Walter Cronkite's death brought back many memories from a bygone era in television news. As anchors go he was a cut above, then and now. And, for that I give him his due, and say, 'Rest in peace.'
However, I have seen over-the-top statements about Cronkite since his death that bear little resemblance to reality. He was not as non-partisan as people like to think. He used his position to lobby against the Viet Nam War while our troops were still in the field losing their lives, and he openly opposed Ronald Reagan from 1975 until he was elected in 1981.
No doubt Cronkite made an honest attempt to be as objective as he could, but he certainly did not always succeed, and by the last years of his career he had succumbed to the very same scourge that all talking heads on television news exhibit--the dreadful bias and slant that favors liberals.
In retirement he advocated 'one world government.'
Not exactly a great 'patriot.'
Showing posts with label news bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news bias. Show all posts
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Wondering if Gibson Will Bow to 'Dear Leader'
Tomorrow is the big day when ABC News will use all of its news broadcasts to promote Obama's plan for a government takeover of healthcare.
I wonder if Charles Gibson and company will bow to 'dear leader' when standing in his luminous presence.
Brian Williams of NBC News did exactly that a few weeks ago after interviewing Obama at the White House.
Is this now what the Fuhrer expects from his loyal subjects?
It only stands to reason that NBC, which is owned by GE, which is solidly in the tank for Obama and his 'green initiatives'--and now ABC/Disney, which has thrown its journalistic integrity out the window in order to become part of the new 'Pravda'--would be expected to act as loyal little subjects to the headmaster. He owns them now.
Watch the body language tomorrow if you think you can stomach this charade. As for me, I won't watch a single minute of it. Of course, I gave up on Couric and Williams too. I don't depend on the government propaganda machine for my news.
I wonder if Charles Gibson and company will bow to 'dear leader' when standing in his luminous presence.
Brian Williams of NBC News did exactly that a few weeks ago after interviewing Obama at the White House.
Is this now what the Fuhrer expects from his loyal subjects?
It only stands to reason that NBC, which is owned by GE, which is solidly in the tank for Obama and his 'green initiatives'--and now ABC/Disney, which has thrown its journalistic integrity out the window in order to become part of the new 'Pravda'--would be expected to act as loyal little subjects to the headmaster. He owns them now.
Watch the body language tomorrow if you think you can stomach this charade. As for me, I won't watch a single minute of it. Of course, I gave up on Couric and Williams too. I don't depend on the government propaganda machine for my news.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
News Media Bias, Part 1,650,225
Regarding the ongoing, endless examples of media bias in reporting the news, perhaps THIS is one of the primary reasons large, liberal newspapers are quickly going out of business.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Playing Up the Praise, Downplaying the Dissent
As Obama headed for London today to attend the G-20 Summit, the talking heads of the mainstream media were at their old games again, playing up the worshipful throngs bowed in adoration for the messiah, while downplaying the significant dissent.
And this is the subject of my column today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
As you will see in the column, there is news on the bias of the New York Times, the failure of the MSM to report ANY of the Tea Party taxpayer protests, and a host of other issues pointing to a cover-up on behalf of Obama.
Thank-you for clicking on the link and reading the column.
And this is the subject of my column today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
As you will see in the column, there is news on the bias of the New York Times, the failure of the MSM to report ANY of the Tea Party taxpayer protests, and a host of other issues pointing to a cover-up on behalf of Obama.
Thank-you for clicking on the link and reading the column.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
CNN Exposed! Gaza Story Doesn't Add Up
Anyone who has been watching the spectrum of mainstream media news of late knows that an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias has permeated it's reports on the war in Gaza.
On Saturday evening, for example, NBC News' nightly piece from Gaza focused exclusively on the toll the war is taking on children. Fair enough.
But not a single instance was mentioned of Israeli children that have been harmed or killed by Hamas rockets sent into southern Israel for the last few years.
The entire story focused exclusively on Palestinian children, as if 'those evil Jews' should be condemned for initiating war against Gaza's poor, defenseless children.
CNN has certainly been on the front lines of the anti-Jew campaign.
NewsBusters posts an example of CNN's bias as shown in a video from Gaza that in all likelihood is fake, based upon the known circumstances.
When the story of the fake video hit the blogosphere, CNN received hundreds if not thousands of protests. It then took down the disputed video.
But the video was re-posted when CNN got its story together and insisted that the video is legitimate, although several investigative reporters aren't buying it.
At issue is the death and burial of a 12-year-old younger brother of a cameraman, which supposedly was taped in real-time, as it happened, and then posted on CNN's website.
Investigative reporters from the 'new media' were skeptical. Here is a sampling of their views:
For the full story, be sure to click on the link to NewsBusters as shown above.
It is important for citizens to be able to trust their news sources in a world such as ours. And, increasingly, we are being shown little by little every day that the mainstream media is clearly not a trustworthy source of news.
On Saturday evening, for example, NBC News' nightly piece from Gaza focused exclusively on the toll the war is taking on children. Fair enough.
But not a single instance was mentioned of Israeli children that have been harmed or killed by Hamas rockets sent into southern Israel for the last few years.
The entire story focused exclusively on Palestinian children, as if 'those evil Jews' should be condemned for initiating war against Gaza's poor, defenseless children.
CNN has certainly been on the front lines of the anti-Jew campaign.
NewsBusters posts an example of CNN's bias as shown in a video from Gaza that in all likelihood is fake, based upon the known circumstances.
When the story of the fake video hit the blogosphere, CNN received hundreds if not thousands of protests. It then took down the disputed video.
But the video was re-posted when CNN got its story together and insisted that the video is legitimate, although several investigative reporters aren't buying it.
At issue is the death and burial of a 12-year-old younger brother of a cameraman, which supposedly was taped in real-time, as it happened, and then posted on CNN's website.
Investigative reporters from the 'new media' were skeptical. Here is a sampling of their views:
Johnson at LGF isn't impressed:
If they really had “little hope” the patient could be saved, they’d be going all out with CPR, which means very vigorous chest compression (it’s not unusual to break ribs if it’s done right), and ventilation to oxygenate the blood—not delicately touching the boy’s abdomen with the tips of their fingers as we see in that video.
Morrissey isn't either:
It’s not only a fake, it’s an absurd fake. It’s not even done well, and Gilbert’s dramatic headshake at the end of the supposed CPR — in which Doctor #2’s hands keep coming off the body — is only the cheesy coup de grace. Why did CNN republish this?
..... Maybe Martin can explain how a missile hits a roof and kills two boys but does no more damage to the roof than what a pickaxe could do in five minutes — and how the furniture didn’t get disturbed.
Here's a bit from Owens's post:
CNN has also yet to explain what kind of Israeli drone could have fired the purported missile, and what kind of missile would cause the minimal damage shown on the rooftop where it is claimed these boys are killed.
For the full story, be sure to click on the link to NewsBusters as shown above.
It is important for citizens to be able to trust their news sources in a world such as ours. And, increasingly, we are being shown little by little every day that the mainstream media is clearly not a trustworthy source of news.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Name-Dropping
I am going to engage in a bit of name-dropping--names that have been in the news of late. Let's see how many you recognize.
Rod Blagojevich. Rahm Emanuel. William Jefferson. Tony Rezko. Eliot Spitzer. Chris Dodd. Charles Rangel.
There are many more I could drop, but I will stop there because these are the most noteworthy.
