Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is releasing a statement of condemnation regarding the violent attack on the home and family of CNN host Lou Dobbs, which Mr. Dobbs revealed on his show yesterday.
"The attack on the Dobbs family home was an attack on every American who values the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press," said William Gheen of ALIPAC.
Lou Dobbs reported on his talk radio show that a gun was fired into his home only fifteen feet away from his wife and possibly their driver. It is unclear if this was a failed assassination attempt or not.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC plans to contact police authorities and offer a $5,000 reward for any information leading to the arrest and successful prosecution of the culprits. ALIPAC is also calling on groups like Media Matters, La Raza, and others to stop their numerous false claims that Lou Dobbs, or any American individual or organization opposing illegal immigration, is racist and threatening physical harm against "immigrants".
This act of violence against the popular CNN commentator is likely to have a dramatic effect against the passage of Amnesty legislation.
"That bullet into the Dobbs family home just killed any chance of Comprehensive Amnesty for illegal aliens passing by 2010," said Gheen. "Almost every organization and leader fighting against illegal immigration and Amnesty is receiving a steady stream of death threats due to the false portrayals by these radical pro-illegal alien groups. Every American and member of the media needs to put their foot down and put a stop to this kind of violence evoking propaganda. I have a box full of such threats as do the others."
Groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti Defamation League, National Council of La Raza, Media Matters, MALDEF, LULAC, Immigration Voice, and others have been aggressively distorting the truth about Lou Dobbs and every organization that shares a stance against illegal immigration and amnesty, which is popular with approximately 80% of all Americans. The Spanish media often exaggerates these false claims even further to create fear and political support in Spanish media markets that would collapse if illegal immigration stopped.
These groups seek to portray anyone against illegal immigration as being in false association with the KKK, Neo Nazis, and violence against minorities and immigrants. They do this because less than 15% of Americans support their pro-illegal immigration and pro-Amnesty positions so they focus on demonizing those who resent the popular view like Lou Dobbs. They have made such accusations against blacks, Hispanics, and multi-racial groups with civil rights support backgrounds like ALIPAC!
ALIPAC has launched a video on Youtube that contains the full audio from Lou Dobbs's radio show describing the attack on his home and the gunfire. Every American citizen and member of the media that values their freedoms should view this video.
Video: Shot Fired Into Home of Lou Dobbs of CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjbgk1TKLWY
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More Fox News advertisors to support...
Garmin
Nuvifone
AT&T
Bush's Baked Beans
Quattro Sport Audi
Fidelity
Easy Water
Glass Doctor
Constant Contact
Regenerist (Oil of Olay)
UPS
BDO
Us Factor (to help your marriage...)
T.Rowe Price
Maaco
Comcast Business
I think BO and friends are going to go after the businesses that advertise on Fox News, if they haven't already. We have to let the advertisors know we're watching and supporting their businesses.
Nuvifone
AT&T
Bush's Baked Beans
Quattro Sport Audi
Fidelity
Easy Water
Glass Doctor
Constant Contact
Regenerist (Oil of Olay)
UPS
BDO
Us Factor (to help your marriage...)
T.Rowe Price
Maaco
Comcast Business
I think BO and friends are going to go after the businesses that advertise on Fox News, if they haven't already. We have to let the advertisors know we're watching and supporting their businesses.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Charles Krauthammer: Fox Wars
The Obama administration wants to delegitimize any significant dissent.
Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster.
Now he’s put a horse’s head in Roger Ailes’s bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn’t scare easily.
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is “opinion journalism masquerading as news.” Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox “not really a news station.” And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to “be led (by) and following Fox.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhZGQxYzVmMjU4NjY3NTIwMWFjMDQ0ZjJlODM0MzA=
My comments:
If the White House succeeds in isolating, hurting, maiming, destroying Fox News, freedom of the press will become a misnomer, a joke, a thing of the past. The actions of the White House show very clearly the direction they're taking this country and it ain't where the majority of us want to go.
Personally, for the first time ever I'm now watching commercials on Fox. I plan to take my dollars to the places that advertise on the NEWS station.
This morning I saw:
Chase
Regions Bank
Dr. Blaine's scar stuff
Campbell's Soup (mmmm mmmm good)
V8 (haven't bought any in a while, but it's on the grocery list)
Chevy / GMC (sorry, no car purchases on the horizon)
Aflac (does it count if I have one of the ducks plush thingy's???)
Michigan Economic Development (Jeff Daniels commercial)
I'll list more later as I watch... Support the companies that stick with Fox. You know darn well that Obama and friends are pressuring companies to stop advertising on the station... either openly or subtly.
- bcm
Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster.
Now he’s put a horse’s head in Roger Ailes’s bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn’t scare easily.
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is “opinion journalism masquerading as news.” Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox “not really a news station.” And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to “be led (by) and following Fox.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhZGQxYzVmMjU4NjY3NTIwMWFjMDQ0ZjJlODM0MzA=
My comments:
If the White House succeeds in isolating, hurting, maiming, destroying Fox News, freedom of the press will become a misnomer, a joke, a thing of the past. The actions of the White House show very clearly the direction they're taking this country and it ain't where the majority of us want to go.
Personally, for the first time ever I'm now watching commercials on Fox. I plan to take my dollars to the places that advertise on the NEWS station.
This morning I saw:
Chase
Regions Bank
Dr. Blaine's scar stuff
Campbell's Soup (mmmm mmmm good)
V8 (haven't bought any in a while, but it's on the grocery list)
Chevy / GMC (sorry, no car purchases on the horizon)
Aflac (does it count if I have one of the ducks plush thingy's???)
Michigan Economic Development (Jeff Daniels commercial)
I'll list more later as I watch... Support the companies that stick with Fox. You know darn well that Obama and friends are pressuring companies to stop advertising on the station... either openly or subtly.
- bcm
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns
Great article... and from NPR no less!
The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.
"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113968738
The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.
"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113968738
Friday, October 16, 2009
Southern Crescent Tea Party Update re: Takin' it to the doors of CNN
American citizens outraged by President Obama and the actions of Congress have set their sights on a new target - the so-called mainstream media - with tea-party protests now set to take place in front of more than 30 press offices across the U.S. on October 17. Folks in Atlanta, Georgia will visit the CNN Center, One CNN Center, corner of Marietta Street and Centennial Olympic Park Drive from 12:00 to 2:00 PM. This is being coordinated by the 912 Project. For details, go to 912 Project.com.
We expect that due to the multiple events scheduled in Atlanta that day, parking will be at a premium. Please consider riding Marta.
The Southern Crescent Tea Party Patriots are planning to depart from the (former) Kroger parking lot on Hwy 54, departing at 9:30 A.M. on Saturday to carpool to the College Park Marta. [Woody Eturralde is the member who is the point of contact. His number is 678-525-7222 (please call after 7:00 PM.) His email is all4urservice@yahoo.com. ] Please tie a red ribbon on your car antenna to help find other Patriots!
For those who don't want to meet at the Kroger in Peachtree City, please plan to meet at the College Park Marta station at 10:15, to depart at 10:30. This will give people time to get downtown, meet at the Tabernacle, then walk down to the CNN center and be numbered. The event actually starts at 12:00, but the 912 folks are numbering everyone, so the media can't distort the turnout!
Wear comfortable shoes, take food and water as it will be a long day! Be careful what you us on signage - attack policies, not people! See you there!
We expect that due to the multiple events scheduled in Atlanta that day, parking will be at a premium. Please consider riding Marta.
The Southern Crescent Tea Party Patriots are planning to depart from the (former) Kroger parking lot on Hwy 54, departing at 9:30 A.M. on Saturday to carpool to the College Park Marta. [Woody Eturralde is the member who is the point of contact. His number is 678-525-7222 (please call after 7:00 PM.) His email is all4urservice@yahoo.com. ] Please tie a red ribbon on your car antenna to help find other Patriots!
For those who don't want to meet at the Kroger in Peachtree City, please plan to meet at the College Park Marta station at 10:15, to depart at 10:30. This will give people time to get downtown, meet at the Tabernacle, then walk down to the CNN center and be numbered. The event actually starts at 12:00, but the 912 folks are numbering everyone, so the media can't distort the turnout!
Wear comfortable shoes, take food and water as it will be a long day! Be careful what you us on signage - attack policies, not people! See you there!
CNN the "real" news organization...
This morning I'm walking on the treadmill, watching Fox News and a commercial happened... So, I decide to flip stations rather than sit through what's now three minutes of advertising (which I completely support, understand and encourage, except three minutes is way, way too long to wait for more news... oops, sorry, I meant to say Republican propaganda. My bad.).
Anyway, instead of channeling up like I normally do, I go downward and come upon CNN. You know, the station the White House, through mouthpiece Anita Dunn, says is real news as opposed to Fox?
On Fox News the topics of the morning included health care, spending, the kid who they thought flew off in the experimental air balloon, etc.
On CNN? I was treated to real news. Yep, I sat through a minute or two of their story on a woman who had a heart attack and then had an out of body experience. Ya know, it was like she floated outside her body and could see everything that was going on...
That's about as much as I could take of the White House's "real" news station. I flipped away from the woo-woo stuff (not that I completely discount it, I've read tons of books in my days about similar experiences...) and went back to the frivolous stuff they stick on Fox.
If you've had or are having an out-of-body experience, contact CNN. You are news.
Anyway, instead of channeling up like I normally do, I go downward and come upon CNN. You know, the station the White House, through mouthpiece Anita Dunn, says is real news as opposed to Fox?
On Fox News the topics of the morning included health care, spending, the kid who they thought flew off in the experimental air balloon, etc.
On CNN? I was treated to real news. Yep, I sat through a minute or two of their story on a woman who had a heart attack and then had an out of body experience. Ya know, it was like she floated outside her body and could see everything that was going on...
That's about as much as I could take of the White House's "real" news station. I flipped away from the woo-woo stuff (not that I completely discount it, I've read tons of books in my days about similar experiences...) and went back to the frivolous stuff they stick on Fox.
