Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Media Bias category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

It’s increasingly clear that the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, is intent on creating an artificial constitutional crisis. I offer Doyle McManus’ column as proof of this affliction.

In writing, you’re told to not bury the lede. Mr. McManus certainly didn’t do that. The opening paragraph of Mr. McManus’ column says “President Trump has openly declared war on Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Russian saga. The president clearly wishes he could fire Mueller; his associates say he’s mused about that for weeks. Now, by stepping up the pressure, he’s moving toward a showdown, and a possible constitutional crisis.”

First, the president can fire Mueller without triggering a constitutional crisis. It wouldn’t be the smartest move politically but it wouldn’t trigger a constitutional crisis. The next paragraph is just as hyperbolic, saying “There’s plenty of other craziness billowing from the White House: lawyers considering whether the president can pardon himself, the president publicly denouncing his attorney general for failing to protect him. But the clearest portent of a crisis is the president’s increasingly evident desire to be rid of the meddlesome prosecutor, who appears to be doing his job too well.”

If conflation were an Olympic event, Mr. McManus would be the gold medalist. Yes, it wasn’t bright for President Trump to publicly criticize Jeff Sessions. Still, jumping from that to saying “the meddlesome prosecutor” “appears to be doing his job too well” is a mighty leap.

At this point, Mueller looks more like the establishment’s hit man than an honest man seeking the truth. Roger Simon’s article highlights Mueller’s potential pitfalls, saying “significant portion of the American public, myself admittedly among them, will be convinced he has been railroaded in a partisan hatchet job. The voters who elected the president are going to feel, at the very least, undermined, more likely betrayed, & by their own government and public officials. Many are going to feel this has nothing to do whatsoever with justice and will act accordingly.”

After months of searching for a crime, Mueller still hasn’t found one. Adam Schiff, who specializes in running for Dianne Feinstein’s U.S. Senate seat, still hasn’t found a crime. He’s great at making accusations but he’s terrible at offering proof for his accusations.

The MSM is disgracing itself. This is a perfect example:

If Trump had business relationships with Russians who could be acting on behalf of Vladimir Putin, that would seem quite relevant.

Then there’s this stupidity:

The nightmare haunting Trump, of course, is the history of past counsels — especially Kenneth Starr, who took an inquest into Bill Clinton’s family finances and turned it into an investigation of sex and perjury.

The key difference between the Starr investigation and the Mueller fishing expedition is that Starr’s investigation expanded because judges expanded the investigation. Another important difference is that the statute that Ken Starr operated under expired.

Perhaps, at one time, Mueller was a man of integrity. Expanding his fishing expedition this far afield, though, appears intent on creating a legacy rather than seeking justice. Similarly, at one time, the MSM attempted to look semi-impartial. Those days seem like ancient history.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Anyone who’s watched Amy Walters on Special Report’s All-Star Panel knows that she’s a lefty. Wednesday night, Walters’ leftism came out in a surprising way. The topic of discussion was President Trump’s ‘secret’ second meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. CNN’s and MSNBC’s hosts were scandalized by Trump’s and Putin’s second meeting. While she didn’t show it, Ms. Walters said that any meeting between Trump and Putin wouldn’t go well for Trump because Russia interfered in our election.

By admitting that, Ms. Walters essentially said that this event wouldn’t be judged fairly because the media is pushing a hateful, anti-Trump narrative. Apparently, Ms. Walters either doesn’t notice that she isn’t impartial or she’s admitting that she isn’t interested in being impartial. Personally, I’m betting on the latter. She’s already admitted that the MSM’s narrative isn’t fair. Next, Ms. Walters essentially says that the MSM’s partiality is something that the GOP will just have to deal with.

In 2004, Evan Thomas infamously said “There’s one other base here, the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there’s going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

Since then, the MSM, aka the Agenda Media, has gotten more anti-Republican each election cycle. After talkin about how unfair media coverage is on Trump/Russia, Ms. Walters compared Trump/Russia with FNC’s coverage of Hillary/Benghazi as though they were equal. Seriously?

