<p><img src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/11/2009-11-13-GregMitc... align="right" border="0" height="169" hspace="3" vspace="3" width="302" />Taking to his Twitter account to take a swipe at flyover country, the New York-based editor of a print journalism trade publication all but stuck his tongue out at middle America while chanting "nya nya nya nya boo boo." </p><p>Tweeted <a href="http://twitter.com/gregmitch" target="_blank">Greg Mitchell</a> of "Editor & Publisher" around 10:40 a.m. EST (h/t Dan Gainor):</p><blockquote><p><span class="status-body"><span class="entry-content">New Yorkers happy to host trial of 9/11 mastermind: Unlike wimps in heartland who tremble at thought of any minor Gitmo-ite coming to town.</span></span></p></blockquote>
Ken Shepherd lives in New Carrollton, Md., with his wife, Laura, and children Mercy and Abraham. Ken graduated cum laude from the University of Maryland in 2001 with a Bachelors of Arts in Government & Politics and a citation in Public Leadership.
Ken has worked full-time for the Media Research Center since May 2001 and prior to that was an MRC New Analysis Division intern from October 1998 to May 2001.
In his spare time, Ken enjoys karaoke, tennis, reading, and discussing theology or politics.
<p>A petulant Washington Post columnist -- who two months ago insisted <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR200909... target="_blank">"Reality Makes Gay Marriage Debate Obsolete"</a> -- took to her computer yesterday to hack out a screed against the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, painting the Church as "uncharitable and cruel" reactionaries, playing "political hardball with the District" and literally throwing the homeless out into the cold November rain.</p><p>Petula Dvorak's November 13 column preached that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR200911... target="_blank">"Catholic officials shouldn't forsake D.C.'s poor in gay marriage fight,"</a> painting the Church as the heavy for standing on conscience in reaction to new legislation that could force its charitable outreaches to hire gays and extend employee benefits to same-sex partners:</p><blockquote><p> In the gray rain -- where the only burst of color comes from the flash of an ambulance scooping up someone who is cold, sick and wet -- threatening to shut a door is the cruelest answer. </p>
<p>Richard Esposito, Mary-Rose Abraham and Rhonda Schwartz of ABC's "The Blotter" have a fresh post up on ABCNews.com about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's ties to jihadi groups. It's a fascinating read.</p><p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hasan-multiple-mail-accounts-officials/sto... target="_blank">Esposito and his colleagues report that</a>:</p>
<p>While Lou Dobbs has always been an independent populist with some conservative bearings on certain issues -- illegal immigration chief among them -- conservatives should heed the old Reagan maxim when it comes to the former CNNer's populist conservatism: Trust, but verify.</p><p>After all, back in December 2006, fresh after the election which saw the return of Democratic control to the House of Representatives, Dobbs voiced support for Democratic universal health care proposals on a CNN special entitled "War on the Middle Class":</p><blockquote><p>[T]his country has a responsibility to all the people in this room and Americans, all but the very poor and the very rich, are the ones being hammered because there is no program for the middle-class.</p></blockquote><p>Julia Seymour <a href="http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061208153540.aspx" target="_blank">documented the story at the time over at the Business & Media Institute Web site</a>. You can find the full story below the page break:</p> <blockquote>
<p>Imagine if you will, that during the prior presidential administration two EPA employees put up a video on YouTube that criticized environmental and energy policies supported by Republicans in Congress and President Bush, only to be told by EPA officials that they need to take down the video. </p><p>Given the media's consternation about the Bush administration's alleged efforts to squelch proponents of the theory of manmade global warming, such a story would likely be front page news in many newspapers, including the Washington Post.</p><p>But in this instance, the administration in question is Obama's, and the EPA employees are going at the president from his left flank, arguing the so called "cap-and-trade" plan would "lock in climate degradation."</p><p>Despite this, the Washington Post placed David Fahrenthold's November 11 story, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR200911... target="_blank">"EPA tells workers to tone down YouTube clip about climate bill"</a> on page A8:</p><blockquote>
If abortion clinics serve up abortions, do anti-abortion clinics perform anti-abortions?
I couldn't help but muse that as I read the Washington Post's Metro section below-the-fold front-pager "Disclaimer proposed for anti-abortion clinics."
The November 11 story by Michael Laris explained that "Montgomery County [Md.] officials" are considering a "regulation" that "would require pregnancy centers run by abortion opponents to give women a disclaimer so they don't mistake the centers for medical clinics and so they understand the source of the information given to them."
