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…)

Unfortunately , Komen For The Cure is now experiencing the full fury of the Left following their apparent divorce from the murder factory that is Planned Parenthood. In keeping with their typically Leftist agenda, NPR immediately released a bitter indictment of Komen for separating from Planned Parenthood (PP).

The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

NPR’s opening salvo contains the usual argument for supporting Komen’s involvement with Planned Parenthood; PP’s use of Komen funds for offering “breast exams” to women at their clinics. This argument contains some very serious flaws, as Jenny Erikson points out in her piece here (please note Jenny’s piece has been attacked by the Left):

Sure, they say the money goes for breast health exams, but money is liquid. Once it goes into the bank, it’s grouped with all the money that’s in there, and then it’s paid out for expenses. It’s like having a dual-income household with a joint checking account. The mortgage isn’t paid with one income and groceries with the other; they’re both paid out of the same checking account.

Besides, Planned Parenthood doesn’t even offer mammograms, which are the surest way to detect early signs of cancer. How much money do they need to be able to tell a patient, “Yup, that feels like a lump — here’s the number for a place that can actually help you”? [my emphasis]

Essentially all of the funds are co-mingled meaning that they may be used for any purpose, not just breast exams. This argument is a red herring used by PP to keep their funding from Komen while trying to make Komen’s involvement with them more palatable to the growing number of donors choosing not to give to Komen. Whether or not Komen acknowledges it, this was clearly a growing issue for them,

Life Decisions International includes Komen on its “boycott list” of companies and organizations that support or collaborate with Planned Parenthood. In December, Lifeway Christian Resources, the publishing division of the Southern Baptist Convention, announced a recall of pink Bibles it had sold because some of the money generated for Komen was being routed to Planned Parenthood

The author of the NPR piece goes on:

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has depicted Stearns’ probe as politically motivated and said she was dismayed that it had contributed to Komen’s decision to halt the grants to PPFA affiliates.

“It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying,” Richards told The Associated Press. “It’s really hurtful.”

The Left and Planned Parenthood cannot look past their embrace of the culture of death to realize their mission is really not about saving lives. In fact, PP’s mission is so repugnant it has to be researched to be believed. Short summaries may be found here and here.

Komen, however,  is the antithesis of PP. Komen’s mission since their founding has always been about women’s health and actually saving lives. In fact, since its inception in 1982, Komen has contributed nearly $1.9 billion to the fight against breast cancer.

NPR wants to emphasize where they believe the blame lies:

(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…)

Ahead of the opening of Congress and the renewed debt ceiling controversy, National Public Radio is attempting to frame the debate against Republicans by pushing hard on the issue of tax increases.

On today’s Morning Edition, NPR used reports from the ongoing national conference of mayors in Washington, D.C. to target Republicans by suggesting they were denying federal spending to needy cities, and that they were hypocrites for raising taxes in the cities that they govern.

In one news bulletin, NPR reported that mayors–both Democrats and Republicans–were critical of “ideologues” in “Congress” (i.e. the Republican-controlled House of Representatives) over spending cuts.

Steve Inskeep then caught up with Mick Cornett, who is mayor of Oklahoma City and President of the Republican Mayors and Local Officials (RMLO).

Cornett pointed out that much of the spending shortfall had to do with financial problems at the state government level, not in Congress (which has slowed the growth of spending but has not yet cut overall federal spending.

But Inskeep pressed further, pushing Cornett to explain why he, as mayor of Oklahoma City, had managed to raise sales taxes and extend those tax hikes in order to pay for public infrastructure. Cornett gave the reasonable answer that the Democratic Party and the media refuse to hear: the city had kept spending and debt under control, and had spent the money efficiently and transparently for the public benefit–precisely what the federal government, and many state governments, have failed to do. (more…)

The mainstream media’s glee in reporting that public sector unions have likely succeeded in drumming up enough signatures to force Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to face a recall election betrays their thinly-veiled sympathies for the effort.

The day began with a National Public Radio report that told listeners of the “festive” mood among organizers of the petition drive, contrasting enthusiastic man-on-the-street opposition to Walker with the institutional voice of the embattled state GOP.

Hooray! Recall Walker (Source: NPR/Scott Bauer/AP)

The NPR story was careful to note that “the governor continues to take advantage of a state law that allows recall targets to raise unlimited amounts of money during a recall period.”

