A truly extraordinary media event occurred Wednesday.
One news outlet reported: “Developing nations that are fast industrializing, such as China and India, have braked their rising greenhouse gas emissions by more than the total cuts demanded of rich nations by the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.”
Practically at the same time, another reported: “Yet [China’s] coal habit means it will soon overtake the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, some say as early as this year.”
Can’t be, right? Well, the first report by Reuters (h/t NB member dscott) dealt with a draft about to be released by the United Nations concerning CO2 emissions (emphasis added throughout):
Turkish, Pakistani and Afghan leaders sign a pact to fight terrorismGood news is no news, at least when it comes to the war on terrorism.
On Monday evening, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism showing a number of interesting findings, including steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. That has not been the lede story in America's liberal media, however. Instead, they've chosen to focus their attentions on how terrorism has increased in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
That's not entirely unjustified. Both of those countries have significant amounts of American troops in them (although I doubt that the left-wing French or German press, say, is covering this any differently). What has been unacceptable, however, is the American press's complete ignoring of the rest of the State Department's numbers.
Instead of saying that terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq (the truth), the media are extrapolating beyond that to claim that, as Reuters puts it, "U.S. sees sharp rise in global terrorism deaths."
To show the feeding frenzy that is the MSM -- as well as the constant inaccuracy -- reports abounded yesterday with rebukes to Rudy Giuliani from Democratic candidates for the 2008 Presidential election over something they all merely assumed he said at a campaign appearance.
Every single paper out there quoted the stern rebukes of each of the front running Dem. candidates and nearly every source of MSM news, from TV to the internet, repeated what it was that Rudy "said" to force the rebukes.
Unfortunately for all concerned, it appears that Rudy never said the phrase attributed to him.
Yet, not a soul in the MSM (except Fox's Brit Hume) took the time to do the research necessary to fact check and assure the story was correct.
In addition to asking ABC's chief climate alarmist Sam Champion about the snow-laden wind farm he
surveyed today and what it says about "global warming," NewsBusters would love to
hear the "Good Morning America" personality chalk 100 trapped sealing boats in Canada up to Americans who use too much fossil fuel and thereby warm the planet.
Here's just a few news sources covering the story:
Talk about your really inconvenient truths, a new study to be released on Wednesday refutes one of the major cataclysmic claims of soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry global warming alarmists.
For those that have forgotten – or just intentionally blocked it out -- in the schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore contended that global warming was responsible for increased hurricane activity with ominous portent for the future of such storms. In fact, this was a common media meme in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.
Yet, according to an article by Reuters Tuesday, not only does this appear not to be the case, but global warming actual reduces tropical cyclone frequency and intensity (emphasis added throughout):
For the last few weeks I have been watching two stories that, were they about Conservatives or Republicans, would have been scandals that would have shaken the rafters of the MSM. But, since these stories are about two favored Liberals, one old and one newly minted, we have seen no faux outrage, no shocked commentary, no calls for heads on pikes to be posted at the entrance to Congress, and no calls for resignations. Oh, the stories were reported all right, but all sensationalism was eschewed with the usual extrapolation to the level of a “culture of corruption” cast aside for a straight, newsy style atypical to their normal means against Republicans.
These two stories and the lack of passionate coverage of them by the MSM shows that the MSM employs as much liberal bias in what they chose not to cover as they do in what they chose to go ahead and focus upon.
"Court trumps Bush on global warming," read the teaser headline on the front page of ABCNews.com, as accessed by this reader at 12:15 p.m. EDT today. No, the Supreme Court is NOT the high court of all things scientific, but ABC and other liberal media outlets are essentially portraying the new ruling as such, although it pertains merely to what the EPA may choose to regulate as an air pollutant.
When I clicked the link it took me to a two-paragraph Reuters squib about a Supreme Court ruling on carbon dioxide regulation that came down this morning:
Apr 2, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a defeat for the Bush
administration, a closely divided Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a
U.S. government agency incorrectly determined it lacks the power to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
nation's highest court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
"has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate
carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that
contribute to climate change
Since Katie Couric is sofond of reporting on France’s utopian workforce, will she report French enthusiasm for…the mostly-capitalist England? Couric once salivated over the French socialist version of what the US business could be if only America let go of that ridiculous capitalist "anti-worker" propaganda that brainwashes people into thinking there is nothing wrong with a little hard work and the silly, old-fashioned idea that the customer is always right, not the employee. According to Katie and the other socialist cheerleaders, the French love their worker’s paradise, right? Well, according to this Reuters article on Yahoo, not all of them do:
I submit that a better headline would be “MSM Kills Journalism With Activist Reporting“.
