- Party hostess Sally Quinn:

However, I will pray this Sunday. I will pray that we as Americans, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics and others can come together to end prejudice, discrimination and hatred. Violence is not more a feature of Islam, than those qualities are features of other faiths and people of no faith.

Has she read the Koran before making such a proclamation? I have. I hope that her prayers include protecting Americans from Muslim fighters and people who would “kill the infidels where they lay.” Last I checked, no Americans have flown planes into any Arab buildings.

Kudos to these media figures and politicians who don’t let any opportunity to incite division pass by, particularly if that opportunity is a remembrance.

- Obama:

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others.

Obama says that poverty breeds terrorists. Geraghty points out that all the terrorists were ridiculously wealthy children of privilege. Compared to us, we are more impoverished.

(more…)

Liberal news site Talking Points Memo manages to almost (but not quite) turn being a foster parent to 23 at-risk teens into a negative campaign issue with a wee bit of burying the lede legerdemain and by squarely playing into their reader’s built-in bias. It’s worthwhile for conservative and independent voters to take note of the arguments in this article on Congresswoman and presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann because TPM has a lot of influence on left-leaning media and this is their lead story this morning. You’re sure to start hearing some of these arguments from pundits and even the mainstream press, so get used to them now.

As the article notes, Bachmann’s personal narrative of raising five children of her own in addition to her foster kids is fairly well known amongst Republicans but many on the left really don’t know much about it at all. That’s because the general mode of communication about Bachmann from left-leaning sources like MSNBC and The Huffington Post is invective and bile — from Chris Matthews’s constant attacks on her using terms like “balloon head” to HuffPo’s consistent habit of using the worst possible photo of Bachmann, preferably with her mouth hanging open. Hearing that Bachmann and her husband have taken in nearly 2 dozen teens might actually humanize her, which would be a no-no.

To their credit, Talking Points Memo does include the following paragraphs in their story:

Bachmann is a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, a bipartisan nonprofit that includes a number of other active lawmakers and raises awareness about adoption and foster care issues. Executive director Kathleen Strottman told TPM that Bachmann has been a “tireless advocate” for the group.

“She’s been very helpful in speaking about what drew her to become a foster parent and using that for state and local recruiting efforts,” she said. “A lot of what we hear from our programs is that it’s a sheer numbers issue.”

Indeed, child welfare experts interviewed by TPM universally praised Bachmann for her own sacrifices and the example they set for others.

But of course that comes about seven paragraphs into the article, after a couple of set up paragraphs and then some criticism from Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) that Bachmann hasn’t done enough on the issue. After a bit of rhetoric from McDermott, TPM reveals that Bachmann isn’t on the Ways and Means committee that would deal with the issue – but whatever.

(more…)

What drove Glenn Beck to tell an increasingly large series of lies about his participation in the Shirley Sherrod story that broke back in July, 2010?

Why would he tell both TV and live audiences things like this….

Shirley Sherrod, is the next example. We didn’t rush to condemn her. This is another seemingly “redistribution of wealth” woman — who I would bet that I vehemently disagree with on probably everything. But she asked for the rest of the tape to be heard, the farmers in the story backed her up. It was a turning point story. We defended her and said her side of the story demanded to be heard — because context matters…

or this?

I have a story I want to share with you that I haven’t shared yet. Do you know why I didn’t do the Shirley Sherrod story? Did anyone think that story was uncommon for the people that we have in the White House? That there might be some prejudice that is happening? No. I stood in my office with my entire team, and I said, “something’s wrong, don’t do this story.”That’s what saved me: the Sword of the Spirit.

As you’ll see, both of those statements are totally false. Glenn Beck not only didn’t initially defend Sherrod but he actually dropped the entire context that Sherrod’s video clip was originally presented in. Close to a year later, Beck still hasn’t been honest about his initial context dropping attacks on Sherrod.

