Media Matters continues to deflect from accusations of antisemitism and extreme bias by trumping up nontroversies on other conservatives. In addition to watching Fox, scouring Andrew Breitbart’s Twitter feed, and recording Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch’s shows, Media Matters for America is also facing questions as to how their organization can actively politick, which is against their own mission statement. Their latest lie? “Dana Loesch compared Al Gore to Leni Riefenstahl.”

(more…)

- The National Journal fact checks and compares Obamacare and Romneycare.

- Hysterical. Jeopardy contestants can’t identify Rachel Maddow:

Obviously they, along with most of the country, don’t watch MSNBC.

- Newt Gingrich isn’t the only thing Marianne Gingrich helped to propel to #1 last week.

- Twitter can now censor Tweets in certain countries:

The social network Twitter is facing a storm of criticism from users, after revealing that it has implemented a system that would let it withhold particular tweets from specific countries.

The company has insisted that it will not use the gagging system in a blanket fashion, but would apply it on a case-by-case basis, as already happens when governments or organisations complain about individual tweets.

The new system, which can filter tweets on a country-by-country basis and has already been incorporated into the site’s output, will not change Twitter’s approach to freedom of expression, sources there indicated.

- Washington City Paper notes the obvious and asks: Where are the women and non-white media critics? The problem? They rattle off a list of known progressive white male critics. When you look at only super far left progressives wherein diversity is a rhetorical device rather than observed practice, of course you’d wonder.

(more…)

If you were mad about Obamacare, if you were made about the Patriot Act, the DHS watch lists, the administration’s reach into your diets, then you’re already concerned about SOPA.

SOPA = Stop Online Piracy Act sounds benign, as almost all legislation does. The names of most bills are completely antithetical to what the bill would actually do. SOPA is no exception. You read the name. “Piracy is bad,” you think. “Respect for intellectual property is good,” you think. Both of these things are correct. SOPA survives on the assumption that this is all the bill entails. Piracy is a major problem, but SOPA, and its Senate companion PIPA (Protect IP Act), are the worst ways to go about solving it.

What is SOPA?

The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.^[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks, and payment processors to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws. The Attorney General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites.^[13]

If the Justice Department or a copyright holder believed a site was directing users to pirated content, they would go to court. Depending on who’s complaining, different remedies would come into play: In some instances a judge could order an Internet service provider like Verizon to cut off access to a site. In others, a search engine like Google could be directed to delete links to an infringing site. The idea is to starve the offending sites of the web traffic that keeps them in business.

Inconclusively, too.

Google and First Amendment scholars like Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe argue that SOPA would squelch free speech by giving private parties power to effectively cripple sites that allegedly — but not conclusively — steal copyrighted content. The simple filing of a complaint, they say, would exert huge pressure on the Internet ecosystem to blacklist an accused site. They also say it would give the feds dangerous new powers to go after sites for political reasons.

Gizmodo:

Perhaps the most galling thing about SOPA in its original construction is that it let IP owners take these actions without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. All it required was a single letter claiming a “good faith belief” that the target site has infringed on its content. Once Google or PayPal or whoever received the quarantine notice, they would have five days to either abide or to challenge the claim in court. Rights holders still have the power to request that kind of blockade, but in the most recent version of the bill the five day window has softened, and companies now would need the court’s permission.

The language in SOPA implies that it’s aimed squarely at foreign offenders; that’s why it focuses on cutting off sources of funding and traffic (generally US-based) rather than directly attacking a targeted site (which is outside of US legal jurisdiction) directly. But that’s just part of it.

…to the point of potentially creating an “Internet Blacklist”…

Here’s the other thing: Payment processors or content providers like Visa or YouTube don’t even need a letter shut off a site’s resources. The bill’s “vigilante” provision gives broad immunity to any provider who proactively shutters sites it considers to be infringers. Which means the MPAA just needs to publicize one list of infringing sites to get those sites blacklisted from the internet.

Potential for abuse is rampant. As Public Knowledge points out, Google could easily take it upon itself to delist every viral video site on the internet with a “good faith belief” that they’re hosting copyrighted material. Leaving YouTube as the only major video portal. Comcast (an ISP) owns NBC (a content provider). Think they might have an interest in shuttering some rival domains? Under SOPA, they can do it without even asking for permission.

Who is behind it?

(more…)

This could be Soros Central, a.k.a. Media Matters HQ. Exposing Leftists presents students with a petition to sign asking their support in calling for various conservatives (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity) to be banned from the airwaves.