With Trump/Russia, there’s speculation that Trump colluded with Putin in rigging the election. With Hillary/Benghazi, there’s indisputable proof that Hillary’s decisions got the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three others killed. Thanks to Hillary’s congressional testimony, we also have proof that she lied about a video causing the attack:

Ms. Walters’ comparison isn’t just intellectually dishonest. It’s incoherent.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve literally been saying for years that reporters assigned to DC Echochamber news outlets have mischaracterized people’s actions. I’ve even left open the possibility that these mischaracterizations might’ve been intentional. This Greg Gutfeld monologue cuts to the heart of the matter. In his monologue, Gutfeld notes that “this last weekend we saw countless reporters in Hamburg and elsewhere refer to thuggish clans in black disguises as protesters. These were people destroying property and harming those trying to protect and serve the community. We watched cars burn, businesses looted, and police injured by disguised fascists. And we listened to them being referred to as ‘protesters.'”

When I picture protesters, I picture Martin Luther King staging a peaceful protest. What comes to mind when I see cars burning, I think of the race riots of the late 60s and early 70s. The mask-wearing thugs in Hamburg remind me more of the latter than the former.

It’s time we stopped calling the people in Ferguson, Baltimore and Minneapolis protesters. In Minneapolis, Black Lives Matter activists threw concrete blocks at police officers from a bridge spanning I-94. That isn’t what protesters do. It’s what rioters do. Also in Minneapolis, rioters chanted “pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.” Again, that’s what rioters do. That isn’t what protesters do.

Then there’s the riot in NYC where the rioters chanted “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.”

That’s before talking about the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth from Ferguson, MO and the riots in Baltimore that were fueled by race hustlers like Al Sharpton. It’s time we stopped thinking of these thugs as civil rights demonstrators. They’re nothing of the sort. They’re low-life street thugs, nothing more.

Gutfeld continued with this:

One CNN headline:
“G20 protesters set street fires, loot stores.”
“Protesters.” No, they’re criminal gangs.
“Street fires.” Otherwise known as “Arson.”

Then he really nailed the violent lefties:

When historians look back at this era, and the decline of the West, the media’s fingerprints will be all over the crime scene. They happily place every act within the identity politic paradigm – paving the road for the lawlessness seen in Hamburg (and elsewhere).

The left still deserves tons of criticism but no more than the media who stoke the tension by ignoring the truth. Then there’s this:

Leftism follows the same script. If your ideas cannot survive debate, what do you do? You advocate for force. Progressivism requires chaotic, violent rage to ensure their toxic ideas persist.

The chance that the MSM will stop following this script is virtually nonexistent. The only option thoughtful people have is to gather their information through non-traditional sources. Right now, that’s people’s best option.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jim Acosta probably didn’t see it coming. When he tweeted that President Trump had held a fake news conference, it isn’t likely that he anticipated getting crushed on Twitter. That’s what happened, though. It all started after the press conference when Acosta tweeted “Isn’t it a ‘fake news conference’ to take a question from a reporter who is essentially an ally of the White House?”

That’s where the bloodbath began.

Donald Trump Jr. replied “So by that logic, was every news conference for the last 8 years #fakenews Jim?” After that, Ari Fleischer replied “Jim – care to guess how many questions I took from reporters who went on to join the Obama WH?”

Acosta’s beatdown didn’t finish there. Next, he said “The other thing that was ‘fake news’ coming from President Trump is when he said, ‘Well, I keep hearing it’s 17 intelligence agencies that say Russia meddled in the election, I think it’s only three or four,’” Acosta said. ‘Where does that number come from? Where does this ‘three or four’ number come from? My suspicion…is that if we go to the administration and ask them for this question, I’m not so sure we’re going to get an answer.'”

That’s what happens when you when you send a boy to do a man’s job. Here’s the administration’s official reply:

The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizers in the American intelligence community.

When didn’t the media ask softball questions of Jay Carney? The only tough questions he got were from Ed Henry. Follow-up questions were few and far between. The people who asked questions of Carney were more like stenographers than reporters. I’d argue that Acosta is part of the Stenographers Brigade after watching this video:

When will the MSM start digging into that scandal? Will they ever dig into that scandal? Apparently, it’s ok to do nothing while Russia is hacking into our election system but it isn’t ok to have people start rumors about the possibility of a Trump campaign worker making contact with a Russian.

