Assume for a moment that a prominent Republican’s uncle that happened to be a former state senator was convicted of accepting bribes. Do you think:
This would have been headline/front-page news
The family relationship would have been in the lede and/or headline
His party affiliation would have been in the lede and/or headline?
Well, on Friday, the uncle of former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D), former Tennessee State Sen. John Ford (D), was convicted of accepting bribes totaling $55,000. Yet, many media outlets buried the connection to his much more popular nephew, as well as the fact that he was a Democrat.
For instance, this is how the New York Times handled the story Saturday coincidentally on page A14 (h/t NB reader Joe Easley):
In case you hadn’t heard, there was a huge protest in Turkey on Sunday as reported by the Associated Press (h/t NBer Gary Hall and LGF, emphasis added throughout):
At least 300,000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.
Given the American media’s predilection towards never wanting to write or say anything that could possibly offend Muslims, an interesting question is raised regarding how they will report this story.
Because of Tuesday’s testimony by former Army Pvt. Jessica Lynch, the media have renewed the stories about the government “lying” about Lynch’s heroism and only correcting it later, but the conservative blog American Thinker dug up that first article which supposedly gave the details of Lynch’s rescue and found the “government warned against this fight-to-the-death story line… at the time of the initial reporting by the media,” not later.
Writing at AmThinker, Ray Robison said that the Washington Post was the first to publish the super-soldier story, and even though they had been cautioned by the government, they ran with it anyway, adding a little paragraph that mentioned the warning but giving more prominence to the unnamed “US official” (emphasis added throughout; in this post, I changed AmThinker's highlighting and pointed out the AT's "emphasis added" text to differentiate from mine. Follow link to see original form):
Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said...
"She was fighting to the death," the official said. "She did not want to be taken alive."
Several officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed.
The reader is formally cautioned to prepare his or herself for an alternate reality. You have been warned.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked to find the New York Times asking the following question on a Sunday morning:
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
Is this possibly a sea change in media coverage on this issue, or just an olive branch cynically tossed to create the illusion of balance?
Regardless of the answer, although Andrew C. Revkin’s “Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?” fell short of exposing all the hypocrisies concerning this matter, it was nonetheless surprising to see a Times writer offer the following opinions about such a controversial and polarizing subject (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
Journalists in Washington are supposed to be public watchdogs. But when it comes to the crisis facing Social Security, they act more like lapdogs for politicians determined to shirk their responsibility.
The Washington Post, New York Times and Associated Press all led off their stories on the latest Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections by pointing out that Social Security isn't expected to deplete its trust fund reserves until 2041. This supports the contention of Democratic politicians and the AARP that the day of reckoning is more than three decades away, so reform is not an urgent need .....
Frank Rich is from Venus; NewsBusters is from Mars.
NewsBusters documents the way that, day-in and day-out, the MSM slants its coverage against conservative principles in general and the Bush administration in particular. Frank Rich looks at the same coverage and complains that the press is too Bush-friendly.
In his p.p.v. New York Times column of today, All the President’s Press, Rich takes the occasion of the recent White House correspondents dinner to complain "how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media."
The press has enabled stunts from the manufactured threat of imminent “mushroom clouds” to “Saving Private Lynch” to “Mission Accomplished,” whose fourth anniversary arrives on Tuesday.
No one in the Bush administration ever spoke of "imminent mushroom clouds." Rich flatly misstates the truth. Lynch's criticism of the way the military presented her story was all over the MSM this week. And how incalculably many times over the last few years has the MSM run mocking coverage of President Bush's "Mission Accomlished" moment?