Scott Bauer–whose November photograph (above) of a smiling Democrat donor accompanied NPR’s story on its website–followed the same line at the Associated Press, reporting that Walker was out of the state raising money to defeat Democrats’ effort to unseat him. But Bauer added a sinister–and false–insinuation that Walker was raking in federal bailout money: (more…)

If you want to see a perfect example of how the left-wing media plans to smear and destroy Mitt Romney should he win the GOP nomination, no better example can be found than the hoax over a photo that lefties every where are trying to sell as evidence of Romney’s “privileged” life. Lefties say the photo in question shows Romney “getting his shoes shined” before getting on a private jet during his campaign travel. That is not what the photo shows, of course, but let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good left-wing mudslinging, OK?

The meme began from a photo by Getty showing Romney sitting in a chair on the tarmac with his foot up and a red-jacketed worker attending to the candidate’s footwear. The left immediately assumed that Romney was getting his shoes shined before getting on a “corporate” jet. This story was made up out of whole cloth because in reality what the picture shows is Romney getting his shoes wanded by an explosive sniffing device wielded by a TSA agent before being allowed to board the plane.

The photo seems to have appeared early on the blog of the MSNBC smear show “The Ed Schultz Show” with the headline, “Romney Creates Another Job.” The caption set the tone for the left-wing onslaught to come saying, “Mitt Romney created another job with his presence alone… a job giving shoe shines on the tarmac in front of a corporate jet.”

From there Salon’s most virulent hater, Joan Walsh, picked up on the meme on her blog with one titled “Mr. 1 Percent is clueless about inequality,” where she used the photo as an illustration to “prove” that Romney was out of touch with the reg’lar folks.

Salon’s Steve Kornacki then went on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show and launched into his interpretation of the supposed shoe shining.

“There’s a picture that’s making the rounds today — the shoe shine on the tarmac,” Kornacki explained. “I don’t know if you saw this one. I don’t know where this came from… He’s sitting in front of an airplane. I think it might be a corporate jet, and he’s wearing a suit and he’s getting a shoe shine. He’s got a big smile on his face.”

…“He’s getting a shoe shine! We put this on Salon earlier today. I’m not sure where it originated. But it never looks good for a politician to be getting a shoe shine, you know, on a tarmac but it looks terrible when it’s Mitt Romney and this is your image and background. It looks worse when it’s the year 2012 and the economy is in such a bad place, and the Democrats are going to be going after your party for being the one that sort of favors the people who get shoe shines on tarmacs!” he added.

So, not only did Kornacki lie about the photo — he had no knowledge at all about what it really showed — but he then throw in the “I think it might be a corporate jet” on top of it — again without knowing if it really was or not — so that he could add more layers of lies to the story.

(more…)

Yesterday, on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, Glenn Kessler, who writes the Washington Post column The Fact Checker, said he doesn’t call people liars. Really? One wonders what, say, a MSM fact-checker would think of that statement. Granted, Kessler doesn’t use the word “liar,” but he does assign Pinocchios, sometimes up to four of them. Calling someone a Pinocchio isn’t exactly like calling someone a liar, just as calling someone an elephant isn’t exactly like calling them fat.

Or maybe this fact-checker should heal himself.

In the world of politics where hyperbole, shorthand, nuance, and soundbites rule the day, no one has the right to assume the role of fact-checker. And in a world where the MSM has completely abdicated every journalistic principle and responsibility when it comes to objective reporting — the very last institution doing any kind of high-ground fact-checking should be one so shamelessly dishonest it refuses to profess its own biases up front.

The MSM assuming the role of fact-checking has about as much moral authority as the Capone Mob regulating prohibition.

Whether it’s Fact Checker, PolitiFact, Anderson Cooper’s Keeping Them Honest, or the too-many self-appointed Guardians of Truth currently infesting the MSM, these outlets are an arrogant, dishonest and biased cancer on the very idea of journalism and most certainly on a democracy.

Yes, you’ve heard these arguments from me before because, along with many others on the right, I’ve been making them for years. But suddenly we’re not alone. Suddenly NPR has decided to wring their hands over MSM fact-checkers. But why now? (more…)

Today, the Associated Press and National Public Radio reported on a new study by the federal government that suggests that the rate of growth in health care spending has slowed. Health care spending was up 3.9 percent in 2011 from the year before–still somewhat higher than inflation (3.4%), but relatively low. Health care spending had increased 3.8 percent in 2010.