So – why? Did Beck start spinning a story and was unable to discern truth from fiction? Did he enjoy the praise he got from left wing sources, who believed his spin?

(more…)

Oh, how the serious liberal journalism sites have fallen.

For years, the award-winning Talking Points Memo has been one of the most respected sites in the liberal blogosphere for their well researched investigative journalism. I subscribed to their email newsletter TPM DayBreaker and this morning’s lead story is called The New Spin: The White House Would Be A Step Down For Sarah Palin.

Can’t you already anticipate how ace reporter Benjy Sarlin is going to expose slippery spin point from the vast right wing media conspiracy? Thank goodness Talking Points Memo readers will be on the lookout for disgraceful Republican charlatans who are trying to sell them a bill of goods. Let’s see what the controversy is about, shall we?

Pop quiz: you’re a right-wing commentator looking at a string of polls showing Sarah Palin’s poll numbers sinking to new lows even as the weak field of GOP presidential contenders continues to thin out. But a large chunk of your audience would sooner eat glass than hear Palin’s chances maligned by one of their own. What do you do?

Here’s one answer: claim that Palin is even more powerful outside the White House and that the presidency would be a step down for her.

Okay, this seems substantial! Palin’s poll numbers have been dropping for the last three months and it seems like some dastardly Republicans are disingenuously making some claims to try to salvage some dignity. Boy, that sure seems kind of dishonest. Anybody doing that probably doesn’t have a lot of credibility. I wonder who it could be – oh wait! It’s Andrew Breitbart! (more…)

Well, that didn’t take long.

The useful idiots and Talking Points Memo have started echoing NPR’s false defense that their recently released e-mails show that they rejected the gift offered by the pretend Muslim Brotherhood front group in Project Veritas’ undercover sting operation.  With the screaming headline, “NPR Emails Show CEO Refusing Donation from Phony O’Keefe Group” TPM is attempting to preach to its choir of loyal readers that NPR did nothing wrong as an organization in their handling of the donation scenario.

Of course, readers of Big Journalism know that the e-mails released by NPR show nothing of the sort.  In fact, they show that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller and the Development staff were corresponding Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) to try to obtain critical information from them so that they could receive the gift of $5 million.   As John Nolte pointed out earlier today, not one of the e-mails released today shows anyone from NPR communicating a rejection to MEAC.

TPM’s headline is totally false.  (more…)

Talking Points Memo takes issue with Andrew Breitbart’s CPAC11 s speech from this morning wherein he remarked on Code Pink, the group who has given aid to American enemies.

Breitbart’s point about Code Pink’s wasted youth and current irrelevancy (prior to complimenting their earlier appearances) sailed over TPM’s head.

He described how he’s found that the people in protests “are not individuals. They’ve been community organized.”

“They’re not Americans,” Breitbart said later. “They’re animals.”

(more…)

While liberalism looks to regain its composure after suffering a historic defeat at the polls yesterday, they and their cohorts in mainstream media will be holding up any little victory, no matter how small, to prove their ideological relevancy in a society that has soundly rejected them.

One of those instances of which I speak is the story of Andrew Breitbart and ABC. The Soros-funded bloggers at Media Matters think they won a victory in leading the tantrum to drive him off the air. I suspect it was far more rooted in envy than anything else; Breitbart has done more in a the last two years to affect the trajectory of policy in this country – publishing the tapes of the now-destroyed ACORN, raising the profile of the Pigford scandal, et al. – than Media Matters has accomplished in its entire existence. Maybe that’s why people like Eric Boehlert are continually omitted from invitations to national discourse? Maybe it’s why JournoListas like Greg Sargent formally of Soros-funded Talking Points Memo never gain national attention except in scathing critiques on blogs by people lamenting the loss of journalistic integrity from people who live off the unearned credit of the term “journalist.”

