Originally posted at RedState | I have written a number of pieces in the past year about conservatives having a “poor little ole me” attitude when it comes to the media. Conservatives are convinced the media is out to get them. They are convinced the media is covering up stories and covering for the Obama Administration. Often, conservatives are flat out wrong. They are so convinced the media is out to get them they do not even make their case to the media. They give up without starting.
Each time I write about these things, members of the media retweet the posts glowingly and approvingly. And while I stand by each of those posts I’ve written, the media itself needs to be held accountable because, if members of the media were truly honest, must admit it is biased against conservatives.
But rather than see a problem with the liberal media-Democratic administration revolving door, Jacobs's story was decidedly matter-of-fact. Indeed, he portrayed it more as the president "reaching out to journalists" rather than servile liberal scribes clamoring to jump aboard the Obama train and being received happily by the administration. What's more, as an excuse that "both sides do it," Jacobs closed by noting that the late Tony Snow is an example of the politics-journalism revolving door being a centuries-old bipartisan tradition:
While the liberal media predictably focus on the domestic political ramifications for President Obama as regards his strange and ever-evolving policy on Syria, the real story worth reporting is how Obama may actually be strengthening Bashar Assad's hand, even making him "a national hero" who can not only survive but thrive as a result.
In her September 12 front-page story "Syrian Rebels Hurt By Delay," The Wall Street Journal's Nour Malas has an excellent story to that effect. Filing from Istanbul, she quotes Mohammmed al-Daher, "a commander in the rebels' Western backed Free Syria Army" as lamenting that he "wouldn't be surprised if the end result of these negotiations is that [Assad] remains as president and beyond that, turns into a national hero who saved his country." Malas continued (emphasis mine):
"One does not sharpen the axes after the right time; after the time they are needed." -- Russian Proverb
The late Ukrainian violinist Mischa Elman is considered one of the greatest of all time, but he has nothing on Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has played the Obama administration better than any musician.
Roughly ten days ago, CNN's Fareed Zakaria said, "[T]he administration's handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy."
On Wednesday, Zakaria wrote a piece for the Washington Post in which he conceded, "Obama’s proposals are also not likely to reduce the humanitarian crisis" in Syria, but yet in his view, the new plan involving Russia "is a significant success."
While many in the media are actually crediting Barack Obama for Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposed Syrian chemical weapons "solution," TIME magazine's Joe Klein isn't one of them.
Far from it, Klein penned a scathing rebuke of Obama's handling of Syria Wednesday calling it "one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed...The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world."
NBC and CBS on Wednesday night and Thursday morning failed to cover the "impassioned" demand by big labor unions to reject large portions of ObamaCare. Only ABC's Good Morning America, allowing just a 24-second news brief, covered the complaints that the law will spike the cost of health care. At a convention in Los Angeles, the AFL-CIO adopted an angry resolution in opposition. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
News reader Josh Elliott quickly explained, "And big labor is demanding changes be made to President Obama's health care law." An ABC graphic hyped "Big Labor Vs. 'ObamaCare." According to the Hill, Terry O'Sullivan, President of the Laborers' International Union of America, railed, "But we will be damned if we are going to lose our health insurance because of unintended consequences in the law. It needs to be changed. It needs to be fixed. And it needs to be fixed now."
How do you know when an MSM member is pushing pro-Obama spin to the absurd? When even the most partisan of Dems, in the person of James Carville, can't stomach it.
On today's Morning Joe, Andrea Mitchell, claiming that the world was "coalescing" around Obama's position on Syria, said that there was "a lot of optimism" surrounding the Obama team's negotiations with the Russians. Mitchell said she had seen this kind of thing before back in the 80s, when the US negotiated arms control with the Soviet Union. "It starts slowly but things happen," comforted Mitchell. All this was too much for Carville, who forsaw a future in which the negotiations went on and on and led nowhere. Said Serpent Head: "I love Andrea and she's optimistic. God love her, I hope she's right. Count me a little more pessimistic." View the video after the jump.
Appearing as a guest on MSNBC's PoliticsNation on Monday, Joan Walsh of Salon.com tagged Rush Limbaugh as a "racist troll" after a clip of the conservative talk radio host criticizing President Obama for being indecisive on Syria, quipping that American military action ordered by Obama should be called "Operation Shuck and Jive."
Host Al Sharpton called Limbaugh's words "ugly" as he introduced the clip:
President Obama has been facing an unusual amount of criticism lately for his handling of the Syrian crisis, so it was only a matter of time before someone in the mainstream liberal media tried to cut him some slack for his weak leadership. On Wednesday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, the host-turned-apologist asked if Obama could really be blamed for not calling on Congress to authorize a military strike in Syria.
Mitchell was talking to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee and a supporter of military action against Syria, about the president’s Tuesday night speech. Rogers expressed disappointment that Obama was not more forceful in making the case for intervention in Syria. Mitchell then defended Obama’s indecisiveness: [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
There you have it, solid evidence that radio libtalker and MSNBC foghorn Ed Schultz is a degenerate racist -- he disagrees with President Obama's plan to hit the Assad regime with military strikes if necessary.
After all, a disagreement like that is all it has taken for Schultz and like-minded lefties to vilify conservatives for years as dog-whistle-blowing racists. Suddenly I understand why they so frequently resort to this line of criticism. It frees them from that tiresome task ... of thinking. (Audio after the jump)
One does not simply destroy a nation's cache of chemical weapons. It's actually a rather complicated and expensive endeavor, despite how neat and simple the president's acolytes seem to be making it out to be. In fact, the United States government is decades into the process of eliminating American chemical weapons. What's more, the U.S. government is six years past its previous 2007 deadline -- not to mention 19 years past the initial 1994 deadline -- for 100 percent compliance.