Both the AP and NPR proclaimed that the new study by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services “provided relief for a jittery White House facing a 2012 reelection campaign in which President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul is a top target for Republicans.” NPR went even further on its health news blog, stating that the new study contradicted Republican claims that ObamaCare would increase health care costs.

The study found that health care spending was largely independent of ObamaCare, because most of its provisions have not been implemented yet. But neither AP nor NPR bothered to comment on President Obama and Democrats’ claims that ObamaCare would “bend the cost curve down.” They simply singled out Republicans.
(more…)

Every once in a while, there is a story in the mainstream media that goes so far beyond ordinary liberal bias that it deserves special recognition. To highlight such extraordinarily egregious propaganda masquerading as news, we at Big Journalism are creating the Red Star Award–named for the symbol that the Soviet Union elevated to a global emblem of communism.

The inaugural recipient of the Red Star is Scott Horsley of NPR, for his story on today’s Morning Edition: “Obama: Recess Appointment Was An ‘Obligation’”

The story concerns President Barack Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans oppose the appointment of Cordray–or anyone–to the Bureau until concerns about the lack of congressional oversight are resolved. Despite Democrats’ previous outrage over recess appointments, Obama chose to ignore Congress and appoint Cordray while the Senate was in recess.

Except–it wasn’t. The Senate used pro forma sessions to stay open–a tactic once used by Democrats to prevent some of President George W. Bush’s appointments. And why did Bush, that alleged tyrant of the “unitary executive,” fail to do what President Obama has just done? The answer–as even many liberals agree–is that it is unconstitutional, and in this case even unlawful, exceeding any power grab President Bush ever attempted.

Scott Horsley’s story does not address any of the constitutional or legal problems with President Obama’s unprecedented abuse of power. Instead, it breathlessly recounts the appointment as a tale in political courage–“the President, and his lawyers, had had enough”–and repeats Obama’s campaign messages about fighting for the “middle class” against a “do-nothing Congress,” evil financial firms, and “armies of lobbyists.” (more…)

Earlier today, Mark Allen, who is a contributor to the New York Times and National Public Radio, compared Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rick Santorum to Dan White, the man who assassinated Harvey Milk, San Francisco’s first openly gay member of the Board of Supervisors, in 1978.

Allen’s comments reflect a continued trend in Democrat-friendly media to compare Republican candidates to notorious criminals. Recently, for example, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich “looks like a car bomber.” (more…)

Time’s Mark Halperin wondered openly this morning whether the mainstream media might be “rooting for” Sen. Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. That could happen if journalists decide that Santorum would be a weaker general election threat to President Barack Obama than the presumed Republican nominee, Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Halperin’s theory is wishful thinking, and obscures one of the most important factors in Santorum’s come-from-nowhere success in the Iowa caucuses last night: the former Pennsylvania senator has thrashed the mainstream media relentlessly in the past few weeks, making it clear he has the courage to stand up to the Democrats’ Greek chorus.

Most recently, Santorum schooled NBC’s David Gregory and CNN’s Candy Crowley on the subject of Obama’s “appeasement” in foreign policy. Santorum showed a patient deftness in drawing a stark contrast with Obama, then defending it with hard facts and fresh, alternative ideas. The journalists, expecting easy prey, were dumbstruck.

Santorum also endured a truly low blow from Alan Colmes, and overcame bizarre attempts by NPR and CBS to cast him as a racist. He irritates the mainstream media, and for good reason–because so far, he is beating them.

In a way, Santorum has picked up where former House speaker Newt Gingrich had left off. Gingrich rose through the polls after targeting the media rather than fellow Republicans. His clashes with Romney knocked Gingrich off that message. Yet Santorum also has discipline and an knock for retail politics. He takes his fight with the media off air and offline. (more…)

Yesterday, NPR reported an unclear snippet of audio as former Senator Rick Santorum having said the word “black” when discussing individuals becoming dependent on government’s redistribution of wealth, as opposed to being able to go out and earn their money themselves.

As per Tommy Christopher at Mediaite, a new, cleaner version of the clip does not support that conclusion.

NPR’s Ted Robbins noted: “Santorum did not elaborate on why he singled out blacks who rely on federal assistance. The voters here didn’t seem to care.”