It is pretty clear to me that the term mainstream media does not imply professional journalism. Sure, they have the money to dress it up and send it out with all the glitz and glamor of the alluring red carpet spectacle that they have become. But underneath all that flash is a lonely band leader churning out the same droning beat, left, left, left, left…
It really doesn’t matter who takes the lead at any given time. They all appear to have gone to the same school that has taught them to put the cart before the horse. Today’s motto, “Lead with your gut and piece together events and words to meet your agenda.”
I didn’t start this article looking for bias in the mainstream media; it found me. Naturally I could cut the Reuters article up and only discuss elements that I thought pertained to my premise but there is no need. This style of reporting stands as a whole. The mainstream media suffers from a group think mentality that suffers greatly from a monosyllabic tendency to hire and utilize only those who agree with one political point of view. It is a sad state of affairs.
Clarification (Ken Shepherd | 10:26 EDT): The story in question was written for The Hollywood Reporter and the photo was provided by Reuters.
Yahoo News picked up a Reuters article on Yahoo that reports actress Eliza Dushku of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Tru Calling” and “Bring It On” fame has a new show lined up called, “Nurses.”
The article is a tiny little story that isn’t worth much time, except for the accompanying picture. The pic is a file photo from a 2004 John Kerry benefit concert, and a two and a half year old photo with such a visibly identifying background should have sent this photo to the back of the pile.
Potential political bias aside, I think the photo editor should have done Dushku a favor and chosen a different picture because of that outfit alone.
Here are Three Things to Remember about The Government's Monthly Employment Reports:
First, the initial report for the current month by the Bureaus of Labor Statistics (BLS) has usually contained significant upward revisions to previous months, as shown here:
For the past seven months, the number reported for jobs added in the current month has been, on average, less than 2/3 of the total reported increase in jobs, because of significant revisions to prior months.
Second, as you would expect because of the first point, the current month's initially reported total has usually been revised upward quite a bit in subsequent months:
On Friday, Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city of Washington D.C. could not ban its citizens from owning firearms because such a ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In light of this ruling so damaging to gun grabbers everywhere, I was curious to see how the wires were handling the news. Turns out, they don't seem too happy.
In two reports on Friday the AP gave far more time in their "balanced" report to opponents to Second Amendment rights than they did to proponents. Worse, it never seemed to occur to them to report that gun violence in Washington D.C. has consistently ranked as among the highest in the country despite being one of the strictest anti-gun cities therein.
The game has been played frequently in recent years, usually after the vice president, who has suffered several heart attacks, has had a health scare or has done something particularly embarrassing, like blasting a fellow hunter with birdshot.
Reuters’ environment correspondent, Deborah Zabarenko, debunks the idea that there is a “scientific censorship” by the Bush Administration about global warming, although that isn’t what the headline, “’Don’t discuss polar bears’: memo to scientists,” indicates. Just another example of a headline not reflecting the content of an article. The March 8 article explains the disagreement in perception between the environmentalists and the Bush Admnistration policy that restricts some American scientists engaging in meetings abroad from discussing certain topics, from polar bears to polar ice, that have to do with the environment and global climate change:
Reuters has a cute little human interest story about funny people from Vermont holding "town meetings" where they call for President Bush's impeachment. What caught our eye was not the darling little Vermonters, though, but something in this paragraph:
The double standard of Leftists who are ignoring the outrage of Bill Maher -- who alluded to his wish that Vice President Dick Cheney was assassinated – while at the same time are wildly fanning themselves in mock outrage as if they had the vapors over Ann Coulter -- for calling Democrat John Edwards a bad name -- was on full display in the MSM over the weekend.
If you are a conservative who stays up on the "happenings" in conservative news, you'd have by now heard that firebrand Columnist Ann Coulter called Democratic Candidate John Edwards a "faggot" at the CPAC convention the other day. You are also probably aware of all the lefty types wading into the waters of high dudgeon over her typically button-pushing remark and you'll have seen Democrats and their supporters coming out of the woodwork to claim astonishment at Coulter's comment, demanding that conservatives distance themselves from her.
Reuters reporter William Maclean wrote in his article, "Gaddafi says fear drives world economic system", that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was shunned by the international community for much of his rule because the West "accused him of terrorism."