If you've had or are having an out-of-body experience, contact CNN. You are news.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Cutting and Editing to Twist and Turn
I was over perusing the videos at Breitbart.tv and came across the one below. Jon Stewart takes a bit by one of the Fox News reporters, clips off the beginning and turns what the reporter said into something totally different. In fact, completely opposite.
Stewart can technically get away with it because he purports his program to be comedy. However, unfortunate as it may be, many of those viewing his program think it's real news with a humorous twist. They believe him. That's the only form of news they see or hear.
Another unfortunate fact is that more people are going to see, and believe, Jon Stewart's snippet than will ever see, or believe, what really occurred.
We're getting it from every direction aren't we? The only way we're going to have an effect on mainstream media is if we band together and stop watching it. Turn off the television. At a minimum boycott MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and their ilk. We can force them to pay attention if we hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. If we can decrease their ratings, we can force them to hire more objective reporters.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution, liberal through and through, just let the most liberal writer go. Why? They're down sizing, but Cynthia Tucker has been a mainstay. I firmly believe it's because they're realizing that the readership in Georgia is more conservative. They can't sell papers. They're hurting bad. To boost readership they will have to move more to the middle, hence the firing of Tucker. If they keep going, I may actually buy a copy. If they go far enough, I might subscribe. They have a long way to go, but it's a first step.
I invite you to join me in boycotting the liberal media. It's not that hard to wean yourself from the programming offered on those stations!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_i3MgfRNqc&feature=player_embedded (if the video doesn't work for some reason)
Stewart can technically get away with it because he purports his program to be comedy. However, unfortunate as it may be, many of those viewing his program think it's real news with a humorous twist. They believe him. That's the only form of news they see or hear.
Another unfortunate fact is that more people are going to see, and believe, Jon Stewart's snippet than will ever see, or believe, what really occurred.
We're getting it from every direction aren't we? The only way we're going to have an effect on mainstream media is if we band together and stop watching it. Turn off the television. At a minimum boycott MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and their ilk. We can force them to pay attention if we hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. If we can decrease their ratings, we can force them to hire more objective reporters.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution, liberal through and through, just let the most liberal writer go. Why? They're down sizing, but Cynthia Tucker has been a mainstay. I firmly believe it's because they're realizing that the readership in Georgia is more conservative. They can't sell papers. They're hurting bad. To boost readership they will have to move more to the middle, hence the firing of Tucker. If they keep going, I may actually buy a copy. If they go far enough, I might subscribe. They have a long way to go, but it's a first step.
I invite you to join me in boycotting the liberal media. It's not that hard to wean yourself from the programming offered on those stations!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_i3MgfRNqc&feature=player_embedded (if the video doesn't work for some reason)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
TimesWatch Tracker
Amazing Omissions in Times Interview of Barney Frank
A Times writer manages to talk to Barney Frank about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and an SNL skit without bringing up a single challenging question.
Free-Market Radical From Czech Republic "Embarrasses" EU Again
Once again, the Times chides a Czech Republic leader's infuriating embrace of free-market principles.
Striving to Paint a More Positive Picture of a Cop-Killer
Lovelle Mixon killed four Oakland police officers -- but was he also a victim of the California penal system?
www.timeswatch.org
A Times writer manages to talk to Barney Frank about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and an SNL skit without bringing up a single challenging question.
Free-Market Radical From Czech Republic "Embarrasses" EU Again
Once again, the Times chides a Czech Republic leader's infuriating embrace of free-market principles.
Striving to Paint a More Positive Picture of a Cop-Killer
Lovelle Mixon killed four Oakland police officers -- but was he also a victim of the California penal system?
www.timeswatch.org
Recent articles from BoycottNYT.com
NY Times’ Latest Service at Altar of Obama
By Don Feder Wednesday March 25, 2009
In a mainstream media with a mad crush on the messiah in the White House, none can come close to matching the adoration of The New York Times.
Times Radiates Optimism on Regulation of Executive Pay
By Don Feder Monday March 23, 2009
When it comes to forging new frontiers of statism and savaging the free market, The New York Times has a ho-hum, what's-the-big-deal attitude.
What The Times and AP Won’t Tell You About The UN’s Gay Rights Resolution
By Don Feder Friday March 20, 2009
By uncritically publishing an Associated Press report on the Obama administration's decision to support a United Nations statement on "gay rights," The New York Times once again told only part of the story -- the part that suited its purposes.
Jerry Newcombe, WAFT Ft Lauderdale
By
Don Feder discusses New York Times columnist Frank Rich's assertion that social conservatism is dying on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe on WAFG in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [audio:http://boycottnyt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2009-03-20-vocal-point-w-jerry-newcombe.mp3] Click above to play or you can download the MP3.
Hamilton A Judical “Moderate,” According To NY Times
By Don Feder Wednesday March 18, 2009
An article in yesterday's New York Times hails District Court Judge David F. Hamilton -- likely to be Obama's first nominee for the U.S. Appeals Court -- as a "moderate."
By Don Feder Wednesday March 25, 2009
In a mainstream media with a mad crush on the messiah in the White House, none can come close to matching the adoration of The New York Times.
Times Radiates Optimism on Regulation of Executive Pay
By Don Feder Monday March 23, 2009
When it comes to forging new frontiers of statism and savaging the free market, The New York Times has a ho-hum, what's-the-big-deal attitude.
What The Times and AP Won’t Tell You About The UN’s Gay Rights Resolution
By Don Feder Friday March 20, 2009
By uncritically publishing an Associated Press report on the Obama administration's decision to support a United Nations statement on "gay rights," The New York Times once again told only part of the story -- the part that suited its purposes.
Jerry Newcombe, WAFT Ft Lauderdale
By
Don Feder discusses New York Times columnist Frank Rich's assertion that social conservatism is dying on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe on WAFG in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [audio:http://boycottnyt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2009-03-20-vocal-point-w-jerry-newcombe.mp3] Click above to play or you can download the MP3.
Hamilton A Judical “Moderate,” According To NY Times
By Don Feder Wednesday March 18, 2009
An article in yesterday's New York Times hails District Court Judge David F. Hamilton -- likely to be Obama's first nominee for the U.S. Appeals Court -- as a "moderate."
Monday, March 16, 2009
Roberts Tosses Softballs to Michelle Obama; Hostile to Laura Bush
Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts conducted a two part, almost 11 minute interview with Michelle Obama which aired on Friday that avoided tough questions and consisted almost entirely of softballs. This included reading e-mails from the audience, such as "What does she [the First Lady] do for relaxation in the evening, away from the public?" and also "...How can she stay so positive about the economy?"
This is quite a contrast to some of the queries Laura Bush had to deal with when she was First Lady. On October 22, 2007, the very same Roberts quoted Archbishop Desmond Tutu to Mrs. Bush: "Desmond Tutu went even farther, saying the generosity of Americans, that's what we should export instead of our bombs." She also informed Mrs. Bush of the assertion by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that America "should export hope instead of fear." See an October 23, 2007 CyberAlert posting for more: www.mrc.org
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
The 2007 interview with the President's wife was part of a trip that Roberts took with Mrs. Bush to the Middle East. The First Lady was on a tour through the area to promote breast cancer awareness. In a follow up interview with a Middle East woman who had suffered from the affliction, Roberts skeptically asked: "Does it help with Mrs. Bush and the United States coming here?...Or is it seen as, 'Okay, the Americans are, again, trying to force something on us?'"
Roberts showed no such skepticism with the issue that Mrs. Obama is currently championing: more government support for military members and their families. Speaking of an event in North Carolina, the ABC host enthused: "The First Lady was greeted by Fort Bragg like a rock star."
Now, certainly, helping military families is a laudable goal. But, even on this issue, there are actual tough questions that Roberts could have asked. For instance, CNN reported the following on March 10:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
...
Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.
See: www.cnn.com
Considering that Mrs. Obama says she wants to make military families a top priority, wouldn't this be a relevant issue to bring up? The only query that was vaguely challenging was when Roberts speculated: "Your husband has really had to hit the ground running with all the issues that are facing our country right now. One criticism has been, too much, too fast."
Another example of the difference between the questions to Democratic and Republican first ladies occurred on the November 30, 2005 GMA. Reporter Jessica Yellin exploited a segment supposedly on White House Christmas cards to grill Laura Bush. She quizzed, "Have you ever met with a mother whose own loss has made you question, even for a moment, whether the U.S. should be in Iraq?" See A December 1, 2005 CyberAlert posting for more: www.mrc.org
Certainly, Michelle Obama received no such hard hitting challenges from Good Morning America.
A transcript of the first GMA segment, which aired at 7:02am on March 13, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: But, we do begin with our exclusive interview with Michelle Obama. Her first television interview since becoming first lady. Now, a recent poll shows 69 percent of Americans view her favorably, which may have something to do with her ambitious agenda that she set for herself. From promoting healthy food to advocating for working parents to, perhaps, her top priority, supporting military families. And that is what she wanted to talk about. We were there yesterday, as he made her first major trip as first lady, to visit with military families at Fort Bragg, in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The first lady was greeted by Fort Bragg like a rock star. The military men and women tangibly excited by her visit.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It was fantastic! It was wonderful! I'm just glad to be an American!
ROBERTS: Even as she made her way over to come talk to me, there was one more picture to be taken. One more person to hug. And when we tried to chat, well, you can see what happened. You are quickly finding your sea legs as first lady.
MICHELLE OBAMA: You know? You know? We've talked before.
ROBERTS: Yeah, we have.
OBAMA: I'm still just trying to be me. And if I am still being genuinely me, it's easy for me to find my legs because it's just me being me here in Fort Bragg. I just happen to be the first lady now.