CBS doubled down on the error, offering a brief transcript with the clip:

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

(more…)

The sudden obsession with Ron Paul’s alleged racism is a classic mainstream media bait-and-switch, and conservatives seem to be falling for it.

Anyone who has followed Ron Paul for the past few years ought to be familiar with the story of his controversial newsletters, broken in January 2008 at The New Republic by my friend James Kirchick.

It’s old news. That’s not to say Paul’s defenses are adequate. But it’s old news anyway.

The real question is why the issue has resurfaced now, in late December, after months of campaigning and debate. And the answer is obvious: because Paul is a threat to win the Iowa caucuses. Rival campaigns have a motive to leak opposition research on Paul.  A frightened Republican establishment is eager to see him disappear from contention. His views–actual or alleged–damage the Republican brand and message as a whole.

I’m no Ron Paul supporter. While I agree with Paul’s ideals of limited government, I disagree with his views on the Federal Reserve, and I disagree vehemently with his opinions on foreign policy, which I regard as not only misguided, but dangerous. I believe that questions about his true motivations–especially with regard to his views on Israel–are legitimate. And yet I also believe he’s been getting a raw deal lately.

(more…)

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on the end of the war in Iraq:

He said that the war was worth the price in blood and money, as it set Iraq on a path to democracy. …

They’re going face challenges in the future,” Panetta said Wednesday during a visit with troops in Afghanistan. “They’ll face challenges from terrorism, they’ll face challenges from those that would want to divide their country. They’ll face challenges from just the test of democracy, a new democracy and trying to make it work. But the fact is, we have given them the opportunity to be able to succeed.”

Those quotes are from a Fox News story posted earlier today. If, however, you are a NPR consumer, you would never know the Defense Secretary said any such thing:

Panetta told those gathered that “challenges remain, but the U.S. will be there to stand by the Iraqi people as they navigate those challenges to build a stronger and more prosperous nation,” The New York Times reports.

He also said, the BBC writes, that the effort had been worth the cost because the U.S. leaves with an Iraq that is now a partner.

“You will leave with great pride — lasting pride,” Panetta told troops at the ceremony, according to the AP. “Secure in knowing that your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people to cast tyranny aside and to offer hope for prosperity and peace to this country’s future generations.”

That’s about as gracious as NPR is willing to get. Nowhere does NPR mention the Secretary’s words about democracy or the real miracle of the war in Iraq, and that’s that we now have the first true democracy in the history of the Arab world. And though it may be complicated and take a few steps back at times, as a direct result, the flower of self-determination is opening in that region.

(more…)

On NPR’s Morning Edition recently, senior news analyst Cokie Roberts told host Renee Montagne that President Barack Obama had sent “signals” to the debt supercommittee in support of a deal–even though he was on his way out of the country at a critical time.

For weeks, Democrats had predicted–and hoped–that the supercommittee would fail, so that President Obama could continue his attempt to win a second term by running a Harry Truman-style campaign against a “do-nothing Congress” (even though his party controls the upper chamber).

Roberts suggested that a deal might be possible, because just as Democrats were starting to realize their scare tactics on Medicare and entitlement programs could backfire, Republicans who want the economy to fail are starting to worry that they would bear the blame (audio at 2:22):

Republicans who might have wanted to keep the economy bad to skewer the Democrats are now worried it could affect them and it could affect some of their key constituents, and they’re not so sanguine about letting it get worse. And Democrats who wanted to just, sort of demagogue against Republicans on Medicare cuts are worried it might all backfire.

Robert’s claim relied on a false equivalence–not only because Democrats have no intention of backing off their “Mediscare” tactics, but because there is not a single congressional Republican who wants the economy to fail. (more…)

NPR ran a story this morning entitled, “Florida Charter Schools Failing Disabled Students.” From the headline, you might guess that disabled students in charter schools were showing poor test results, perhaps as a result of neglect. You might also draw the conclusion–one favored by the teachers’ unions at the core of the Democrat political machine, whose interests NPR promotes–that public schools are doing a better job.

NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya visits a Florida charter school for children with special needs (Source: jpmontoya.com)

In fact, the story is not about “failing” performance, but about access. The vast majority of charter schools in Florida do not have disabled students–and that’s no surprise, given the fact that charter schools are still a new phenomenon, opposed by teachers’ unions and Democrat politicians at almost every turn. The NPR story, produced in cooperation with a hostile Miami Herald investigation, admits that the primary problem is funding, and that many traditional public schools do not enroll students with disabilities:

Even in the traditional public schools, not every school is expected to provide every service. About half don’t serve a single child with a severe disability. Instead, they’re sent to neighboring schools with specialized programs.

That does not stop NPR from accusing the Florida charter schools of “segregation,” which the story explicitly–and erroneously–compares to racial and gender segregation. (more…)

On Wednesday, National Public Radio Education Correspondent Larry Abramson phoned Education Action Group to ask about our activities related to Issue 2 in Ohio, the referendum on the collective bargaining reform that was defeated at the polls Tuesday. Specifically, he inquired about our “canvassing and mobilization” efforts.

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, EAG is prohibited from engaging in such activity. I told him as such. I did acknowledge that last year EAG published an analysis of collective bargaining agreements in southwest Ohio, prior to knowing anything about Senate Bill 5.

Additionally, we recently issued an analysis of how the mere threat of SB 5 had a positive impact on finances in several Ohio school districts.

We never recommended that Ohio voters support or oppose SB 5 or the ensuing ballot referendum on the bill.

Abramson, whose tone was clearly adversarial and one-sided, then asked me if EAG posts a donor list on its website – which oddly is the same question our union antagonists frequently ask. He was told EAG does not make that information public. Abramson then made a reference to having “ways of finding out” and ended the conversation.

So much for impartial journalism. This so-called reporter was clearly on the attack. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought the Huffington Post or Media Matters was on the line. (more…)

The mainstream media, embarrassed by the violence of yesterday’s Occupy Oakland protests, is desperately trying to save the image of the movement it has propped up as an ostensibly legitimate voice of populist support for economic redistribution and a liberal alternative to the Tea Party.

Almost uniformly, media reports today about the violence at the “general strike”–including vandalism, clashes with police, and burning barricades–have attempted to describe the Occupy Oakland demonstration as “largely peaceful.”

When the media have described violent acts, they have suggested, unreasonably, that these have been separate from the Occupy Oakland protests. The media seem uninterested in holding Occupy Oakland organizers responsible for the violence, or even in asking them for statements of condemnation.

National Public Radio’s report on the Occupy Oakland violence is typical of today’s mainstream media spin but hardly unique (as Stanley Kurtz points out, citing CBS coverage).

There’s quiet now in the streets of Oakland, the local Tribune reports.

But what began as a “mostly peaceful” general strike that “drew thousands Wednesday for rallies and marches … turned chaotic early Thursday after protesters took over a vacant building and police moved in, firing tear gas and flashbang grenades.”

Note that the violence is described–misleadingly–as having started after the “general strike” protest. And note that the Occupy Oakland activists themselves are never blamed directly.

Instead, we are told–much later in the story–that “Oakland protesters inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement” were responsible. Inspired by, but not belonging to, Occupy.

(more…)

In his recent assessment of his year since he was unceremoniously — and illicitly in many folks’ estimation — fired by NPR, Juan Williams indulged one of those fallacious assumptions that just screams left-wing spin. It is the sort of straw man argument that casts aspersions on others — this time against Christians — while pretending to be the logical adult in the room, not to mention while pretending not to be casting aspersions. It is a logical sleight of hand that many liberals use.

First, let me say that I am 100% on Williams’ side in that his firing by NPR was a real breach of journalistic ethics: theirs. The comments he made a year ago that got him fired did not in any way harm his veracity as a journalist, nor were they racist or even incorrect. Heck, they weren’t even injudicious except when taking the brain dead political correctness that infests the left into consideration.

Though that was the discussion of a year ago and really is not something worth rehashing here, Williams did say something outrageous in his review of that year-old issue that deserves to be highlighted. In essence, Williams made an illogical argument about how we should think of radical Islam, and he did so by assuming that domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City Bombing could be considered as representative of Christianity as the Saudi 19 were of radical Islam.

Here is what Williams said [my bold for emphasis]:

… we have to keep in mind that America is a country founded on the ideal of religious liberty. We can’t stereotype any group on the basis of the behavior of extremists among them. We don’t indict all Christians because of Timothy McVeigh.

(more…)