The media is calling the Barack Obama attack on the Catholic Church a “culture war.” Culture War. The words and graphics are everywhere. It was the ABC News headline one morning, “Candidate’s Culture War” is what the graphic said. As if this is some sort of battle between Obama and the Republican candidates. Yes, it is that, but it us much, much more.

This is also a fight much larger than “culture.” Culture is something that defines art and common belief. Culture is something that changes with the times and can actually be defined as you wish. Much of our culture today is not what it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago. What I think is culture, may not be what you think is culture. Yes, there is an “American culture, and I believe I know what it is, but I certainly don’t trust the media or this President (who would probably see me as a “bitter” American who “clings to guns and religion”) to tell me what it is.

The Constitution doesn’t work that way, certainly not the First Amendment which guarantees religious liberty and expression. I would like to think the Constitution would define our culture, but sadly that is not always the case. For the media to call this a “culture war” greatly diminishes its value, this is a battle over the First amendment of the US Constitution. Obama wants the Constitution circumvented to pander to his base, I would hope that most of us would be united with the Catholic Church in wanting it protected.

The new part of the ObamaCare law (that nobody read before they voted on it) says that churches that provide health care and insurance, must also provide contraceptives. The Catholic Church opposes contraception.

“The White House insists this achieves a balanced approach that respects women’s health care and religious liberty, but that’s not how the Republican candidates see it,” said Jake Tapper of ABC this morning. Jake, this does nothing to protect religious liberty. It tries to destroy it.

Thankfully, the presidential hopefuls joined in the fight.

“We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s First right, a right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. This is a violation of conscience,” said Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum says Obama has been “hostile to people of faith particularly Christians and specifically Catholics.”

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have also been avid opponents to Dear Leaders actions on this. Not just because they want to be seen as opponents, they all believe what he is doing in inherently wrong.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Lynn Woolley and Cliff Kincaid:

When the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure made a decision to sever its ties with America’s number one seller of abortions, Planned Parenthood, the media went to war. The media coverage was slanted in such a way that “mainstream” reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Lisa Myers of NBC News were openly advocating for a point of view—pressuring Komen to reverse course and give in to Planned Parenthood.

Why would the media go to war over something as seemingly insignificant as a policy change regarding funding at Komen, a private cancer charity? Part of the answer lies in the fact that, for the media, “women’s rights” take precedence over all other rights, including the rights of children. This is what “feminism” has become and this is what the Komen controversy was supposed to be about. In reality, it had nothing to do with breast cancer because the fact is that most Planned Parenthood affiliates don’t even provide mammograms. That money from Komen was used to refer women at risk of contracting the disease somewhere else.

So the issue was something else as well. While there were references to Planned Parenthood being an “abortion provider,” there was no explanation of what this “service” actually “provides”—a procedure that destroys a human life. This is why the annual March for Life against abortion is mostly ignored by the major media. It is a sad fact that even some conservative women still think that Planned Parenthood is simply an organization that provides information about voluntary family planning.

You saw very little in the mainstream media from pro-life people who supported Komen’s initial decision. The bias is so pronounced that the media long ago adopted the language of the Left. The term “pro-life” is never used. But “pro-choice” is. Newspapers use the term “abortion rights” to describe the political process of terminating the lives of the unborn, but use “anti-abortion” when referring to those of us who value human life. We are “against.” They are for “rights.”

So we made it a point to tune into the Big Three network newscasts on Friday night—hours after Nancy Brinker of Komen had caved. We wanted to see if this story would be treated in a neutral manner, or if the stories would be written from the standpoint that Brinker did the right thing—and, why did it take her so long? We did receive a shock, though it was a mild one. One of the three networks actually did a fairly nice job.

(more…)

Right off the bat C-SPAN should have aired this hearing. There is absolutely no excuse not to air it on TV. Since I had to stream it online I kept my TV on DirecTV News Mix to keep an eye on the news. The only network that had consistent coverage of the testimony was FOX News. I’m not shocked at all. I didn’t see anything about the testimony on the other channels. Jeff Poor from The Daily Caller helped me keep an eye on MSNBC and he didn’t see anything. He said they were hung up on Donald Trump all day. I was informed by a friend on Twitter, Doug Mataconis, that the hearing was discussed on The Situation Room on CNN for about 15 minutes. “Special Report” and The FOX Report both started off with Mr. Holder’s testimony.