(more…)

In Great Britain, the historic cradle of liberty and sanctum of freedom of expression,  it appears that you can no longer refer to Arab depravity in the slaughter of an Israeli family — including a three month-old baby — as they slept without someone going to the police to get you arrested for racism.

This is what happened to me. I wrote on my blog about the ‘the moral depravity of the Arabs’ who had murdered Udi and Ruth Fogel and their three children, 11-year-old Yoav, four-year-old Elad and three-month-old Hadas in their home in the Samarian neighbourhood of Itamar, near Nablus, by cutting their throats while most of them were asleep.

I also pointed the finger for this atrocity at the ‘savagery’ of the Palestinian Authority, whose educational materials along with the mosques and TV stations under its control incite frenzied hatred of Jews; which teaches its children that the highest aspiration is to murder Israelis; and which glorifies those who perpetrate such unspeakable acts by naming squares and public places after them.

Next thing I knew was that the Guardian ran a story saying I was being investigated by the UK Press Complaints Commission, which had received two complaints about my remarks – and I had also been reported to the Bedfordshire police for racism.

This came as something of a surprise. If I was indeed being investigated, no-one had seen fit to tell me about it. Indeed, at time of writing I still have not heard whether either of these bodies is investigating these complaints at all.
Stranger still was the involvement of the Bedfordshire police. I do not live in Bedfordshire, an area north of London. I have never had anything to do with the place. What could my remarks about the Itamar massacre possibly have to do with Bedfordshire?

A clue lay in the involvement in the Guardian story of a prominent British Muslim activist named Inayat Bunglawala. It was he who had reported me to the Bedfordshire police – and he lives in Bedfordshire.

It would appear that having taken exception to my blog, Bunglawala went to his local police force to complain about my views and expected them to take action against me as a result.

His complaint was that I had made a ‘generalised racist outburst against Arabs as a whole’.  But this was ridiculous. I was obviously referring specifically to the perpetrators of the Itamar massacre and to the Palestinian Authority which incites such deeds Bunglawala claimed that if anyone had referred to the ‘moral depravity of the Jews’ and described them as being ‘savages’ they would face prosecution for racist hate speech.

Does one really have to spell this out? Jews don’t go round murdering innocents in cold blood and cutting the throats of three-month old babies. And this was not a one-off. The Arab and Muslim world glorifies the killing of Jews.
Sweets are routinely handed round in rejoicing at the murder of Israeli civilians. And from Arab and Muslim society pours an unstoppable torrent of deranged, Nazi-style vilification of Jews which fuels the genocidal hysteria behind such attacks.

(more…)

In Ray Bradbury’s classic novel, “Fahrenheit 451,” about a book burning dystopia, Captain Beatty sums up his philosophy of “people control” to “fireman” Guy Montag in this way:

Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change. Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.

And with that bit of philosophical fluff, Montag goes about his happy way, charged with his book burning mission to suppress political thought, action, and other “slippery stuff.” Well, the fictional Captain Beatty would also be proud of his real-life fireman New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller.

Recently, Keller announced a suspicious change in the liberal rag’s longtime policy for some political books on its influential hardcover nonfiction best-sellers list. Now, as Dick Morris noted, for the first time since 1942, some political hardcover books currently on the list will be reclassified for the paper’s lesser known “advice” and “how to” and “miscellaneous” list. What books could those possibly be?

The current Big Three, of course: Mike Huckabee’s “A Simple Government,” Dick Morris and Eileen McGann’s Revolt!, and Frank Luntz’ “Win.” All three authors are Fox News contributors. Morris has had nine previous best sellers – all on the Times hardcover list. Now, instead of the hardcover list, the “A Simple Government,” “Revolt!” and “Win” ranked #2, #3, and #6, respectively, were dumped into the Times advice and how-to classification.

Why?

According to Morris, this change is an attempt by Keller to negatively impact conservative book sales. “The ghettoization of the Fox News books inside the How To list has an important impact on sales. It means that many stores won’t put “Revolt!,” “Simple Government,” and “Win” up front with the best sellers but will assign them shelf space back with cookbooks, marital advice, and diet books,” said Morris in his blog.

Keller’s prejudice against all things Fox News is well-known. In a speech before the New York Press Club Keller said, “I think if you’re a regular viewer of Fox News, you’re among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than ‘Fair & Balanced.’”