A decade ago, I created the term Agenda Media. It’s more true now than it’s ever been. Since President Trump was inaugurated, the MSM have acted like the Agenda Media. They aren’t reporters anymore. They’re partisans with press badges.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Hopefully, this will be the final article on the lawsuit between the Legislature and Gov. Dayton that Judge Guthmann will rule on. I’d hate to have to write another post about the SC Times’ dishonest Our View editorial. In that editorial, the Times editors wrote “As you probably recall, Dayton’s unprecedented decision to cut most funds to the Legislature as of Friday ended (or did it?) the 2017 session. He explained his decision as a way to get the Republican-led Legislature to negotiate a handful of measures to which he objected. And most certainly worth noting is that legislation forced Dayton to either accept the Republican tax bill or defund the state Department of Revenue.”

Actually, Gov. Dayton didn’t “cut most funds to the legislature.” As former Attorney Gen. Mike Hatch explained, the funding for the legislature is a single line. It’s a binary choice. It’s all or nothing. Gov. Dayton cut all funds for the legislature. Second, the Times didn’t mention that Gov. Dayton agreed to the tax relief he now wants to renegotiate.

Here’s a message to Gov. Dayton: You agreed to the tax relief. Twice. Now you want to renegotiate the bill you just signed. Instead of using such slippery tactics, try keeping your word instead. Dishonest politicians like you created the Trump administration.

Judge Guthmann ruled that the legislature is part of government’s core function. That means it’ll get funded.

Finally, it’s time to call the SC Times out for making both sides appear culpable for this fiasco. The DFL agreed to these budget deals. If they didn’t like them, they shouldn’t have agreed to them. The GOP tax relief plan provides tax relief to farmers and small businesses. The DFL plan allows government to get bigger and more intrusive.

It isn’t difficult to see which side is on the people’s side and which is on the special interests’ side.

Technorati: , , , ,

While reading this article that announced that Hugh Hewitt was getting his own show on MSNBC, I read something that almost made me start laughing uncontrollably.

The article said “NBC News chairman Andy Lack is known to favor hard news, and has programmed the network to feature a broader range of editorial opinions in addition to traditional newsmen like Brian Williams.” Since when is Lying Brian Williams a “traditional” newsman? Have industry standards dropped that low?

For instance, this article highlights “Choppergate.” That’s where it said “During the January 30, 2015, NBC Nightly News broadcast, Brian Williams referred to “a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG.” Williams later said he was not in the helicopter that was hit by an RPG, but in a helicopter directly behind it. The pilots of Williams’ helicopter say their chopper was not directly behind the hit Chinook, but in a different company altogether.”

Based on the things other anchors have said, perhaps Williams is a traditional news anchor. Compared with Scott Pelley’s recent accusations against Steve Scalise, Williams’ statements don’t seem that terrible. Williams’ statements are just verifiably dishonest. Pelley’s questions are downright offensive. Here’s a reminder of Pelley’s disgusting outburst:

It’s time to ask whether journalists have any integrity left. I’m not betting they do.

Technorati: , , , ,

By now, it’s clear that Scott Pelley’s short career wasn’t distinguished. It was a portrait in mediocrity and partisanship. What type of political hack insinuates that a politician that was shot by a deranged partisan activist had it coming? According to this article, that’s what Pelley did.

Pelley said “It’s time to ask whether the attack on the United States Congress, yesterday, was foreseeable, predictable and, to some degree, self-inflicted. Too many leaders, and political commentators, who set an example for us to follow, have led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric which, it should be no surprise, has led to violence. Yesterday was not the first time.”

I suspect that Mr. Pelley wishes he hadn’t said anything. At minimum, I suspect he wishes he hadn’t said that. The reason why the media isn’t held in high regard is because buffoons like Pelley have, too often, said foolish things like this.

Earlier in the day, Rep. Tom Reed said that Pelley shouldn’t work on TV again. Later, Rep. Reed said this:

Reed called Pelley’s commentary “despicable” and says his departure from the anchor chair at the CBS Evening News came a day too late.

I totally agree.

Joe Concha is right in coining a new phrase. The MSM isn’t involved in “oneupsmanship.” They’re involved in “onedownsmanship.” Their race to the gutter is frightening and destructive.