ROBERTS: And that's how you look at it, don't you? That's the only thing that's really changed. Look at this, though. [People cheering her from another room.] But for all the cheers, the first lady is here on serious business. This is her first official trip outside of Washington. And she chose the occasion to highlight an issue near and dear to her heart, the struggle of our nation's military families.
OBAMA: I think I have the fun part.
ROBERTS: How's that?
OBAMA: Well, you know, the things I do are universally popular and important. And it's very easy to rally a nation around military families.
ROBERTS: Sure.
OBAMA: You know? It's not a hard thing to do. People understand it, once the issue is brought to their attention. And they're ready to do whatever they can.
ROBERTS: This is your first trip outside of D.C. Why?
OBAMA: You know, this- this is an important issue for me. And it started taking shape on the campaign trail. I think I was like most Americans. Pretty oblivious to the life of military families. Sort of taking it for granted. I just assumed that if we care about our troops and we send them to war, that, naturally, we'd be taking care of their families. I don't think most of us know that many military families are moving multiple times over the course of a child's lifetime. And every time they move, the spouse has to worry about whether she can find a job at the pay rate that she left the last job. Or whether the spouse can finish his education. Will his credits transfer? And will they have access to decent and quality child care at the next facility that they're located in? And how are families living? Some of whom are young enlisted who are living right at the poverty line because the pay isn't enough. These are things that I wasn't aware that was going on.
ROBERTS: You are married to the commander in chief. And a woman says, I'm on food stamps.
OBAMA: Uh-huh.
ROBERTS: How does that make you feel when you hear that?
OBAMA: You know- It hurts. It hurts. You know, these are people who are willing to send their loved ones off to, perhaps, give their lives, the ultimate sacrifice. But, yet, they're living back at home on food stamps. It's not right. And it's not where we should be as a nation. That's why one of the things that Barack has done in this current budget is put money in there to increase the pay of military by 2.9 percent, which is only a down payment on what we need t do. But even small percentages are going to make the difference in some people's lives. So, that hurts. You know, that's the kind of thing that I don't think anyone in this nation, if they were aware, would tolerate. You know, if we're going to continue to have a strong military, we don't- we have to continue to recruit and retain families. And what we have to realize is that you're not just recruiting a soldier. You're not just trying to retain an individual troop. You're trying to retain that family. And if- when it's time to reenlist they look around and they can't find a life for themselves, you know, I can assure you that spouse will say, "Let's go. Let's call it a day. Let's pull down our tent and move on to something else." And we lose support that we desperately need as a nation.
ROBERTS: Your husband has really had to hit the ground running with all the issues that are facing our country right now. One criticism has been, too much, too fast.
OBAMA: There are also people say he's not doing enough. You know? So, I think that's part of the process. You know, we're at a time when we're going to have to try a lot of things. Some of it won't- some of them won't work. Some of them will. I think right now people understand that we're going to all have to work together and make a set of sacrifices. And they have faith, as I do, that our current commander in chief will see us through these times.
ROBERTS: We asked our audience to allow some questions. And one that they asked, it says, Robin, please ask Mrs. Obama, how can she stay so positive about the economy?
OBAMA: Because I believe in this nation. And I believe in my husband. Those are two things. I wouldn't want anybody but Barack Obama to be working at this time, because he is a focused, clear-thinking, rational man. And that's what we need right now. But, I got to travel around this country for two years. And people are decent. And they're ready to work. People aren't looking for a handout. You know? They just want a fair shake. And that's a good place to start as a nation, when you're trying to move to the next level as a society. So, I- you know, I've got faith in us as a nation.
ROBERTS: Mrs. Obama has not finalized her agenda as first lady. But she does know military families will play a major role in that.
OBAMA: That makes sense. They are largely forgotten, as she said. And a huge need there.
ROBERTS: We spent the majority of the time talking about that yesterday. But, we also, we'll see this later coming up. New details on how the kids are adjusting to life inside their new home. Have they popped into the Oval Office at all?
OBAMA: Oh, yeah.
ROBERTS: We always remember those iconic pictures of the Kennedy kids.
OBAMA: They've done their popping.
ROBERTS: They haven't broken anything in the house have they, yet?
OBAMA: No. We've had some guests who have broken things. But not the kids. And they know who they are.
From the Medica Research Center, A usually-daily report, edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert is distributed by the Media Research Center, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
This is quite a contrast to some of the queries Laura Bush had to deal with when she was First Lady. On October 22, 2007, the very same Roberts quoted Archbishop Desmond Tutu to Mrs. Bush: "Desmond Tutu went even farther, saying the generosity of Americans, that's what we should export instead of our bombs." She also informed Mrs. Bush of the assertion by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that America "should export hope instead of fear." See an October 23, 2007 CyberAlert posting for more: www.mrc.org
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
The 2007 interview with the President's wife was part of a trip that Roberts took with Mrs. Bush to the Middle East. The First Lady was on a tour through the area to promote breast cancer awareness. In a follow up interview with a Middle East woman who had suffered from the affliction, Roberts skeptically asked: "Does it help with Mrs. Bush and the United States coming here?...Or is it seen as, 'Okay, the Americans are, again, trying to force something on us?'"
Roberts showed no such skepticism with the issue that Mrs. Obama is currently championing: more government support for military members and their families. Speaking of an event in North Carolina, the ABC host enthused: "The First Lady was greeted by Fort Bragg like a rock star."
Now, certainly, helping military families is a laudable goal. But, even on this issue, there are actual tough questions that Roberts could have asked. For instance, CNN reported the following on March 10:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
...
Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.
See: www.cnn.com
Considering that Mrs. Obama says she wants to make military families a top priority, wouldn't this be a relevant issue to bring up? The only query that was vaguely challenging was when Roberts speculated: "Your husband has really had to hit the ground running with all the issues that are facing our country right now. One criticism has been, too much, too fast."
Another example of the difference between the questions to Democratic and Republican first ladies occurred on the November 30, 2005 GMA. Reporter Jessica Yellin exploited a segment supposedly on White House Christmas cards to grill Laura Bush. She quizzed, "Have you ever met with a mother whose own loss has made you question, even for a moment, whether the U.S. should be in Iraq?" See A December 1, 2005 CyberAlert posting for more: www.mrc.org
Certainly, Michelle Obama received no such hard hitting challenges from Good Morning America.
A transcript of the first GMA segment, which aired at 7:02am on March 13, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: But, we do begin with our exclusive interview with Michelle Obama. Her first television interview since becoming first lady. Now, a recent poll shows 69 percent of Americans view her favorably, which may have something to do with her ambitious agenda that she set for herself. From promoting healthy food to advocating for working parents to, perhaps, her top priority, supporting military families. And that is what she wanted to talk about. We were there yesterday, as he made her first major trip as first lady, to visit with military families at Fort Bragg, in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The first lady was greeted by Fort Bragg like a rock star. The military men and women tangibly excited by her visit.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It was fantastic! It was wonderful! I'm just glad to be an American!
ROBERTS: Even as she made her way over to come talk to me, there was one more picture to be taken. One more person to hug. And when we tried to chat, well, you can see what happened. You are quickly finding your sea legs as first lady.
MICHELLE OBAMA: You know? You know? We've talked before.
ROBERTS: Yeah, we have.
OBAMA: I'm still just trying to be me. And if I am still being genuinely me, it's easy for me to find my legs because it's just me being me here in Fort Bragg. I just happen to be the first lady now.
ROBERTS: And that's how you look at it, don't you? That's the only thing that's really changed. Look at this, though. [People cheering her from another room.] But for all the cheers, the first lady is here on serious business. This is her first official trip outside of Washington. And she chose the occasion to highlight an issue near and dear to her heart, the struggle of our nation's military families.
OBAMA: I think I have the fun part.
ROBERTS: How's that?
OBAMA: Well, you know, the things I do are universally popular and important. And it's very easy to rally a nation around military families.
ROBERTS: Sure.
OBAMA: You know? It's not a hard thing to do. People understand it, once the issue is brought to their attention. And they're ready to do whatever they can.
ROBERTS: This is your first trip outside of D.C. Why?
OBAMA: You know, this- this is an important issue for me. And it started taking shape on the campaign trail. I think I was like most Americans. Pretty oblivious to the life of military families. Sort of taking it for granted. I just assumed that if we care about our troops and we send them to war, that, naturally, we'd be taking care of their families. I don't think most of us know that many military families are moving multiple times over the course of a child's lifetime. And every time they move, the spouse has to worry about whether she can find a job at the pay rate that she left the last job. Or whether the spouse can finish his education. Will his credits transfer? And will they have access to decent and quality child care at the next facility that they're located in? And how are families living? Some of whom are young enlisted who are living right at the poverty line because the pay isn't enough. These are things that I wasn't aware that was going on.
ROBERTS: You are married to the commander in chief. And a woman says, I'm on food stamps.
OBAMA: Uh-huh.
ROBERTS: How does that make you feel when you hear that?
OBAMA: You know- It hurts. It hurts. You know, these are people who are willing to send their loved ones off to, perhaps, give their lives, the ultimate sacrifice. But, yet, they're living back at home on food stamps. It's not right. And it's not where we should be as a nation. That's why one of the things that Barack has done in this current budget is put money in there to increase the pay of military by 2.9 percent, which is only a down payment on what we need t do. But even small percentages are going to make the difference in some people's lives. So, that hurts. You know, that's the kind of thing that I don't think anyone in this nation, if they were aware, would tolerate. You know, if we're going to continue to have a strong military, we don't- we have to continue to recruit and retain families. And what we have to realize is that you're not just recruiting a soldier. You're not just trying to retain an individual troop. You're trying to retain that family. And if- when it's time to reenlist they look around and they can't find a life for themselves, you know, I can assure you that spouse will say, "Let's go. Let's call it a day. Let's pull down our tent and move on to something else." And we lose support that we desperately need as a nation.
ROBERTS: Your husband has really had to hit the ground running with all the issues that are facing our country right now. One criticism has been, too much, too fast.