In the article, Maclean glossed over one Gaddafi linked terrorist act--the 1986 bombing of a passenger plane over Lockerbie, Scotland. He neglected to report that there were 270 deaths involved in the attack though.
Gaddafi wasn't just "accused of terrorism". He has been linked to terrorists and terrorism for more than 30 years.
The major media outlets are really stubborn. In the past two days, freedom fighters set off two chlorine bombs in Iraq, killing at least eight and wounding many, bringing the total bombings involving chlorine gas to three over the past month. At what point will the mainstream online media call this terrorism or say that terrorists are responsible? In their quest to remain “objective” and "impartial” and not favor the viewpoint or side of the US, the media seem to bend over backwards to avoid appearing biased. Even though crude chemical weapons are the latest addition to the techniques employed to terrorize Iraqis and to the coalition forces and demoralize America, the major online media still refuse to call this “terrorism” or the bombers "terrorists.” Reuters leads the pack with their “neutrality” by calling those behind the bombings the familiar “insurgents” and “militants” and their ability to avoid describing the horrific effects of chlorine gas on humans or what these bombings foreshadow, with CNN.com in a close second.
New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny again spun in a Democrat direction in his coverage of the fierce arguments over non-binding resolutions regarding Bush's troop increase in Iraq. On Thursday, Zeleny claimed: "Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who led the bipartisan resolution against the president’s troop buildup plan, went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to read the letter only two days after siding with Republican leaders on a vote that blocked the debate."
Not that there was any real doubt, when you turned on the news this morning and heard the report that eight men had been arrested in England and charged with plotting terror attacks including the Al-Qaeda style beheading of a police officer, that the suspects were Muslim, but you wouldn't know it from this Reuters report on the arrests.
Any reference to the ethnic or religious origins of the suspects was absent.
In contrast, this Bloomberg report stated that "Sky News [Fox News sister network] said the arrested men were British born of Pakistani origin, while one was Pakistani."
This is really too funny. On Monday, Reuters released the findings of an international ACNielsen Internet poll concerning global warming. As one might imagine, Reuters took the most dire assessments from the study and made them the focus of the piece.
Yet, the most startling conclusions from this survey – that only “50 percent reckoned [global warming] was caused by human activities,” and that “Americans [are] least convinced” about this – were buried deep in the article.
Instead, Reuters led with the following two paragraphs:
It’s always nice to have your father stick up for you, even when you’re 60 years old.
Such was the case when former President George H. W. Bush spoke at a recent reception for a journalism scholarship. As reported by Reuters (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge):
President George W. Bush's father accused the news media of "personal animosity" toward his son and said he found the criticism so unrelenting he sometimes talked back to his television set.
"It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.
It’s safe to assume most NewsBusters readers agree with these sentiments, and will the following:
We all know the face of real terror. Nick Berg getting his head sawed off by a knife wielding Islamist, suicide bombers laying waste to mass transit in Israel, the World Trade Towers collapsing on the morning of 09/11/01. That is real terror.
But, to Reuters, enforcing U.S. immigration laws is terror.
Words like "fearful", "shock", "afraid" and "terrified" are sprinkled all through the article leaving the impression that something mean and violent is occurring to these poor people. One would think that we are rounding up Mexican and Central and South Americans who are in this country illegally and herding them off to torture camps or to some Holocaust redux.
An unbylined report on unemployment claims by the Associated Press is a classic of the genre (bold is mine):
The Labor Department reported Thursday that applications for jobless claims dropped by 26,000 to 299,000 last week on a seasonally adjusted basis. It marked the first time jobless claims have fallen below 300,000 since the week of July 22.
The improvement was much better than the decline of 9,000 that analysts had been expecting and provided further evidence that the slowing U.S. economy has not begun to seriously affect the labor market outside of specific industries such as housing and auto manufacturing.
SLOWING? Did AP ever consider that maybe claims are dropping because the economy may NOT be slowing?
It's not like there is a lack of evidence of continued and probably accelerating growth:
We already know that two of the Reuters' reporters covering Haditha were once imprisoned by Coalition forces for their terrorist ties. Now we hear that Reuters is communicating with Mullah Omar (or one of his reps) via email...
"PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar has added to the mystery over Osama bin Laden, saying he hasn't seen his ally and fellow fugitive since U.S.-backed forces ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan in late 2001. "No, I have neither seen him, nor have I made any effort to do so, but I pray for his health and safety," Omar said in an e-mailed response to questions sent by Reuters. The questions were relayed to Omar through his spokesman Mohammad Hanif, and a reply was received late on Wednesday."