Before I continue I noticed some friends on Twitter growing upset that headlines were partisan. The MSM was right: This was a partisan fight and every single Democrat coddled Mr. Holder. The Republicans were the only ones to demand withheld documents and answers from Mr. Holder.

Right after the testimony ended I began searching for coverage of the hearing on Google. First stop was Associated Press. Remember: If the AP doesn’t write anything on Fast & Furious more than likely the rest of the media won’t mention it. Pete Yost did write about the testimony, but hat’s where the excitement ends. Again, he distorts information to favor Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice. Mr. Yost fails to mention the subpoena was issued October 12, 2011. That’s 4 months ago. That is plenty of time to go through the hoops to release the documents. Mr. Yost says, “Though neither side said so, negotiations are almost certain to be the next step.” If you watched the testimony do you honestly think Mr. Issa or Mr. Holder will negotiate? Didn’t think so. Mr. Issa won’t accept anything less than the documents he needs. Then Mr. Yost describes a few dialogues, but doesn’t bother to get down to nitty gritty of the testimony.

(more…)

ABC is back at it with their hidden cameras series, “What Would You Do?” They put actors in provocative situations and use hidden cameras to see how people react.

Alan Funt, this aint. “Candid Camera“ was a fun show where people laughed when caught in funny and embarrassing situations. “What Would You Do?” has a clear social agenda where they seek to find and expose people’s racial, sexual and personal prejudices.

I must say this, the reporter, John Quinones is a nice guy. We spent some time on the news set together when he came to Las Vegas while doing a story on a polygamist colony in Arizona. We talked live on air about his segment and then chatted after. You would be hard pressed to find a nicer guy in the business, but he clearly has an agenda here—he is an activist. Fine, it is what it is and that’s how the show is formatted. ABC has chosen which groups to protect and which groups to expose and they will do it in prime time.

Here are some of the recent scenarios where they used actors to get reactions from real people:

A Muslim woman attempts to buy some items from a bakery and a rude and prejudiced cashier makes bigoted comments to her.

Homosexual parents take their children to a restaurant.

Homosexual partners kiss in public.

Racial profiling of Hispanics in a restaurant in Arizona. This segment was done in opposition to Arizona’s Immigration Law (1070) and the scenario they posed would not have been allowed by the law, but not to bother, they did it anyway. They showed the security guard demanding “ID, documentation and papers” without cause. The Arizona law doesn’t allow that and ABC has to know that, but they presented the scenario as permissible under 1070.

The show admits a social agenda, but there is a clear political agenda as well.

Which reminds me, NBC used similar tactics when it sent hidden cameras and  “Muslim-looking” men to a NASCAR race to record instances of prejudice after 9/11. I can hear the producers at NBC sitting in a meeting planning that segment, “Hell, those NASCAR fans are a bunch of  drunk, fat, white guys who hate anybody who’s not like them, we’ll get some great video!” If they didn’t say it, they thought it. I’ve been in those meetings where similar things have been planned. Like the ABC show, you must first come from the position that the prejudice is there, or why would you set up these scenarios in the first place? Does that not show prejudice also?

(more…)

Oh look! The Justice Department decides to dump 500 pages on Congress on a Friday night! If they really want to be secretive or different they’d choose to dump documents on a Tuesday night. We’re almost looking forward to Friday nights because that’s when we can expect anything about Fast and Furious from the Justice Department.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify on Thursday, February 2 in front of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee so it’s no surprise there was a dump last night. I was looking through my timeline when I saw Michelle Malkin’s tweet about the documents. The link led to NPR, which shocked me they would be the ones to have it plus they included nine pages of the documents. They beat the AP! I have found unless the AP writes about Fast and Furious the majority of the Old Media won’t touch it.

