. Many "Survivor" watchers may well find themselves cheering on "their team." Mr. Burnett suggests that his program is simply presenting life as it really is: "Even though people may work together, they do tend in their private lives to divide along social and ethnic lines."

In a recent comment on an editorial cartoon in the Boston Globe showing an all-white group of execs gloating over increasing profits as a bedraggled worker hangs by his hands, I noted that the Globe's commitment to "diversity disappears when portraying corporate meanies."

Great news -  just two days later, the Globe has rediscovered diversity!  Oh, to be sure, the two corporate meanies in Dan Wasserman's cartoon are both white males.  One even sports a suspiciously Nixonian five-o'clock shadow.  But an African-American does turn up  - as the victim.

The cartoon accompanies a Globe editorial condemning the tobacco industry on the heels of a study "showing that tobacco companies increased levels of nicotine in most cigarette brands by an average of 10 percent between 1998 and 2004."  The Globe alleges this was a corporate plot to keep smokers hooked.

I kept waiting.  Dutifully wading through Paul Krugman's subscription-required kvetch over the economy, The Big Disconnect, I figured I'd eventually be rewarded for my perseverence with his proposed solutions - if only to be able to critique them.  But the New York Times columnist's economic nostrums never came.

Krugman's basic complaint is that workers haven't shared in the fruits of the extended economic expansion.  This is Krugman being late to the MSM party noted here, here, and here. Even so, he chooses to ignore the reporting in his own paper that flatly contradicts his own allegation that "most workers have seen their wages lag behind inflation and their benefits deteriorate."  As Ken Shepherd of NB and MRC noted yesterday, the New York Times itself has acknowledged that, as per recently released data, wages are actually increasing at a 7% annual rate even when adjusted for inflation!"