As 2007 comes to a close, one has to wonder just how much further the press are willing to go printing Democrat talking points in order to get the candidates of their choice elected next year.
Throughout 2006, the biased media told the citizenry that all their problems would be solved if they kicked Republicans out of office, and elected enough Democrats to take over the Senate and the House.
Now that the first year of the 110th Congress has ended with key Democrat campaign promises not having been fulfilled, it's all the Republicans' fault.
Despite the absurdity of such a claim, that's exactly how the Associated Press depicted the situation in an article published moments ago, while making the case that if readers want Congress to accomplish more in the future, they had better vote for Democrats in 2008 (emphasis added throughout):
It certainly won't come as any great surprise to most Americans that morning personalities Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa have absolutely nothing of importance to say even though millions actually watch their program on a daily basis.
Yet, what is interesting is that the two know this to be the case, and even celebrate it.
Rather than being disgusted by such a revelation, one might instead wish - especially during the holiday season - that more folks on television - for instance, Rosie O'Donnell, Keith Olbermann, Joy Behar, and Bill Maher just to name a few - would admit the irrelevance of their blathering rather than feign superiority when it comes to understanding the complex issues of the day.
Then, viewers would know they were just being entertained - hopefully, that is! - and wouldn't take anything uttered by such nattering nabobs seriously.
With that in mind, consider Wednesday's discussion between Regis and Kelly, and imagine just how much better the world would be if all the ignorant television personalities admitted their intellectual shortcomings so openly and honestly (video available here):
It's Christmas, the surge is undeniably working, and December, 2007, could end up being the least violent month in Iraq since America invaded in March, 2003.
Despite all that, the Associated Press, in an article published Thursday dealing with the top news stories of the year, couldn't restrain its antiwar proclivities, and, instead, chose to put a lump of coal under everybody's tree.
Coming in third place in this unscientific poll of 271 AP members, the Iraq War, with a dash of pessimism only Ebenezer Scrooge could enjoy (emphasis added):
NewsBusters readers are painfully aware of the media's utter disdain for President George W. Bush, and their ad nauseum ad hominem attacks on his intellect, his oratory skills, and his policies.
Since the 2008 presidential campaign began on November 8, 2006, you haven't been able to swing a dead cat without hitting a press report about Republican candidates needing to do everything within their power to distance themselves from Bush.
With that in mind, waking up to the following headline in the Boston Globe Saturday shocked me almost as much as if I caught Santa crawling up my chimney (emphasis added throughout):
As NewsBusters reported Thursday, over 400 scientists in 2007 "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."
Predictably, Nobel Laureate Al Gore dismissed this historic Senate report by stating through a representative that some of these esteemed scientists from around the world have connections to Big Oil, and, therefore, their opinions should be ignored.
Pretty amazing coming from a man that likely has made what some estimate is $100 million in the past seven years selling this canard to the public, wouldn't you agree?
As reported by the Washington Times Friday (emphasis added):
Since the stock and credit market turbulence began in July, NewsBusters has been informing readers that media continually predict recessions that never happen.
On the sad flipside, bearishness in the press can become so pervasive that an economic downturn ends up being an unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecy.
NewsBusters affiliate the Business and Media Institute made this very point in a late-November article by Amy Menefee entitled "Talking Ourselves Into Recession."
This concern is shared by business leaders like Craig Hester, CEO of Hester Capital Management, who during an interview with CNBC's Erin Burnett and James Cramer Friday spoke an inconvenient truth about media's impact on the economy that folks in the press sadly don't recognize as they disseminate pessimistic after pessimistic predictions often leading to people unnecessarily losing their jobs - or worse:
So, the debate is over, right? The science is settled?
Well, according to a report just published at the United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public works website, over 400 prominent scientists from all over the world have "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."
As it appears a metaphysical certitude green media will totally boycott these revelations, NewsBusters is presenting some of the findings:
Isn't it often the case that over-confident braggarts are typically insecure types masking their own short-comings with undeservingly cocky bravado?
After all, one would think the president of the cable news network whose ratings in virtually every time slot have plummeted for years would be a little humble when referring to his competition in the industry.
Quite the contrary, in an interview with the New York Observer, CNN's Jonathan Klein behaved like he was running the Yankees, and Fox News Channel was the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (emphasis added throughout):
With less than a year to go until the November elections, it seems a metaphysical certitude any media outlet addressing the campaign efforts of a Republican candidate is going to figure out a way to reference the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
After all, supposedly impartial press representatives in 2004 did everything within their power to discredit the claims against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) made by this organization, so much so that "Swift Boat" has become both a verb and an adverb in political parlance.