I went to sleep around midnight central time and at that time the only major outlets that covered it were AP, CNN, Washington Post, FOX News, and ABC News. This morning I woke up and saw USA Today posted the AP article. The story was the main story on the front page of their national section, but has since been replaced. It’s not even on the front page anymore. I’d give them props, but it appeared before 6AM and taken down before 9AM CDT. Sorry guys, it doesn’t count when you have it up and taken down before the majority of the country wakes up. It’s also nowhere on the FOX News home page and it’s buried in the politics section. Shame on them since they’ve been consistent with Fast and Furious coverage. CNN does receive credit because it’s still on their home page.

At The Washington Post and ABC News you have to go a search for Fast and Furious in order to find their AP article. The New York Times also buried the AP article. In order to find it you have to go to the bottom of their home page and find the tiny cube for “More News From AP and Reuters.” Click on AP and it’s under AP Politics. But you have to click AP Politics and scroll to the bottom. Even if you search “Fast and Furious” it doesn’t bring up the article. I consider this as NOT covering it New York Times! I’m very disappointed The Washington Times hasn’t even mentioned it. I haven’t seen anything on CBS News either. MSNBC buried the AP article.

Here’s the thing. I know these outlets have investigative reporters. The emails gave me more questions than answers and I’m wondering why no one in the Old Media is pointing this out. I receive Google Alerts for Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious. This morning a blog post from Stop The ACLU popped up addressing the same questions I had. NPR brings up this part in the emails, but ignores it and doesn’t realize the importance. Right after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry passed away Monty Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff,  emails Dennis Burke (bold my emphasis), “Tragic. I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

(more…)

It’s hard for the Activist Old Media to out-do itself with their leftist bias, but the Romney tax returns have them freaked out.

This fits right in their wheelhouse of deception and class envy.

The latest is an ABC story with this headline. “Romney Failed to Disclose Swiss Bank Account Income.”

Sounds serious there. Sounds like they finally busted Mitt and they are preparing the graphics and music for the hour-long prime time special showing him doing the IRS perp walk.

Five paragraphs into the story you find out the amount is $1,700 dollars. Now, $1,700 is more than most recent Democrats candidates for president donate to charity in a year, but on Romney’s tax returns to find a missing $1,700 dollars is like finding a penny in the cushions that you forgot to report. I guess the dollar amount is not important (unless its somebody making too much money,) it’s the headline they were after here.

Better get top terrorist reporter Brian Ross out of the Caribbean and off to Switzerland to uncover this latest Romney plot.

NBC’s Brian Williams called Romney’s wealth “unimaginable.” Unimaginable? How you doing Brian in your luxury Manhattan apartment? Ask your neighbor Beyonce if you can borrow some sugar.

Better send that crew back to Mexico to see how the branch of the Romney family is doing down there and demand they tell you how much money they make off their citrus farms. You left that out of the last story you did on them.

(more…)

Over the past couple days, it’s been fascinating to watch and read the corrupt media’s reaction to the effective counter-attack Speaker Gingrich has launched against them. Here are a couple of  prime examples:

New York Times:

John King of CNN, Juan Williams of Fox News and Brian Ross of ABC News all ended up being hit by Mr. Gingrich in his relentless criticism of the news media last week, part of an anti-elite, anti-establishment campaign that is rallying conservative voters around him.

Translation: Angry GOP voters just want to see the MSM take a beating.

Politico:

Drudge dropped a bomb on the South Carolina Primary in a big way last night with an old-school siren and everything.  After wearing out command/control + r on millions of laptops in America, Drudge finally revealed a few details on a story involving Newt Gingrich’s second wife (and second ex-wife) Marianne Gingrich.

According to the exclusive report, ABC News’ Brian Ross had a revealing interview with Ms. Gingrich earlier this week and the contents of the report are so explosive that ABC News executives at first ordered the story to be kept under wraps until this Monday, 48 hours after the South Carolina primary, then they changed their minds to Friday. At the time of this writing they changed the air date to Thursday.

The idea that corporate executives determine what information can and cannot be released by a news outlet lest the news effect voters behavior raises serious ethical issues that need to be explored.