On Saturday afternoon, CNN Newsroom ran a report by Dr. Sanjay Gupta in which the CNN medical correspondent plugged a proposal for the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program to begin supplying vouchers for fruits and vegetables to its recipients to combat obesity in the poor, and fretted that budget cuts by President Bush could "threaten" a proposed plan to do so. Recounting that the problem for WIC recipients when the program was created 30 ago was "malnutrition, not obesity," Gupta relayed plans by the Agriculture Department to supply vouchers for fruits and vegetables. But Gupta cautioned that because Bush is planning to put WIC on the "chopping block," the plan may be endangered. Gupta: "But some say that might not happen because WIC is on the chopping block, slated for a $145 million cut in President Bush's 2008 budget. ... Nutritionists say that's not good because the WIC produce vouchers could help control obesity." (Transcript follows)
One argument at the beginning of the Bill Moyers PBS special on our alleged Bush-polishing press corps centered around a White House press conference just before the Iraq war began on March 6, 2003. Within hours on that night, leftists were complaining that reporters weren't harsh enough.CBS Radio's White House reporter Mark Knoller made a rare protest against the Moyers charge on their Public Eye site. I'm a little surprised that Knoller is the only White House reporter to challenge Moyers on the idea that they were all Bush patsies, just as I'm surprised that no one in the White House press corps really challenged Helen Thomas when she called them all Bush patsies.
The formulation Moyers used -- that reporters failed to "challenge the president" that he was lying about WMD -- is trumped up, and suggests that reporters should not have merely suggested that war protesters and other countries had doubts. Apparently, Moyers wouldn't have honored a reporter as challenging unless they rhetorically punched the president in the face, suggesting his case for Iraq was crawling with lies. Moyers obviously and sleazily skipped the case of ABC's Terry Moran, who insulted all his colleagues as "zombies" after the press conference. He, by contrast, should have earned an A from Moyers from challenging Bush as leading the world in arrogance:
On Friday's The Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer gave former Democratic Senator Max Cleland a forum to rail against the Bush administration's Iraq policy, during which the former Georgia Senator charged that President Bush would be "signing in blood" his expected veto of the Democratic plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. While Blitzer did ask a few mildly challenging questions, the CNN anchor did not question some of Cleland's more dubious assertions, including his claim that half a million Iraqis had been killed, and that Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss had called Cleland "un-American" and "unpatriotic" in the past.
While the interview originally ran live during the 5 p.m. hour of The Situation Room, it was repeated during the 7 p.m. hour, which gave Blitzer the opportunity to plug the interview, quoting the former Democratic Senator's charge that Bush would be signing his veto "in blood." Blitzer: "Tonight, the former U.S. Senator, Max Cleland, charges Mr. Bush will be signing that veto in blood." Blitzer later plugged: "Vietnam War veteran and former Senator Max Cleland says President Bush could wind up with blood on his hands." (Transcript follows)
For those that have forgotten, in September, Broder wrote about “vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left.”
Months later, as California Democrats gathered in San Diego at their annual convention – with their presidential candidates present and accounted for – an anonymous strategist had rather unflattering things to say about bloggers on the left side of the political aisle (h/t Hot Air, emphasis added):
During the latter part of the Clinton admin, the left media often tossed around the phrase "scandal fatigue," a term of art to explain that certain portions of the public had become upset at the Republican party for going after then-president Clinton over trivial things.
Politicians and their allies do have this tendency. But it's not just Republicans who have it. Democrats do as well.
Since President Bush came into office, Democrats have continued this tradition, cooking up a host of psuedo-scandals on everything from spying on China to Valerie Plame. None of it's stuck. Yet instead of speaking wishfully about "scandal fatigue," the left media has instead been doing the very opposite as John Hinderaker at Powerline points out:
NBC's Brian Williams, left, looks into the camera as he begins to moderate the first Democratic presidential primary debate of the 2008 election hosted by South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C.
Although a quick search of the Web draws up the speech, available here (with video and audio links), rare is the online news service that links to President Bush's remarks on May 1, 2003, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Since the media don't reprint excerpts of the speech nor give readers the links to the original source material, here are some comments from May 1, 2003, that point to President Bush warning Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism (portions in bold are my emphasis):
Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski got lots of attention earlier this week as he tried to show us how allegedly inadequate the Food Stamp program is (bold is mine):
Ore. gov. starts week on food stamps
By Julia Silverman, Associated Press Writer | April 25, 2007
SALEM, Ore. --If Gov. Ted Kulongoski seems a little sluggish this week, he's got an excuse: he couldn't afford coffee.