Do you notice anything in common about these individuals other than they are involved in politics in some way and they each have been implicated in serious corruption schemes?
If you answered that each are Democrats you would be correct. But you wouldn't know it by watching or listening to the mainstream media. The MSM has perpetrated a self-imposed conspiracy of silence concerning the Party affiliation of any corrupt politician who is engaged in scandal who also happens to be a Democrat.
Funny that a mere 2 years ago this very same media, with the very same personalities reporting the news, constantly referred to a Republican 'culture of corruption' when speaking about Larry Craig and Mark Foley.
Funny also that the major Republican scandals that year involved sex and not the far more serious issues of selling Senate seats, squandering taxpayers' money, or making illegal, under-the-table deals with mortgage brokers.
But now that it is the Democrats' turn to take the heat on corruption issues far more serious than someone's sexual indiscretions, the mainstream media suddenly play dumb at the very least and at the very worst contend that it is 'no big deal,' as PBS' Jim Lehrer actually had the gall to say about the Blagojevich scandal.
No story in the news today depicts any more clearly the glaring bias of the media when it comes to reporting political corruption. If a Republican goes bad, it is front-page news that he/she is a Republican and that the Party is up to its neck in a 'culture of corruption.' But when a Democrat goes bad, you are lucky to discover the person's Party affiliation without doing some digging.
An essay at Newsbusters entitled 'What About the Democrats' Culture of Corruption?' fills in all the details of this travesty of journalism in our time.
Rod Blagojevich. Rahm Emanuel. William Jefferson. Tony Rezko. Eliot Spitzer. Chris Dodd. Charles Rangel.
There are many more I could drop, but I will stop there because these are the most noteworthy.
Do you notice anything in common about these individuals other than they are involved in politics in some way and they each have been implicated in serious corruption schemes?
If you answered that each are Democrats you would be correct. But you wouldn't know it by watching or listening to the mainstream media. The MSM has perpetrated a self-imposed conspiracy of silence concerning the Party affiliation of any corrupt politician who is engaged in scandal who also happens to be a Democrat.
Funny that a mere 2 years ago this very same media, with the very same personalities reporting the news, constantly referred to a Republican 'culture of corruption' when speaking about Larry Craig and Mark Foley.
Funny also that the major Republican scandals that year involved sex and not the far more serious issues of selling Senate seats, squandering taxpayers' money, or making illegal, under-the-table deals with mortgage brokers.
But now that it is the Democrats' turn to take the heat on corruption issues far more serious than someone's sexual indiscretions, the mainstream media suddenly play dumb at the very least and at the very worst contend that it is 'no big deal,' as PBS' Jim Lehrer actually had the gall to say about the Blagojevich scandal.
No story in the news today depicts any more clearly the glaring bias of the media when it comes to reporting political corruption. If a Republican goes bad, it is front-page news that he/she is a Republican and that the Party is up to its neck in a 'culture of corruption.' But when a Democrat goes bad, you are lucky to discover the person's Party affiliation without doing some digging.
An essay at Newsbusters entitled 'What About the Democrats' Culture of Corruption?' fills in all the details of this travesty of journalism in our time.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obama's Pravda
Pravda was the official state-approved news agency of the Communist Party Politburo in the USSR under Lenin, Stalin, and a host of other Soviet presidents.
In the early days of the Communist government in Russia, the Politburo consisted of 5 members--Lenin, Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev, and Nikolai Krestinski.
These 5 formed the Communist Party central committee, and Pravda, as the nation's leading newspaper, served as the propaganda arm of the central committee.
It is interesting to note that Pravda had been in existence before the Bolshevik Revolution that brought the Communists to power. After the revolution the ruling central committee simply seized control of the newspaper, and it became an official part of the Politburo.
A series of related events with regard to news and how it is disseminated have all come together to form a chilling pattern in the U.S. today that is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.
Obama has repeatedly made it clear that he has very little patience or tolerance for criticism in the media. He has threatened TV and radio stations over running McCain-Palin ads that told the truth about his dubious past and present associations. His surrogates have made it known that they have every intention of silencing conservative voices on radio, one way or another. And now, Obama's choice for Attorney-General has stated he wishes to place 'reasonable limits' on free speech on the Internet.
During the campaign, Obama's staff also suggested that they intend to attempt to 'nationalize' the Internet so that government can have complete control over Internet content.
Meanwhile, at the very same time, the mainstream media, represented by MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek Magazine, and others, very obviously and overtly promoted Obama's quest for the Presidency.
An obvious question arises as to whether or not the mainstream media knew something the rest of us didn't. Did they see the handwriting on the wall with regard to Obama's intention of cracking down on opposing voices in the media? And did they decide early-on that they would position themselves to be smiled upon approvingly by Obama and his minions, thus making themselves the perfect tool that Obama would use to spread his propaganda unchallenged?
At the very least, NBC and its other networks have openly admitted their agenda--to help Obama succeed (stated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC).
Clearly, this is not journalism or unbiased news coverage. This is reinventing a news organization to become an official voice of the Obama machine.
And if the networks and newspapers cited above continue down this path, not only will it mean the death of journalism in America on the part of the major traditional news organizations, but these news organizations will officially become Obama's Pravda.
Lenin and Stalin would be proud.
In the early days of the Communist government in Russia, the Politburo consisted of 5 members--Lenin, Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev, and Nikolai Krestinski.
These 5 formed the Communist Party central committee, and Pravda, as the nation's leading newspaper, served as the propaganda arm of the central committee.
It is interesting to note that Pravda had been in existence before the Bolshevik Revolution that brought the Communists to power. After the revolution the ruling central committee simply seized control of the newspaper, and it became an official part of the Politburo.
A series of related events with regard to news and how it is disseminated have all come together to form a chilling pattern in the U.S. today that is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.
Obama has repeatedly made it clear that he has very little patience or tolerance for criticism in the media. He has threatened TV and radio stations over running McCain-Palin ads that told the truth about his dubious past and present associations. His surrogates have made it known that they have every intention of silencing conservative voices on radio, one way or another. And now, Obama's choice for Attorney-General has stated he wishes to place 'reasonable limits' on free speech on the Internet.
During the campaign, Obama's staff also suggested that they intend to attempt to 'nationalize' the Internet so that government can have complete control over Internet content.
Meanwhile, at the very same time, the mainstream media, represented by MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek Magazine, and others, very obviously and overtly promoted Obama's quest for the Presidency.
An obvious question arises as to whether or not the mainstream media knew something the rest of us didn't. Did they see the handwriting on the wall with regard to Obama's intention of cracking down on opposing voices in the media? And did they decide early-on that they would position themselves to be smiled upon approvingly by Obama and his minions, thus making themselves the perfect tool that Obama would use to spread his propaganda unchallenged?
At the very least, NBC and its other networks have openly admitted their agenda--to help Obama succeed (stated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC).
Clearly, this is not journalism or unbiased news coverage. This is reinventing a news organization to become an official voice of the Obama machine.
And if the networks and newspapers cited above continue down this path, not only will it mean the death of journalism in America on the part of the major traditional news organizations, but these news organizations will officially become Obama's Pravda.
Lenin and Stalin would be proud.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
MSNBC Helps Obama, Gets 140 Billion from Gov't
When it became abundantly obvious that MSNBC was openly and unapologetically cheering for Obama during the campaign, many wondered why on earth a news organization would be so bold in its bias.