Laris painted these officials -- seven of the county's nine [all of them Democrats] county council members -- as proponents of "consumer protection."So somehow dissuading a woman from having an abortion is an affront to consumer protection?
The Post staffer went on to quote the regulation's author, Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), who insisted her bill was "just a disclosure regulation." Yet Laris failed to give readers details about Trachtenberg's affiliation with pro-abortion rights lobbies like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
<p><a href="/issues-events-groups/media-bias-debate/name-party" target="_blank"><img src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/namethatparty.gif" vspace="3" width="200" align="right" border="0" height="143" hspace="3" /></a>It's time once again for our favorite media parlor game, <a href="/issues-events-groups/media-bias-debate/name-party" target="_blank">"Name That Party!"</a></p><p>The theft trial of Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon (D) began yesterday, but in covering the story, the Baltimore Sun failed to note Dixon's Democratic party affiliation. </p><p>The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR200911... target="_blank">Washington Post, syndicating the story</a>, also failed to note Dixon's affiliation in their caption to an Associated Press photo of the mayor which reads, "Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is accused of buying personal items using gift cards donated to her office."</p><p>The unsigned story by the Sun notes that Dixon is alleged to have practically stolen from her city's poorest residents for her own personal gain:</p><blockquote>
<div style="float: right"><object width="240" height="194"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd6UZuZukU&c1=0x2536AA&... name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd6UZuZukU&c1=0x2536AA&... type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="240" height="194"></embed></object></div>"The clergy should stay off Capitol Hill," MSNBC's Chris Matthews flatly declared on the November 10 "Hardball." Matthews fumed with disgust as Politico's Jonathan Allen told him that Catholic bishops lobbied Democrats to pass the pro-life Stupak Amendment to the Democratic health care reform bill last week. <p>"I understand the [pro-life] argument" that the bishops brought to the table, Matthews added, but huffed that they should not "show up" on the Hill.</p><p>After the commercial break, Matthews took to the air again to clarify that it was not in fact bishops but staffers with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) who lobbied the Democrats. Such a distinction, he insisted, was important.</p><p>The relevant transcript follows [MP3 audio <a href="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/11/2009-11-10-MSNBC-HB... target="_blank">available here</a>]:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933859555/ref=s9_simz_gw_s1_p14_t1?pf_... target="_blank"><img src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/11/rendezvousdestinyco... vspace="3" width="164" align="right" border="0" height="239" hspace="3" /></a>Earlier today I had the pleasure of attending the weekly <a href="http://thebloggersbriefing.com/" target="_blank">blogger's briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation</a>. Conservative activist and public relations consultant Craig Shirley was the featured guest, and he spoke about his new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933859555/ref=s9_simz_gw_s1_p14_t1?pf_... target="_blank">"Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America."</a></p><p>Shirley noted the remarkable parallels between the Republican Party that Reagan and the conservative movement revitalized in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the situation facing conservatives today. </p><p>Then as now liberal Democrats claimed the presidency and liberal ideology seemed ascendant following the tenure of Republican presidents who expanded the size and scope of government (Nixon) and/or were inept (Ford). Now as in the late 1970s, it is conservatives standing outside the establishment who can be the revitalizing and reforming force for the GOP and more importantly the country. </p><p>During a roughly 30-minute Q&A session, Shirley answered a series of questions from bloggers in attendance, and shared among other things the following observations:</p>
<div style="float: right"><object width="240" height="194"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd6U2GQu8z&c1=0x4E22B3&... name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd6U2GQu8z&c1=0x4E22B3&... allowfullscreen="true" width="240" height="194"></embed></object></div>Insisting that her opinion was not influenced by her views on abortion, MSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman went on a tear shortly after 12:30 p.m. EST on her November 9 "Dr. Nancy" program, denouncing the "infuriating" Stupak Amendment to the Democratic health care bill passed on Saturday. <p>That amendment, named for <a href="http://nrlc.www.capwiz.com/nrlc/bio/id/312" target="_blank">pro-life Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak (D)</a> would bar private insurance plans sold in the bill's publicly-subsidized insurance exchange from covering abortion. [audio <a href="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/11/2009-11-09-MSNBC-Dr... target="_blank">available here</a>]</p><p>As a consequence, women seeking to have insurance pay for abortion procedures under the would need to pay out-of-pocket for additional coverage for abortion procedures.</p><p>Snyderman hinted that she was annoyed that pro-life Democrats even thought it necessary to press for the Stupak Amendment in the first place. After all, Snyderman complained to MSNBC correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, she and her colleagues at MSNBC had done their level best for months to calm fears of pro-lifers about ObamaCare:</p><blockquote>