Make no mistake: the left failed to silence Andrew Breitbart on election night. His empire was represented by yours truly on air and his sentiment is one I share. (more…)

There’s been yet another troubling turn in the story of ABC News caving to left-wing Blacklisters since Andrew Breitbart published this article last night laying out the facts with respect to how the network offered him a gracious invitation to participate in tomorrow’s “online and network broadcast election night coverage” and then revoked at least part of that invitation after the left ginned up a coordinated Juan Williams-like astro-turf attack to silence him.

Via Yahoo!, this morning ABC News contradicted themselves further with this jaw-dropping accusation claiming that this is all Breitbart’s fault for exaggerating his role:

“Mr. Breitbart exaggerated the role he would play on his blog,” ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told The Upshot on Monday. “We immediately made it clear that was never the role he was supposed to play. He had been invited to be part of our digital town hall, and that is still the role.”

Before we look at what “Mr. Breitbart” posted on “his blog,” let’s look at what ABC News told him. This is a direct quote from an an email to Breitbart from an ABC News producer…

This program will broadcast on the ABC Television Network.

And then there’s this from a statement by David Ford of ABC News…

He [Breitbart] will be one of many voices on our air[.]

How exactly does Big Journalism’s October 29th announcement qualify as an exaggeration when compared to what ABC News has said both privately via email and publicly via that statement?: (more…)

In response to the announcement that I would provide my analysis on ABC News from Arizona on election night, like-clockwork, from the George Soros-funded Media Matters to Keith Olbermann to Huffington Post to Daily Kos to Talking Points Memo to Twitter (#boycottABCNEWS), the institutional left began on Friday to inundate ABC News with a wave of partisan objections and unfounded allegations against me.

Make no mistake: this is a calculated “astroturf“ intimidation campaign by the well-funded and frightened-for-their-political-lives institutional left to quash dissenting voices. It’s what they do.

What was ABC News’ response? Not standing up for free speech and the 1^st Amendment. Not sticking by their original invitation. Not standing up for diversity of opinion.

Instead, on Saturday, ABC News issued an official statement that was immediately heralded as a victory by the anti-free speech forces on the left:

Since conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart announced on his website that he was going to be a participant in ABC’s Town Hall meeting at Arizona State University, there has been considerable consternation and misinformation regarding my decision to ask him to participate in an election night Town Hall event for ABC News Digital. I want to explain what Mr. Breitbart’s role has always been as one of our guests at our digital town hall event:

Mr. Breitbart is not an ABC News analyst.

He is not an ABC News consultant.

He is not, in any way, affiliated with ABC News.

He is not being paid by ABC News.

He has not been asked to analyze the results of the election for ABC News.

Mr. Breitbart will not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage, anchored by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos. For the broadcast coverage, David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg will contribute reaction and response gathered from the students and faculty of Arizona State University at an ABC News/Facebook town hall.

He has been invited as one of several guests, from a variety of different political persuasions, to engage with a live, studio audience that will be closely following the election results and participating in an online-only discussion and debate to be moderated by David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg on ABCNews.com and Facebook. We will have other guests, as well as a live studio audience and a large audience on ABCNews.com and Facebook, who can question the guests and the audience’s opinions.

George Stephanoplous quickly tweeted, “Breitbart NOT on ABC network broadcast http://bit.ly/bgkseJ.” (more…)

Greg Sargent is a Washington Post blogger and compromised JournoList hack whose “Plum Line” entries are decidedly left of center. Greg was overwhelmed with enthusiasm last Friday when, for a brief but shining moment, it appeared President Obama was supporting the construction of the ground zero mosque. He gushed that it would “go down as one of the finest moments of his presidency.”

Former Cathedral of St. Sophia, now a mosque

Sargent contrasted Obama’s bold stance with the “clever little dodge” which some Republicans were using. Here’s his description of the conservative stance, “The group has the right to build the center, runs this argument, but they are wrong to exercise it.”