Such was the case Wednesday when the Los Angeles Times published an article about Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Even though the piece dealt with an organization opposing the former New York City mayor, it did so by grossly misrepresenting some pertinent facts about Kerry's detractors (emphasis added throughout, h/t Patterico and NBer Bingo):
In a stunning announcement Wednesday, Time magazine has named Russian President Vladimir Putin its Person of the Year for 2007.
Obviously, this must have come as a great shock to Nobel Laureate Al Gore who was the odds on favorite to win another dubious honor for becoming a multi-millionaire selling the gullible on the manmade global warming myth.
With that in mind, Pat Sajak penned the following satirical piece depicting how Gore – ever the sore-loser – might respond to this announcement (emphasis added):
For those unfamiliar with the term, this is when you take a sentence or two out of a report or article divining a meaning or intent clearly different than that the author or speaker was quite obviously conveying.
In this case, the target of TP's disaffection was me. More deliciously, research associate Matt Corley chose not only to cite just fifteen words out of a 41-word sentence inside of a 2500-word article of mine, but also totally ignored the relevant subsequent question posed in the piece in order to present to his readers a completely different conclusion than that offered by moi.
Of course, this is what TP and the other Clinton front organization Media Matters for America do all the time. This is just today's example of deceit and chicanery the couple from Arkansas and all associated with them are infamous for:
As NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported, Sunday's "This Week" wasn't a good omen for Hillary Clinton or her supporters.
Fortunately, for those of us that enjoy Hillary bashing as much as a Gershwin tune (how 'bout you?), dessert was served on "The Chris Matthews Show" as panelists including Dan Rather, Norah O'Donnell, Katty Kay, and Andrew Sullivan gave conservatives an early Clinton kicking Christmas present to savor.
Is this still payback for Bill and Hillary chastising Tim Russert for his behavior during October's debate in Philadelphia? Maybe more important, have press members decided that if they continue to pile on the supposedly inevitable one, the Democrats' only chance in 2008 is if Mike Huckabee is the Republican nominee?
Before we get there, here are some marvelous examples of Hillary bashing from seemingly unlikely sources to brighten your day:
For many months, NewsBusters has informed readers that when it comes to current events involving global warming, if you have any interest in learning the facts, or at least a close approximation of them, you must rely upon foreign press outlets.
What transpired on Saturday is a perfect example of this maxim: after the United States got virtually everything it wanted from the United Nations climate change conference in Bali, it gave in to a relatively minor demand from delegates of developing countries.
Ignoring the facts, America's press badly misrepresented the event as a major capitulation by the Bush administration, and a huge victory for global warming alarmists.
Yet, a number of articles published across the Pond Sunday expressed a view of these proceedings U.S. media dare not share. Take for example this Sunday Times article entitled "Bali Deal Leaves Greens In Despair" (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
As NewsBusters reported, Nobel Laureate Al Gore made a fool out of himself at the United Nations climate change meeting in Bali Thursday by chastising America for having the exact same global warming policy the Clinton administration had when he was vice president in 1997.
Marvelously, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton was on Fox News the following day speaking inconvenient truths about the Global Warmingist-in-Chief that sycophantic media members disgracefully refuse to share with the citizenry.
With that in mind, get your popcorn ready, kick your feet up, and listen to the facts about this issue spoken in a fashion that press members eschew for the sake of their own politics and advocacy (video available here):
It certainly won't come as a surprise to NewsBusters readers that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is more separated from reality than virtually any member of the media.
Still, the idea this former sportscaster and current liberal commentator actually considers what he does as "really journalism" should shock and disgust any member of said profession, even Bill Moyers who had Olbermann as a guest on Friday's "Journal."
Wonderfully, referring to himself as a journalist wasn't the only hysterical utterance from Olbermann during this interview, as he also had the unmitigated audacity to criticize conservative radio host Michael Savage for "basically just spattering invective on people he didn't like."
Hey, Keith, have you ever actually watched your program or read a transcript?
Last week, NewsBuster Geoffrey Dickens introduced readers to Maureen Faulkner, the wife of a Philadelphia police officer killed in 1981 by former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.
As Dickens reported, Faulkner was rudely treated by NBC's Matt Lauer on last Thursday's "Today" show as the host seemed to take the side of Mumia supporters who to this day avow his innocence.
One week later, Faulkner was WOR radio host Steve Malzberg's guest, and took the opportunity to not only air her feelings about Lauer's performance, but also to address a reporter that spit on her leg outside of a courtroom in 1982, as well as others that shouted things out at her like "We're glad your pig husband is dead."
After an introduction and some background, Malzberg asked his guest (eleven-minute audio available here):
A supposedly sensational climate change pact was agreed upon in Bali on Saturday with the United States and the Bush administration finally capitulating to international demands to stave off the bogeyman known as global warming.
