Rusty Weiss's blog

Looking for a column loaded with racism, hyperbole, praise for a man embroiled in scandal, and an obvious disregard for the integrity of a Senate seat?  Then you're in luck if you've read Ruben Navarrette's latest efforts.

Completely dropping the ball on why some people are apprehensive about any appointment that Rod Blagojevich could make for the vacant Senate seat, Ruben litters his article with some stunning phrases - statements which heap praise upon the disgraced Illinois Governor.  Such phrases as:

(Continued after the jump!)

Urgent:  Update Below the Fold!

CNN, as is their typical style, has ignored facts and reality when reporting an incident involving an encounter with a Gaza relief boat, and an Israeli patrol boat. 

Karl Penhaul, a CNN correspondent aboard the pleasure yacht known as Dignity, and frequently on the wrong side of an issue, was pretty much allowed carte blanche in recalling the incident -- an incident which was as much publicity stunt for the so-called Free Gaza Group and former Congressnut Cynthia McKinney, as it was peacekeeping mission -- while the report simultaneously shrugged off the Israeli point of view. 

The presentation clearly wants you to believe that the Israeli boat was hostile and went well out of their way to attack the ‘peaceful' minded vessel.  In reality though, it was nothing more than a typical group of protestors who use the word ‘peaceful' as a security blanket in their malicious efforts to defy authority, whether it be the authority of the United States government, or in this case, the Israeli navy. 

A report via the Atlanta Journal Constitution (H/T Michelle Malkin) indicates the pre-determined goal of the mission (emphasis mine throughout):

Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is a high-profile member of a boatload of activists that set sail Monday from Cyprus to deliver medicine to war-torn Gaza...

CNN, which long ago abandoned the concept of credible journalism, ran a story today regarding the attack by Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi on our nation's President as a feel good story about the shoe industry.

The title itself reveals that CNN reporters simply can't contain their giddiness when it comes to covering someone attacking the President:

Bush assailant kick-starts sales for shoemaker

The media are simply tripping over themselves in their attempt to uncover even the most loosely associated positive aspects of a physical attack on our President.

The piece reiterates the theme throughout the MSM in their attempts to glorify the incident and the reporter involved.  In fact, the following statement seems to be mandatory in every article which covers the topic: 

It would seem New Scientist magazine recently decided to sacrifice credibility in the field of research.  Journalistic research, anyway. 

In their recent article titled, "Science heroes and villains of 2008," New Scientist has taken the liberty of naming some noteworthy individuals in the field.  As their opening salvo states (emphasis mine): 

The collective brain of New Scientist has come up with 8 scientist heroes of the year and people to look out for in 2009, 3 non-scientists who deserve special mention - and two possible bad guys.

Apparently, the collective brain has recently slipped into a vegetative state.

Of the three non-scientists who deserve special mention, one is Philip Munger, an editor of the Progressive Alaska blog, guest of Air America radio broadcasts, and Daily Kos loon.  His contribution to science that earns him the status of hero?  Claiming that Sarah Palin once told him that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.  Ah, my hero.  Einstein, Newton, Hawking... and Munger, of course!

In an article outlining the ridiculousness of New York State Governor David Paterson's budget proposal tax hikes, CNN misleadingly led with the following statement (emphasis mine throughout):

A budget plan by Gov. David Paterson that would plug budget shortfalls by slashing spending and raising taxes on items from sugary soft drinks to iTunes downloads is drawing criticism in New York.

Paterson may have proposed lower spending comparatively with year's past, he may have reduced spending, but he most certainly is not ‘slashing spending.' 

A majority of today's politicians have completely abandoned the concept of slashing spending, Democrats and Republicans alike.  Out of control spending is the very crux of our current economic crisis.  So, how a mistake like that, while seemingly innocuous, could pass the proofreading staff at CNN is a mystery.

The reality after the jump...

You can just see the scene from the Wizard of Oz, where the wizard says ‘Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'

When it comes to diverting attention from a scandal plagued home state, don't worry Senator Obama, USA Today has your back.

In a bizarre demonstration of spinning numbers with the sole purpose of getting people to look away from the recent Blagojevich scandal, John Fritze and others at USA Today took statistics from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Census Bureau, crunched them in the liberal media calculator, and decided they had proof that North Dakota is actually the most corrupt state in the nation. 

CNN, the most trusted name in - doodling?

In a showcase piece of just how far the network has sunk journalistically speaking, they have produced a segment that could only be described as childishly one-sided. The title of the piece - Palin Fantasies Revealed in Doodles.

The reality is that the analysis of these doodles reveals more about CNN's fantasies than anything else. It is a piece so laden with PDS overtones, so bereft of integrity, that one has to wonder how it can possibly be offered up by CNN as news.

