“The tea party has dispersed,” Gloria Borger proclaimed on CNN after the Romney victory in Nevada.
Huh? what does that mean?
She concludes, as many in the Activist Old Media have, that a Romney victory in Nevada is a defeat for the tea party.
My conclusion; the media is looking for any reason, any reason, to declare the tea party dead. Plus, a few recent polls show that Romney actually is getting tea party support.
The Super Bowl is a big game so that means the tea party is dead. There is snow in Denver, so the tea party is dead. As long as you say the tea party is dead, you have a spot on a panel with the Activist Old Media.
It just amazes the media that Mitt Romney can run away with a state like Nevada, with a prominent tea party contingent (albeit for the first time in the primaries; it’s too early to say it’s a trend), so they conclude the tea party must be dead.
Oops. My headline mistakenly reads “cracker” journalism.
What I meant to write was ”crack” journalism – but in a completely sarcastic way.
At the top of Politico’s front page today sits a major spread on race and its cynical use in the presidential election. The co-authors claim that their inspiration came from (a week late) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer being called a bigot for daring to wag her finger at President Obama — something the media described as Speaking! Truth! To! Power! when Bush was in office.
Predictably, the article doesn’t hold the media accountable for blowing up, digging up, and focusing on bogus claims of racism, and just as predictably, the article doesn’t bother to mention Politico’s own racial scandal that blew up after their own Jonathan — He Who Investigates Private Citizens on Behalf Of His Precious One – Martin casually tossed off the slur “cracker” on a national cable channel last week.
I guess this is Politico’s transparently desperate way of pretending that neither they nor the rest of the MSM have anything to do with creating and/or fanning the flames of these phony racial firestorms, even though the media is usually the one holding the match. The reason Politico wants to pretend the MSM isn’t the number one generator of this stuff is obvious. They want to report and create it but take no responsibility for it. This is how they fashion that artificial shield of objectivity for themselves even as they lead this partisan crusade.
It’s just a fact that both the Democrats and their MSM allies use these trumped-up racial charges as a way to distract from Obama’s failures, scandals, and issues that matter, like jobs and the deficit. By CONSTANTLY creating racism where none exists — food stamps, finger-wagging, basketball, Juan — the MSM also keeps the narrative alive that the right is racist which, in turn, keeps us on defense. After all, when we’re on defense, we’re not getting our message out.
As we’ve documented here, Politico isn’t simply reporting on this cynical game of racial gotcha; they are playing, contributing, and amplifying it.
Is this a suggestion of rape? Failure of birth control? Noting MMFA’s past associations with violence and their refusal to condemn the multiple rapes reported at various Occupy encampments, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see their readers take a cue from the propaganda site’s endorsement of a violent movement where such crimes occurred.
Is this a new part of their mission statement yet published?
***UPDATE: Think Progress was named in lieu of Crooks and Liars in the drafting process. That’s been corrected. We wouldn’t want to insult the integrity of one far left propaganda site by inadvertently identifying it as another far left propaganda site.
In an attempt to discredit my Sunday morning remarks on Planned Parenthood and mammograms, a Crooks and Liars blogger promoted a debunked narrative on the Live Action investigation of Planned Parenthood and mammograms. This is what happens when you confuse knowledge with partisan agenda.
To what does Crooks and Liars link? The debunked Media Matters story. Behold:
We ask again for Media Matters to live up to the purpose described for the organization and correct their bad information. Stubbornly clinging to information proven unarguably false isn’t journalism, it’s devotion to propaganda over truth. Media Matters must choose: ideology or journalism.
It’s humorous how one Soros associated blog attempts to bail out another Soros blog using the first Soros blog’s bad and discredited information that they refuse to correct.
Komen didn’t retract funds because Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms. It never has. I’ve had a wellness check-up from Planned Parenthood (I was between jobs and didn’t have insurance for about a year) and it included a manual breast examination as well as instructions on the proper methods of self-examination (an important tool in early detection, which leads to higher survival rates). Had they detected anything or if I had belonged to any of the high risk groups, they would have referred me for a mammogram. That service could save potentially thousands of women’s lives.
And waste-of-intelligence hack pundits like Dana Loesch want to keep that from them.
