So now there are none

MSNBC doesn't have a "perspective"...  nah...  couldn't be.

Gimme a bluddy break.

And thanks, Mika, for always saying just a little too much (of the truth regarding the left in the media).

The Obama Administration is cutting off their "collective" noses to spite their faces.  Even the left and members of the fringe media are calling the Obama Administration a bunch of "whiners".

The talk on Morning Joe, right this second, is about how ridiculous this Obama Administration looks and is behaving and how the Obama Administration is driving the ratings for Fox up, up, up...  and they are.

Obama should have stuck with what he knows best; knocking on doors in neighborhoods as a community organizer.  He's looking more and more paranoid and completely desperate.

There was a very telling part of that story this morning that needs repeating. Later in the segment, Savannah Guthrie was reporting from the White House and was asked about the latest shot accross the bow of Fox News. She said that she was talking with White House officials over the weekend, and their concern was "That other networks would start picking up Fox News story lines like Acorn and Van Jones. Scarborough said "But Savannah, they were legitimate stories, weren't they?

Guthrie did her best "Deer in the Headlights" imitation but therein lies the ugly truth. Fox News is doing stories that the MSM will not be able to ignore, thus peeling away the cover that the MSM currently is giving Obama.  Attack Fox as a bunch of "crazies" and intimidate the rest of the Media to be a little less eager to legitimize Fox stories, paticularly negative ones on the Obama Administration.

It was Guthrie's best reporting (of course completely unintentional) but really exposes the depths that Obama and his cronies are willing to go in order to control the media and the message.

Go Fox, Go!!!!

Try a thought experiment. You own a local newspaper. A bomb explodes somewhere in Africa. It's a big event. Do you report it? How much do you report it?

• Most likely, your first criterion is whether your readers care about explosions in Africa.
• There! You have applied a bias.

You cannot report a story -any story- without some bias. You report stories because they have some meaning to your audience. You don't just report all events equally. The whole point of news is to report stories that are meaningful to your audience. That's where the bulk of bias lies.

• When a newspaper covers a rally of 176 anti-war protesters, but neglects the rally of tens of thousands of conservatives, the editor is making a judgment: he's saying that the anti-war opinion is meaningful, but the expression of conservatives is not.
• NewsBusters frequently points out that when the media covers an alleged crime or scandal, if the accused is a Republican, the editor will highlight that. But if a Democrat is accused of the same thing, the editor will rarely mention the party. Why does the editor think a party affiliation of criminals is meaningful, but only for Republicans?

Neglecting to report stories that are meaningful, according to conservatives, is the most common bias of all. That's why they don't report pro-Mao comments from the communications director of the White House. That's why they don't report on Van Jones. That's why they don't report on the incendiary comments from the "diversity" director. Those events and statements don't mean anything to them. It's not news to them.

And that's the tragedy. When you don't care whether presidential assistants espouse anti-American beliefs ... well, you can fill in the rest.

I have not yet determined if the White House is just incredibly unprofessional and incompetent  - or - do they have a more nefarious agenda?

What David Axelrod is using doublespeak (Orwell's 1984 "newspeak") by replacing "propaganda tool" with "news organization" when referring to CNN and the other networks.

The fact that these news networks are inundated with Democratic liberals should not determine how they conduct themselves professionally which has been deplroable.

However, this strategy by the Axelrod is and will backfire because all they are doing is calling even more attention to FoxNews and their stories, increasing their viewership, and giving their stories more credibility.

In watching Terry MacAuliffe on FoxNews Sunday with Karl Rove, trying to defend the White House, he kept saying that he spoke to the White House which  indicated to me that he personally did not believe in this strategy and was assigning blame for his statements to the White House. It was interesting.

I remember a few years back,  a fellow broadcaster asked Tom Brokaw, on air, who he admired the most in 20th century America. He mentioned a democrat. That taken alone didn't raise eyebrows, but his next comment did.  He said that Republicans would view Reagan as their favorite.  A revealing slip of the tongue.

We all have biases.  For those who editorialize in the media not to admit their bias is wrong. It actually would be refreshing to read and hear.

"All human beings, irrespective of their birth, are intitled to enjoy the aspirations of being fully complete and free."  Thomas Jefferson, the best gift of America

      Now, that, would be funny to watch! CBS, running around like chickens with their heads cut off, looking for a conservative in their midst. Now, that is good TV!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Who determines who is "pushing a perspective" and thus, is illegitimate news? The government? Oh, I think I see where this heading -- government-run media. It's hilarious that the media never saw that threat coming, even though they've reported on it happening again and again. 

I'll give credit to Joe. I rarely agree with him, but he's right this time.  

-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com

I guess you can't bite the hand that feeds you but he could have gone for simply neglecting to mention his own network.

When it comes to watching cable news its utterly about perspective.  I can't think of a straight 'news' show off the top of my head.  They are all smattered with opinion and all with handpicked stories for their preferred audience demographics.

When it comes to online news - its all non news.  Pablum.  Like 2 balloon family headlines on every website.  And if its not one Page Six type story its another.  Its awful.

Bernie Goldberg.

"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"