Reporter Jeanne Moos compares two doodles, one done by President-elect Barack Obama, and one by Governor Sarah Palin, back when she was running for mayor. She manages to find some people on the street to comment on the two doodles, and the results are incredibly biased toward one side. And guess who gets the positive coverage...

Link and embedded video below the fold.

To quote tennis player John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

Newsweek is exploring the possibility of a baby boom being sparked by the "euphoria of Obama fans."

Jessica Bennett of Newsweek comes firing out of the gates with the somewhat disturbing headline, "Change You Can Conceive In."  She quickly follows that up in the sub-headline, posing this question:  Could euphoric Obama fans be sparking a baby boom?

Creepiness factor aside, does this really constitute serious journalism? 

The opening for some reason feels it important enough to find out if Barack Obama himself, was conceived on the day that John F. Kennedy was elected.

It continues after the break:

How is it that in this time of historic change and euphoria, the media can remain so pessimistic?

The messiah has been elected, ACORN and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie are stealing an election in Minnesota, conservatives are going to be silenced via the Fair-Less Doctrine, and gay marriage activists are assaulting the elderly. It is a time of hope and optimism in this, our liberal country.

So, why so negative?

The answer of course is, certain news might be perceived as a positive point in the waning days of the Bush Administration.

The bias, after the break…

In what can only be described as delusional, Los Angeles Times writer James Rainey attempted to castigate the right wing media as a bitter and resentful group of shameless journalists - attributes that can only describe the liberal media's behavior for at least eight years now.

The title itself, ‘Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger,' demonstrates that Rainey will not be pulling any punches with his article.  But why is he focusing on the reaction of conservative talk show hosts less than one week after Obama's election?  Did he forget the liberal media's - nay, the mainstream media's - chronic case of misplaced anger since election night of 2000?

The answer, of course, is no.  Rainey's employer, the LA Times, has been one of the biggest offenders of liberal media ignorance in quite some time.  After all, The Times has produced rants that read like a rap sheet of bias. 

An examination of the piece follows...

Ah, the land of lollipops and unicorns has descended upon us now that the savior has won the election.

Perhaps with the safety of the completed election securely behind, Peter Slevin of the Washington Post did a very cutesy article covering the not-so-cutesy terrorist, Bill Ayers.

Ayers was gracious enough to come out of the woodwork to offer his viewpoints on the Republicans demonizing him during the campaign. 

"Pal around together? What does that mean? Share a milkshake with two straws?" Ayers said.

No William, palling around together might include one pal giving another a glowing review of their book, or perhaps the two of you serving together on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, or maybe even inviting Obama over to your home to help launch his political career.  Hell, who's to say Bernardine Dohrn wasn't serving up milkshakes in your living room at the time?  But maybe we're just splitting hairs on defining the term ‘pal.'

He goes on to say:

Who would you think is more concerned with the best interest of the United States? Americans? Or those in other countries?

If you chose the latter, then you are likely a liberal. You are also, apparently, like many other countries in the world. Countries that will go from respecting the authority of this nation, to snickering behind our backs at the possibility of electing a President who thinks the world is his constituency, and not his native country.

The media is unconsciously making this obvious, by revealing what may be a major reason we should be concerned about the possibility of the phrase ‘President Barack Obama.’

The world is salivating at the prospect of appeasement, and that will be Obama’s number one foreign policy platform.

Just check out these Election Day headlines:

In what can only be considered as having your race cake and eating it too, Hardy Brown, a writer for Black Voice News is demanding that African Americans vote for Barack Obama to ‘break the shackles of hopelessness that has weighed us down for so long,’ while simultaneously taking the high road by declaring that there is no place for racism in campaigns.

This is what is known as a Sharptonism – making a racist statement that attempts to portray the speaker as non-racist, whilst the rest of the world actually sees them as one of the worst offenders of intolerance.

The entire first paragraph seems to harness the theme of ‘we are owed this election because of our past.’ How about, ‘we owe ourselves the dignity of making an honest choice on Election Day, casting our vote based on policies rather than skin color?’

(Emphasis mine)

The Associated Press this morning did a short and sweet hit piece on Sarah Palin, criticizing the Alaska Governor for acting as, well, the Alaska Governor.

Anne Sutton of the AP essentially mocks Palin for governing the state by ‘remote control.’ It’s not so much the criticism as it is the reality that if Sarah Palin wasn’t doing her job, the AP would be hammering her for that instead. The headline would go from ‘Palin manages to govern Alaska from afar’ to ‘Palin manages to neglect Alaska while campaigning.’

Sutton goes on to offer these hard-hitting examples of journalism that have come to define the AP, using such concrete descriptors as ‘almost a month’ and ‘probably’ to define lengths of time and cost respectively. The entire article follows (emphasis mine):

There's a new potential excuse out there for Obama backers fearing a racial tinge to the election results next Tuesday.