(more…)

This week, two weeks after the AZ massacre and one week after President Obama’s call for “civility,” the MSM has proved once again that it is fair, unprejudiced, professional, and full to the brim with the best of intentions.

As a conservative, I honor the admirable achievements of the professional journalists at MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. My head hangs in humbled deference at the hate-filled remarks of Obama pals, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and Rep. Steven Cohen. Behold their collective greatness in attempting to cover-up their gaffes, lies, and hypocrisies again this week: MSM made small mention of liberal activist James Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee at the AZ shooting and his death threat against Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries. Fuller told the Post Friday:

There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin’s ears toward the end, because they’re small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney’s, in the center.

An “ear necklace” is a reference to necklaces made from the cut-off ears of enemies in the Vietnam War era and, thus, fails Obama’s civility test.

Unlike Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement, the MSM did not attempt to link the incendiary statements of U.S. Senator Dick Durbin or even President Obama to Fuller’s violent actions. Durbin has called Tea Partiers “extremists” and President Obama has called on supporters to “punish our enemies.” To date, no other Fuller linkages have been made to journalists who have called Tea Partiers “terrorists,” “thugs,” “brown shirts,” and “dangerous.”

Want more?

(more…)

The reason given by NPR for firing Juan Williams was  comments he made on the Bill O’Reilly show earlier this week. In truth, Williams wasn’t fired for the comments he made, but for where he made them, Fox News. NPR even admitted it in their official statement on Williams departure.

Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.

Most probably, NPR had a partner in the decision.  This was the opening shot of the White House’s escalation of its war on Fox News. Its intent was to send shivers down the spine of any journalist or news network that cooperates with Fox News.

Williams is one of the regular liberal voices on the O’Reilly Factor (as well as other Fox Programs). On Monday’s show Juan said:

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

NPR felt that comments “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

Huh? For one thing Williams comments were more tame than President Obama made of his late grandmother: (more…)

While doing research for my upcoming book, tentatively titled Programming America (Harper Collins, due 2011), the inside story of the politically-motivated evolution of television from The Dick Van Dyke Show to Sex and the City and the very real bias of the industry against conservative content and creators, I interviewed Doug Herzog, President of MTV Networks Entertainment Group. He oversees Comedy Central, and he was kind enough to grant me some time and consent to taping our conversation on June 22, 2009.

During the course of that conversation, I asked Mr. Herzog about the network’s decision to censor South Park in April 2006 – in particular, the network shut down a segment that featured a cartoon image of Mohammed.

Here’s the audio:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

SHAPIRO: I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the controversy that surrounded the South Park/Mohammed controversy. How did that come about and what was the real story there?

HERZOG: The real story was the story you know, which is that the guys wanted to depict Mohammed and the network wouldn’t let them. And that was the whole story. And while I think if we had to do it all over again we would do it differently, that was the decision we made at the time. And I regret it somewhat but I’ve made worse decisions in my life. (more…)

Except to say that I never thought I would see the day when Americans would so meekly accede to threats, or even hints of violence, this news from Comedy Central is hardly surprising anymore.  From the Hollywood Reporter:

‘Muhammad’ now a dirty word on ‘South Park’

Now “South Park” can’t even say the words “Prophet Muhammad.”

After last week’s episode of the Comedy Central series sparked a threat (and yes, it was certainly a threat) from a radical Islamic website, the network has cracked-down-for-their-own-good on creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone during last night’s continuation of the show’s storyline.

For their own good… right.

For those who missed the drama, the show’s 200th episode last week mocked the one “celebrity” that the series has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A U.S.-based website RevolutionMuslim.com then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show’s production office. The site has since been shut down.

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what happened to Theo Van Gogh for the crime of making a movie that criticized Islam: (more…)

Thursday, in his resounding defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

“Censorship” is a dirty word in America, and that is why the restrictions at issue in our case were cloaked in the guise of “campaign finance reform.”  But the fact remains that any restrictions on political speech, especially those that criminalize such speech, send us down a very slippery and very dangerous slope.

Last March, our government argued in court that it has the Constitutional authority to ban books that mention a candidate for federal office.  The government later retracted that statement, but is there any doubt that such a statement never would have been made if there had not been 100 years of progressively more intrusive restrictions on political speech preceding it?    Had the Court not acted, what was to prevent the government from asserting that authority over the internet, which does not have the benefit of two centuries of tradition and jurisprudence protecting it?

(more…)