We now know.
Apparently a deal was in the works for MSNBC's parent company, General Electric Capital, to receive nearly 140 billion dollars from the taxpayers in bailout money in exchange for bias in favor of Obama in its news broadcasts.
Now it all seems to make sense.
Keith Olbermann's over-the-top slanted news reporting that favored Obama and slammed McCain, and Chris Matthews' rather strange comment that Obama's speech at the DNC caused 'a sensation to run up his leg' had a payoff.
No wonder Matthews stated rather bluntly that it was 'his job to make sure Obama is successful.'
Gee, I thought the only job of a journalist was to report the unfettered truth to the public. No wonder MSNBC, nor NBC (its sister network), ran any stories about Obama's overt socialism, nor his close relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers--that is, until after the election.
The entire NBC family of networks is in major financial trouble, as is its parent company, GE Capital. NBC's programming lineup has been a colossal failure. MSNBC brings up the rear in ratings among the full-time cable news networks, behind Fox and CNN.
But no one had a clue that they were in line to get a government bailout at taxpayer expense.
Now we can see first hand the tragic consequences of government collaboration in business affairs. Rather than adhering to the integrity of unbiased journalistic standards, MSNBC sold its soul for a bowl of porridge.
The result was a news organization that did anything but present the public with a balanced perspective on the campaign. The network was 100% in the tank for Obama in order to cash in on some government loot.
And this is precisely the danger behind the government purchasing stakes in the ownership of banks and the automakers. There is always a price to be paid for such deals, and the society as a whole always loses as further government encroachments are made on human liberty.
A news network bought and paid for by the Obama campaign, or any other campaign for that matter, is not a 'free press.' A free press is essential to our form of government because it keeps government honest.
But in order for the press or electronic media to do its work, it must be totally free from the control or implied control of any government entity.
Government money to the tune of 140 billion bucks strongly suggests anything but a free, unbiased news organization.
We now know.
Apparently a deal was in the works for MSNBC's parent company, General Electric Capital, to receive nearly 140 billion dollars from the taxpayers in bailout money in exchange for bias in favor of Obama in its news broadcasts.
Now it all seems to make sense.
Keith Olbermann's over-the-top slanted news reporting that favored Obama and slammed McCain, and Chris Matthews' rather strange comment that Obama's speech at the DNC caused 'a sensation to run up his leg' had a payoff.
No wonder Matthews stated rather bluntly that it was 'his job to make sure Obama is successful.'
Gee, I thought the only job of a journalist was to report the unfettered truth to the public. No wonder MSNBC, nor NBC (its sister network), ran any stories about Obama's overt socialism, nor his close relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers--that is, until after the election.
The entire NBC family of networks is in major financial trouble, as is its parent company, GE Capital. NBC's programming lineup has been a colossal failure. MSNBC brings up the rear in ratings among the full-time cable news networks, behind Fox and CNN.
But no one had a clue that they were in line to get a government bailout at taxpayer expense.
Now we can see first hand the tragic consequences of government collaboration in business affairs. Rather than adhering to the integrity of unbiased journalistic standards, MSNBC sold its soul for a bowl of porridge.
The result was a news organization that did anything but present the public with a balanced perspective on the campaign. The network was 100% in the tank for Obama in order to cash in on some government loot.
And this is precisely the danger behind the government purchasing stakes in the ownership of banks and the automakers. There is always a price to be paid for such deals, and the society as a whole always loses as further government encroachments are made on human liberty.
A news network bought and paid for by the Obama campaign, or any other campaign for that matter, is not a 'free press.' A free press is essential to our form of government because it keeps government honest.
But in order for the press or electronic media to do its work, it must be totally free from the control or implied control of any government entity.
Government money to the tune of 140 billion bucks strongly suggests anything but a free, unbiased news organization.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
CBS News/Couric/Schieffer Smear Sarah Palin
As the months pass it is obvious that the Left in this country is scared to death of Sarah Palin.
Perhaps never before in modern history has the leftwing mainstream media, the Democratic Party, and the 'ruling class' of the political elite so thoroughly attempted to discredit, smear, and ruin a candidate for public office.
CBS News has been relentless in its smear campaign against Palin.
But when Bob Schieffer congratulated Katie Couric on her ambush of Palin during her interviews, for me that was the absolute last straw.
Schieffer was droning on about how Palin proved to be a 'lightweight,' a 'drag on the ticket,' and 'a poor choice for a Vice-Presidential running mate.'
None of this, of course, is true.
But when he said the following, I came completely unglued, particularly when I heard Couric's response.
Said Schieffer, 'And frankly, Katie, I say this not because you are sitting here, but the interview you did with Sarah Palin was the turning point in showing the nation the truth about Sarah Palin and the fact that she is unfit to be Vice President.'
Couric smile and stated, 'Ohhh, thank-you!'
Wow.
Schieffer just congratulated Couric on her ambush-smear of Sarah Palin, and Couric is proud of herself for having done so!
The fact of the matter is that the Couric interview with Palin did NOT show the real Sarah Palin. She was sorely mismanaged by inept McCain campaign staffers who should have never put her in front of the anti-conservative Katie Couric.
The real Sarah Palin is the Alaska Governor who enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Governor in the nation, at 80%. The real Sarah Palin is the one who stood up to her own Party, routed out corruption, and faced down the oil companies.
And we saw the real Sarah Palin on the stump drawing massive crowds that rivaled that of Obama, though it was rarely reported in the mainstream media.
I am through with CBS News, Katie Couric, and Bob Schieffer. I can't even stand to look at them or hear their voices. They grate on my nerves.
But this is true with the mainstream media in general.
Thus, I won't even watch them anymore even to provide a critique. I choose to get my news from real reporters who are unbiased. I will NOT get my news from hacks who slant news in favor of one political candidate, and then smear another candidate out of the fear that she may actually be a threat to Obama in 2012.
And believe me, if the gang of thugs who now run the country, including their cheerleaders in the mainstream media, were not frightened out of their wits by Sarah Palin, you can rest assured they would not be conducting this coordinated smear campaign.
And that includes members of John McCain's campaign staff.
Perhaps never before in modern history has the leftwing mainstream media, the Democratic Party, and the 'ruling class' of the political elite so thoroughly attempted to discredit, smear, and ruin a candidate for public office.
CBS News has been relentless in its smear campaign against Palin.
But when Bob Schieffer congratulated Katie Couric on her ambush of Palin during her interviews, for me that was the absolute last straw.
Schieffer was droning on about how Palin proved to be a 'lightweight,' a 'drag on the ticket,' and 'a poor choice for a Vice-Presidential running mate.'
None of this, of course, is true.
But when he said the following, I came completely unglued, particularly when I heard Couric's response.
Said Schieffer, 'And frankly, Katie, I say this not because you are sitting here, but the interview you did with Sarah Palin was the turning point in showing the nation the truth about Sarah Palin and the fact that she is unfit to be Vice President.'
Couric smile and stated, 'Ohhh, thank-you!'
Wow.
Schieffer just congratulated Couric on her ambush-smear of Sarah Palin, and Couric is proud of herself for having done so!
The fact of the matter is that the Couric interview with Palin did NOT show the real Sarah Palin. She was sorely mismanaged by inept McCain campaign staffers who should have never put her in front of the anti-conservative Katie Couric.