OBAMA: There are also people say he's not doing enough. You know? So, I think that's part of the process. You know, we're at a time when we're going to have to try a lot of things. Some of it won't- some of them won't work. Some of them will. I think right now people understand that we're going to all have to work together and make a set of sacrifices. And they have faith, as I do, that our current commander in chief will see us through these times.
ROBERTS: We asked our audience to allow some questions. And one that they asked, it says, Robin, please ask Mrs. Obama, how can she stay so positive about the economy?
OBAMA: Because I believe in this nation. And I believe in my husband. Those are two things. I wouldn't want anybody but Barack Obama to be working at this time, because he is a focused, clear-thinking, rational man. And that's what we need right now. But, I got to travel around this country for two years. And people are decent. And they're ready to work. People aren't looking for a handout. You know? They just want a fair shake. And that's a good place to start as a nation, when you're trying to move to the next level as a society. So, I- you know, I've got faith in us as a nation.
ROBERTS: Mrs. Obama has not finalized her agenda as first lady. But she does know military families will play a major role in that.
OBAMA: That makes sense. They are largely forgotten, as she said. And a huge need there.
ROBERTS: We spent the majority of the time talking about that yesterday. But, we also, we'll see this later coming up. New details on how the kids are adjusting to life inside their new home. Have they popped into the Oval Office at all?
OBAMA: Oh, yeah.
ROBERTS: We always remember those iconic pictures of the Kennedy kids.
OBAMA: They've done their popping.
ROBERTS: They haven't broken anything in the house have they, yet?
OBAMA: No. We've had some guests who have broken things. But not the kids. And they know who they are.
From the Medica Research Center, A usually-daily report, edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert is distributed by the Media Research Center, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Times Watch Tracker
GOP Senator Bunning "Bit of a Screwball," May Be Mentally Unfit
More classy commentary from reporter Mark Leibovich on controversial conservative Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky: "...Mr. Bunning has shown no sign of stepping aside and delivered a string of incendiary pronouncements that have fed an impression that he is, to go with a baseball metaphor, a bit of a screwball."
"Obama Administration" vs. "The Government"
When bad news hits, does the Times shift responsibility from Barack Obama to place the blame on that more generic institution "the government"?
The Times Finds Bias in the Academy -- Against Liberals?
Patricia Cohen locates the one academic discipline where conservatives have some voice -- the economics department -- and criticizes it for lack of balance.
More classy commentary from reporter Mark Leibovich on controversial conservative Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky: "...Mr. Bunning has shown no sign of stepping aside and delivered a string of incendiary pronouncements that have fed an impression that he is, to go with a baseball metaphor, a bit of a screwball."
"Obama Administration" vs. "The Government"
When bad news hits, does the Times shift responsibility from Barack Obama to place the blame on that more generic institution "the government"?
The Times Finds Bias in the Academy -- Against Liberals?
Patricia Cohen locates the one academic discipline where conservatives have some voice -- the economics department -- and criticizes it for lack of balance.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Iseman Calls Times "Out of Control" on False McCain Affair Story
Iseman Calls Times "Out of Control" on False McCain Affair Story
Iseman on the NYT's pursuit of false affair allegations: "I think they became so invested in this I believe that they would have had to have believed in the beginning that this was true....they just could not, for some reason, walk away."
(From Times Watch Tracker, www.timeswatch.org)
Iseman on the NYT's pursuit of false affair allegations: "I think they became so invested in this I believe that they would have had to have believed in the beginning that this was true....they just could not, for some reason, walk away."
(From Times Watch Tracker, www.timeswatch.org)
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Recent articles from BoycottNYT.com
Times Picture Worth 1,000 Words of BiasBy Don Feder Friday February 27, 2009 The New York Times ran a picture in yesterday's paper that's a classic illustration of how to slant the news with a carefully staged photograph.
In Covering Obama, The Times Doesn’t Probe, It PuffsBy Don Feder Wednesday February 25, 2009 Editors of The New York Times should be drawing salaries from the White House for writing press releases camouflaged as news coverage.
Times Won’t Report That Suspect In Chandra Levy Murder Is An Illegal AlienBy Don Feder Monday February 23, 2009 An article in the Sunday New York Times notes that authorities are about to make an arrest in the 7-year-old murder case of former Washington intern Chandra Levy. It omitted the most important detail.
Times Glosses Over Kansas Gov’s Radical Pro-Abortion RecordBy Don Feder Thursday February 19, 2009 In a story today on President Obama's likely choice of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services, The New York Times glossed over the nominee's radical pro-abortion record in two sentences: "One issue that could draw attention is her stance on abortion. A Roman Catholic who says abortion's wrong, Ms. Sebelius vetoed a bill requiring clinics to report information on why a late-term abortion was performed, drawing the condemnation of the archbishop of Kansas City, Kan."
Times Asserts Americans Want Bigger GovernmentBy Don Feder Tuesday February 17, 2009 One of The New York Times' favorite techniques for indoctrinating in the guise of news coverage is to casually assert something that advances its agenda and expect readers to take it at face value.
Click here to sign the online petitionto boycott The New York Times.
In Covering Obama, The Times Doesn’t Probe, It PuffsBy Don Feder Wednesday February 25, 2009 Editors of The New York Times should be drawing salaries from the White House for writing press releases camouflaged as news coverage.
Times Won’t Report That Suspect In Chandra Levy Murder Is An Illegal AlienBy Don Feder Monday February 23, 2009 An article in the Sunday New York Times notes that authorities are about to make an arrest in the 7-year-old murder case of former Washington intern Chandra Levy. It omitted the most important detail.
Times Glosses Over Kansas Gov’s Radical Pro-Abortion RecordBy Don Feder Thursday February 19, 2009 In a story today on President Obama's likely choice of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services, The New York Times glossed over the nominee's radical pro-abortion record in two sentences: "One issue that could draw attention is her stance on abortion. A Roman Catholic who says abortion's wrong, Ms. Sebelius vetoed a bill requiring clinics to report information on why a late-term abortion was performed, drawing the condemnation of the archbishop of Kansas City, Kan."
Times Asserts Americans Want Bigger GovernmentBy Don Feder Tuesday February 17, 2009 One of The New York Times' favorite techniques for indoctrinating in the guise of news coverage is to casually assert something that advances its agenda and expect readers to take it at face value.
Click here to sign the online petitionto boycott The New York Times.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Filmmaker says media got it wrong about Gov. Sarah Palin
There's a poll about half-way through the article asking if the media treated Sarah Palin unfairly. I just voted and it's running about 73% on the yes the media dumped on Sarah side. Be sure to go check out the article and vote!
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ziegler-palin-obama-2307912-media-documentary
MISSION VIEJO — John Ziegler is about to release his latest documentary, in which he targets the media for what he considers the character assassination of Gov. Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Ziegler, a documentary film producer and former KFI radio talk show host, will speak to a group of Mission Viejo residents on Sunday about the upcoming film "Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" — an action he calls one of the greatest public injustices of our time.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ziegler-palin-obama-2307912-media-documentary
Hat tip to Tina on www.weneedsarah.org (or .com) for sharing this article. Could have come from the We Need Sarah Yahoo group, they're affiliated.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ziegler-palin-obama-2307912-media-documentary
MISSION VIEJO — John Ziegler is about to release his latest documentary, in which he targets the media for what he considers the character assassination of Gov. Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Ziegler, a documentary film producer and former KFI radio talk show host, will speak to a group of Mission Viejo residents on Sunday about the upcoming film "Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" — an action he calls one of the greatest public injustices of our time.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ziegler-palin-obama-2307912-media-documentary
Hat tip to Tina on www.weneedsarah.org (or .com) for sharing this article. Could have come from the We Need Sarah Yahoo group, they're affiliated.
Obama 'Grabbed Center,' Jindal 'Far Right,' 'Micro-Cosmic' Chat?
I probably just should have posted the entire Media Research Center email update, there's only two more articles left to read! I strongly urge everyone to visit and sign up for these updates. Good stuff.
Obama 'Grabbed Center,' Jindal 'Far Right,' 'Micro-Cosmic' Chat?
Some of the odd and/or noteworthy takes in television coverage following President Barack Obama's Tuesday night address to a joint session of Congress:
- On MSNBC, Chris Matthews predicted "we're going to hear a fairly right-wing speech tonight," from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in response to Obama, because "the only position left in America right now politically that he's left open is on the far right, and Bobby Jindal is headed for it," along with Sarah Palin, since "Barack has grabbed the center with the charm he showed tonight in his excellent rhetoric."
- ABC's Charles Gibson, who like his broadcast network colleagues refrained from labeling Obama or his speech as liberal, introduced Jindal with an ideological tag: "He is a very conservative Republican and you'll hear that reflected, I think, in his remarks tonight."
- On CBS, Katie Couric reacted to Obama's speech with some strange "cosmic" analogies, touting how Obama had succeeded in his effort to "really connect the dots, in a way, to explain to people that micro-cosmically this will help them, this is just not a national macro-cosmic plan for the economy."
- Couric's colleague Jeff Greenfield hailed how "this was actually a fireside chat. This is what I found so fascinating" as "it reminded me, in some sense, of the radio speeches FDR gave where he talked about complicated issues in simple ways."
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted late Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Matthews did at least acknowledge that in his speech Obama was saying "I'm a left of center President" and Olbermann echoed how Obama plans to fix things "in a left-wing, in a liberal fashion."
The closest anyone on ABC, CBS or NBC got to labeling Obama came when Couric, following Jindal, observed that the two speeches displayed the "ideological fault line" in today's politics.
Gibson noted, the MRC's Rich Noyes alerted me about the Obama speech, that "this is an expensive speech when you look at it line by line in what he wants to spend."