According to Drudge:

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

Assuming the report is accurate, one has to ask “how close is ‘too close’ to voting day for a story to break?”  Is it three days?  Four?  How about seven?  Who makes this determination?  Is this just a rule for a primary, or for a general election as well?  Will the network be this introspective and reserved when they receive the inevitable October Surprise from Team Axelrod?

News is news is news is news.

When we receive information that is relevant to Americans making an informed decision is not the business of an unnamed executive who likes to play God with the news of the day.  The networks and newspapers of the old media are so obsessed with being the “gate-keepers” and having the all-important job of protecting the American public from having too much information that our delicate sensibilities can’t handle that we end up with squashed stories about blue dresses, ex-wives and Islamist terrorist sympathizers partying with an unknown State Senator from Illinois.

And by the way, if the ABC News executives were trying to “protect’ Gingrich from this story they’ve done a miserable job.  If they squash it until after the voting Newt is in a horrible position.  The story has leaked (as these stories always do) and now little trickles have seeped out onto the Internet, talk radio and eventually cable news.  By the time CNN holds tomorrow night’s debate in Charleston everyone will have already formed an opinion about a story that none of us have really been able to see. Poor Newt Gingrich will be unable to address any single, specific part of the story because, like the rest of us, he doesn’t really have any idea what, specifically is in the story.  So instead, our imaginations will run away with us and assume the worst and Newt can’t do a thing about it.

Airing it on Thursday, two days before the primary, implies a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome.

(more…)

From Drudge:

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned… MORE… Developing…

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours. Her explosive revelations are set to rock the campaign. But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary …

… A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

I don’t even know the content of this interview or what further revelations she could have on Gingrich, but unless it involves cross-dressing, drug trafficking, or other salacious details, I’m going to feel completely let down.

We all know that Newt Gingrich cheated on two of his three wives. He cheated on his wife Jackie, who had cancer, with Marianne Gingrich, the woman who gave an interview to ABC. If the details are simply that he was unkind to her or didn’t treat her right, well, surprise! You were the mistress! You helped break up a marriage and thus forfeited your right to be outraged when the next mistress usurped your spot as the new wife. I have no pity for the “other woman.” I guess that’s why I find Marianne Gingrich’s late-to-the-game interview so odd. Could there be any bigger bombshell than the story of their union?

That being said, ABC’s decision to drop this interview after the votes are counted in South Carolina has just been thwarted as the first shoe has been dropped. Everyone now expects the other one; they know that something is going to come out about Gingrich’s second marriage because of the Drudge headline. How will this affect voting? How will it affect fundraising? And will the details of the interview sufficiently match any loss of support that Gingrich may receive as a result?

(more…)

Buried in the middle of this article posted at ABC’s The Note, you will find, in my humble opinion, the real news in this story, and it’s likely buried because it’s horrible, terrible, not-so-very good news for the MSM’s Precious One:

CNN/ORC poll asked voters who they saw as best able to “get the economy moving.” Just 40 percent chose Obama, while 53 percent picked Romney.

This is major news for two reasons. First, Barack Obama sits at a lowly 40% on what is going to be the most important question of this campaign. Secondly, Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, is polling over 50% on this question. 

What else is 2012 going to be about? I know the MSM is going to try and sell what’s left of their souls to make it about anything else, but good luck with that.

(more…)

This was the most social issues-heavy debate of them all. In New Hampshire. It was no coincidence.

In an election cycle where the economy is more important to voters than it’s ever been, focusing on social issues not only lets Obama off the hook, but also paints Republican candidates as “extreme” due to the GOP’s backwards inability to effectively and attractively message values.

In one of the most bizarre debate moments of modern times, candidates were asked whether or not states should be allowed to ban contraceptives, based on the illogical presupposition of a Santorum stance, one which he was not given the courtesy of clarifying before moderators proceeded with their misdirected question. This discussion went on for nearly a half an hour.

Following this, the discussion of gay marriage, which both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry effectively shut down (and the moderators quickly changed subjects) when they pointed out the severe hypocrisy of talking equality in a country that discriminates against Christians, with the example of adoption and the Catholic Charities.