The real Sarah Palin is the Alaska Governor who enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Governor in the nation, at 80%. The real Sarah Palin is the one who stood up to her own Party, routed out corruption, and faced down the oil companies.
And we saw the real Sarah Palin on the stump drawing massive crowds that rivaled that of Obama, though it was rarely reported in the mainstream media.
I am through with CBS News, Katie Couric, and Bob Schieffer. I can't even stand to look at them or hear their voices. They grate on my nerves.
But this is true with the mainstream media in general.
Thus, I won't even watch them anymore even to provide a critique. I choose to get my news from real reporters who are unbiased. I will NOT get my news from hacks who slant news in favor of one political candidate, and then smear another candidate out of the fear that she may actually be a threat to Obama in 2012.
And believe me, if the gang of thugs who now run the country, including their cheerleaders in the mainstream media, were not frightened out of their wits by Sarah Palin, you can rest assured they would not be conducting this coordinated smear campaign.
And that includes members of John McCain's campaign staff.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Second Amendment News Roundup for 11/6/08
Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Armed and Safe says that some good news for gun rights came out of the Tuesday vote, believe it or not.
JR reports that Obama's election has been a terrific boost to gun sales. I'm glad. Buy 'em up while you still can!
Traction Control has more on the skyrocketing gun and ammo sales.
Roberta X has an intriguing read entitled, 'Dear Diary.'
Say Uncle says the rumor swirling that Sarah Palin apparently didn't know Africa is a continent is probably a complete fabrication. More falsehoods on the part of those intent on smearing Palin.
Sebastian has more concerning 'the Palin effect.' A good read!
David Codrea posts 'Coronation of the Looters' and 'Missing Someting Huge.'
Gun Rights Examiner publishes David's column for today, entitled, 'Ready for My Close-Up.'
Western Rifle Shooters Association provides the MUST-read of the day on 'Distant Early Warnings.' Read it all.
Breda has a MUST-see entitled, 'Jackin' Us Outta Our Money!'
From Gateway Pundit:
*Democrats are already focussed on 'taking back' the Judicial branch of gov't.
*Palin offers to help corrupt media clean up its act.
*The mainstream media admits its lies and bias but said it was 'for the good of America.' Pardon my French, but what worthless assholes!
Mindful Musings posts a link to 'Going Viral.'
Dark Blog has a good read entitled, 'Stages.'
Nicki writes 'Stay Classy, Obamatrons!'
The Smallest Minority has the quote of the day.
The Rustmeister provides some interesting food for thought on Obama and Muslims.
Michelle Malkin reports the abuse of a soldier's daughter by an Obama-supporting teacher in the classroom. Yep, we're flying high, folks. Aren't you proud!?
Armed and Safe says that some good news for gun rights came out of the Tuesday vote, believe it or not.
JR reports that Obama's election has been a terrific boost to gun sales. I'm glad. Buy 'em up while you still can!
Traction Control has more on the skyrocketing gun and ammo sales.
Roberta X has an intriguing read entitled, 'Dear Diary.'
Say Uncle says the rumor swirling that Sarah Palin apparently didn't know Africa is a continent is probably a complete fabrication. More falsehoods on the part of those intent on smearing Palin.
Sebastian has more concerning 'the Palin effect.' A good read!
David Codrea posts 'Coronation of the Looters' and 'Missing Someting Huge.'
Gun Rights Examiner publishes David's column for today, entitled, 'Ready for My Close-Up.'
Western Rifle Shooters Association provides the MUST-read of the day on 'Distant Early Warnings.' Read it all.
Breda has a MUST-see entitled, 'Jackin' Us Outta Our Money!'
From Gateway Pundit:
*Democrats are already focussed on 'taking back' the Judicial branch of gov't.
*Palin offers to help corrupt media clean up its act.
*The mainstream media admits its lies and bias but said it was 'for the good of America.' Pardon my French, but what worthless assholes!
Mindful Musings posts a link to 'Going Viral.'
Dark Blog has a good read entitled, 'Stages.'
Nicki writes 'Stay Classy, Obamatrons!'
The Smallest Minority has the quote of the day.
The Rustmeister provides some interesting food for thought on Obama and Muslims.
Michelle Malkin reports the abuse of a soldier's daughter by an Obama-supporting teacher in the classroom. Yep, we're flying high, folks. Aren't you proud!?
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Controversy Swirls Over Tonight's Debate Moderator
A major controversy concerning the moderator of tonight's debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden simply refuses to die down.
PBS reporter Gwen Ifill, who is scheduled to moderate the debate, failed to notify election commission officials that she has written a book that is enthusiastically supportive of Barack Obama.
The book is to be released on Inauguration Day.
Apparently the McCain campaign was unaware of the book as well.
It is difficult to imagine how a news organization can justify the selection of a debate moderator that is supposed to be 'impartial' when that moderator is a blatant and outspoken partisan.
It is further unconscionable that a news organization would choose a debate moderator who is so thoroughly supportive of one side in the debate. Anyone who believes that such a thing does not place the other side at a distinct disadvantage is either a moron or is engaging in pathological
denial.
Naturally Ifill is playing the race card now that she is under fire.
But this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with fairness. Suppose, for example, Rush Limbaugh were chosen to moderate the debate. Wonder if Ms. Ifill would think that appropriate?
PBS reporter Gwen Ifill, who is scheduled to moderate the debate, failed to notify election commission officials that she has written a book that is enthusiastically supportive of Barack Obama.
The book is to be released on Inauguration Day.
Apparently the McCain campaign was unaware of the book as well.
It is difficult to imagine how a news organization can justify the selection of a debate moderator that is supposed to be 'impartial' when that moderator is a blatant and outspoken partisan.
It is further unconscionable that a news organization would choose a debate moderator who is so thoroughly supportive of one side in the debate. Anyone who believes that such a thing does not place the other side at a distinct disadvantage is either a moron or is engaging in pathological
denial.
Naturally Ifill is playing the race card now that she is under fire.
But this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with fairness. Suppose, for example, Rush Limbaugh were chosen to moderate the debate. Wonder if Ms. Ifill would think that appropriate?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sophomoric Couric Does It Again
The sophomoric Katie Couric does it again, showing the American public that she is but an amateur and not a real news professional.
Tonight on the CBS Evening News, Couric attempted to lay 2 traps for Sarah Palin in her much-touted interview with the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate.
First, Couric asked Palin if 'the present financial crisis could lead to another Depression if steps are not taken to address it.'
Palin correctly answered that such a thing is possible if something isn't done to enact necessary reforms on Wall Street.
But Couric turned right around and asked John McCain in her interview with him this evening if it is 'appropriate for Sarah Palin to be using the term "depression" at a time such as this.'
Well, Ms. Couric, it was YOU, not Palin, who brought it up. And it has been YOU and your Obama-supporting colleagues in the media who have been playing up to the hilt the 'dire financial situation' with the economy, that this is 'the worst since the Great Depression,' and that unless the government undertakes a massive FDR-era bailout of Wall Street, we could see circumstances similar to the 1930s (hint-The Great Depression).
This kind of trick is the stuff of amateurs and not seasoned professional journalists, Ms. Couric.
Couric's 2nd attempt to lay a trap for Palin was in her question about the sincerity of John McCain in attempting to reform Wall Street. Palin cited the fact that McCain was calling for reforms for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae long before it was cool to do so.