I would advise that the next time “Nicole Belle” attempts to deconstruct my remarks, she does so while practicing listening comprehension. Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms, as I clearly and explicitly stated, they provide the “most basic of screenings,” which scores of clinics (not to mention Medicaid) provide to low-income women. If Crooks and Liars’ blogger needed a mammogram, she would have been referred to another clinic entirely by her Planned Parenthood clinic. Why? Because Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms.
Attorney General Eric Holder needs to send Charlie Savage at The New York Times a huge box of chocolates for Valentine’s Day. The NYT is the biggest cheerleader for Mr. Holder and this entire administration.
We all know how well I get along with Mr. Savage. His articles are notorious for being incredibly pro-Holder. This one is no different. Actually, it’s very anti-Darrell Issa. There isn’t anything negative about Mr. Holder or the Democrats on the committee. The more I read it I realize it’s not really about the hearing: It’s almost as if Mr. Savage and the Times used it as an excuse to write an article to prop up Mr. Holder. Mr. Savage completely glosses over anything the Republicans brought up.
First off, Mr. Savage, Operation Fast and Furious was not botched. Katie Pavlich at Townhall wrote about it here. It worked exactly the way it was suppose to. It was not botched. It did not fail. If anything, Operation Fast and Furious worked out the exact way it should.
Mr. Savage is right: The Republicans did rip into Mr. Holder, but for good reason. He forgets to mention the reason why the Republicans are so mad. They gave Mr. Holder and the DOJ a subpoena on October 12, 2011 and the department has given them the bare minimum. The department is stonewalling them. They’re mad because the documents were dumped on a Friday night. Again. Mr. Savage only brings up a quote from Representative Burton about Mr. Holder stonewalling them. He could have talked about Mr. Issa’s opening statement about the DOJ not cooperating.
A recent article by Jonathan Cohn in TheNew Republic entitled “Why Mitt’s Wealth Matters: It’s Policy, Not Envy” offers a meme that surely will be one line of Democrat attack against Mitt Romney should he happen to win the GOP nomination. Mr. Cohn’s article focuses on a speech that President Obama recently gave at the University of Michigan promoting his program for making college more affordable. What I found fascinating was Cohn’s argument echoing Obama’s not so subtle hint that because of Mitt Romney’s wealthy upbringing, and thus his never needing a student loan, he has no “standing,” for lack of a better term, to be targeting the student loan program for cuts as a part of his total package for reducing discretionary federal spending.
Says Cohn:
“Romney also benefited from the lottery of life – among other things, by being born into a family that could afford to provide him with the very best education at every step of the way. He seems unaware of that fact and the possibility that others, born into less fortunate circumstances, might need some of the government programs he’s promised to undermine.”
In other words, because of Romney’s wealth, he simply does not understand the needs of those who use government assistance. So what is Cohn’s argument, then? That only those who had a hardscrabble upbringing need apply for the presidency?
For a columnist who clearly is in the Democratic camp to offer such a notion is utter hypocrisy. In 2004, the “party of the little guy” offered up as their standard-bearer Senator John Kerry, who was at the time the richest man in Congress. Not only was Kerry fabulously wealthy (~$500+ million net worth), but he didn’t even earn it! He married it. Add to this Kerry’s coiffed and grinning side-kick John Edwards was a sleazy trial lawyer who amassed his own pile of tens of millions by bankrupting obstetricians using junk science, and you hardly have a representation of the 99%. So how come in 2004 the Democrats felt that immense wealth didn’t matter, yet now suddenly it is a legitimate issue? (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.
The firestorm over Komen For The Cure’s recent announcement that they would be cutting funding to Planned Parenthood was remarkably furious, so much so that it has degenerated into an obtuse PR mess for Komen. As I noted yesterday at the end of my piece defending Komen from the bitter Leftists at NPR, the situation was looking shaky and there was concern Komen would cave to the vitriolic attack from the Left (self-described vanguards of “free choice”, ironically).
Much of the wagon-circling against Komen was fomented by the Leftist media machine and their Hollywood sycophants, and leading the charge was Andrea Mitchell of Mitchell Reports:
This is truly activist journalism at its worst. Mitchell has no intention to inform with this piece, but to advance her Leftist agenda against the Komen Foundation’s decision. She claims to be decrying the politicization of the issue, yet she aired the segment on her own show, which she herself describes as as a “political” program.
NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell hosts an all political hour from 1 p.m. EST to 2 p.m. EST, Monday — Friday on msnbc. The show features in-depth interviews with high-profile figures and constant news updates.
The hypocrisy by Left and their media cohort concerning this issue has been stunning. They claim to only be interested in the advancement of women’s healthcare, yet their true agenda has been exposed as a mafia-like hit job to pound Komen into submission; protecting Planned Parenthood and their sacred sacrament of abortion. It does not get any more political than that.
It was an onslaught of savvy PR tactics yesterday that brought the Susan G. Komen Foundation to its knees, apparently prompting the organization’s retreat today from its initial decision to cut its funding to Planned Parenthood. As Politico reported this morning:
On a day when the breast cancer charity’s top official made the rounds with the national media, insisting the organization’s decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood wasn’t political, the firestorm only got worse. Top Democrats piled on; the head of the Komen chapter in Los Angeles quit; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving a $250,000 matching gift to Planned Parenthood.
The Atlantic Wire reports that the Susan G. Komen foundation’s website was even hacked, for some period displaying a banner that had been changed from “help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer“ to read, “help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.” And the long repeated myth that the current Komen CEO takes home a half a million dollar salary was brought back to life yesterday – even though the truth is that Komen’s current CEO, Nancy Brinker, takes home $0 in annual salary.
But hey, breast cancer isn’t supposed to be political, right?
Officials with the Susan G. Komen foundation had insisted the initial decision was never political, that it was about providing more direct mammography screening services for women, according to Nancy Brinker, the charity’s founder and CEO. From Politico:
I take no pleasure in the misery of others, but as someone who recognizes that the mainstream media is the arch-villain in the fight for human liberty and the survival of an America that doesn’t resemble a European socialist country – yesterday, it was impossible for my heart to do anything other than leap for joy when I read that the New York Times lost $40 million in 2011.
No one wants to see anyone lose their job, but the New York Times, Washington Post,L.A. Times, and all the rest are nothing more than lairs for arch-villains, and when these hollowed-out volcanoes are bankrupted, the virtue of this outweighs what happens to the faceless henchmen who are now out on the streets looking for work. I wish them luck. I wish things were different. But this is about saving our country and humanity.
Online news sources such as Twitter and celebrity-focused blogs could put newspapers like The Sun out of business, its editor told a parliamentary committee on Thursday.
Dominic Mohan said that if such sites were able to report scandals that newspapers were forbidden to write about because of privacy injunctions, readers and advertising money could flow from the press to the internet.
Mr Mohan told the privacy and injunctions committee of peers and MPs: “We are competing for eyeballs with social media.”
New technology is part of the problem, to be sure, but the other part is credibility.
Well, I guess it’s okay to use the slur “cracker” for the for the same reason it’s okay to use the N-word. Some in the black community use the N-word and some in Florida use the word “cracker.”
Oh, wait; it’s not okay to use the N-word.
Anyway, what does logic have to do with the mainstream media justifying and rationalizing anything they do? But justify and rationalize Jonathan Martin did when he called in to Newsbusters to justify and rationalize his use of the word “cracker.”
You can read the whole thing here, but this is my all-time favorite part:
Let’s face it, you were on MSNBC where virtually every criticism of Barack Obama they report as being somehow racist.”
“Totally agree that there is now a culture in the sort of political media universe on both sides where there is this sort of outrage industry that has been created where both sides monitor the other and try to find examples of offensive comments that can be seized upon and stirred up entirely for political gain where you have this, again, faux indignation, but it’s really just posing as indignation,” he said. “It’s all about political point scoring, and I think it absolutely takes place now on both sides.”
On Monday Representative Darrell Issa threatened Attorney General Eric Holder with a contempt of Congress if he does not fulfill Mr. Issa’s subpoena from October 12, 2011. Hardly anyone reported it. But then when I went to Google “Issa Eric Holder” this evening and a bunch of results came up. Unfortunately it was not about Mr. Issa’s statements. Instead it’s all about Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice’s remarks.
I’ve mentioned before it’s unusual for the Old Media to run any Fast and Furious news if the AP didn’t run something first. Same thing with this story. AP didn’t bother to post a story about Mr. Issa, but as soon as Mr. Holder says something they’re all over it. It’s quite pathetic and reminds me of Pavlov’s dog. This is the explanation of Mr. Issa’s letter:
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., made the accusation in a letter threatening to seek a contempt of Congress ruling against Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to turn over congressionally subpoenaed documents that were created after problems with Fast and Furious came to light. Holder was to testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs.