As NewsBuster's Tim Graham noted, Newsweek has been proactive enough to suggest that only racism can launch McCain into the White House at this point.

The Hartford Courant offers a different rationale, however (As if there is anything rational about calling someone who doesn't vote for your candidate, a racist).

Yes, the new terminology offered by the Hartford Courant is ‘unconscious racism.' Meaning if you pull the lever for McCain on Election Day, you are not only a racist, but you're too stupid to realize it.

No word yet on whether the 84% of African Americans who are voting for Obama should be considered ‘conscious racists.'

Ah, the good old days. Remember way back when filmmaker Oliver Stone lamented about his even handed portrayal of George W. Bush in his disappointing new hit piece, W?

"I tried to be fair and balanced and compassionate," Stone said. "I don't take sides. I don't take political sides. I'm a dramatist, and this is the movie I've made."

Yes, that was way back on October 12th, barely a week ago.

Now however, it appears being fair and balanced means comparing the President to someone like, say, Adolf Hitler.

CNN's Presidential Debate Report Card echoes most polls offered by the main stream media.  It involves 60% Democrats as a sample group, and if your response doesn't agree with their agenda, then some ‘alterations' are made.  In other words, the results are weighted to provide liberals with an edge. 

The Web site's latest report card allows the viewer to rate the performance of both Presidential candidates in Wednesday's debate.  Seems pretty straight-forward, right?  But things weren't working properly for some readers.

In fact, when visiting the Barack Obama side of the report card first, all is seemingly well. Votes are counted and recorded correctly.  Everything seems just dandy.  However, when one visits the John McCain side first, things can get a little peculiar. 

This peculiarity occurred several times early Thursday afternoon, and will be outlined after the break.

When clicking on a choice of grade for McCain's debate performance, I went with an A, as can be seen here with the highlight:

Did you happen to catch the candidate who handled her heckler with grace, poise, and dignity? It’s created quite a buzz in the media… The Boston Globe spoke of her ‘snappy comeback.’ The Consortium for Independent Journalism reveled in ‘her deft reaction.’ MSNBC reported from the scene that there was ‘roaring cheers and applause from the stunned crowd.’ USA Today remarked about her ‘deadpanning.’ The New York Times noted that ‘Her words were drowned out by a cheering, now-standing crowd.’ Yes, the media was all sorts of in love with the quick retort to a crazed heckler. But, if you thought that was in response to Sarah Palin’s excellent handling of an anti-war heckler, you’d be sadly, mistaken. Rather, those were all quotes in response to Hillary’s handling of the ‘Iron My Shirt!’ incident, nearly a year ago. It was all the MSM rage once upon a time.

In a rapid fire display of flip-flopping that would make even the staunchest of liberals proud, Newsweek's Howard Fineman manages to change his opinion on the justification of an Obama-Lincoln connection three times in just under 900 words.

The random logic is hard to see through all the gooeyness behind the concept of such a ridiculous comparison in the first place, but once you wipe the screen, you'll be able to spot it clear as day.

Fineman starts by asking himself a few questions:

Is there any reason, other than the lean frame and knack for giving good speeches, to compare the two men? Is there any reason to see in Obama a Lincoln-like ability to unite a "house divided" in our perilous times? Is that even a fair question to ask or comparison to make?

While most of us would scoff at the notion, Fineman concludes otherwise:

Remember the furor and the comedic punch lines as a result of Sarah Palin’s statement, implying that she needed someone to clarify the role of the Vice President?

Well, brace yourselves for a similarly overwhelming media reaction to Joe Biden’s solution on where one can locate the definition of the Vice President’s role – Article I of the Constitution.

Problem being, it’s actually Article II.

To most, this will simply constitute another famous Biden gaffe. However, Biden was so forceful and patronizing in his argument during last night’s debate that Dick Cheney should realize ‘Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president,’ that it bears pointing out.

The full excerpt from the debate follows (h/t to Michelle Malkin):

Today’s version of our exercise, in which we dissect the media’s attempts at interjecting bias into a simple headline, may stun some of you. The shocking aspect? The Washington Post didn’t partake in the liberal doctoring of the headline. Let’s take a look… The Pentagon just released a report entitled ‘Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,’ which highlights a decline in violence in the country in 2008. Surprisingly enough, the WaPo ran this headline:

Violence Declines Further in Iraq

While positive news in a Post headline is a bit hard to believe, they did include the following sub-headline, managing to interject that ol’ liberal pessimism we’re more accustomed to:

Pentagon Report Cites Factors That Could Rekindle Attacks

That said, we have to give them some credit for combining the positive and negative into one headline, making it less biased than their competitors. Observe…

CNN’s Web site this morning tracked a developing story involving the stock market opening, by featuring a photo of an Iran anti-war protest. The photo, provided by our friends at the AP, was simply too perfect to pass up apparently. After all, any photo which includes a man brandishing a banner which reads ‘Jail Bush,’ is something that a biased news organization simply has to take. Pertinence be damned. Seriously, nothing says the economy quite like a placard reading ‘No attack on Iran.’ CNN probably could have found a photo that actually applied to the topic of a sliding stock market. Was a stock photo of a line graph with a red arrow pointing down not available at the most trusted name in news? No picture of someone ringing the opening bell? The story itself was titled ‘Wall Street Drops at Open,’ and to its credit, did not include the photo within the article. Oddly enough however, there was no mention of 'Iran' in the article that the above photo linked to either. Nor was there any mention of the word 'war.' Or 'protest.'