It took 3/4 of the way into the debate before candidates were asked about the economy. During a time when unemployment is, cosmetically, at plus-8% with hundreds of thousands giving up on the workforce entirely (before you celebrate the barely visible dip in the unemployment numbers by way of a shrunken workforce), quite frankly, no one gives a damn about gay marriage. People care even less about contraceptives, which no one believes states should or will ban.

(more…)

Here’s a new way to try and hip-up the boring, ages-old, left-wing idea of tax hikes: link it to reality TV star Kim Kardashian. That is just what ABC News tried to do on the Wednesday, January 4th edition of ABC “World News Tonight” when the venerable news program helped advertise an effort by a small group headed by a former Democrat operative that wants to hike California’s income taxes. It is a two-pronged approach of hitching a big government, big spending, high tax agenda to the TV reality show star in order to drag younger people into the left’s class warfare game.

ABC highlighted a California Millionaires Tax policy recommendation from a group called Courage Campaign. The group is headed by Rick Jacobs who is the former head of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign in California, a Huffington Post writer, and leader of this admittedly “progressive” group.

ABC reported that the “liberal group” (and kudos to ABC for actually identifying them as a liberal group for a change) is upset that Kim Kardashian, who made some $12 million in 2011, only paid one percent more than the average middle class wage in the Golden State.

Here is what the extremist high-tax group says on it’s website about this:

Kim Kardashian made more than $12 million in 2010, but she only paid 1% more in taxes than a middle-class Californian. That’s not OK, especially when budget cuts are decimating schools and critical programs for children, the elderly, and the disabled. It’s exactly why Courage Campaign and two dozen other organizations are putting the Millionaires Tax of 2012 on the ballot.

Wow, that tiny, little one percent suuuure seems small, right? But let’s look at the actual payment, shall we? Kardashian paid a tax rate of 10.3 percent and 10.3 percent of twelve million is $1,236,000! And those middle-class folks that paid one percent less at 9.3 percent? Well if the average income in California is $47.000, then they paid only $4,371. Why aren’t these middle-class louts paying their fair share? (That’s called sarcasm, by the way.)

Now, it’s not that I care at all for Kim and her brood — I never watch so-called reality TV and have never seen her show — but this is all really just class warfare. After all, let’s look at the tact here: Instead of actually talking about what Kardashian pays, this ABC flogged extremist group focuses on that “one percent” as if that makes her tax remittance tiny. They mislead the public by purposefully avoiding any mention of the amount she actually paid.

Seriously, the fact is we could out right confiscate the millions made by the Kardashinas of this country and it wouldn’t make a dent in the hole of trillions of dollars that Democrats have dug for us.

But there is one last thing to ask about this ABC report: I’m just wondering, but has ABC ever highlighted the tax policy idea of some small tea party group that made a video to sell its plan to the people? Why does this tiny, left-wing group in California rate any attention at all in a national news program?

Obviously the answer here is that ABC saw the possibility of exploiting Kardashian and enraging her young fan base in order to drive them to support a left-wing idea. It’s all about branding, you see. If the far left and ABC can leech off Kim Kardashian to sell their creaky old socialist policies, then that’s what they will do.

Echoing the spin of Red Star recipient Scot Horsley of NPR, ABC’s Diane Sawyer today celebrated Richard Cordray, President Barack Obama’s new appointee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as a “consumer champion.”

(more…)

Larry O’Connor’s well-caught “sound bite for the day” yesterday deserves further elaboration.

Yesterday, on MSNBC, left-wing journalists Chris Hayes of The Nation and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post–no strangers to Democrat-media collusion–revealed that they had been part of an off-the-record White House briefing in which it was made clear that President Barack Obama planned all along to let the temporary payroll tax holiday expire, and then blame Republicans.

The meeting may have been the one first revealed on December 19, 2011 by ABC News’s senior White House correspondent, Jake Tapper, who tweeted that day that “a group of progressive media stars” had attended a private meeting at the White House with the President.

However, if Hayes is to be believed, the message of that meeting may have extended far beyond the “progressive” media niche at MSNBC, and reached a broader audience in Washington.