<p>Saturday's vote to pass ObamaCare out of the House of Representatives was a nail-biter, passing with two votes to spare over the bare-minimum majority of 218. The final vote, 220-215, had 39 Democrats join all but one Republican in voting no.</p><p>Yet while a solid 15 percent of the Democratic caucus bucked the party leadership with their no votes, the media have latched on to the sole Republican defector: pro-life, social conservative Catholic Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), who has a tenuous hold in a solidly liberal Democratic district once held by the corrupt William Jefferson. </p><p>Time's Jay Newton-Small <a href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/07/one-gop-vote/" target="_blank">made much of the solitary Republican defection</a> in Swampland blog post on Saturday, painting it as an abject failure of House GOP Whip Eric Cantor's "promise" to keep the opposition unified. Newton-Small had to add an update later clarifying Cantor made no such explicit promise:</p><div class="artTxt" style="line-height: 135%"> <div class="snap_preview"><blockquote>
<p>Each Saturday, the Washington Post prints an "On Faith" page in the Metro section. Part of the feature is a "From the panel" digest with a few excerpts from opinion leaders from various faiths and theological schools of thought. "On Faith" editors select a sampling of the panelists for the print digest but direct readers to the "On Faith" Web page for more opinions.</p><p>Well today, the<a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2009/11/end-of-life_care/all.... target="_blank"> panel discussion topic</a> was the role of "end-of-life counseling" in health care reform. The Post had space to print but four panelists, and surprise, surprise, they were all for "end-of-life counseling" as an integral part of federal health care reform. </p><p>One panelist, Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics, even took it upon himself to slam the "shameful" "political deception" of "Sarah Palin, the Christian Right and many Republicans who have tried to sabotage healt-care reform with the canard of 'death panels.'" </p><p>Yet not all On Faith panelists were in agreement with this sentiment, such as conservative evangelical Christian Chuck Colson, who was not excerpted in print but made an excellent conservative case in his post on the On Faith page, published yesterday at 9:36 a.m. EST:</p><blockquote>
<p>Word choice can be a subtle but effective way in which the media colorfully editorialize on the news, skewing the perceptions of readers in one direction or another. Take Washington Post's Philip Rucker, who did masterful job in skewing his 19-paragaph-long page A4 story <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR200911... target="_blank">"Activists bring 'tea party' to Capitol Hill"</a> in favor of ObamaCare proponents while smearing conservatives in a negative light. </p><p>Rucker's labeling bias was a thread woven through the entire piece, starting with the lead paragraph (emphasis mine):</p><blockquote>
<p>An openly gay city council candidate is targeted by malicious campaign literature suggesting he may be a pedophile and subsequently loses his bid for alderman.</p><p>It's the type of story highlighting bigotry and homophobia that the mainstream media would love to trumpet and it happened just days ago in the 2009 city elections in Annapolis, Md. </p><p>Unfortunately for Scott Bowling, he's a Republican in the liberal capital city of Maryland. </p><p>Aside from coverage in the <a href="http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/11/02-45/Gay-bashing-raci... target="_blank">Annapolis Capital </a>and the <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2009/11/annapolis_al... target="_blank">Baltimore Sun's Maryland Politics blog</a>, a Google News search and Nexis searches of the AP wire, major newspapers, and network transcripts revealed no coverage of the story in the mainstream media: </p><blockquote>
<p>Today's Metro section front-pager by Washington Post's Amy Gardner -- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR200911... target="_blank">"McDonnell team rose to challenge in darkest hour"</a> -- reminded me of <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy" target="_blank">a line</a> from "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy" </p> <p>"From deep down in my stomach, with every inch of me, I pure, straight hate you. But g*d***it, do I respect you!" seethes rival TV station anchor Wes Mantooth (Vince Vaughn) to Burgundy (Will Ferrell). </p><p>The Washington Post hatefully <a href="/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/09/09/wapo-expands-quest-torpedo-mcdonnell-12-hit-pieces-11-days" target="_blank">threw all it had </a>at making <a href="/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/10/19/wapo-shocks-no-one-endorses-va-dem-paper-has-been-boosting-months" target="_blank">the "thesis issue"</a> a career killer for McDonnell, who went on to <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry... target="_blank">win 54 percent of the women's vote</a> in Tuesday election. But looking back, Post staffer Amy Gardner gave readers a look into how the McDonnell campaign hunkered down, stuck with a disciplined message, and thwarted the paper's scheme to "macaca" McDonnell:</p><blockquote>