MSNBC at about 10:15 PM EST, as provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth:
KEITH OLBERMANN: There is still the partisanship that Washington will never get rid of. What can the Republican response be, however, to one in which there seemed to be so many themes? How do you come out against recovering the nation's sense of self and its optimism? How do you come out against words like "boldly," "wisely," "swiftly," and "aggressively"?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Keith, my friend, I think we're going to hear that in a few minutes. I think we're going to hear a very negative speech in terms of what we just heard from Bobby Jindal. Bobby Jindal -- I'll say it as I said before the speech tonight by the President -- is running for the outside rail of the Republican Party, the right-wing rail. He is going to try to offer up a sort of Reaganite government-is-bad, big-spending-is-bad, taxes-are-bad, we got to go spend more money on defense, and we have to keep fighting as many wars on as many fronts as possible. I think we're going to hear a fairly right-wing speech tonight in response to this. I think, although I'll say the spine of his speech was left of center, it was done with such charm and good politics, and, as Rachel and yourself have pointed out, it won a hearty response tonight.
The only position left in America right now politically that he's left open is on the far right, and Bobby Jindal is headed for it. So I think there's a confluence of purpose here. The people running for President on the Republican side already are headed to the right â€" and that includes Governor Palin and Huckabee and this fellow speaking tonight â€" and that's all the room that's left on that side because Barack has grabbed the center with the charm he showed tonight in his excellent rhetoric.
Jeff Greenfield on CBS, shortly after Couric's remarks about the "micro-cosmically" and "macro-cosmic" aspects of Obama's address: "This was actually a fireside chat. This is what I found so fascinating. From the very first sentence he basically said to the Congress 'I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the people who sent us here.' And it reminded me, in some sense, of the radio speeches FDR gave where he talked about complicated issues in simple ways. Obama tried to explain how he got into this mess, why will my program make it better. Very intensely personal in the sense of talking to people at home watching one or two at a time in front of their TVs."
Obama 'Grabbed Center,' Jindal 'Far Right,' 'Micro-Cosmic' Chat?
Some of the odd and/or noteworthy takes in television coverage following President Barack Obama's Tuesday night address to a joint session of Congress:
- On MSNBC, Chris Matthews predicted "we're going to hear a fairly right-wing speech tonight," from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in response to Obama, because "the only position left in America right now politically that he's left open is on the far right, and Bobby Jindal is headed for it," along with Sarah Palin, since "Barack has grabbed the center with the charm he showed tonight in his excellent rhetoric."
- ABC's Charles Gibson, who like his broadcast network colleagues refrained from labeling Obama or his speech as liberal, introduced Jindal with an ideological tag: "He is a very conservative Republican and you'll hear that reflected, I think, in his remarks tonight."
- On CBS, Katie Couric reacted to Obama's speech with some strange "cosmic" analogies, touting how Obama had succeeded in his effort to "really connect the dots, in a way, to explain to people that micro-cosmically this will help them, this is just not a national macro-cosmic plan for the economy."
- Couric's colleague Jeff Greenfield hailed how "this was actually a fireside chat. This is what I found so fascinating" as "it reminded me, in some sense, of the radio speeches FDR gave where he talked about complicated issues in simple ways."
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted late Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Matthews did at least acknowledge that in his speech Obama was saying "I'm a left of center President" and Olbermann echoed how Obama plans to fix things "in a left-wing, in a liberal fashion."
The closest anyone on ABC, CBS or NBC got to labeling Obama came when Couric, following Jindal, observed that the two speeches displayed the "ideological fault line" in today's politics.
Gibson noted, the MRC's Rich Noyes alerted me about the Obama speech, that "this is an expensive speech when you look at it line by line in what he wants to spend."
MSNBC at about 10:15 PM EST, as provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth:
KEITH OLBERMANN: There is still the partisanship that Washington will never get rid of. What can the Republican response be, however, to one in which there seemed to be so many themes? How do you come out against recovering the nation's sense of self and its optimism? How do you come out against words like "boldly," "wisely," "swiftly," and "aggressively"?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Keith, my friend, I think we're going to hear that in a few minutes. I think we're going to hear a very negative speech in terms of what we just heard from Bobby Jindal. Bobby Jindal -- I'll say it as I said before the speech tonight by the President -- is running for the outside rail of the Republican Party, the right-wing rail. He is going to try to offer up a sort of Reaganite government-is-bad, big-spending-is-bad, taxes-are-bad, we got to go spend more money on defense, and we have to keep fighting as many wars on as many fronts as possible. I think we're going to hear a fairly right-wing speech tonight in response to this. I think, although I'll say the spine of his speech was left of center, it was done with such charm and good politics, and, as Rachel and yourself have pointed out, it won a hearty response tonight.
The only position left in America right now politically that he's left open is on the far right, and Bobby Jindal is headed for it. So I think there's a confluence of purpose here. The people running for President on the Republican side already are headed to the right â€" and that includes Governor Palin and Huckabee and this fellow speaking tonight â€" and that's all the room that's left on that side because Barack has grabbed the center with the charm he showed tonight in his excellent rhetoric.
Jeff Greenfield on CBS, shortly after Couric's remarks about the "micro-cosmically" and "macro-cosmic" aspects of Obama's address: "This was actually a fireside chat. This is what I found so fascinating. From the very first sentence he basically said to the Congress 'I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the people who sent us here.' And it reminded me, in some sense, of the radio speeches FDR gave where he talked about complicated issues in simple ways. Obama tried to explain how he got into this mess, why will my program make it better. Very intensely personal in the sense of talking to people at home watching one or two at a time in front of their TVs."
Time Mag Trashes Goldberg's Bias Book as One to 'Toss' Not Read
I'm going to have to find the book by Bernard Goldberg, "A Slobbering Love Affair". I missed hearing about this book. It's a book exposing media-bias, so it has to be worth a read. Here's the info from www.mrc.org or www.mediaresearch.org:
Last year, Time magazine created a little mini-book review featured called "The Skimmer," to quickly determine for readers whether a new book is something they should either Read, Skim, or Toss. In the March 2 edition, Time took up Bernard Goldberg's media-bias expose, A Slobbering Love Affair. Unsurprisingly, they trashed it as a book to "Toss."
A look back over the feature quickly demonstrates that Time has used the feature to offer raves and "Read" recommendations for fellow members of the liberal media, especially when they're bashing President Bush or his war on terror. The list begins with former Wall Street Journal reporter Jane Mayer (July 28, 2008 issue), Washington Post bias legend Bob Woodward (September 22), Washington Post reporter Steve Fainaru (November 24), New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (December 22), and New York Times reporter David Sanger (February 2).
[This item, by the MRC's Tim Graham, was posted Tuesday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Time's Gilbert Cruz bashed Goldberg throughout his mini-review:
As a conservative media critic writing for a conservative publishing house addressing a conservative audience, Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS journalist and the author of the media-bashing memoir Bias, doesn't have to do much to notch a best seller.
Step 1: sarcastically criticize the "mainstream media" as hopelessly liberal. Step 2: repeat for 20 or so abbreviated chapters. Goldberg's objections to "mainstream media" coverage of Barack Obama are fairly well worn. Among the many complaints, he notes that Obama's associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weatherman Bill Ayers didn't get enough press scrutiny during last year's election campaign, while Sarah Palin's clothing and Joe the Plumber's personal life got too much.
Because of their fawning over Obama, the "mainstream media" â€" if the author removed that modifier, this book would be a pamphlet â€" have left their credibility "in tatters," Goldberg writes. Of course, just saying something doesn't make it so. But that won't matter to Goldberg's readers, who will devour his latest with gusto.
END of Review
That's online at: www.time.com
Cruz could easily look at his first sentence and realize he is a liberal book critic writing for a liberal magazine addressing a liberal audience. But perhaps that's too much to ask.
Last year, Time magazine created a little mini-book review featured called "The Skimmer," to quickly determine for readers whether a new book is something they should either Read, Skim, or Toss. In the March 2 edition, Time took up Bernard Goldberg's media-bias expose, A Slobbering Love Affair. Unsurprisingly, they trashed it as a book to "Toss."
A look back over the feature quickly demonstrates that Time has used the feature to offer raves and "Read" recommendations for fellow members of the liberal media, especially when they're bashing President Bush or his war on terror. The list begins with former Wall Street Journal reporter Jane Mayer (July 28, 2008 issue), Washington Post bias legend Bob Woodward (September 22), Washington Post reporter Steve Fainaru (November 24), New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (December 22), and New York Times reporter David Sanger (February 2).
[This item, by the MRC's Tim Graham, was posted Tuesday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Time's Gilbert Cruz bashed Goldberg throughout his mini-review:
As a conservative media critic writing for a conservative publishing house addressing a conservative audience, Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS journalist and the author of the media-bashing memoir Bias, doesn't have to do much to notch a best seller.
Step 1: sarcastically criticize the "mainstream media" as hopelessly liberal. Step 2: repeat for 20 or so abbreviated chapters. Goldberg's objections to "mainstream media" coverage of Barack Obama are fairly well worn. Among the many complaints, he notes that Obama's associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weatherman Bill Ayers didn't get enough press scrutiny during last year's election campaign, while Sarah Palin's clothing and Joe the Plumber's personal life got too much.
Because of their fawning over Obama, the "mainstream media" â€" if the author removed that modifier, this book would be a pamphlet â€" have left their credibility "in tatters," Goldberg writes. Of course, just saying something doesn't make it so. But that won't matter to Goldberg's readers, who will devour his latest with gusto.
END of Review
That's online at: www.time.com
Cruz could easily look at his first sentence and realize he is a liberal book critic writing for a liberal magazine addressing a liberal audience. But perhaps that's too much to ask.
Couric Pushes 'Out of Touch' GOP to Be 'More Supportive' of Obama
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod made the rounds of the broadcast network evening newscast anchors on Tuesday to discuss President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, but CBS's Katie Couric, in uniquely offering some balance by matching Axelrod with a segment featuring House Minority Leader John Boehner, only served to expose her impatience toward GOP opposition. With Axelrod, she cued him up to expound on the administration's policies, pressed him about nationalizing banks and empathized with the terrible conditions inherited by Obama's team. In contrast, with Boehner she wondered if Republicans are "out of touch," suggested they are stuck between having either the country or their base "hate" them and asked: "Do you think the Republicans are digging themselves in a hole by not being more supportive of the President's proposals?"