That’s it. No mention that this is a response to his subpoena on October 12, 2011. No mention of the emails sent Friday night. But the media goes crazy and reprints this article.
Not every outlet used the AP story though. The Washington Post again had an original piece written by Sari Horwitz! Weird, isn’t it, that she writes original posts when the DOJ and Democrats are on the defense. Surprise surprise! The story is on the front page of the website.
Senator Marco Rubio is a bona fide political star able to communicate his ideas and vision with an eloquence few can match. He’s also Hispanic and a Republican, which freaks the left out — and by “left,” I of course mean the mainstream media.
The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his upcoming reelection, and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keeps the corrupt MSM up at night. Not only could he help swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP territory; he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.
The nightmare scenario for Obama’s MSM Palace Guards is this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama on the campaign trail while wrapped in the mantle of history as the very first Hispanic nominated as vice president.
Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those stories were riddled with factual errors that we’re assured were nothing more than honest mistakes.
It’s been over 25 years since radio shock jock Howard Stern went national and in his own way helped to define today’s AM radio. So, it’s amazing to see the liberal media now suddenly discover a mean puritanical streak in what looks to be an effort to silence voices on the Right. And I thought it was the Christian right that seeks to enforce some moral order on the population?
With cross-over media and careers being so much in vogue today, should it really be a surprise that what may work, or be fine in one medium, could be interpreted as inappropriate on another? And why is it that only conservative voices seem to suffer this guilt by association, generated by the Left, to try and get them kicked off the air? This despicable political tactic deserves to be called out for what it is, the modern day equivalent of book burning.
Call it a Vast Left-wing Conspiracy, or some interesting connections if you follow New Media. It seems that not long after former Politico staffer Ben Smith moved to Buzzfeed, Politico may now be linking up with Buzzfeed to put some distance between itself and ideologically-biased media outlet Media Matters.
The most aggressive would be book burner at Politico these days appears to be Dylan Byers. After going after Big Journalism editor, Dana Loesch, he’s now targeted Erick Erickson for comments made on his AM radio show.
Polk Award-Winning Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings made a startling set of admissions on CSPAN, recently. Not only did he admit that most “journalists” are liberals, but he implied that they really aren’t interested in just reporting the facts of stories. Instead he said they are filled with a liberal “moralistic righteousness” and their goal is to “afflict” those they disagree with.
In the discussion, Hastings laid out how he sees his work as a journalist. “I think any journalist worth his salt often has a real moralistic kind of righteousness to them somewhere in their soul… and we talk in grand terms about ourselves, you know, afflicting the powerful and comforting the afflicted,” he told the CSPAN host.
Not much “objectivity” going on there, is there?
In the video segment featured by Townhall, Hastings is initially asked about his “prestigious” Polk Award and this discussion led CSPAN’s Brain Lamb to ask Hastings about the ideological mindset of Polk Award winners. This brought Hastings to his admission.
Of course, if one has to explain how “prestigious” an award is, one should suspect it ain’t that prestigious! Prestige is something that others should assign to you, not something you should assign to yourself.
Now, you might recall Mr. Hastings as the man whose 2010 Rolling Stone article eventually led to the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. Hastings caught some off-record carping by McChrystal’s staffers the revelation of which made the General look bad to his political leaders. Even then, many might have questioned Hastings’ actions by actually publishing those unguarded and casual, off-record conversations. It smacked of agenda or “gotcha journalism.”
But as we see in this interview, as far as Hastings is concerned, that is what journalists are supposed to do. They are supposed to approach their work with a “moralistic” agenda guiding them. They aren’t supposed to just publish the facts and let readers decide. They are supposed to “afflict the powerful” and that with all the left-wing political ideology such a crusade implies.
Left-wing operatives, like those who run Politico, are intentionally attempting to create their own reality. In the same way the left turned “30 Rock,” a show that ranked 106 in the ratings last season, into some sort of cultural phenom, the idea here is to push the political and social values of something no one watches into our country’s cultural and media narrative as though it’s something it’s not — popular.