Couric would have none of it.
She continued to press Palin for other examples rather than the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform proposals put forth by McCain. It was obvious Palin couldn't think of any right off the bat, but she quickly added, 'Well, you know, Katie, I will look those up and get them to you.'
The exchange was bit too much like the old 'gotcha' trick that Charles Gibson used on Palin and that countless other mainstream media idiots have used on various politicians in the past. Excuse me, Charles, Katie, Brian, Chris, and others, but YOU are not the all-knowing teacher giving an ignorant student a pop quiz.
If fact, if we would put all of your brains together in a paper bag, it would be quickly discarded as human refuse.
I would like to give Katie Couric a pop quiz on the air. Katie, can you name the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and can you tell me the Founders' original intent for wanting to place the 2nd amendment in a bill enumerating basic human rights?
Yes, I would love to see you, Charlie, and Brian, and especially Chris Matthews, squirm attempting to answer those two very basic questions concerning our country.
Katie, perhaps you made a colossal mistake in taking over at CBS News. Your style of amateurish, sophomoric baiting tactics are more in line with The View rather than a news program...not that there is any real, hard news on CBS or the other networks to begin with.
Perhaps the mainstream talking-head teleprompter readers should start each broadcast with the disclaimer--'We admit that we are attempting to get Barack Obama elected to the Presidency. All of the stories we present should therefore be viewed with that basic fact in mind.'
Tonight on the CBS Evening News, Couric attempted to lay 2 traps for Sarah Palin in her much-touted interview with the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate.
First, Couric asked Palin if 'the present financial crisis could lead to another Depression if steps are not taken to address it.'
Palin correctly answered that such a thing is possible if something isn't done to enact necessary reforms on Wall Street.
But Couric turned right around and asked John McCain in her interview with him this evening if it is 'appropriate for Sarah Palin to be using the term "depression" at a time such as this.'
Well, Ms. Couric, it was YOU, not Palin, who brought it up. And it has been YOU and your Obama-supporting colleagues in the media who have been playing up to the hilt the 'dire financial situation' with the economy, that this is 'the worst since the Great Depression,' and that unless the government undertakes a massive FDR-era bailout of Wall Street, we could see circumstances similar to the 1930s (hint-The Great Depression).
This kind of trick is the stuff of amateurs and not seasoned professional journalists, Ms. Couric.
Couric's 2nd attempt to lay a trap for Palin was in her question about the sincerity of John McCain in attempting to reform Wall Street. Palin cited the fact that McCain was calling for reforms for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae long before it was cool to do so.
Couric would have none of it.
She continued to press Palin for other examples rather than the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform proposals put forth by McCain. It was obvious Palin couldn't think of any right off the bat, but she quickly added, 'Well, you know, Katie, I will look those up and get them to you.'
The exchange was bit too much like the old 'gotcha' trick that Charles Gibson used on Palin and that countless other mainstream media idiots have used on various politicians in the past. Excuse me, Charles, Katie, Brian, Chris, and others, but YOU are not the all-knowing teacher giving an ignorant student a pop quiz.
If fact, if we would put all of your brains together in a paper bag, it would be quickly discarded as human refuse.
I would like to give Katie Couric a pop quiz on the air. Katie, can you name the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and can you tell me the Founders' original intent for wanting to place the 2nd amendment in a bill enumerating basic human rights?
Yes, I would love to see you, Charlie, and Brian, and especially Chris Matthews, squirm attempting to answer those two very basic questions concerning our country.
Katie, perhaps you made a colossal mistake in taking over at CBS News. Your style of amateurish, sophomoric baiting tactics are more in line with The View rather than a news program...not that there is any real, hard news on CBS or the other networks to begin with.
Perhaps the mainstream talking-head teleprompter readers should start each broadcast with the disclaimer--'We admit that we are attempting to get Barack Obama elected to the Presidency. All of the stories we present should therefore be viewed with that basic fact in mind.'
Second Amendment News Roundup for 9/24/08
Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
From Mike McCarville:
*Bad News! Obama has opened a 9-point lead over McCain in a latest poll. It's starting to get away from us, folks. If this trainwreck gets elected, it will be the single largest political disaster since Jimmy Carter.
*'Media Campaigns Hard For Obama'--so, are we going to let talking-head teleprompter-readers determine the Presidential election?
Scott Rasmussen places the Obama lead at just 2 points, however, 49-47%, in his daily tracking poll.
Dark Blog has an interesting read on Ron Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
Gateway Pundit thinks there is a catch to the fact that Congressional Democrats let expire the ban on offshore oil drilling. Maybe so. But the GOP certainly pressured them...so did the electorate.
Dr. John Lott posts 2 videos on Joe Biden's views on guns.
From Codrea's War on Guns:
*A teachers rips off a microphone from the shirt of a student while he talks to the media about the banning of his flag shirt at school.
*'Dispatches from the Front'--a communique from a pro-gun advocate in an anti-gun state.
*'Standing Up for Canadian Gun Rights'
Nicki gives a well-deserved tongue-lashing to the politicians who created the Wall Street mess and are getting ready to create another one bailing it out.
As always, Western Rifle Shooters Association has provocative reading, this one entitled, 'Post Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century.'
Sebastian reports that the sleazy Obama campaign can't be counted on to pay its restaurant tab.
JR has a rather interesting story on one of 'Dallas' finest.'
Roberta X comments on a variety of issues, one being the financial mess on Wall Street.
Alphecca posts the MUST-read of the day on CBS propaganda concerning Obama's supposed 'trustworthiness' on the gun issue. ROFL! Give me a freakin' break. Friends, read this one if you read nothing else.
Breda follows up on the 'mainstream media for Obama' fiasco as she gives a wrap-up of last night's radio show, 'Gun Nuts--The Next Generation,' which she co-hosts with Ahab.
Traction Control says Tom Tancredo nails it with his latest comments on the U.N.
Walls of the City says he feels dirty after seeing his results on this little quiz on Barack Obama.
An Ol' Broad's Ramblings gives us an update on her recovery from surgery.
ARRA reports that despite the expiration of the ban on offshore oil drilling, the Democrats in Congress still won't allow the American people to have access to our own oil. You know, I am beginning to smell a major scandal here with regard to oil and the Democrats.
From Mike McCarville:
*Bad News! Obama has opened a 9-point lead over McCain in a latest poll. It's starting to get away from us, folks. If this trainwreck gets elected, it will be the single largest political disaster since Jimmy Carter.
*'Media Campaigns Hard For Obama'--so, are we going to let talking-head teleprompter-readers determine the Presidential election?
Scott Rasmussen places the Obama lead at just 2 points, however, 49-47%, in his daily tracking poll.
Dark Blog has an interesting read on Ron Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
Gateway Pundit thinks there is a catch to the fact that Congressional Democrats let expire the ban on offshore oil drilling. Maybe so. But the GOP certainly pressured them...so did the electorate.
Dr. John Lott posts 2 videos on Joe Biden's views on guns.
From Codrea's War on Guns:
*A teachers rips off a microphone from the shirt of a student while he talks to the media about the banning of his flag shirt at school.
*'Dispatches from the Front'--a communique from a pro-gun advocate in an anti-gun state.
*'Standing Up for Canadian Gun Rights'
Nicki gives a well-deserved tongue-lashing to the politicians who created the Wall Street mess and are getting ready to create another one bailing it out.