Technorati: , , ,

Ben Domenech’s article highlights the media’s war against President Trump. This isn’t surprising. It’s just disgusting at an unprecedented level. The only thing that’s disgusting at a more unprecedented level is the hyper-partisanship in Pinheadville, aka college campuses.

Domenech’s primary example of the media’s hatred of President Trump is CNN, which he described as having “eight-person panels where not one person defending the administration is represented.” Domenech later wrote “A network that once strove to be centrist in their approach is now openly antagonistic, and will run with the thinnest of scoops for hours at a time in order to make their case against President Trump.” Just this week, CNN had to run a correction. They started with an article titled “Comey expected to refute Trump.” When Comey didn’t refute Trump, they changed the title to “Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction.”

Let’s be clear. CNN and the networks don’t traffic in verifiable information. They traffic in things that make for juicy clickbait. Their primary goal was summed up perfectly in this quote:

analyst Gloria Borger put matters more starkly, saying, ‘Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.’”

Hours later, Ms. Borger had to eat crow. Comey didn’t dispute President Trump’s statements. Ms. Borger’s statement was proven verifiably false in front of 20,000,000 people.

Another important facet of the Hate Trump media’s attack against President Trump is the outright vitriol displayed against him. On Thursday’s late version of Outnumbered, former HRC State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that “Six months into President Trump’s presidency, he is best known for impeachment.”

With all due respect to Ms. Harf, that isn’t difficult to believe considering the constant dishonest bombardment by the Democratic Party, especially the media wing of the Democratic Party, aka the MSM.

The Democratic Party is totally invested in taking down President Trump. The media wing of the Democratic Party is essentially frantic about Trump’s obstruction of justice, which has been virtually dismantled by Alan Dershowitz:

and Jonathan Turley:

It’s time for Robert Mueller to close shop and report that making foolish statements isn’t a crime, much less something worthy of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This morning on Outnumbered, Sandra Smith asked #OneLuckyGuy Rep. Jason Chaffetz if failure to pass health care reform was an option politically. With all due respect to Ms. Smith, that’s the wrong question. With people getting hit with unaffordable health insurance premiums and skyrocketing deductibles, the question that should be asked of Democrats is whether people can afford the Not That Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. The lead-in to the segment on health care was video of Sen. Ed Markey playing the scare tactic card, saying that Republicans wanted to throw Grandma and Grandpa out of the nursing home (with Alzheimer’s) to give tax cuts to the rich.

First, the media should stop obsessing over the non-issue of Russia working with President Trump to win the election. It’s time for the MSM to start asking important questions about issues that people care about. That means starting with asking Democrats why they haven’t offered anything substantive to fix Obamacare. Thus far, all they’ve done is employed scare tactics to win points politically for 2018.

The truth is that Obamacare is collapsing. Insurance companies are leaving exchanges on a weekly basis. This week’s exit is Anthem leaving “the Obamacare exchange in Ohio next year.” The result of that is the “move would leave participants in 20 counties without any insurer.”

Here’s the video of Sen. Markey’s blather:

Next, it’s time for the media to start doing its job by asking tough questions of Democrats about the ACA. Third, it’s time that the MSM to stop pretending that the ACA just needs a few tweaks to fix things. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. It’s time Democrats started coming up with substantive improvements ASAP.

Fourth, it’s time for Republicans to bury their differences and to settle on a sensible plan that fixes what’s wrong with the ACA. It’s beyond time to fix what’s broken. It’s time to eliminate differences, set aside egos and fix this disaster for the good of the nation. That’s the only thing that matters at this point.

Technorati: , , ,

This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the ‘reporter’ says that “Trump’s highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies.”

Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he’s incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”

Politifact tried spinning things by saying “But did James Comey actually say the FBI “cannot properly vet” people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn’t. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past.”

Here’s the real exchange:

Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

“Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” said Comey. “That’s what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about,” he added.

Not having verifiable data to compare against isn’t “a flaw in the vetting process.” That’s admitting that it’s impossible to vet people. Here’s video of FBI Director Comey’s testimony:

That’s pretty open-and-shut testimony.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,