That was Friday. On Saturday, the President gave an impromptu response to a reporter’s question, which went like this:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

This struck a lot of people as very similar to the distinction made by conservatives, i.e. a legal and religious right to build does not equate to a good (or wise) idea. The only real difference is that President Obama refused to take sides on the crucial issue. In effect, he voted present on the wisdom question.

Needless to say, this came as a big disappointment to Sargent, who was quick to argue that Obama’s clarification was not a walkback: (more…)

In a widely read and discussed piece at the Daily Beast, Reihan Salan asks:

Has a shadowy gang of left-wing journalists and intellectuals been plotting to manipulate the news cycle…

His answer is, yes, perhaps so, but they’d be doing it with or without JournoList. Salan is more right than he probably knows.

The list of those identified as former members of the group is now up to more than 150 names, out of 400 in all. Nearly a quarter of those individuals were connected with another media organization called the Media Consortium. The Consortium is an organization of progressive media outlets formed in 2005, a full two years before JournoList. Its dues paying member organizations include The Nation, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, Ms., Democracy Now! and many more (a complete list is here). The purpose of the group was explicit and can be found on their website:

Our mission is to amplify independent media’s voice, increase our collective clout, leverage our current audience and reach new ones. We believe it is possible and necessary to seize the current moment and change the debate in this country. We will accomplish this mission by fulfilling our five strategic principles: (more…)

Last week, a post I wrote for Big Journalism which, unbeknownst to me, possibly inspired Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo later that evening. I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t notice it at the time. I watch Bill and the rest of the Fox guys when I can, but with three kids in the house it’s not every day. In any case, my post and Bill’s memo were strongly worded critiques of this David A. Graham piece for Newsweek in which he downplayed the New Black Panther story. Last Friday, Graham issued a somewhat belated response to Bill and me (okay, I admit, I like saying that). Here’s how his piece opens:

Last week, I found myself in the crosshairs of conservative ire because a news analysis I wrote didn’t take the allegations of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party story as seriously as conservatives felt it should.

Right off the bat we’ve shifted the goalposts. My critique was based on Graham’s biased handling of the material, in particular his use of the hacks and non-entities at Media Matters as a primary source, as well as his failure to get even Media Matters’ highly spun version of the story straight. Here’s a bit of what I wrote:

That second link–the one about questionable testimony–goes right back to Media Matters. David A. Graham summarizes MM’s lengthy hit piece by saying, “there are doubts about whether he was actually present for the incidents he described.” Well, no, there are not doubts about that at all. In his interview with Megyn Kelly (which Media Matters transcribes), [J. Christian] Adams plainly states that he wasn’t there…

That’s not a critique of Graham’s news judgment; it’s a critique of his facts. Rather than address the problem directly or issue a correction, he simply revises his original claim in the new piece: (more…)

UPDATE: Talking Points Memo has issued an update acknowledging some comments made in the post highlighted at Big Journalism were in error.

In Josh Marshall’s article “What were they thinking?” of January 27th, 2010, Mr. Marshall referrs to a wiretapping plot and four times to a plot to bug the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu by James O’Keefe and the three other conservative activists:

-O’Keefe was allegedly using his cell phone to film the attempt to bug Landrieu’s office as it happened.

-And let’s say they got something really juicy off of Sen. Landrieu’s tapped phone line. What exactly were they going to do with it?

-But they were never going to protect you from an investigation into bugging the office of a United States senator.

-Now, one might speculate that they were going to use the bug to get leads that they would then report out and surface by other means.

-And filming the bugging as it happened definitely suggests they didn’t plan on keeping the thing a secret.

There are no allegations of any wiretap plot in the FBI affidavit, and a law enforcement official has conceded that the four men were not attempting to wiretap, bug, or intercept calls.  Furthermore, legal representation for the accused has gone on record stating there were no intentions to tap phones in the Senator’s office.

We kindly ask you to issue a correction/retraction to the story.

We have been/will be making similar requests of other news sources to correct similar errors.  Some, such as the Washington Post and MSNBC’s David Shuster, already have posted corrections or retractions.