As always, Western Rifle Shooters Association has provocative reading, this one entitled, 'Post Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century.'
Sebastian reports that the sleazy Obama campaign can't be counted on to pay its restaurant tab.
JR has a rather interesting story on one of 'Dallas' finest.'
Roberta X comments on a variety of issues, one being the financial mess on Wall Street.
Alphecca posts the MUST-read of the day on CBS propaganda concerning Obama's supposed 'trustworthiness' on the gun issue. ROFL! Give me a freakin' break. Friends, read this one if you read nothing else.
Breda follows up on the 'mainstream media for Obama' fiasco as she gives a wrap-up of last night's radio show, 'Gun Nuts--The Next Generation,' which she co-hosts with Ahab.
Traction Control says Tom Tancredo nails it with his latest comments on the U.N.
Walls of the City says he feels dirty after seeing his results on this little quiz on Barack Obama.
An Ol' Broad's Ramblings gives us an update on her recovery from surgery.
ARRA reports that despite the expiration of the ban on offshore oil drilling, the Democrats in Congress still won't allow the American people to have access to our own oil. You know, I am beginning to smell a major scandal here with regard to oil and the Democrats.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
For Couric/CBS, Body Language Says It All
CBS News anchor Katie Couric has been asking questions of the 2 Presidential candidates in a series on Campaign '08, but the biggest story so far is Couric's body language.
Tonight, for example, Couric asked John McCain and Barack Obama 2 questions--is it ever appropriate to lie to the American people, and what is your favorite movie.
When interviewing McCain, Couric is clearly reserved, rarely smiles, and appears perturbed by having to interview the GOP Presidential candidate.
But when Couric put the questions to Obama, there were big, broad-faced smiles, even a flirty sort of give-and-take with the Democrat--so much so that one gets the distinct impression that there is a sexual component for Couric to be in Obama's presence.
This only further proves the mainstream media's lust for Barack Obama and its concomitant 'over-the-top' style of news coverage for him that simply is not present with McCain or any other candidate for that matter. It's all observable in the body language and facial expressions.
Remember it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC who stated during Obama's speech at the DNC that he 'felt a sensation going up his leg' as a result of hearing the speech delivered in person.
These dimwits of the MSM are so mesmerized and sexually aroused by Obama that obviously they have taken leave of their rationality. We can expect no objectivity from such sophomoric teleprompter readers of the modern mainstream media.
Tonight, for example, Couric asked John McCain and Barack Obama 2 questions--is it ever appropriate to lie to the American people, and what is your favorite movie.
When interviewing McCain, Couric is clearly reserved, rarely smiles, and appears perturbed by having to interview the GOP Presidential candidate.
But when Couric put the questions to Obama, there were big, broad-faced smiles, even a flirty sort of give-and-take with the Democrat--so much so that one gets the distinct impression that there is a sexual component for Couric to be in Obama's presence.
This only further proves the mainstream media's lust for Barack Obama and its concomitant 'over-the-top' style of news coverage for him that simply is not present with McCain or any other candidate for that matter. It's all observable in the body language and facial expressions.
Remember it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC who stated during Obama's speech at the DNC that he 'felt a sensation going up his leg' as a result of hearing the speech delivered in person.
These dimwits of the MSM are so mesmerized and sexually aroused by Obama that obviously they have taken leave of their rationality. We can expect no objectivity from such sophomoric teleprompter readers of the modern mainstream media.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Failure to Report Massive Crowds for McCain-Palin
Remember how the mainstream media went bonkers over the massive crowds that went to see rock-star wannabe Barack Obama early in the campaign? Remember their panoramic camera views of the crowds in Europe when their beloved Obamessiah spoke in Germany and Paris?
Interestingly but not surprisingly, now that John McCain and Sara Palin are attracting mega-crowds following the Republican National Convention, the mainstream media has ignored and failed to report the groundswell of grassroots attention being given to the GOP team.
When the mainstreams cover Palin and McCain, gone are the camera shots of throngs of people waiting in line and standing to see the pair.
Clearly, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, and company do not want the public to see these images. They want the images of Obama's crowds sticking in their minds.
Michelle Malkin has much more on this story. It is well worth the time to go see it, if you are interested in fairness and truth in political reporting.
Frankly, I wouldn't give these partisans the time of day if I were Sarah Palin or John McCain. Palin is doing an extensive interview with Gibson at ABC. I know politicians have to do the obligatory dog-and-pony show with these charlatans, but it is getting to the point to where enough is enough.
If Gibson and his colleagues in the mainstream media are going to openly fawn all over Obama, then if I were on the other side, I would tell him and the rest of the goons to go jump as I flipped them the bird.
Why give the enemy publicity by granting an interview? Why enable the careers of those who under the guise of being news reporters actually attempt to change public opinion and openly campaign for a political candidate?
It is really no wonder network news broadcasts are quickly going the way of the dinosaur. And the quicker they die the better the Republic will be. The public gets its news from plenty of other sources these days, and we are much better off for it.
Interestingly but not surprisingly, now that John McCain and Sara Palin are attracting mega-crowds following the Republican National Convention, the mainstream media has ignored and failed to report the groundswell of grassroots attention being given to the GOP team.
When the mainstreams cover Palin and McCain, gone are the camera shots of throngs of people waiting in line and standing to see the pair.
Clearly, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, and company do not want the public to see these images. They want the images of Obama's crowds sticking in their minds.
Michelle Malkin has much more on this story. It is well worth the time to go see it, if you are interested in fairness and truth in political reporting.
Frankly, I wouldn't give these partisans the time of day if I were Sarah Palin or John McCain. Palin is doing an extensive interview with Gibson at ABC. I know politicians have to do the obligatory dog-and-pony show with these charlatans, but it is getting to the point to where enough is enough.
If Gibson and his colleagues in the mainstream media are going to openly fawn all over Obama, then if I were on the other side, I would tell him and the rest of the goons to go jump as I flipped them the bird.
Why give the enemy publicity by granting an interview? Why enable the careers of those who under the guise of being news reporters actually attempt to change public opinion and openly campaign for a political candidate?
It is really no wonder network news broadcasts are quickly going the way of the dinosaur. And the quicker they die the better the Republic will be. The public gets its news from plenty of other sources these days, and we are much better off for it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Another Couric/CBS News Hit Piece on Palin
Under the guise of doing a 'fact-check,' Katie Couric and CBS News ran a piece Tuesday evening on Sarah Palin and her claim that she stopped construction on the 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska.
The bridge had been a Congressional earmark secured for Alaska by one of its U.S. Senators, Ted Stevens. Early on, Palin had supported the project, as she had Stevens.
But as Palin began to discover the corruption within Alaska politics after she became Governor of the state, the bridge to nowhere was one project that she decided to stop.
There is no corruption in supporting something that you think is legit and then changing your mind once you discover 'it ain't legit.'
CBS News, however, spun the story on Palin to suggest that she only put a halt to the bridge when she found out how unpopular it was...right at the last minute, before being selected to run as John McCain's running mate.
Perhaps we should do a 'fact-check' on CBS News.
The CBS spin is clearly FALSE. The facts are that Palin supported Ted Stevens early on and the bridge as well. Then she ran for Governor. Once elected she began a systematic campaign to rid Alaska of corruption in politics.