According to Hayes, “everyone in Washington” knew that Obama wanted the payroll tax extension to fail–and yet the same journalists eagerly covered the subsequent payroll tax debate as if Republicans were the only obstacle to an extension. The result of the media’s collusion was a year-end political victory for Obama and the Democrats at the expense of House leaders, the Tea Party, and Republicans in general.

Here is the exchange between Hayes and Klein (0:44 to 1:04), with MSNBC contributor Melissa Harris-Perry chiming in encouragingly (transcript follows):

What is the Rose Parade’s connection to claimed Wall Street abuses? Nothing.  But that isn’t stopping the LA Times, ABC local tv, Yahoo, and other media from dutifully promoting the decomposing Occupy movement’s plan to disrupt the century-old event.

As of December 22, Occupy The Rose Parade had a pathetically insignificant 191 followers on Facebook and 283 followers on Twitter, and its grandiose fundraising plans had raised a laughable $600 just days from their planned protest immediately following the January 2, 2012 Rose Parade.  Given the irrelevant scope of this “movement,” prominent media nonetheless hype their plans and the Pasadena Police Department is specifically working with them to allow their participation in the informal parade that traditionally trails the formal parade floats.

How can this happen, and who is behind this anemic, yet overly propagandized, protest? Peter Thottam is the founder of Occupy The Rose Parade.

He is also an ivy-leaguer from Yale, a Goldman Sachs alum, and former corporate lawyer from an international mega law firm, with a Boalt Hall law degree and a UCLA MBA.  A true one percenter if there ever was one, right?

Founder of at least two anti-war organizations, in 2008 Thottam was arrested in Ventura for confronting Nancy Pelosi over the Iraq war.  Thottam knows how to get television attention, too: he wore a Dick Cheney mask to draw attention to his efforts to impeach Bush during the 2008 Rose Bowl Parade on local television.

Like a one-trick pony, disgraced lawyer, admitted thief and shoplifter Peter Thottam is once again trotting out his Rose Bowl protest theme – presumably to resuscitate the Occupy chaos, but perhaps more likely for self-aggrandizement.  And unlike his previous efforts, this time he’s cleaned himself up and donned a more respectable costume, that of an official Rose Parade organizer, to meet with media.

(more…)

I’m speechless. Last night on ABC World News reported about illegal gun sales in New York. New York City Mayor Bloomberg is on top of it! So many gun sellers sold guns to people who wouldn’t pass a background check! Mayor Bloomberg said something has to be done!

ABC World News appears to be outraged this is going on! This was the second story on their show. There’s quite a bit of information on this on their website too. One of their investigative reporters even went undercover, posing as a 17 year-old trying to buy a gun online. They put up Mayor Bloomberg’s press conference too. I bet they would be so angry if the federal government sold guns illegally.

Oh wait. THEY HAVE. And guess what ABC World News! One of those guns was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. You know what yesterday was? The one year anniversary of his murder.

Yes, ABC World News did a report on illegal gun sales in New York City on the one year anniversary of Brian Terry’s death. You show outrage at ordinary citizens breaking federal gun laws, but no outrage at the federal government for breaking their own federal gun laws? On the anniversary of Brian Terry’s death? We don’t care if it was a coincidence.

The fact is ABC World News should be ashamed of themselves. How can they be angry about this and not Operation Fast & Furious? How can they report, even go undercover to investigate this and not do the same for Operation Fast & Furious?! Hello ABC World News a gun illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on American soil. Why the lack of outrage over this?

(more…)

ABC’s “This Week” is bringing back George Stephanopoulos little more than a year after Christiane Amanpour replaced him and sent him to NYC for their morning show. There were rumors of Amanpour’s departure for some time, that the shakeup came from both parties with Amanpour longing to do more field reporting as opposed to sitting behind a desk.

NEW YORK — George Stephanopoulos is returning to Sunday mornings at ABC News, replacing Christiane Amanpour as host of the political talk show “This Week.”

