Yesterday, Newsbusters ran a story with this headline:
WaPo Finally Runs Story on NASA Administrator Bolden: Eight Paragraphs On Page A13
From the article:
In a June 30 interview with “Talk to Al Jazeera,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden revealed that President Obama had tasked him with “find[ing] a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
The media largely ignored the story, with a few exceptions, such as Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer.
Among the media outlets that blacked out the controversy was the Washington Post, which didn’t cover the Bolden controversy until today. Even then, the paper printed on page A13 a brief 8-paragraph item by the Reuters news wire:
This information alone is enough to make you want get a new subscription to the Washington Post just so you can have the satisfaction of canceling it, but it gets worse… and worser.
I made it worse for myself (and now for you) by running a Nexis search (honestly Olbermann, it’s not that hard) to see if the Washington Post had given any print coverage to what is easily one of the top five quotes of the year, and they had done so in only one instance: conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed which ran on July 9th on page A19. FoxNews, by contrast, published the quote on July 5th. The first reference to the quote in WaPo’s online division was buried 10 paragraphs down in an Ed O’Keefe blog post on July 6th. WaPo didn’t find this news fit to print until Krauthammer’s Friday column happened to come up on the 9th. Then, nothing until yesterday when they published a news wire piece highlighting that the White House finally got around to criticizing Bolden’s ridiculous remarks.
Now, we know the Washington Post is left-biased, and if you can’t see that, as Nolte said, get out of the way because you’re part of the problem. So what’s worth investigating is whether or not the Washington Post is strategically burying stories that are damning to causes to which they are sympathetic (for example, Obama’s Presidency). In this case, the answer is YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!
Let me illustrate how we know with one of many possible examples (this is where it gets worser): In an interview at the White House on August 1st 2005, George W. Bush mentioned that he supports teaching schoolchildren about “intelligent design” along with evolution. Not 48 hours later on August 3rd, Peter Baker and Peter Slevin published a piece “Bush Remarks On ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Fuel Debate” in the Washington Post PRINT EDITION. Take a wild guess which page it appeared on… You’re right! A1.
So, this is how it goes at the Washington Post: When an Obama appointee advocates using the space program to do Muslim outreach, kill or bury the story! But when George W. Bush advocates introducing a marginally religious topic in our schools, NEWS BREAK!
As a commenter noted yesterday, “If it weren’t for double standards, the MSM would have no standards at all.” But it’s worse than a bad case of The Double Standards. It’s an all-out war on truth.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
29 Comments
The media is a criminal organization and needs to be investigated for crimes against the American people. It's quite obvious by now that they have lied and deceived. I would call this sedition. They have been complicit in numerous life changing events and when does freedom of speech and the press allow them to work to destroy America as we know it.
In the pathetic world of the Left, the actual Truth, is never on their side..
For them, it is something to be spun, distorted, muddied, and shape-shifted to suit their sorry template/narrative..
predictable, this truly is…
As said before, the State Controlled Media has a Narrative. Everything is filtered through that prism- and anything that doesn't fit is ignored, or rejected outright. They are not goilg to let a 'few facts' get in the way of the Desired Outcome.
Walter Lippman, the acknowledged 'dean' of modern journalism, was a Progressive activist who saw journalism as a means to achieve Progressive goals.
Institutional bias, as it were.
So, it has been around since the 30's with the likes of Walter Duranty glorifying the Soviet system even knowing it to be a lie. Olbermann and maddow and the others are just modern versions of Duranty. When you add Margaret Sanger and John Dewey to the mix you have Progressives actively compromising media, education, and medical.
No wonder they are so entrenched…
By managing the news this way for their inside-the-Beltway subscribers, the WaPo sets up people like California CongressCritter Brad Sherman, who gets to his Town Hall meeting and doesn't know basic news stories that his constituents do know about. Sherman probably figures that he knows the news, he reads the WaPo and the New York Times. But they spike stories that might hurt Democrats, so they leave him looking like an idiot.
Sorry, but because of their rabbid bias, they honestly didn't see this as anything worthy of mention in the news.
