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)
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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
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 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
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)