In fact, the Democratic governor couldn't afford much of anything during a trip to a Salem-area grocery store on Tuesday, where he had exactly $21 to buy a week's worth of food -- the same amount that the state's average food stamp recipient spends weekly on groceries.
Kulongoski is taking the weeklong challenge to raise awareness about the difficulty of feeding a family on a food stamp budget.
The governor put on quite a show trying to stay within that $21:
Despite being the lone Conservative on Friday’s “Real Time,” National Review contributor Lisa Schiffren might have had the best line of the evening when she accused comedian and actor Richard Belzer of emulating the “Rosie O’Donnell School of Foreign Policy.”
As the discussion moved to Iraq, Belzer advanced the common liberal meme that the war was all about oil:
And now the Democrats are stealthfully working with the Republicans to take all the oil from Iraq and give, like a little bit to the Iraqi people. You know about that? Did you hear about that? This is an oil war.
On April 22, I praised Bill Maher for doing something right:
Friday’s “Real Time” was actually a fabulous installment, as Maher’s panel for a change included two conservatives – National Review’s John O’Sullivan, and Republican strategist Amy Holmes, along with Montana’s Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer.
Maher ought to try this format of having two liberals (including himself) and two conservatives more often, for a much more balanced discussion ensued than normal, making for one of the most interesting “Real Times” of the season so far.
Sadly, Maher didn’t take my advice. A week later, just one Conservative was on his panel, once again creating an environment conducive to unabashed vitriol directed at President Bush.
A perfect example was Maher’s final “New Rule” on April 27 wherein he not only stated that the president is a “paranoid schizophrenic,” but also asserted that “the 29 percent of Americans who still think he’s doing a heck of a job” are similarly afflicted (video available here courtesy of our dear friend Ms Underestimated):
I have heard of journalists thinking they're gods of objectivity but this is a new one. Apparently, when you become an elite journalist, you also become a prophet.
AP reporter Nedra Pickler (her real name) filed a story on the recent Democratic presidential debate 45 minutes before the event had even started. Mickey Kaus reports (h/t Small Dead Animals):
Why have a debate? AP has already written its lede: It's 3:15. The big South Carolina Democratic debate starts in 45 minutes. But you don't have to actually watch it. AP's Nedra Pickler has already filed her story, in the past tense.
presidential candidates largely stood together Thursday in support of a
U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and then sought to separate themselves
on the details in the first primary debate of the 2008 race.
Don’t you love it when childless, single, media elites offer opinions about how parents should raise their children?
Such an obvious hypocrisy was on display Friday evening as HBO’s Bill Maher not only came to Alec Baldwin’s defense concerning the actor's disgraceful voicemail to his daughter, but actually said, “I think he’s going to be a hero for this.”
The "Daily Show" is definitely a liberal show. However, on occassion, it does put liberals in the cross hairs. Such was the case recently when it slammed enviro-hypocrites like Matt Damon and Oprah Winfrey. Enjoy!
As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, England’s fabulous paper the Financial Times has been doing an extraordinary job exposing the scam that is carbon credits, exhibiting an honesty which America’s media sorely lack.
On Friday, FT published another article about this travesty (h/t Glenn Reynolds) which is also almost guaranteed to be ignored by U.S. press outlets far more concerned with glorifying folks like Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David.
In this report, FT exposed how recommendations from the British government bilked companies interested in offsetting carbon emissions out of huge sums of money by advising them to purchase what turned out to be “worthless” (emphasis added throughout):
According to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani committed "terrorism" when he suggested that the country would be "playing defense" if a Democrat was elected president in 2008. And this is the network that’s hosting a Republican presidential debate?
On Monday, an ABC graphic provided a shining example of media bias. Co-host Diane Sawer was discussing the recent surge by the stock market. During the segment, a graphic below her read, "Will Dow Hit 13,000 Today? Is Unstoppable Market Good or Bad?"