When she embarked on this gargantuan crusade, some discoveries were made that were hard to swallow. First, she discovered that Ted Stevens, although a Republican, had engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with Alaskan businesses, one of which was the construction firm that began building the 'bridge to nowhere.'
The money for the pork-barrel project had already been sent to Alaska long before Palin was elected Governor.
Once she became aware of the corruption involved in the Stevens scheme concerning the bridge, Palin called a halt to the construction, but kept the money for Alaska to spend on much-needed highway and infrastructure projects.
Thus, the bridge to nowhere was nixed and legitimate projects got the money.
Couric and CBS News conveniently failed to mention the timeline involved in the Palin campaign to rid Alaskan politics of corruption, and what it cost her personally to go up against powerful people in her own Party, such as Stevens.
And they certainly never mentioned the fact that a pork barrel project that was knee-deep in corruption was stopped cold while worthwhile, legitimate projects in the state got a boost.
It would seem that CBS News is in dire need of a 'facts-check' whenever it does a 'facts-check' segment on Palin and McCain.
But then, we all know already that Katie and her cohorts are in the tank for Obama. So what else can we expect?
The bridge had been a Congressional earmark secured for Alaska by one of its U.S. Senators, Ted Stevens. Early on, Palin had supported the project, as she had Stevens.
But as Palin began to discover the corruption within Alaska politics after she became Governor of the state, the bridge to nowhere was one project that she decided to stop.
There is no corruption in supporting something that you think is legit and then changing your mind once you discover 'it ain't legit.'
CBS News, however, spun the story on Palin to suggest that she only put a halt to the bridge when she found out how unpopular it was...right at the last minute, before being selected to run as John McCain's running mate.
Perhaps we should do a 'fact-check' on CBS News.
The CBS spin is clearly FALSE. The facts are that Palin supported Ted Stevens early on and the bridge as well. Then she ran for Governor. Once elected she began a systematic campaign to rid Alaska of corruption in politics.
When she embarked on this gargantuan crusade, some discoveries were made that were hard to swallow. First, she discovered that Ted Stevens, although a Republican, had engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with Alaskan businesses, one of which was the construction firm that began building the 'bridge to nowhere.'
The money for the pork-barrel project had already been sent to Alaska long before Palin was elected Governor.
Once she became aware of the corruption involved in the Stevens scheme concerning the bridge, Palin called a halt to the construction, but kept the money for Alaska to spend on much-needed highway and infrastructure projects.
Thus, the bridge to nowhere was nixed and legitimate projects got the money.
Couric and CBS News conveniently failed to mention the timeline involved in the Palin campaign to rid Alaskan politics of corruption, and what it cost her personally to go up against powerful people in her own Party, such as Stevens.
And they certainly never mentioned the fact that a pork barrel project that was knee-deep in corruption was stopped cold while worthwhile, legitimate projects in the state got a boost.
It would seem that CBS News is in dire need of a 'facts-check' whenever it does a 'facts-check' segment on Palin and McCain.
But then, we all know already that Katie and her cohorts are in the tank for Obama. So what else can we expect?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
MSM Reporters--Aroused, Gushing, Frothing
Have you noticed yet the difference between the manner in which the mainstream media reported the Democratic National Convention and the way they've handled the Republican National Convention?
This week during the RNC, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, Olbermann, and company have run hit-piece after hit-piece on the McCain ticket, particularly against Sarah Palin. The interviews they have conducted have been negative in tone, and their interviewees have been decidedly negative in their assessment of Palin.
During the Democrat's Convention last week, however, at one point I actually thought that the female reporters were sexually aroused as they covered Obama. I even thought the male reporters exhibited signs of arousal.
They gushed, frothed, giggled, laughed, clapped, cheered, and worshipped right along with the Democratic delegates.
I would be willing to bet money that had Katie Couric stood up, you would have found a wet spot in her seat. And had Chris Matthews stood up, you would have probably found he had a 'woodie.'
The entire lot of them had the appearance of being drunken with adoration of the Obamessiah.
These are not reporters. These are partisans who are working to get the Democrats elected. This is why, if the 'Fairness Doctrine' ever returns, we should DEMAND equal time on the major networks to respond to the blatant bias of their 'news reporters.'
The entire lot belongs in the dust-bin of journalistic failure.
This week during the RNC, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, Olbermann, and company have run hit-piece after hit-piece on the McCain ticket, particularly against Sarah Palin. The interviews they have conducted have been negative in tone, and their interviewees have been decidedly negative in their assessment of Palin.
During the Democrat's Convention last week, however, at one point I actually thought that the female reporters were sexually aroused as they covered Obama. I even thought the male reporters exhibited signs of arousal.
They gushed, frothed, giggled, laughed, clapped, cheered, and worshipped right along with the Democratic delegates.
I would be willing to bet money that had Katie Couric stood up, you would have found a wet spot in her seat. And had Chris Matthews stood up, you would have probably found he had a 'woodie.'
The entire lot of them had the appearance of being drunken with adoration of the Obamessiah.
These are not reporters. These are partisans who are working to get the Democrats elected. This is why, if the 'Fairness Doctrine' ever returns, we should DEMAND equal time on the major networks to respond to the blatant bias of their 'news reporters.'
The entire lot belongs in the dust-bin of journalistic failure.
Katie Couric, CBS News Trash Sarah Palin
The tone was clearly negative. The intent was to create questions and doubt not only about Sarah Palin but about John McCain's 'decision-making' in choosing her as his running mate. The display was tabloid 'journalism' at its worst, although one can hardly describe this news segment as journalism.
Katie Couric and CBS News on Tuesday evening descended to the garbage bin of news reporting, trashing GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin primarily because she had the audacity to raise a teenager who is pregnant out of wedlock.
Couric further trashed Palin by claiming that she is not the maverick politician she claims to be because she once supported Ted Stevens. So what? Most Americans have supported politicians at one time or another who turned out to be charlatans. The fact that Palin went after Stevens and his good ole boy network is proof positive that she is not afraid of attacking corruption in her own Party once she discovers the corruption.
But the CBS smear-piece didn't stop there.
Couric stated that once, way back in 1994 or so, Palin had actually attended the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, which at one time supported Alaska's secession from the Union. Well, whoop-tee-dooooo!!
Nevermind that Couric failed to tell the rest of the story.
Palin has been a lifelong member of the Republican Party, and the GOP has her registration papers to prove it. She never joined the secession movement nor the Alaskan Independence Party. She never even spoke in favor of the Party's objectives.
Barack Obama spoke at the annual meeting of Moveon.org, one of the most Leftist, subversive groups in America. But naturally Couric never reported it. Obama, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates went to the Moveon.org meeting and spoke on their stage.
But Americans never heard about it from the likes of Couric and her partisan Leftwing cohorts in the mainstream media.
Amazingly enough, however, this still is not all.
CBS News showed the picture and gave the name of the young man who is the purported father of the baby Sarah Palin's daughter is carrying.
Let me give just a personal word to Katie Couric and CBS News in particular, but to NBC, ABC, and CNN in general: you all are nothing but trash who engage in trash journalism. In fact, you have presided over the death of real journalism in America. Go to hell. You are completely irrelevant along with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Katie Couric and CBS News on Tuesday evening descended to the garbage bin of news reporting, trashing GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin primarily because she had the audacity to raise a teenager who is pregnant out of wedlock.