<p><b>Update/Clarification [Nov. 10]: </b><i>This issue is muddied a bit by redistricting and its effects on the geography of congressional representation. <a href="http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5072/amazing-political-history-of... target="_blank">Swing State Project in June 2009</a> noted that "Almost two-thirds of the population of the current district (62%) live in territory" in the New York 23rd "that has not elected a Democrat since 1890 or earlier." However, a sizable part of the district (38%) includes parts of counties that as late as 1976 and 1978 voted Democratic in congressional races.</i></p><p>If you've heard it once, you've heard it 1,000 times: the New York 23rd Congressional District (NY-23) has had a Republican incumbent since the 1870s. It's a helpful talking point for mainstream media types bent on portraying the Hoffman loss in the district last night as evidence of how the Republican mainstream has moved away from conservatism. </p><p>The only trouble with the talking point is it is patently false and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/14/obituaries/samuel-s-stratton-73-former... target="_blank">New York Times can prove it.</a> (h/t EyeBlast.tv's Stephen Gutowski) </p><p>From the 1990 obituary for one Samuel Stratton:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR200911... target="_blank"><img src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/11/2009-11-04-WaPo-GOP... vspace="3" width="299" align="right" border="0" height="137" hspace="3" /></a>This afternoon, the Washington Post's Web site offers readers two looks at how the Democrats and the GOP will proceed following the 2009 elections, but, surprise, surprise, the paper only forsees internecine squabbles for the GOP.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR200911... target="_blank">"Republicans revel in wins but ideological fissures loom,"</a> the headline to Washington Post staffer Philip Rucker and Perry Bacon's news piece filed at 2:30 p.m. EST today. On the other side of the coin, the Post offered an "analysis" piece from Dan Balz published shortly after 10 a.m. today that posits that the "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR200911... target="_blank">Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore."</a></p><p>Even before delving into the content of the articles, it's clear by the labeling that the Post sees the GOP's pending "ideological fissures" as a matter of objective news reporting, while the Democratic postmortem is a matter of informed "analysis," not hard news.</p><p>For their part, Rucker and Bacon aimed, like others in the mainstream media -- click <a href="/blogs/clay-waters/2009/11/04/nyt-gop-ripping-itself-apart-year-elections-dont-matter-unless-dems-win" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/11/04/abc-s-stephanopoulos-spins-ny-23-big-loss-sarah-palin-hits-gop-civil" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="/blogs/carolyn-plocher/2009/11/04/cbs-nbc-go-palin-bashing-gop-lowest-point-history" target="_blank">here</a> -- to gin up an ominous narrative for the GOP party-wide from the New York 23rd congressional district saga:</p><blockquote>
<p>President Barack Obama's 2008 popular vote victory, <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf" target="_blank">roughly 53% of the electorate</a>, should be considered "narrow" in retrospect, perhaps.</p><p> After all, ABC News editors consider a similar margin of victory for same-sex marriage opponents in Maine last night to be "narrow."</p><p>The headline and subheader for Devin Dwyer's November 4 story:</p>
<div style="float: right"><object width="240" height="194"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd6U6USUuz&c1=0x382E8E&... name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd6U6USUuz&c1=0x382E8E&... allowfullscreen="true" width="240" height="194"></embed></object></div>"A test that uses a <b>single indicator</b> to prompt a decision."<p>That's how the <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/litmus+test" target="_blank">American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language</a> defines "litmus test" when it's used as a political metaphor (emphasis mine). </p><p>That makes no difference to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell and Joe Scarborough, who see a new "litmus test" for the GOP developing out of the New York 23rd Congressional District special election.</p><p>Scarborough, appearing with Mitchell on MSNBC shortly after 1:15 p.m. EST, slammed potential 2012 presidential hopeful Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) for arguing earlier today on his "Morning Joe" program that there's no room in the GOP for what may be called "Dede Scozzafava Republicans" who are far [left] afield from the Republican mainstream.</p>