Couric prompted Axelrod to explain how the administration will overcome criticism of the mortgage plan: "How do you explain that this is not going to be helping out somebody's brother-in-law who put down no money, spent too much money on his house and basically cut corners while other families feel like, 'listen, we did everything right.'?" She soon lamented what Bush left behind: "When you were running this campaign did you ever envision inheriting this job at a time when the country is in such deep trouble?"
Interviewing Boehner, Couric cited some poll numbers and then demanded: "Are you out of touch with the American people?" She made Boehner react to an Obama operative's formulation of how not doing what President Obama wants means "the country will hate" Republicans: "One high-ranking White House official told me today: When it comes to Republicans on Capitol Hill the administration plans to hug them until it hurts. If you hug back your base will hate you and if you don't hug back the country will hate you. What's your reaction?"
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Couric's questions to Axelrod, as aired on the Tuesday, February 24 CBS Evening News, after she set up the segment: "This afternoon I asked him how Mr. Obama will underscore the gravity of the situation and yet make Americans optimistic about the future?"
- There seems to be some trepidation, even anger, about the mortgage bailout plan. How do you explain that this is not going to be helping out somebody's brother-in-law who put down no money, spent too much money on his house and basically cut corners while other families feel like, 'listen, we did everything right.'?"
- But what about people who just cut corners and put no money down and spent way too much money?
- What about nationalizing some of the banks? Have you ruled that out?
- Isn't owning shares of CitiBank technically nationalization?
- When you were running this campaign did you even envision inheriting this job at a time when the country is in such deep trouble?
Couric's questions to Boehner:
- Leader Boehner, how do you think President Obama's speech will be received tonight by members of your party?
- A recent CBS News poll shows that 53 percent of the American people fully backs the stimulus package, 63 percent of people we polled thought the Republican opposition to the stimulus package was for political reasons. So, are you out of touch with the American people?
- President Obama says he wants to cut the deficit in half in four years. Do you believe that's realistic?
- One high-ranking White House official told me today: When it comes to Republicans on Capitol Hill the administration plans to hug them until it hurts. If you hug back your base will hate you and if you don't hug back the country will hate you. What's your reaction?
- Do you think the Republicans are digging themselves in a hole by not being more supportive of the President's proposals?
From www.mediaresearch.org , Media Research Center
Couric prompted Axelrod to explain how the administration will overcome criticism of the mortgage plan: "How do you explain that this is not going to be helping out somebody's brother-in-law who put down no money, spent too much money on his house and basically cut corners while other families feel like, 'listen, we did everything right.'?" She soon lamented what Bush left behind: "When you were running this campaign did you ever envision inheriting this job at a time when the country is in such deep trouble?"
Interviewing Boehner, Couric cited some poll numbers and then demanded: "Are you out of touch with the American people?" She made Boehner react to an Obama operative's formulation of how not doing what President Obama wants means "the country will hate" Republicans: "One high-ranking White House official told me today: When it comes to Republicans on Capitol Hill the administration plans to hug them until it hurts. If you hug back your base will hate you and if you don't hug back the country will hate you. What's your reaction?"
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Couric's questions to Axelrod, as aired on the Tuesday, February 24 CBS Evening News, after she set up the segment: "This afternoon I asked him how Mr. Obama will underscore the gravity of the situation and yet make Americans optimistic about the future?"
- There seems to be some trepidation, even anger, about the mortgage bailout plan. How do you explain that this is not going to be helping out somebody's brother-in-law who put down no money, spent too much money on his house and basically cut corners while other families feel like, 'listen, we did everything right.'?"
- But what about people who just cut corners and put no money down and spent way too much money?
- What about nationalizing some of the banks? Have you ruled that out?
- Isn't owning shares of CitiBank technically nationalization?
- When you were running this campaign did you even envision inheriting this job at a time when the country is in such deep trouble?
Couric's questions to Boehner:
- Leader Boehner, how do you think President Obama's speech will be received tonight by members of your party?
- A recent CBS News poll shows that 53 percent of the American people fully backs the stimulus package, 63 percent of people we polled thought the Republican opposition to the stimulus package was for political reasons. So, are you out of touch with the American people?
- President Obama says he wants to cut the deficit in half in four years. Do you believe that's realistic?
- One high-ranking White House official told me today: When it comes to Republicans on Capitol Hill the administration plans to hug them until it hurts. If you hug back your base will hate you and if you don't hug back the country will hate you. What's your reaction?
- Do you think the Republicans are digging themselves in a hole by not being more supportive of the President's proposals?
From www.mediaresearch.org , Media Research Center
Huh?
Funny, last night during the President’s address, he stated in regards to the American automakers:
“I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”
Problem is, we didn’t invent the automobile, we were just the first to effectively mass produce the automobile so that everyone could afford to own one. This is how unobstructed free enterprise works.
http://web.me.com/toddgroup/digital_publius/Blog/Entries/2009/2/25_Huh.html
“I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”
Problem is, we didn’t invent the automobile, we were just the first to effectively mass produce the automobile so that everyone could afford to own one. This is how unobstructed free enterprise works.
http://web.me.com/toddgroup/digital_publius/Blog/Entries/2009/2/25_Huh.html
Highlight from Media Malpractice
Agree 100% with Read My Lipstick Network: buy Ziegler's Media Malpractice. I bought my copy and plan to pick up a few more.
Go visit http://www.howobamagotelected.com/.
Go visit http://www.howobamagotelected.com/.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
#tcot Tea Party Info Across U.S.
Join the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party Friday February 27 at noon ESTCo-sponsored by #TCOT, Smart Girl Politics, and the #DONTGO Movement
http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com/
To Sign up for a local event in your community on Facebook now, go here:
Washington, DC
Chicago
Atlanta
Orlando separate web page or
Orlando (FB)
Fort Worth, Texas
Pittsburgh
San Diego, CA
Tulsa, OK
Nashville
St. Louis
Houston, Texas
Portland, Oregon
Kansas City
CLEVELAND
Denver
http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com/
To Sign up for a local event in your community on Facebook now, go here:
Washington, DC
Chicago
Atlanta
Orlando separate web page or
Orlando (FB)
Fort Worth, Texas
Pittsburgh
San Diego, CA
Tulsa, OK
Nashville
St. Louis
Houston, Texas
Portland, Oregon
Kansas City
CLEVELAND
Denver
Southwest Florida Tea Party
LOCAL SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PARTICIPATION IN NATIONWIDE TEA PARTY
To be held at Bowditch Point Park, Fort Myers Beach, FL This Friday, February 27, 2009
From 11:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
Tea Party Rally/Protest A gathering for all concerned Americans to voice our opposition to the "stimuli" coming out of D.C. and let it be known that WE WILL BE HEARD!
Please bring signs, flags and wear your tri-corner hat!
For more information: www.americac2c.org http://www.americac2c.org/events/tea-party-southwest-florida
www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=52447898610
(You'll need to be members to read the info on either link I think. It's free. Either way, you can go to the Tea Party)
To be held at Bowditch Point Park, Fort Myers Beach, FL This Friday, February 27, 2009
From 11:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
Tea Party Rally/Protest A gathering for all concerned Americans to voice our opposition to the "stimuli" coming out of D.C. and let it be known that WE WILL BE HEARD!
Please bring signs, flags and wear your tri-corner hat!
For more information: www.americac2c.org http://www.americac2c.org/events/tea-party-southwest-florida
www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=52447898610
(You'll need to be members to read the info on either link I think. It's free. Either way, you can go to the Tea Party)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Boycott The New York Times Petition
Whereas, The New York Times consistently and blatantly distorts the news to advance its leftist agenda.
Whereas, The New York Times promotes an anti-family, pro-big government, anti-faith, anti-American, politically-correct, isolationist ethic - in the guise of news coverage.
Whereas The New York Times has spent decades maligning conservatives, misreporting campaign news (to favor the more liberal candidate), sneering at patriotism, denigrating America and undermining Judeo-Christian morality.
Go here to read the entire petition and sign:
http://boycottnyt.com/boycott-the-new-york-times-petition/
Whereas, The New York Times promotes an anti-family, pro-big government, anti-faith, anti-American, politically-correct, isolationist ethic - in the guise of news coverage.
Whereas The New York Times has spent decades maligning conservatives, misreporting campaign news (to favor the more liberal candidate), sneering at patriotism, denigrating America and undermining Judeo-Christian morality.
Go here to read the entire petition and sign:
http://boycottnyt.com/boycott-the-new-york-times-petition/
Friday, January 30, 2009
Catholic Vote on NBC Refusing Ad
We broke this news yesterday, but wanted to make sure you have the full story - NBC has slammed the door on running our ad during the Super Bowl!
After several days of negotiations, a representative in Chicago told us that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political candidates or issues.’
We were in the midst of raising the money needed, and had confirmed interest from several very generous pro-life benefactors. Airing the ad would have been very expensive, and a 'Super' opportunity.
But NBC’s rejection is calling even more attention to the ad. We have been appearing on radio programs across the country for the past two days, and NBC’s New York affiliate (imagine the irony), is covering the controversy. Bill O’Reilly of the FOX News Channel featured the ad on his program Wednesday night calling it “brilliant” and “genius.” His show alone reached nearly 4 million people.
All of this is driving more traffic to the commercial online. We reached almost 1 million online views in less than two weeks!
So why did NBC reject the ad?
The network claims that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements during the Super Bowl, but that’s simply not true.
The network was willing to air an ad by PETA, which is definitely an advocacy group, if PETA would tone down their ad’s sexual suggestiveness.
Also, the first ad scheduled to run during the Super Bowl is a creative spot about Pedigree’s pet adoption drive. The ad ends with the line: “Help us help dogs.”