ABC said Tuesday that Stephanopoulos, who returns Jan. 8, will remain as host of “Good Morning America,” although likely on a four-day schedule.

Amanpour, meanwhile, enters an unusual job-sharing role where she will become ABC’s global affairs anchor, contributing to prime-time shows on world news, while also being host of a daily show on CNN International.

[...]

Critics wondered from the start whether the Iranian-born Amanpour, a veteran foreign correspondent for CNN, was a good fit for a panel show dominated by American politics. It hasn’t budged from third place behind NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a resurgent “Face the Nation” on CBS, with the ABC show down 1 percent in ratings from last year.

(more…)

ABC World News is no better than NBC Nightly News. Last week was the time to do it: Department of Justice dumping 1,400 pages on Congress, Sharyl Attkisson releasing information showing they wanted to use Fast and Furious to mandate new gun laws, and, of course, Eric Holder’s testimony. Then again ABC World News has never mentioned Operation Fast and Furious all year. Why start now?

The day of the document dump, Friday, December 2, ABC decided to do a segment on how the elderly are working well into their 90s and a story about a fallen soldier’s dog. But let’s just give them the benefit of the doubt and maybe they just ran out of time. They had the whole weekend to get a segment for it.

Come Monday did it appear on the show? No: Instead, Tiger Woods’s comeback is a much bigger story than the document dump from the previous Friday. Then they had to do a healthy living segment to tell us that too much sitting is bad for us. Yes didn’t you know to much sitting is bad for you? If you’re going to do a healthy living segment at least tell us something we don’t know.

Instead of talking about Mr. Holder’s testimony the next day or new documents revealing the intent to use Fast & Furious to mandate new gun laws, ABC talks about Alec Baldwin getting kicked off a plane. An entire segment was devoted to him. They actually did a study group to figure out which one was right: Baldwin or the flight attendant. They’re able to fit in a few sentences about Blago’s jail sentence too. Surprise! Another governor from my home state is going to prison! They couldn’t fit in one or two sentences about the attorney general testifying? No?

(more…)

Potential good news via the New York Post:

Christiane Amanpour may soon be giving up the anchor chair on ABC News’ “This Week.” Sources say network honchos are mulling who might replace the award-winning journalist, who has struggled in the ratings since she jumped from CNN to take the reins of the public affairs show in August 2010. “There are discussions of Amanpour’s role changing to that of a global affairs anchor,” a source said. Possible names to fill her seat include ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Terry Moran, Matthew Dowd and Jake Tapper. “Good Morning America” anchor George Stephanopoulos, who hosted the show for eight years, may take back his role and “pull double duty” by hosting the morning show and the Sunday political talk show.

“This Week” has never recovered from the loss of David Brinkley, a legendary newsman respected by both left and right for his objectivity and probing intelligence. Placing former Clintonista George Stephanopoulos in that chair seemed like the worst idea ABC News could’ve possibly made, at least until Christiane Amanpour was hired to take his place.

Regardless, both of those left-wing partisans who disguise themselves as objective journalists were slaps to the face of Brinkley’s legacy, but there have been brief, shining moments when the “This Week” planets have realigned.

(more…)

—–

Last week, after the Romney campaign released its first ad attacking our failed president’s failed leadership of his failed economy, you would’ve thought the former Massachusetts Governor closed the ad with, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve of eating Obama’s children.”

The ensuing media storm over the ginned up accusation that the ad took Obama out of context lasted two days, and still this week I hear left-wing pundits disguised as objective pundits talking about how “it might hurt Romney’s credibility.”

It was pure nonsense and merely a way for the MSM to create the phony outrage needed to protect Obama from a pretty effective salvo against his failed record — which is what they intend to do throughout this campaign. The Romney ad was merely making a point in attributing those words to Obama, not playing gotcha. The only ones playing gotcha her were Obama’s Media Palace Guards.

But take a look at the ad above, which was just released by the Democratic National Committee. The DNC actually does take Romney out of context in trying to make it sound as though he was in favor of Obama’s failed stimulus when he most certainly was not. When you’re talking about out-of-context within the realm of  intentionally attempting to mislead, there is no better example.

(more…)