Mark Thompson of Time magazine has a great piece today on "How To Destroy Syria’s Chemical Weapons" in which he looks at the painstakingly detailed logistical and cost considerations of eliminating a nation's stockpile of chemical weapons. Here's an excerpt (emphases mine):
Apparently we can't grasp the full brilliance and nuance of Barack Obama's speeches without having someone from the establishment press telling us what he really meant to say when he said what he really said.
That's the impression one gets from reading "What President Obama said, what he meant" early Wedesday at the Politico. In it, along with an accompanying video dedicated to the same idea, we see Carrie Budoff Brown's exercise in explaining Obama's 15-minute speech on Syria to the ignormamuses of the world. Her weakest translation concerns the extent to which Obama apparently assumed he'd automatically have support from the vast majority of Republicans, apparently because, as the web site's equally surprised Alex Isenstadt and Reid Epstein also believed two days ago ("'Party of Hawks,' Has Gone 'Dovish'"), they just love to go to war for any reason, no matter how incoherent or unplanned. That passage follows the jump:
The NBC Tonight Show host spent much of his opening monologue lampooning President Obama beginning with, “It's still a little warm, but you can tell fall is coming...The leaves are changing faster than the White House position on Syria” (video and transcript follow):
Liberal media members are clearly overjoyed that there’s – at least for the time being – not going to be a vote in Congress concerning a military strike on Syria.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe Wednesday, NPR’s Cokie Roberts outlined the left's doomsday scenario saying, “If he had lost this vote, which he was clearly about to do, it would have been everything: immigration would have been down the tubes, you know, ObamaCare defunded, debt ceiling a mess, all of it” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
For well over two weeks, the Obama administration has been urging military action against the Assad regime in Syria for its use of chemical weapons.
At the Associated Press, in a "Fact Check" item at its "Big Story" site, Calvin Woodward told readers that "President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof." Again? The AP reporter also questioned the number of civilian deaths involved. Excerpts follow the jump:
When we last checked in on Barack Obama discussing Benghazi on the network news, he was reassuring Brian Williams on the October 25 “Rock Center” that “We’re going to do a full investigation.” It’s a year later and it’s still “we are going to.” Last fall, Williams and Obama posed as curious for answers on how this disaster happened. Neither of them has demonstrated any noticeable curiosity since.
A new Media Research Center study of Benghazi coverage in 2013 on ABC, CBS, and NBC shows there are two routine modes of operation: (a) praising Team Obama’s public relations and (b) silence.
Maybe my processing of the English language isn't what it used to be, but I'm having a hard time making sense of the headline at David Espo's and Julie Pace's report (saved here at host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, on President Obama's Syria speech tonight.
The headline? "OBAMA DELAYS SYRIA VOTE, SAYS DIPLOMACY MAKE WORK." Huh? If the last three words are "Make Diplomacy Work," that's better, but not by all that much, because it looks like he's giving orders to others, when he and his administration are the ones who have to make it work. Several paragraphs from the AP pair's report follow the jump (boids are mine):
In his Monday interview with President Obama, CNN's Wolf Blitzer failed to ask any tough questions of the President. In contrast, Fox News's Chris Wallace grilled Obama over the administration's handling of the Syria conflict.
For instance, Wallace brought up the lack of popular support for a military intervention, Secretary of State John Kerry's comment that a military intervention would be "unbelievably small," and Republican criticisms that the administration has failed to make a convincing case for military action. Blitzer mentioned none of these things, though, simply teeing Obama up with soft questions.
The folks at Second City on Monday released an absolutely hysterical video depicting the absurdity of mindless Obama automatons supporting war just because the man they voted for says it’s a good idea.
In it, four classic Obamabots of varied backgrounds representing the organization “Americans for Whatever Barack Obama Wants, Did You Know He’s Friends With Jay-Z?” try to raise $1.6 trillion to fund World War III (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
May you live through interesting times goes the wording of an ancient Chinese curse, or so I've heard many times through the years.
The possibility of US military intervention in Syria is producing something comparable -- we are living through unusually candid times, at least for some people who previously didn't seem capable of it. (Audio clips after the jump)
PBS's Tavis Smiley had some harsh words Sunday for President Obama's planned attack on Syria.
During his Smiley and West radio program, Tavis said, "It’s one thing to honor Martin with our words in Washington one day, and then 48 hours later start making plans to dishonor him with our deeds in Syria...He ought to just take that bust out of the Oval Office if he’s going to dishonor Martin in this way" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer had some harsh words for the apparent peace proposal offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin involving Syria turning over its chemical weapons.
Appearing on Fox News's Special Report Monday, Krauthammer said, “The chances of these weapons being eliminated from Syria are less than of the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year, and they are now mathematically eliminated.”
According to the three networks, the serious effort by conservatives to defund ObamaCare isn't worth as much coverage as the addition of a new dog to the President's family. In just a 24-hour period, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening and morning shows devoted six minutes and 23 seconds to the debut of the puppy "Sunny." In contrast, those same shows have granted a scant two minutes and 26 seconds over a two-month period (July 9 through September 8) to the move by conservative senators such as Mike Lee and Ted Cruz to strip funding from the increasingly-unpopular ObamaCare.
The networks didn't bother to stack the deck with segments heavily opposed to the "Defund It" push, promoted by influential conservative organizations and some GOP lawmakers. Instead, they chose to deprive the campaign of nearly all publicity, omitting it from their normal political coverage. ABC was the worst offender, with the network offering a mere eight second reference to the defund effort.