Okay - Reuters has email contact with Mullah Omar, Taliban chief, fugitive, terrorist, etc. and reports it as if it is no big deal. What the heck is wrong with this picture? Where did Reuters get the email address from - Omar's MySpace page? Has Reuters shared this email address with the authorities - i.e. the military hunting for terrorists? Or is the email addy for personal communication only. Which Reuters' employee was involved with the email communication?
Why do we continue to tolerate this blatant terrorist enabling so-called media organization? These journalists are responsible for "telling us the story" from the front of the war on terror. I just didn't realize it was only the terrorists' story they were interested in promoting.
The last paragraph of their Wednesday editorial (my bold) makes the point that the wire service, its defenders, and those who want to see the whole to-do as being about "just one incident," won't see, or won't admit to seeing:
What is clear about all this is that nothing is clear. Maybe there's a Jamil Hussein with the Iraqi police, but he's a sergeant, not a captain. Maybe there's a police captain whose first name is spelled Jamail, not Jamil. Both possibilities have been floated in the blogosphere, but neither has withstood scrutiny.
Editor & Publisher summed it up best when it reported that Jamil Hussein had been lost, then "found," then lost again. Amazing.
Last summer, Reuters, the media outlet that refuses to label terrorists as terrorists, was jolted by the "fauxtography" scandal. Adnan Hajj, a freelance Lebanese photographer, allegedly doctored images of the Israel-Hezbollah war and photographed what appeared to many to be staged scenes of victim rescue and recovery efforts in Qana, a Lebanese village where Israel attacked Hezbollah terrorists. Both were clearly an effort to further inflame a world that had already cast Israel as the villain.
Just as we asked in August if Reuters was "a patsy or collaborator," we wonder the same about the AP. We also wonder if we can trust any AP report from the Middle East. If it can't show us Capt. Jamil Hussein, we're not sure it has anything else we want to see.
This goes to the credibility, and ultimately the business viability, of the entire AP operation.
This is truly amazing - a major media organization with direct ties to major players in an incident in which 8 American soldiers are charged with murder and/or coverup. Yesterday I exposed the background of Majid Hameed, a Reuters reporter who had been incarcerated in Iraq due to questionable terrorist ties. Hameed wrote the Iraqis demanding justice story for Reuters on Friday 12/22.
Today while reviewing the excellent recap of Haditha reporting over at Euphoric Reality, I stumbled across a blurb about another Reuters reporter that was taken into custody along with Majid Hameed. This other Reuters employee's name is Ali Omar Abrahem al-Mashhadani.
Why isn't Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who first broke the "fauxtography" scandal out of Lebanon, among Time's "digital democracy" change agents?
After looking at the weak collection of candidates available to vote for as Time's Person of the Year last week (based on what they did in 2006, which wasn't much), I wrote:
Perhaps YouTube, online forums, blogs, vlogs, podcasts, and online media should be the Thing of the Year: The Shadow Media. Of course, Time would be writing about its own likely eventual demise, but it would fit.
That's essentially what Time has done in its mostly (in my opinion) good decision to name "You" as Person of the Year:
..... for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.
Time named as "You" everyone trying to influence the world just a bit from their keyboard. That would include, to a miniscule degree, yours truly, and, again of course, many people who are reading this post.
Oh-so-predictably, two of the three "hard-news" members of the magazine's "15 citizens of the digital democracy" are influencers from the left side; none are from the right -- sorry, libs, a milblogger is not presumptively "conservative" (direct links may not work unless you have already visited Time's web site):
When the "six burning Sunnis" story hit the blogosphere, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal wrote that bloggers had "turned over a rock" at the Associated Press.
In his Best of the Web column today, Taranto turns over a rock himself and discovers a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News trying to scurry away from the light. Will Bunch is upset that conservative bloggers, the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, and CENTCOM blew the whistle on the AP's story.
Now comes the flap over a mosque attack in Baghdad, and a dispute over the news account -- trumpted [sic] on this Daily News front page at top -- that six Sunni worshippers were burned alive. This Huffington Post post does a good job of breaking down the mixed signals on whether this event really happened as reported by the AP. It's clear to me that a) The AP based its article on information from a trusted and previously reliable source, which is no guarantee of avoiding an error but is also the proven and accepted way all over the world that journalists gather news and b) even if the report were wrong, and I'm not convinced that it is, it was in the context of horrific -- and demonstrably true -- escalating violence in Baghdad.