Yet, much as the media completely misinterpreted what came out of the G-8 summit in Germany six months ago, press outlets today are applauding an agreement that fell far short of what global warming alarmists were hoping to achieve, and much like what transpired in June, resulted in absolutely no specific international carbon dioxide emissions cuts.
Not surprisingly, this isn't how the news is being reported here as demonstrated at CNN.com in an article hysterically titled "U.S. Agrees to Bali Compromise" (emphasis added):
If a former vice president with absolutely no formal scientific training in climatology or meteorology makes a statement about the world coming to an end due to rising temperatures, media will fawn over him like teenyboppers in the presence of Elvis Presley.
Yet, if more than 100 scientists from around the world send a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations urging him and his organization to stop wasting time, resources, and money fighting a futile climate change battle, crickets will be heard in newsrooms around the country.
Pretty disgraceful, wouldn't you agree?
Yet, such was the case when scientists from around the planet signed their names to the following letter sent to Ban Ki-moon Thursday as nations were meeting in Bali to discuss preposterous and economically damaging ideas to address global warming:
Although it's a metaphysical certitude American media will be jumping for joy about this event, United States citizens on both sides of the political aisle should be deeply embarrassed and ashamed about the disgraceful things former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday at the United Nations' climate change meeting in Bali.
It's one thing to make a movie based almost exclusively on junk science and well-documented falsehoods whilst traveling the world evoking hysteria you yourself are financially benefiting from.
However, it is something else altogether to attend an international meeting, with delegates from every country on the face of the planet present, and disparage the nation you used to serve (truly disgraceful video available here):
As a global warming skeptic, when I saw the headline "The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom," it goes without saying I was as pleased as a child on Christmas Day that had gotten everything he asked Santa for and then some.
My glee accelerated after reading the marvelous beginning of this Daily Mail article (paragraph break removed for space considerations):
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
See why I was so thrilled?
Unfortunately, as I reviewed the text of the Pontiff's message, defeat was stripped from the jaws of victory upon realizing the Mail's author had divined intent that might have been absent from the Pope's words:
Better stow all potables and sharp objects, for the ratings of America's top four broadcast networks are so bad that one is giving refunds to advertisers while the other three are offering what is known in the industry as "make-goods."
Even better, the problem began before the writers strike.
Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.
As deliciously reported by Reuters moments ago (emphasis added):
It appears America's closest ally is beginning to see through Al Gore's international global warming con game.
On November 30, the Nobel Laureate was the keynote speaker at the Fortune Forum's Summit 2007 in London, "An historic evening of spectacular entertainment, dining and inspiration to raise global awareness and to influence good policy."
Unfortunately, the former vice president badly disappointed attendees which included Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Sir David Frost, Sir Bob Geldorf, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In fact, by all accounts, Gore was a miserable flop. Think American media will be sharing this revelation with their patrons any time soon?
While you ponder, England's Daily Mail reported Sunday (emphasis added throughout):
Unless you have either been asleep or out of the country for the last two years, you are fully aware of the contention made by climate alarmists in the media that rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are responsible for global warming.
In fact, this is such a common press theme that in just the last month alone, there have been more than 3,000 English-speaking news reports (LexisNexis search limit) around the world containing the words carbon dioxide and global warming/climate change.
It therefore goes without saying that this is a large part of the junk science folks like former Vice President Al Gore claim is settled, as they avow there is a significant correlation between the amount of CO2 in the air and the surface temperature of the planet. To save us all from imminent doom, the presence of this heinous greenhouse gas must be reduced immediately.
Yet, with all this finger-pointing at CO2 being the culprit for all earth's ills other than those caused by George W. Bush and every politician with an "R" next to his or her name, there's a tremendously inconvenient truth Gore and his media sycophants can't possibly refute:
Looking to head off even more controversy, NBC announced Saturday that it has reversed its decision to not show ads supporting the troops during the holidays.
Yet, that didn't seem to please the Associated Press which in its article concerning this u-turn chose to depict Freedom's Watch as "a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers" that is "critical of liberals."
Was this the appropriate moment to so categorize this organization? If the situation was somewhat reversed, would the AP have characterized MoveOn.org or Media Matters for America as a group backed by wealthy Democrat fundraisers that is critical of conservatives?
Before we get there, AP reported Saturday (emphasis added throughout):
As you certainly know by now, the liberal bogeyman known as global warming has been implicated by green media representatives and Al Gore sycophants - assuming there's a difference - as being responsible for virtually every planetary malady.
Yet, did you know that women are more threatened by climate change than men?
Honestly, with a woman in good position to be the Democrat's presidential nominee, all I can say is, "What took them so long to come up with this one?"
As feministicly reported by India's Sify (emphasis added throughout):