If one of the major presidential candidates made a campaign pledge not to take money from lobbyists, would it be newsworthy if founding members of the law firm Jack Abramoff used to work for were contributing to his or her campaign?
Apparently not if the candidate is a Democrat.
According to the liberal website Raw Story, and confirmed by examining Federal Election Committee records, top brass at Greenberg Traurig, the law firm convicted lobbyist Abramoff worked for between 2001 and 2004, have given thousands of dollars to Barack Obama's campaign (emphasis added):
As media digest the recent John McCain sex scandal allegations by the New York Times, one side of the story seems destined to get ignored: one of the four co-authors took money from a liberal activist group to fund a hit piece about Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.) in 2006.
Before becoming an investigative reporter for the Times, Pulitzer Prize winner Marilyn W. Thompson was editor of the Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky.
As Howard Kurtz reported in October 2006, Thompson was in the middle of what one might call a pay for play hit piece against that state's leading Republican figure (emphasis added):
An interesting thing happened during MSNBC's coverage of Tuesday's primaries: Keith Olbermann humiliated Chris Matthews as studio employees laughed in the background (video after the jump).
As the campaign coverage waned late into the evening, Matthews was interviewing Barack Obama supporter Kirk Watson (D), and was trying to get the Texas state senator to list some of the Illinois senator's legislative accomplishments.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times Matthews asked Watson to name something of importance Obama has done since getting elected to the Senate in November 2004, Watson refused, leading to a very indignant "Hardball" host :
After looking at what MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski said on Tuesday's "Morning Joe," the answer to Stephenson's question is: media that don't ignore Obama's disgraceful comments will likely defend them.
Fortunately, conservative talk radio host Mark Levin isn't part of the mainstream media establishment, and on his program Monday, said what most press representatives would if they had any spine, and didn't behave like shills for the Democrat Party (audio available here):
If you were to write an article about how the three cable news networks are covering a story, would you address the one with the highest ratings first, or the also-ran?
At the Washington Post, the answer is "the also-ran."
On Tuesday, in a piece about how political pundits are "overpopulating the news networks," staff writer Paul Farhi first highlighted what was going on at third-place MSNBC, and even gave Keith Olbermann the first crack at commenting on the matter (emphasis added throughout):
I'm not sure what got into Howard Kurtz Sunday morning, but the Washington Post/CNN media analyst, and "Reliable Sources" host, really laid into the press for their horrible coverage of the presidential campaign.
Maybe more surprising, Kurtz voiced his displeasure with both print and television news coverage, as well as what was being written and said about the candidates on both sides of the aisle.
So go get some popcorn, and prepare yourself for a media bashing guaranteed to put a smile on your face:
One of the aspects of anthropogenic global warming that typically gets ignored by America's green press is that solutions being offered to solve this as yet unproven problem are untested and might in the end create other financial and/or environmental maladies in the future.
On Sunday, a New York Times editorial surprisingly went after one of the darlings of the climate alarmism crowd, the compact fluorescent light bulb, for this very reason.
Hold on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen, for the Times offered some inconvenient truths about this supposed environmental panacea that folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his sycophantic devotees work tirelessly to hide from you (emphasis added):
While press outlets such as the New York Times grieved over the death of Imad Mugniyah last week, they disgracefully ignored the hundreds of innocent people directly and indirectly killed by this terrorist the past three decades.
One such was Robert Stethem, a Navy Seabee diver that was assassinated on June 15, 1985, during the hijacking of TWA Flight 847; Mugniyah was one of the hijackers.
On Thursday, during an interview with WOR radio's Steve Malzberg, Patrick Stethem made his feelings known about how the press covered the death of one of his brother's slayers (9-minute audio available here):
All likely with the blessing of MSNBC's top brass, I suppose.
After all, they're clearly not trying to hide their political leanings anymore. So, why should they care if one of their hosts speaks and writes such detritus that it evokes the following vitriolic commentary from his readers aimed at America's president (vulgarity alert, h/t NBer Thomas Stewart):
Americans will be in far greater danger of a terrorist attack after midnight Saturday due to House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), deciding to leave town for a break rather than vote on a surveillance bill that cleared the Senate Tuesday.
Sadly, the good folks at the Associated Press don't seem concerned, for instead of painting an accurate picture of this truly abysmal delay tactic by the left, the wire service chose to defend Pelosi and the Democrats while conveniently ignoring some key facts.