In recent years, some Super Bowl advertisements have caused controversy. But there’s nothing objectionable about our positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC’s parent company GE has done for years. We don’t attack Barack Obama, but focus on him becoming the first African-American President. We simply ask people to imagine the potential of each human life.
What now?
We’re not intimidated by NBC. We plan on getting this ad out so that many millions of Americans can imagine the potential of each human life. Here are some things you can do:
We are preparing a virtual protest of NBC’s decision. We want other networks to know that hundreds of thousands of people want to see this ad aired, and we will not give up easily. Stay tuned for our plan on this in the next few days.
The Catholic television station EWTN will be airing the commercial before, during and after the Super Bowl. Feel free to turn your channel to EWTN during halftime and watch our ad there.
You can still share the commercial with friends and family. Tell them to go to CatholicVote.org and watch the ad NBC doesn’t want them to see! Heck, show it at your Super Bowl party!
We’ve been humbled by the donations we’ve received to help get this ad out. We are especially grateful to the group of very generous benefactors that agreed to help if we got air time for the Super Bowl.
We aren’t certain they will still help, but we will use any funds we receive from you and others to air the ad in the most prominent and cost-effective venues available.
Perhaps the ad should run during the Academy Awards or maybe American Idol, which is popular with the youth. Maybe we should run it following President Obama’s first State of the Union address?
If you have ideas, tell us what you think.
Brian BurchCatholicVote.org
After several days of negotiations, a representative in Chicago told us that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political candidates or issues.’
We were in the midst of raising the money needed, and had confirmed interest from several very generous pro-life benefactors. Airing the ad would have been very expensive, and a 'Super' opportunity.
But NBC’s rejection is calling even more attention to the ad. We have been appearing on radio programs across the country for the past two days, and NBC’s New York affiliate (imagine the irony), is covering the controversy. Bill O’Reilly of the FOX News Channel featured the ad on his program Wednesday night calling it “brilliant” and “genius.” His show alone reached nearly 4 million people.
All of this is driving more traffic to the commercial online. We reached almost 1 million online views in less than two weeks!
So why did NBC reject the ad?
The network claims that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements during the Super Bowl, but that’s simply not true.
The network was willing to air an ad by PETA, which is definitely an advocacy group, if PETA would tone down their ad’s sexual suggestiveness.
Also, the first ad scheduled to run during the Super Bowl is a creative spot about Pedigree’s pet adoption drive. The ad ends with the line: “Help us help dogs.”
In recent years, some Super Bowl advertisements have caused controversy. But there’s nothing objectionable about our positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC’s parent company GE has done for years. We don’t attack Barack Obama, but focus on him becoming the first African-American President. We simply ask people to imagine the potential of each human life.
What now?
We’re not intimidated by NBC. We plan on getting this ad out so that many millions of Americans can imagine the potential of each human life. Here are some things you can do:
We are preparing a virtual protest of NBC’s decision. We want other networks to know that hundreds of thousands of people want to see this ad aired, and we will not give up easily. Stay tuned for our plan on this in the next few days.
The Catholic television station EWTN will be airing the commercial before, during and after the Super Bowl. Feel free to turn your channel to EWTN during halftime and watch our ad there.
You can still share the commercial with friends and family. Tell them to go to CatholicVote.org and watch the ad NBC doesn’t want them to see! Heck, show it at your Super Bowl party!
We’ve been humbled by the donations we’ve received to help get this ad out. We are especially grateful to the group of very generous benefactors that agreed to help if we got air time for the Super Bowl.
We aren’t certain they will still help, but we will use any funds we receive from you and others to air the ad in the most prominent and cost-effective venues available.
Perhaps the ad should run during the Academy Awards or maybe American Idol, which is popular with the youth. Maybe we should run it following President Obama’s first State of the Union address?
If you have ideas, tell us what you think.
Brian BurchCatholicVote.org
Friday, January 23, 2009
You'll know the media honeymoon with Obama is over when...
Last night Mr. Obama's feathers were ruffled when the press acted like... the press. They asked a simple, direct question and wanted an answer. Clearly the Prez hadn't crafted a good non-answer yet 'cause he fell back on the new Presidential 5th Amendment, "I'm not here to take tough questions". Well, I hate to shock Mr. Obama, but being the President means handling tough stuff, including a few questions from the media.
Oh, the honeymoon is ending fast, isn't it? First he dumps on AP, Reuters and others by keeping them out of the White House on day one of business, breaking a long-time tradition. Then he ignores the questions of the press.
Now Obama's Press Secretary is also avoiding answering the question: While I was typing this Gibbs met with the press, so I kind of half listened. HE wouldn't answer the question posed to Obama last night either. So much for this open government, transparent, gonna handle things differently than the big bad Bush.
The question? How come Obama says he has a strict ban on lobbyists, yet Deputy Defense Secretary nominee was a lobbyist for Raytheon.
We're only into this Presidency a few days and he's already breaking campaign promises and his own policies?
Mr. Obama is discovering quickly that President's accrue enemies on all sides of the political and public spectrum every time they open their mouths.
You'll know the honeymoon is REALLY over when Leno and Letterman start cracking jokes about Obama.
Obama flashes irritation in press room (includes video)
President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question. Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html
Oh, the honeymoon is ending fast, isn't it? First he dumps on AP, Reuters and others by keeping them out of the White House on day one of business, breaking a long-time tradition. Then he ignores the questions of the press.
Now Obama's Press Secretary is also avoiding answering the question: While I was typing this Gibbs met with the press, so I kind of half listened. HE wouldn't answer the question posed to Obama last night either. So much for this open government, transparent, gonna handle things differently than the big bad Bush.
The question? How come Obama says he has a strict ban on lobbyists, yet Deputy Defense Secretary nominee was a lobbyist for Raytheon.
We're only into this Presidency a few days and he's already breaking campaign promises and his own policies?
Mr. Obama is discovering quickly that President's accrue enemies on all sides of the political and public spectrum every time they open their mouths.
You'll know the honeymoon is REALLY over when Leno and Letterman start cracking jokes about Obama.
Obama flashes irritation in press room (includes video)
President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question. Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html
Not surprised: Media went crazy over BHO Inauguration
I can't imagine anyone being shocked at this story re: media going nuts over Obama inauguration. Aside from the fact that we already know the media loves Obama (tingling legs and all) this election and subsequent inauguration really fit the bill as real news.
I may fault the media for the way they faun over Obama, but we have crossed a threshold and this is a first for America. Would that the election of our first mixed-race half-white half-black President were the only thing newsworthy about this election. Good chance the "changes" he makes won't be news many of us will want to read.
Comparing this inauguration to the second term of President Bush's inauguration isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, either. Now maybe they used the 2005 Bush inauguration simply to swell the stats for their story and make Obama look better... that wouldn't surprise me either.
Study: Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_obama_study/2009/01/21/173869.html?s=al&promo_code=7858-1
I may fault the media for the way they faun over Obama, but we have crossed a threshold and this is a first for America. Would that the election of our first mixed-race half-white half-black President were the only thing newsworthy about this election. Good chance the "changes" he makes won't be news many of us will want to read.
Comparing this inauguration to the second term of President Bush's inauguration isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, either. Now maybe they used the 2005 Bush inauguration simply to swell the stats for their story and make Obama look better... that wouldn't surprise me either.
Study: Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_obama_study/2009/01/21/173869.html?s=al&promo_code=7858-1
Beginning of end of media love-fest with Obama?
Oooo, hooo, sumbudy stepped on the toes o' the media... and it seems like they're flexing their muscles to let Mr. Obama's White House know who's really in control... It's the little things that sometimes lead to the toppling of an empire.
AP, Reuters, AFP Refuse to Distribute Obama White House Photo
Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:30 AM
NEW YORK -- Three news agencies refused to distribute White House-provided photos of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, arguing that access should have been provided to news photographers.
The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse said the White House was breaking with long-standing tradition in not allowing news photographers to capture the president at work in the Oval Office on his first day...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_news_photos/2009/01/22/173929.html?s=al&promo_code=7858-1
AP, Reuters, AFP Refuse to Distribute Obama White House Photo
Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:30 AM
NEW YORK -- Three news agencies refused to distribute White House-provided photos of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, arguing that access should have been provided to news photographers.
The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse said the White House was breaking with long-standing tradition in not allowing news photographers to capture the president at work in the Oval Office on his first day...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_news_photos/2009/01/22/173929.html?s=al&promo_code=7858-1
Part 1 - YouTube banned videos; Is it censorship?
The following is part 1 of a 6 part series on the Birmingham Community Examiner on a subject that concerns many --- the banning of conservative videos on YouTube (owned by Google). I firmly believe that at some point conservatives are going to be bumped from all Google owned media. I think it's happening now to some degree.
I'm watching Heritage News Media Partners (www.nmatv.com) closely. They have some great conservative videos. We need to be workin' hard to set up alternatives to all media from video to newspaper to blog hosts, especially if they pass the un-"Fairness Doctrine".
YouTube banned videos; Is it censorship?
After numerous reports of video’s being banned from YouTube, a Google Global Company, the need for answers became paramount. Researching the video’s that currently reside on YouTube, took quite some time, they are seemingly endless. At first glance viewers would assume the prevalent theme is one of unity, especially on a site where anyone can join and add their own view. It becomes apparent very quickly, this is not the case, if that view is of a conservative nature. Granted, some remain with a definite bend to the right, but for a conservative looking through the glass that is You Tube, the majority of this glass house only contains left turning halls...
http://www.examiner.com/x-1344-Birmingham-Community-Examiner~y2009m1d22-You-Tube-banned-videos-is-it-censorship
I'm watching Heritage News Media Partners (www.nmatv.com) closely. They have some great conservative videos. We need to be workin' hard to set up alternatives to all media from video to newspaper to blog hosts, especially if they pass the un-"Fairness Doctrine".
YouTube banned videos; Is it censorship?