"Good Morning America" reacted to the departure of Rosie O’Donnell this week by claiming that the left-wing comedienne was a pioneer for women. (The morning program also ignored her 9/11 conspiracy theories.)
Better secure your computer from all combustibles, potables, and sharp objects, sports fans, for the Washington Post published a Letter to the Editor on Friday that is guaranteed to elicit uncontrollable fits of laughter.
Are you ready? Good.
In response to David Broder’s Thursday column about the horrible job Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is doing as Majority Leader – a sentiment likely an overwhelming majority of Americans share – Senate Democrats actually wrote the Post a complaint letter.
I kid you not.
As the Post didn’t feature this correspondence on the front page – instead including it with the other four “letters” published that day on page A22 – and since Broder wasn’t asked to make a correction or retraction, it doesn’t seem that this puff piece, hysterically titled “Sen. Reid’s Fine Leadership,” was taken very seriously (emphasis added throughout):
The Federal Communications Commission defined broadcast indecency in 1987 as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."
Brent Bozell’s culture column this week reports that ABC’s "According to Jim" had an entire plot revolve around the gag (and "gag" is probably the right word) that the Jim Belushi character ate his wedding ring and his wife waited to catch him in the act of pooping it out. It apparently lands with a "clank." His wife and her siblings then pop out of the shower with an a-ha. Brent writes: "This is certainly a plot based on (implied) excretory activities, but it’s certainly not what the regulators had in mind. I suspect that when these rules were written there wasn’t a soul at the FCC who believed ‘humor’ would ever come to this."
ESPN's Chris Berman likes to say "no one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills." He might add "or the Boston Globe." Its editorial of today, A telling admission, heaps of paeans of praise on Marilee Jones, who resigned her position as MIT Dean of Admissions after an investigation revealed that she earned none of the academic degrees she had claimed.
The Globe quickly gets out of the way its acknowledgement that "no doubt, Marilee Jones did the wrong thing." But you'd hardly know it from the rest of editorial:
"I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to MIT 28 years ago," she said in a statement, "and did not have the courage to correct my resume when I applied for my current job or at any time since." Admitting to that lack of courage means being brave enough to be oneself, even if one is short on credentials but long on potential.
She deserves credit for her straightforward apology.
This forthright admission stands in contrast to others who have denied, delayed, or justified. Last year, David Edmondson, chief executive of RadioShack, said he planned to stay in his job even after it was revealed that he had not earned two college degrees listed on his resume. Days later he resigned.
Jones has had to face her own messy truth. She has done so in a commendable way.
The Globe comes close to excusing others who tell similar lies:
Cam Edwards at NRANews.com tipped me Friday night: The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will have another $250-a-plate fundraiser in Washington on May 15, like their 2005 event at the French Embassy celebrating the 80th birthday of liberal political humorist Art Buchwald (one major toastmaster was CBS News legend Mike Wallace).
An ad on the Brady Campaign home page for this year’s "Stand Up For A Safe America" fundraiser (honoring Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel) shows this year’s Master of Ceremonies is ABC News legend Sam Donaldson. Sam just wisecracked on This Week that gun owners have their weapons "to shoot the paperboy and the relative coming home late at night."
With “Today Show Bound?” as the on-screen header under video of Rosie O'Donnell, Access Hollywood co-anchor Nancy O'Dell on Friday advanced idle speculation about how “we have new information about her possibly joining the Today show.” But the “new information” was that she won't, though Today co-host Matt Lauer thought O'Donnell on the show “might work well for us.” Setting up a soundbite from Lauer at a Thursday event at the Museum of the Moving Image, O'Dell asserted: “And you can forget about Rosie being on NBC's fourth hour of Today beginning in September.” Viewers of the NBC-produced nightly entertainment news show then heard from Lauer: “Being a news show, we do have to walk a little bit of a tighter line than she's used to walking and so it might work well for us, but I don't know how well it would work for Rosie.”