Politico loves Stephen Colbert because Stephen Colbert loves Barack Obama and is waging war against the Right and free speech. America, however, is, to be kind, indifferent to Colbert. 1.44 million viewers and only half that among the 18-49 group, does not make you King of anything.
But Colbert knows how to play the game and understands that if he wants these kinds of hollow accolades and the opportunity to push his left-wing agenda and to have history revised in his favor, he must appeal to the right people, and the right people are not THE people; the right people are the left-wing elites who infest our corrupt media.
In December a Federal District Judge, Marco Hernandez, ruled against blogger Crystal Cox who was being sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick, whom Cox accused of corruption on her blog. The ruling declared that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news. I happen to agree with his decision, but the case raises the question about what actually defines a journalist. Considering what the mainstream media represents today, the line between genuine reportage and political advocacy has been completely blurred.
In the past, many famous and well-respected journalists had no formal training but honed their craft on the job, in many cases beginning their careers as copy boys/copy girls. Walter Cronkite, once cited as the most trusted man in America, was a college dropout who had a series of newspaper jobs reporting news and sports. Eric Sevareid, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley started their careers as broadcast journalists but never had journalism degrees. Dan Rather did receive a degree in journalism, and we can see how well that turned out once he decided to switch to advocacy journalism instead of the traditional who, what, when, where and how protocol of traditional journalism.
Advocacy journalism intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint for either a political or social agenda and has morphed today into nothing less than media bias and propaganda. Today the mainstream media is predominantly composed of liberal democrats, and this bias has been quite evident since the 2008 presidential race. There is also a marked difference between opinion and reportage journalism.
I have a hard time claiming to be a member of the fourth estate, although I have been writing for newspapers since 1998 as an op-ed columnist. During that time, however, I have covered news events and press conferences and submitted non-opinion articles. I never attended Journalism College, nor have I even taken one writing course. I had to drop out of college to support my mother who had had a stroke. Mark Steyn, who is a brilliant writer, never attended college at all but can write reams around many inhabiting the elitist realm of the New York Times. (more…)
Remember this? Yes, last Friday night the DOJ dumped documents on Congress about Fast and Furious. Anyone with an ounce of common sense & critical thinking skills would come to the conclusion based on the emails between Monty Wilkinson, Attorney General Eric Holder’s then deputy chief of staff, and then-US Attorney Dennis Burke, Mr. Holder and quite possible Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer knew about Operation Fast and Furious.
The majority of the media ignored the documents. They took the AP article and printed it, but buried it among other articles. Only NPR, The Daily Caller, and CBS had original articles. The New York Times really buried it: Even if you searched for it you wouldn’t find it. The AP article mentions the emails at the very end, but just repeats the talking points instead of using their common sense. “Mr. Wilkinson does not recall discussing this aspect with the attorney general.” Come on people let’s use our brains! Do you believe Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff, did NOT tell his boss about this?
But Congressional Democrats and the media don’t think this way. Instead of investigating further they simply take someone’s word, even if it sounds suspicious. This morning I saw an alert from The New York Times. The Democrats on The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee cleared the Obama administration of any wrong doing. This is the same Times that ignored the Friday night document dump. This story appeared on the front page of their US section and is an original piece written by Charlie Savage. Ironically the article by Pete Yost at the AP is the most concise one he’s written about Fast and Furious. Gee, I wonder why. The Huffington Post put Mr. Yost’s article on the front page of their politics section. What’s this I see? The Washington Post actually didn’t publish the AP article, but had Sari Horwirz write an original piece? I believe that hasn’t happened since September.
After President Obama was caught playing tarmac theatrics with Gov. Jan Brewer, everyone accused Brewer of being a racist. (Though, if we’re playing identify politics, I’m not sure how a man storming off a plane with a thunderous expression, stomping over to a woman only to read her the riot act as she stands there with a handwritten note welcoming him to her state isn’t viewed as sexist.) The media would like for you to believe that Obama never thrust his finger in another’s face.
Remember when Obama wagged his finger in Gov. Bobby Jindal’s face? Neither does the media.
***UPDATE: Think Progress was named in lieu of Crooks and Liars in the drafting process. That's been corrected. We wouldn't want to insult the integrity of one far left propaganda site by inadvertently identifying it as another far left propaganda site. In an attempt to discredit my...
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?