The Media Bias

[WuDrWu]

Just this one question:


Where are the daily, sometimes hourly, death counts that the media hung around the neck of President Bush every chance they had?


What happened to them?

30 dead Seal Team members. Hundreds, if not thousands, have died since he's taken office.....where are the body counts?


My point is not to disparage the memories of these heroes. We SHOULD never forget. But they should NEVER be used for political gain as the liberal media attempts to do at every turn.


If I may steal a passage from a well known letter written by President Lincoln:


"......I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."


May God Bless those kids that died yesterday, and comfort their friends and families as they deal with this unspeakable tragedy and may the rest of us never forget.

[Maggie]

On Media Bias - To Hell with You People, a rant by Jonah Goldberg that would make Dennis Miller proud:

Look, I am past exhausted talking about liberal media bias. It’s real, we all know it, and people who deny it aren’t even fooling themselves. But some things just have to be pointed out. This morning I watched the first 15 minutes of the Today Show. I don’t particularly love or even like the program, but I find it useful to see what the producers think is the big news of the day. And sometimes Chuck Todd is on, and I like him. If I sound defensive about watching the show it’s only because I am.

Anyway, the first ten minutes was about Gabby Giffords’ return to the House yesterday. I’m not sure it merited the full ten minutes or trumped the hard news that later followed, but it’s a great story and everyone is rooting for the lady, so I’m fine with it.

But think about this for a second. The Giffords shooting sent the media elite in this country into a bout of St. Vitus’s dance that would have warranted an army of exorcists in previous ages. Sarah Palin’s Facebook map was an evil totem that forced some guy to go on a shooting spree. The New York Times, the Washington Post, all three broadcast networks — particularly NBC whose senior foreign-affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, devotes, by my rough reckoning, ten times as much air time to whining about Sarah Palin as she does about anything having to do with foreign affairs — flooded the zone with “Have you no shame” finger wagging. A memo went forth demanding that everyone at MSNBC get their dresses over their heads about the evil “tone” from the right. Media Matters went into overdrive working the interns 24/7 to “prove” that Republicans deliberately foment violence with their evil targets on their evil congressional maps.

Everyone “knew” the shooter was a tea partier. Except he wasn’t. He wasn’t even a conservative. He was a sick, demented, nutball. And it still didn’t matter! More bleating and caterwauling about the “tone” followed. More chin stroking and tut-tutting from Meet the Press roundtables and “very special segments” on the Today Show. More pizzas were ordered for the Media Matters galley slaves.

Finally, president Obama, our national-healer, gives a speech. It was a good speech. Indeed it was one of the first speeches in a long while that got anything like bipartisan support. Civility. New tone. No more martial metaphors. These were the takeaways.

So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an Ass of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

No one cares. I hate the “if this were Bush” game so we’re in luck. Instead imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would Meet the Press debate whether this raises “troubling questions” about the White House’s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for Dick Cheney’s viciousness? Would Keith Olbermann explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone’s music in Rock and Roll High School? Something inside me hidden away shouts, “Hell yes they would!”

The Today Show even had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this morning for five minutes talking about Giffords. No one thought to ask her what she thought of Biden’s comments? It’s not like she’s the Democratic party’s national spokesperson or anything. Oh, wait. She is!

Instead, after the full ten minutes on Giffords, we get an update about the debt-limit situation (which is supposedly an Armageddon-level issue) and Kelly O’Donnell basically carries water for Biden on the issue by completely muddying whether he said anything of the sort at all. (His office says, no, no the vice president didn’t call them terrorists, he just politely agreed with all the Democratic congressmen in the room that they “acted like terrorists.” Ah, this is a distinction a team of a million Jesuits working around the clock would have a hard time slicing.)

And yet you know the next time there’s the slightest, remotely exploitable tragedy or hint of violence, the same reporters, editors, producers, and politicians are going to insist that blood was spilled because of the right wing’s rhetoric.

Well, go to Hell. All of you.

[SB Shock]

I watched some foreign news channels this past week down in Florida. It was actually news (from around the world), not people just getting on and shouting mindless talking points at each other. Only negative was they had full coverage of soccer. :)

[wsushox1]

Look no further than the Michele Bachmann cover.

[SubGod22]

Look no further than the Michele Bachmann cover.

I was shocked when I read that NOW actually spoke up for her. They like her more than Palin apparently.

[Kung Wu]

The media bias is real, pervasive, nasty, and indefensible:

http://www.infowars.com/shut-it-down-reuters-orders-cameraman-to-kill-positive-trump-footage/

[ShockingButTrue]

The media bias is real, pervasive, nasty, and indefensible:

http://www.infowars.com/shut-it-down...trump-footage/

Yeah, but isn't it Trump that's the fascist? Next thing you know he'll be rigging the election.

[Aargh]

I see that we now have biased media reporting that the media is biased.

When I see certain emotionally charged buzzwords, I pretty much write off anything past that. The use of terms that aren't necessary to report an event, but appear to intend to "assist" the reader in forming an opinion are a tipoff to ignore anything past that point.

[Kung Wu]

I see that we now have biased media reporting that the media is biased.

When I see certain emotionally charged buzzwords, I pretty much write off anything past that. The use of terms that aren't necessary to report an event, but appear to intend to "assist" the reader in forming an opinion are a tipoff to ignore anything past that point.

Who cares about the article? Watch the unedited video.

[shocka khan]

I see that we now have biased media reporting that the media is biased.

When I see certain emotionally charged buzzwords, I pretty much write off anything past that. The use of terms that aren't necessary to report an event, but appear to intend to "assist" the reader in forming an opinion are a tipoff to ignore anything past that point.

I call them editorial comments.

Seems like ALL the media does it these days. I've seen Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN do exactly the same things. What good are professional standards in the media these days? No good. They mean absolutely nothing. The networks try to manipulate us into the opinions of their executive staff

I will make an exception for Alex Jones, though, he is a nutcase in a league all his own.

[engrshock]

I for one do not buy into much of the media bias (other than with Fox News) and even them in many respects. The bias that is present is not so much political driven as it is money driven. The media wants a close election so that they can get more money to pay for their "reporting". A land slide one way or the other is not monetarily in their best interests.

[SB Shock]

I see that we now have biased media reporting that the media is biased.

When I see certain emotionally charged buzzwords, I pretty much write off anything past that. The use of terms that aren't necessary to report an event, but appear to intend to "assist" the reader in forming an opinion are a tipoff to ignore anything past that point.

Did you watch the video?

It got no play in the mainstream - because it didn't fit the Trump narrative they are selling.

[im4wsu]

I for one do not buy into much of the media bias (other than with Fox News) and even them in many respects. The bias that is present is not so much political driven as it is money driven. The media wants a close election so that they can get more money to pay for their "reporting". A land slide one way or the other is not monetarily in their best interests.

Agree to disagree. Media wants Hillary even more than the status quo!

[MoValley John]

I for one do not buy into much of the media bias (other than with Fox News) and even them in many respects. The bias that is present is not so much political driven as it is money driven. The media wants a close election so that they can get more money to pay for their "reporting". A land slide one way or the other is not monetarily in their best interests.

Only Fox? What about MSNBC? Just wondering. Also, have you ever looked at what candidates Time Warner donates to?

[MoValley John]

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000094