We've covered it here before.  It's akin to that old child's game where one person whispers something into another's ear, passes it on to several others, until the final statement is no longer vaguely recognizable as being related to the first.

So, here we go again with Anatomy of a Biased Headline...

Let's start with a recent study funded by the National Science Foundation, in which researchers lay claim to this finding: 

Some Political Views May be Related to Physiology

Science Magazine's actual headline was similarly non-insulting:

Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits

Seems pretty neutral right?  Let's see how the media took that headline and ran with it...

In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.  

Provenzo, who has written opinion pieces for the Washington Times, Capitalism Magazine, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, as well as being a guest on Bill Maher’s former show, Politically Incorrect, makes his case for “the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”

The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):

Keith Olbermann is a man of little integrity. Yet from a journalistic aspect, he does exude an air of intelligence, and is a very well spoken, albeit lame, excuse for an anchor. Olbermann, who clearly and cleverly picks descriptive terms from a vast ranging vocabulary to convey his thoughts, has placed one well thought out phrase in his recent ‘Special Comment’ piece on Countdown: Republicans Hijacked 9/11. As well crafted as his words are, there is little doubt that Olbermann intentionally used the word ‘hijacked’ for the title of this segment. Such choice wording at a time when the nation is mourning the seventh anniversary of the attack on America is appalling, even by Olbermann and MSNBC standards. And simply demoting him from the networks election coverage, more a symbolic gesture of their attempts to offer ‘candid analysis,’ is simply no longer enough.

File this one under ‘Are you serious?'

Salon writer Sarah Posner offers a scathing commentary on Sarah Palin's former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God.  In fact, the sub-title itself spells out her opinion in plain language.

The church where Sarah Palin grew up and was baptized preaches some of the most extreme religious views in the nation.

Yet it was only a few months ago that Posner ran an interview she conducted with Jonathan L. Walton, an ordained minister, in which the two derive comparisons between the Theology of Jeremiah Wright and that of Martin Luther King Jr.

The contrasting pieces leave you wondering if Ms. Posner completely grasps the definition of the word ‘extreme.' 

This is to say, not reality at all.

What is the first step in the main stream media’s handbook of liberal bias?  Why, alter the headline to fit your agenda, of course.

In textbook MSM form, liberal news outlets have been altering the planned Tuesday announcement by President Bush that 8,000 troops in Iraq will be home by February. 

Allow me to demonstrate…

Nobody would ever hope or pray for a hurricane to strike at the expense of their political opponent. Or would they?

Well, maybe Michael Moore would. In fact, he did, as has already been discussed on this site.

By the same token, the Financial Times has also demonstrated a knack for cheering on a catastrophic event in the hopes of striking a blow to the GOP convention this week.

While delegates and attendees at the GOP convention spent Monday offering prayers, scaling back the pageantry, and generally demonstrating that most have their minds on the well-being of Americans in the Gulf region, liberals have been taking the opportunity to make jokes about their religion and hoping that a catastrophic event derails the Republicans all together.

If only John Edwards had a better sense of humor. Perhaps those pesky sexual trysts would not have ruined his political career.

At least, that’s the advice being given by Elizabeth Benjamin of the New York Daily News.

In the article, Benjamin hails the comedic styling of Governor David Paterson of New York, who made an off color joke about his past affairs with several women. The headline says it all:

Truth has set Gov. David Paterson free - to joke about sins

The implication in this piece is that had Edwards, or even Bill Clinton himself, simply been forthright with their affairs, then they too would be free to make light of them.

Forty-five years ago, the great Martin Luther King graced us with his vision of racial equality, and words that will live on forever as a symbol of his struggles towards unity. In 1963, King delivered his ‘I have a dream' speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, a speech that still resonates today as a testament to his will and courage.

Now, forty-five years later, Barack Obama stands on the precipice of accepting his party's nomination for the presidency by delivering an equally unforgettable, charismatic, and courageous speech.

At least, that's what Stanley Crouch of the Daily News says others would like you to believe:

Thursday, Barack Obama, the son of a black man and white woman, will give a speech that many say has the potential to achieve the same level of gravity, ascendant courage and timeless charisma contained in King's speech.