As reported moments ago (emphasis added throughout):
Folks that question man's role in climate change are well aware of the fanaticism displayed by those preaching gloom and doom if we don't immediately stop burning fossil fuels.
Non-believers like to refer to such people as warm-mongers.
With this in mind, astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas gave a lecture about global warming at the University of Texas, Tyler, on Tuesday, deliciously equating warm-mongers to folks in 16th and 17th century Europe "where religious and political institutions blamed witches - mostly women - for poor growing periods or storms."
As reported by the Tyler Morning Telegraph Wednesday (h/t NBer wilbur747, emphasis added throughout):
On Tuesday, NewsBusters exposed the New York Times for using the death of a highly-regarded American scientist, Dr. Robert Jastrow, to advance global warming alarmism.
In response to my e-mail message concerning the matter, Dr. Albert Arking, the former colleague of Jastrow's quoted in the piece, stated, "The NY Times article came out of a long conversation (initiated by the writer, John Schwartz), and it may not have conveyed my thoughts precisely."
What follows is Arking's full answer to my query concerning this Times article, with emphasis added to highlight important points for the reader:
Shortly after New Years, NewsBusters informed readers about a new horror movie wherein nature attacks oil workers in Alaska to prevent global warming.
To further scare people into sacrificing their financial well-being in order to stave off the liberal bogeyman, HuffPoster Kerry Trueman on Tuesday suggested that food shortages will be so rampant if we don't stop climate change that we'll all end up eating bugs.
I kid you not.
For those looking for a cut to the chase, this was the money shot (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer lunaticcringeradio):
On Monday, my colleague Brent Baker reported on the "silly girl talk" that occurred the prior evening when CBS's Katie Couric interviewed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on "60 Minutes."
24 hours later, former CBS reporter Bernie Goldberg was Steve Malzberg's guest on WOR radio, and he not only concurred with Baker's impression of this "60 Minutes" segment, but also called it "seriously embarrassing."
In fact, this was such bad journalism that Goldberg quipped, "If Mike Wallace were dead, he'd be turning over in his grave" (audio available here):
On Tuesday, one of the "Recommended Diaries" at Daily Kos featured a picture of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a Gestapo uniform (right) under the headline, "Today's Worst Person in the World" (h/t NBer Gat New York).
After some quotes from an Associated Press article about Scalia's views on "so-called torture," the DKos piece elaborated (with seemingly requisite vulgarity I might add while cautioning readers before they proceed):
As reported by Politico Monday evening, John Harris interviewed the presidential candidate, producing the following delicious exchange (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Thomas Stewart and Inside Cable News):
As NewsBusters has been reporting, MSNBC's reaction to David Shuster's "pimped out" Chelsea Clinton comment is an extraordinary example of the double standard that exists at this admittedly left-leaning cable network.
In fact, the goings-on since Shuster first made this remark last Thursday make it crystal clear that potentially insensitive comments directed at the Clinton family are thoroughly verboten by MSNBC, whereas derogatory statements concerning President George W. Bush are highly encouraged.
As another example of this hypocrisy, consider the following disgraceful report concerning Bush's twin daughters aired on MSNBC's "Countdown" November 28, 2006 (h/t NBer Grammy):
The "pimped out" controversy surrounding MSNBC's David Shuster - destined to be called "Pimp Gate" - took a turn for the bizarre when Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sent a letter to Steve Capus, President of NBC News.
Published for all to see at the Washington Post's "The Trail" blog Saturday, the letter demonstrated a disturbing number of hypocrisies and double standards inherent in today's liberally biased media.
See if you can find them all (emphasis added to assist your search):
After publishing an astoundingly positive column about Republican presidential candidate John McCain Thursday, the Washington Post's David Broder must have felt the need to bash some conservatives or risk being excommunicated by his liberal friends.
Looking to make amends, Broder went on Sunday's "Meet the Press," and disparaged CPAC attendees as being "aginners" with "a limited constituency."
Yet, moments later, he returned to his McCain love-fest.
Is Newsweek's February 18 cover story about conservative hatred for Republican presidential candidate John McCain a preview of how the mainstream media will attack the Arizona senator if he wins the nomination?
Before you answer, consider first the cover pictured to the right, with an obviously concerned McCain looking up at top conservative personalities amid the headline, "There Will Be Blood."
Not too subtle, is it?
Neither was the content of the article (emphasis added throughout):