Just as with Megan Kelly interviewing Kirsten Powers about the DOJ not even doing a hand slap on the Black Panther thugs intimidating people at the polling place. http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/13/doj-dis...
As they honestly can say, after years of repeating bias and lies, now believing it themselves, as Kirsten said for most liberals/progressives when it comes to facts and the truth, "You can put me in the category of those who just don't give a darn."
All I can say is, Thank God for the Internet. The truth will out!
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
What is Truth? – Pontius Pilate 33 A.D.
Behold the Washington Post today
A newspaper that truly has the most, people say,
Blinders, heads in the sand, and reporters who ignore the facts
So their biased philosphical agenda is left intact
All the while their readership continues to decay
Speaking of newspapers, the Financial Times ran an article about Obama which I saw yesterday with my own eyes and today if you click on the clink, it only takes you to Gibb's comment.
" Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama’s “growing credibility crisis” and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans, Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-clinton-official-...
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
http://search.ft.com/searchResults?queryText=robe...
When you believe you know what is best for everyone, and also believe the end justifies the means, there really is no truth except the goal itself. All else must bend to that goal or be discarded.
In the pathetic world of the left, they consider this crap to be the truth.
How did you escape it?? I'll be honest, I know lots of lefties and they're all completely brain-washed. Especially the black ones. The second I start to counter the Obama agenda I can see their eyes glaze over and they shut down. No back and forth, no civil discourse. Nothing, I'm an idiot or a racist or both.
I gotta know how you did it bro….
While I was on the left, I was never a really, deep lefty. I was sort of on the fringe outside. I have problems with authority and conforming. Since every one I ever met and discussed politics thought the same, I was pretty sure that was the truth.
So I did the same the rest did, voted mostly democrat, make insulting jokes about the GOP, and congratulate myself on how really cool and smart I was. When it came to the insulting jokes, I could top anyone I ever met on the left. I have a pretty fast mind, and I'm an amateur comedian, put those two together, and people did not want to get into deep political debates with me. Except being on the left, no one disagreed, we just knew we were all right, so charge the GOP!
When I got to my second year in college for some reason the most popular guys in the program liked my jokes, I helped them with homework, so we became fast friends. Still are, one of the guys is my daughter's Godfather. We get together a few times a year for drinks, laughs, and our kids are all friends too.
Those guys were also shameless conservative republicans, two of them we're using their GI bill to pay their tuition. Did I mention they were pretty big guys too? Much, much larger than I was at the time (still growing). So I learned to keep my razor sharp liberal insults to myself and listen to them. An d they were right about so many things. Got me thinking, maybe there is something to the other side after all. And that opened my eyes to start paying more attention to the other side of debate.
About 10 years later I was attending night school at the same college (comp sci) and I had to take a class on logic, but it wasn't a computer class, it was classified as philosophy and taught by a math professor. Even he had no idea why this was a required class. I figured it out. When you write compilers (programs that change English into the 1's and 0's computers speak) the exact wording is extremely important.
That course taught me how to debate using the ancient Greek method of logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is where the basic structure of the statement can be proven to be wrong, there fore the statement is wrong, there fore you don't even have to bother with the point, you've cut them off at the knees with out even having to listen to their argument.
There were something like 26 officially recognized logical fallacies. For example, straw man fallacy, which is Obama's favorite. "Some people think……" BEEP stop right there. By failing to positively identify who 'some people' are, the rest of the statement is pointless. (In mathematical terms it says "A" there fore "B" with out ever proving "A" is equal to "B").
My friends on the left did not like that one single bit. They loved it when I did it some one else, but when I trained it on them, not so much. After they stopped debating with me over it, I got board, so I started using it on my own beliefs. I did not fare too well either.
So I had to come up with a new set of beliefs that were logical. Along comes the internet and here I am.
That's a great story, imagine, you learned how to think for yourself at a college….
Bravo.
They spread confusion, that's where they live and prosper.
Thank you. It's not so much that I learned to think for myself, but I learned there were other ideas.
Couple that with engineering, physics and programming, the pieces all fell in place.