After numerous reports of video’s being banned from YouTube, a Google Global Company, the need for answers became paramount. Researching the video’s that currently reside on YouTube, took quite some time, they are seemingly endless. At first glance viewers would assume the prevalent theme is one of unity, especially on a site where anyone can join and add their own view. It becomes apparent very quickly, this is not the case, if that view is of a conservative nature. Granted, some remain with a definite bend to the right, but for a conservative looking through the glass that is You Tube, the majority of this glass house only contains left turning halls...
http://www.examiner.com/x-1344-Birmingham-Community-Examiner~y2009m1d22-You-Tube-banned-videos-is-it-censorship
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
It's the President's fault the media didn't like him...
I'm having a hard time typing because I'm STILL shaking my head in wonder at this one! New York Times Reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg spoke about George W. Bush on Charlie Rose Monday. Here's one of her comments:
Here's another excerpt: "I think this president has never been comfortable with the press."
Hmmm, when's the last time you were comfortable with a group of people out to get you? a group who made fun of you and pointed out every single flaw?
I defy anyone to take a run back through the past eight plus years and find some really nice, or even balanced, reporting on George W. Bush by the mainstream media. Sure, they tossed in the occasional vague kinda-sorta positive bit of praise just so they could point and say "look, we tried, we're balanced in our reporting" but for the most part, President Bush couldn't get a nice story in the mainstream media if he wrote it himself and paid to have it included.
There was a brief respite after September 11th 2001, but that didn't last long, did it?
One thing that is patently clear when it comes to the media --- if they start out with the premise that you're a big bad nasty environment-hating, big-business loving Republican they're not going to change their minds and the bias is going to show.
When the media likes someone, like say, oh who might the media like at the moment? Maybe Barack Obama? The One they're throwing a party for after the Inauguration? When the media likes someone they don't look for dirt. They don't try to find the negative. They see everything through the prism of goodness thus it's easy to only see the positive.
Case in point is the lack of late-night talk show host jokes about Obama. Even though President Bush is leaving office, they can't stop with the nasty, biting jokes.
Stolberg's comment are very much like the statement a bully might make when caught beating someone up. "He started it, it's his fault I pounded him to a pulp."
Remember this joke that made the rounds via email:
It sums up the media's treatment of President Bush perfectly.
Here's a link to the video of Stolber's talk on Charlie Rose: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9936
"If he [President Bush] had engaged the press throughout his administration and used the press to his advantage, he would not find himself at the end of his presidency in a situation where he couldn't even come back for a simple photograph."
Here's another excerpt: "I think this president has never been comfortable with the press."
Hmmm, when's the last time you were comfortable with a group of people out to get you? a group who made fun of you and pointed out every single flaw?
I defy anyone to take a run back through the past eight plus years and find some really nice, or even balanced, reporting on George W. Bush by the mainstream media. Sure, they tossed in the occasional vague kinda-sorta positive bit of praise just so they could point and say "look, we tried, we're balanced in our reporting" but for the most part, President Bush couldn't get a nice story in the mainstream media if he wrote it himself and paid to have it included.
There was a brief respite after September 11th 2001, but that didn't last long, did it?
One thing that is patently clear when it comes to the media --- if they start out with the premise that you're a big bad nasty environment-hating, big-business loving Republican they're not going to change their minds and the bias is going to show.
When the media likes someone, like say, oh who might the media like at the moment? Maybe Barack Obama? The One they're throwing a party for after the Inauguration? When the media likes someone they don't look for dirt. They don't try to find the negative. They see everything through the prism of goodness thus it's easy to only see the positive.
Case in point is the lack of late-night talk show host jokes about Obama. Even though President Bush is leaving office, they can't stop with the nasty, biting jokes.
Stolberg's comment are very much like the statement a bully might make when caught beating someone up. "He started it, it's his fault I pounded him to a pulp."
Remember this joke that made the rounds via email:
The Pope visits Washington and President Bush takes him for a ride down the
Potomac on the presidential yacht. They're enjoying themselves when a gust of
wind blows the Pope's hat (zucchetto) off and out onto the water. The Secret
Service begins to launch a boat but Bush waves them off saying, "Wait. I'll take
care of this." Bush steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water, walks out
a ways and picks up the hat. Back on board, he hands the hat to the Pope amid
stunned silence.The next morning the Washington Post carries the story complete
with photos under the heading BUSH CAN'T SWIM.
It sums up the media's treatment of President Bush perfectly.
Here's a link to the video of Stolber's talk on Charlie Rose: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9936
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Video Expose of the Media
Hat tip to Robert Owens on Facebook, from Ohio: "A politician in the mold of Larry McDonald (D-Ga), Ron Paul (R-Tx), John Ashbrook (R-Oh) and Sen. Robert Taft (R-Oh)"
Sunday, January 4, 2009
We HAVE to find a way to combat the media
Saw this post on the Read My Lipstick Network earlier:
Day after day I see subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on conservatism in the media.
This morning I watched the talk that has the humor at the end? The Sunday funnies is what they call it. It's a compilation of their choice of humorous comments by the late-night shows. They demean President Bush continually. He's leaving office now and they still can't resist showing their nastiness and lack of class by attacking him. Without merit I might say.
I'm waiting to see them start attacking Barack Obama in the same way. Do you think David Letterman will have Presidential Moments showing Obama's propensity for "uh uh uh'ing"??? Bet they don't.
But that's not really the worst. It's just a symptom and it's petty stuff, not the real deal that runs rampant through the media.
You know, it's not just the so-called "news" that is undermining our values. Look at the recent commercials by Levi. They're kiddie porn.
What about all the shows you watch on a regular basis? Sit back and really think about what is being said and portrayed in the movies and on those weekly sitcoms. Even worse is the messages being taught in the programs our kids are watching. Sit and watch some of those cartoons and really think about the values woven into humorous dialog.
It's a problem and boycotts just don't seem to work.
For instance, in my household I rarely, if ever watch TV. I'll watch the talks on Sunday mornings and maybe an occasional movie just to be sociable with my spouse (although I'm not sure how sitting in front of a screen without talking is considered 'sociable'). My spouse however, will watch anything. So, how much good does it do for ME to boycott programs? The TV is still on. The networks don't know that only one person is watching. Although we're both in agreement as to how horrible the brainwashing is on television, I'm the only one willing to give it up.
If I can't control the TV here, I can't see enough families being able to turn off the television for hours on end.
We have to do something. I saw another post on here or maybe on our Facebook group page advocating for a media blackout for three hours on Friday evening. I think that might be doable for almost everyone. Take the family out to eat or to a play. Go to a concert. Plan some activity during that time frame... maybe set up a weekly card game with friends.
We have to do something.
If we don't, we're going to lose this country even faster than we're doing now. Don't let CNN get away with that story that included Sarah Palin in with criminals and low-life types. They're scared of Sarah Palin and they're doing a GWBush on her. We let them get away with trashing President Bush, don't let them do the same to any more conservatives. Even if you don't care for Sarah Palin she's "one of us" and we should be supporting her. Remember that old saying or poem about "they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew" (I know that's not exact)? They came for George W. Bush and we did nothing. They came for Sarah Palin and it looks like many are doing nothing. Sooner or later they'll come for you.
Time to Rumble with CNN; They Lump Palin with Criminals
CNN Places Sarah Palin With 2008's Criminals, Sex Addicts, and the Corrupt
By Warner Todd Huston
January 4, 2009 - 07:06 ET
Showing they have no sense of morality, no grasp of corruption and no understanding of what defines a criminal, CNN gives us another one of those ubiquitous year…
Day after day I see subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on conservatism in the media.
This morning I watched the talk that has the humor at the end? The Sunday funnies is what they call it. It's a compilation of their choice of humorous comments by the late-night shows. They demean President Bush continually. He's leaving office now and they still can't resist showing their nastiness and lack of class by attacking him. Without merit I might say.
I'm waiting to see them start attacking Barack Obama in the same way. Do you think David Letterman will have Presidential Moments showing Obama's propensity for "uh uh uh'ing"??? Bet they don't.
But that's not really the worst. It's just a symptom and it's petty stuff, not the real deal that runs rampant through the media.
You know, it's not just the so-called "news" that is undermining our values. Look at the recent commercials by Levi. They're kiddie porn.
What about all the shows you watch on a regular basis? Sit back and really think about what is being said and portrayed in the movies and on those weekly sitcoms. Even worse is the messages being taught in the programs our kids are watching. Sit and watch some of those cartoons and really think about the values woven into humorous dialog.
It's a problem and boycotts just don't seem to work.
For instance, in my household I rarely, if ever watch TV. I'll watch the talks on Sunday mornings and maybe an occasional movie just to be sociable with my spouse (although I'm not sure how sitting in front of a screen without talking is considered 'sociable'). My spouse however, will watch anything. So, how much good does it do for ME to boycott programs? The TV is still on. The networks don't know that only one person is watching. Although we're both in agreement as to how horrible the brainwashing is on television, I'm the only one willing to give it up.
If I can't control the TV here, I can't see enough families being able to turn off the television for hours on end.
We have to do something. I saw another post on here or maybe on our Facebook group page advocating for a media blackout for three hours on Friday evening. I think that might be doable for almost everyone. Take the family out to eat or to a play. Go to a concert. Plan some activity during that time frame... maybe set up a weekly card game with friends.
We have to do something.
If we don't, we're going to lose this country even faster than we're doing now. Don't let CNN get away with that story that included Sarah Palin in with criminals and low-life types. They're scared of Sarah Palin and they're doing a GWBush on her. We let them get away with trashing President Bush, don't let them do the same to any more conservatives. Even if you don't care for Sarah Palin she's "one of us" and we should be supporting her. Remember that old saying or poem about "they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew" (I know that's not exact)? They came for George W. Bush and we did nothing. They came for Sarah Palin and it looks like many are doing nothing. Sooner or later they'll come for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