When it comes to engineering, its usually pretty easy to prove if some one is wrong. You have to learn very early on to lose the ego, because when you're wrong, you are wrong. If you weren't it would work.
Then logic came into it and it showed me how to apply all that engineering training to debates.
Around 1998 I got a new job at IBM, networking, and one of my coworkers (a really great guy) introduced me to libertarianism. And he was nice enough to do that the same way I sliced through my comrades on the left with logic. We debated all kinds of issues all the time.
He didn't convert me to libertarianism as much as he helped me figure out, that's what I already was, and just didn't realize it. (On the flip slide I did get him to admit that if it weren't for the whole believing in God part, yes, he would join the Catholic Church. So I did win my share of victories.)
So basically I do what my co-worker did to me. Politely, reasonably, logically question people's beliefs. Get them thinking and wondering what they really do believe. And its a lot easier over here on the right than it was over on the left. On the left, the premise of the debate is "I'm right, so let's start insulting how wrong you are."
I still get it from time to time, I just gave up on some guy over Big Journalism who insisted that libertarianism is roughly the same as communism and progressivism. I'll keep trying with others, but I know when I'm wasting my time too.
Not only the Washington compost. The ENTIRE slimestink media not named talk radio, Andrew Breitbart or Fox News(and even they are going soft). Media, Academia, and Law are now primarily elements of the far left. Its taken 50 yrs of communist attempts to destroy the west from within, all the way back to when Joe McCarthy was destroyed by the media for telling the truth.
Indeed-how many of us notice how many moslem doctors there happen to be? Can this be a coincidence or what? Id wagrer not. And dont forget-all of the terrorists in Londons terrorist attack of 7-7-07 hapened to be DOCTORS.
Majic-many of them deserve to be tried for TREASON-even the mafioso like Vito Genovese and Carlo Gambino supported America against facist Italy in Ww2. The media is worse than criminal-sedition is one of the terms that come to mind. Traitors is an even better one, since they KNOW what they are doing is wrong.
Hank-dont even try . There are 60 years of brainwashing involved here. If they dont want to listen I dont even bother. Remember, the American Revolution had about 1/3 popular support at the start of the war effort. The blacks have to solve there own problems, starting with raising there own illegetimate children.
Libertarians are the same as commies? Actually they are the exact opposites. Commies and Progressives want total control of your life. Libertarians want no govt at all. Lefties and Libertarians agree on one thing, but for different reasons-abortion.
Almost, but not quite. Libertarians want very limited, very restricted government that does not have the authority to mess with We The People any more than it absolutely has to.
Anarchists say they want no government, but what I think they really want is to appear hip and edgy to the socialists and communists in order to improve the odds that they'll get laid.
They haven't thought anything through. All they want to do is smash things, pick up chicks and take them back to their lofts. I'm not impressed.
Oh yes. I finally cancelled my WaPo subscription earlier this year. I'd already stopped reading it for news, but I liked the movie reviews, book reviews, sudoku puzzle, coupons, etc. But finally I had enough. The WaPo is shameless in their refusal to cover anything that is negative to Obama.
I am all for free speech and a free press but the Washington Post should be burned to the ground and the public should urinate on the ashes. You think there Liberal Bias is bad you should research the articles they write about Police Officers in Prince Georges County.
They turned my brothers shooting into such a far fetched tale that if you read the article they made it out that my brother executed someone face down on the ground with 13 shots. Never once mentioning the criminal was high on PCP (they made it out like he had just taken his asthema medicine) Not mentioning that he was in a struggle over the gun of another officer or that he refused 3 verbal warnings and then started to fight an officer to attempt to gain his weapon.
So yeah I can honestly say I would be happy if the Washington Post burned to the ground, went bankrupt or anything else that would prvent them from ever printing another lie.
Bravo!
I just thought of a new slogan/motto for the MSM: "Twice the standard half the time."
It should be called the "Washington Compost", they're right in the running with the "New York Slimes" for the Goebbels
Award for unbiased reporting. The Slimes has already won the "Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy" awards for getting
Americans killed. The first was given to them by Ho Chi Minh, and the second by Osama Bin Laden.
You must be logged in to post a comment.