Couric further trashed Palin by claiming that she is not the maverick politician she claims to be because she once supported Ted Stevens. So what? Most Americans have supported politicians at one time or another who turned out to be charlatans. The fact that Palin went after Stevens and his good ole boy network is proof positive that she is not afraid of attacking corruption in her own Party once she discovers the corruption.
But the CBS smear-piece didn't stop there.
Couric stated that once, way back in 1994 or so, Palin had actually attended the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, which at one time supported Alaska's secession from the Union. Well, whoop-tee-dooooo!!
Nevermind that Couric failed to tell the rest of the story.
Palin has been a lifelong member of the Republican Party, and the GOP has her registration papers to prove it. She never joined the secession movement nor the Alaskan Independence Party. She never even spoke in favor of the Party's objectives.
Barack Obama spoke at the annual meeting of Moveon.org, one of the most Leftist, subversive groups in America. But naturally Couric never reported it. Obama, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates went to the Moveon.org meeting and spoke on their stage.
But Americans never heard about it from the likes of Couric and her partisan Leftwing cohorts in the mainstream media.
Amazingly enough, however, this still is not all.
CBS News showed the picture and gave the name of the young man who is the purported father of the baby Sarah Palin's daughter is carrying.
Let me give just a personal word to Katie Couric and CBS News in particular, but to NBC, ABC, and CNN in general: you all are nothing but trash who engage in trash journalism. In fact, you have presided over the death of real journalism in America. Go to hell. You are completely irrelevant along with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
CBS NEWS HATCHETS UP MCCAIN CAMPAIGN
It becomes more obvious with each passing week that the MSM is in the tank for Obama. No greater example can be found than tonight's broadcast of the CBS (Cheerleading for Barack System) Evening News.
Katie Couric's lead story is about John McCain's new ad which compares the rock-star type worship of Barack Obama to infamous Hollywood starlets such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and others.
It is a legitimate criticism, and much of it Obama has brought on himself.
But Couric referred to the McCain tactics as 'the low road,' echoing the sentiments of Barack Obama himself.
And then she brings on Bob Schieffer to parrot that line, calling the McCain ad 'silly' and 'weird.'
Schieffer ended his segment by these ominous words, 'McCain is not getting any traction at all, and with this latest ad it is hard to see how anyone will take that seriously.'
Wow. No traction? What about poll after poll that shows McCain gaining on Obama in many of the battleground states where the Democrat has been ahead? What about the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing that among likely voters, McCain is up by 4 over Obama?
I have a message for Katie and Bob. It's hard for us out in the American heartland to take YOU seriously.
Katie Couric's lead story is about John McCain's new ad which compares the rock-star type worship of Barack Obama to infamous Hollywood starlets such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and others.
It is a legitimate criticism, and much of it Obama has brought on himself.
But Couric referred to the McCain tactics as 'the low road,' echoing the sentiments of Barack Obama himself.
And then she brings on Bob Schieffer to parrot that line, calling the McCain ad 'silly' and 'weird.'
Schieffer ended his segment by these ominous words, 'McCain is not getting any traction at all, and with this latest ad it is hard to see how anyone will take that seriously.'
Wow. No traction? What about poll after poll that shows McCain gaining on Obama in many of the battleground states where the Democrat has been ahead? What about the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing that among likely voters, McCain is up by 4 over Obama?
I have a message for Katie and Bob. It's hard for us out in the American heartland to take YOU seriously.
Edwards Protected, Stevens Vilified by MSM
One had been the Vice-Presidential candidate for his Party in 2004 and was a contender for the Presidential nomination by his Party in 2008. He is a former 2-term U.S. Senator from North Carolina.
This man's wife, who had stood faithfully by his side during his campaign, was diagnosed with metastatic cancer.
But it turns out that the man has a mistress with whom he had a love-child.
That anonymous 'love-child' now has a name--Frances Quinn Hunter, the daughter of the mistress, Rielle Hunter.
Rielle Hunter, as it turns out, has also been receiving $15,000 per month in hush money.
John Edwards, one of the most popular and influential Democrats in the country, is up to his eyeballs in scandal of draconian proportions, yet not a word of it has been even as much as whispered in the mainstream media.
The word on the street is that the MSM will soon be forced to report the story due to the overwhelming evidence that it's true.
But how much do you want to bet that when Katie, Charles, and Brian report it, the word 'Democrat' will not be uttered in the introductory remarks about the story?
The other man in the news has been an icon in the U.S. Senate longer than any other living person in the GOP. Alaskans have trusted this man to be their spokesman in the Senate for half a century.
He has been described as one of the most powerful figures in U.S. politics, though he is not often mentioned as the prime mover behind key legislation. His power has been wielded more often than not behind the scenes.
The mainstream news media has been suggesting that this man resign his seat in the Senate. His only transgression? He got a new basement and a new deck built onto his home, supposedly paid for by Alaskan companies that received lucrative government contracts as a result of this Senator's influence.
Yet so far these are allegations only.
When the MSM reported that Ted Stevens of Alaska was under indictment and investigation for corruption, not only did it make headlines and become the lead story on the evening news broadcasts, but within the very first sentence of the story, Stevens was identified as 'a powerful Republican.'
Often when other stories have been reported involving Democrats being caught in scandals, the
reporter conveniently fails to mention that the politician in question is a Democrat.
Thus, John Edwards is given safe haven protection from the MSM while Ted Stevens is vilified.
This is all part of the stellar, unbiased journalism to be found on ABC (All Barack Channel), NBC (National Barack Channel), CBS (Cheerleading for Barack System), and CNN (Clinton News Network).
And as for the silence of the major daily newspapers such as the New York Times on the John Edwards scandal, that silence shouts louder than a foghorn that they are beneath the dignity of even the National Enquirer, which has at least a year's worth of investigative work to back up its allegations.
This man's wife, who had stood faithfully by his side during his campaign, was diagnosed with metastatic cancer.
But it turns out that the man has a mistress with whom he had a love-child.
That anonymous 'love-child' now has a name--Frances Quinn Hunter, the daughter of the mistress, Rielle Hunter.
Rielle Hunter, as it turns out, has also been receiving $15,000 per month in hush money.
John Edwards, one of the most popular and influential Democrats in the country, is up to his eyeballs in scandal of draconian proportions, yet not a word of it has been even as much as whispered in the mainstream media.
The word on the street is that the MSM will soon be forced to report the story due to the overwhelming evidence that it's true.
But how much do you want to bet that when Katie, Charles, and Brian report it, the word 'Democrat' will not be uttered in the introductory remarks about the story?
The other man in the news has been an icon in the U.S. Senate longer than any other living person in the GOP. Alaskans have trusted this man to be their spokesman in the Senate for half a century.
He has been described as one of the most powerful figures in U.S. politics, though he is not often mentioned as the prime mover behind key legislation. His power has been wielded more often than not behind the scenes.
The mainstream news media has been suggesting that this man resign his seat in the Senate. His only transgression? He got a new basement and a new deck built onto his home, supposedly paid for by Alaskan companies that received lucrative government contracts as a result of this Senator's influence.
Yet so far these are allegations only.
When the MSM reported that Ted Stevens of Alaska was under indictment and investigation for corruption, not only did it make headlines and become the lead story on the evening news broadcasts, but within the very first sentence of the story, Stevens was identified as 'a powerful Republican.'
Often when other stories have been reported involving Democrats being caught in scandals, the
reporter conveniently fails to mention that the politician in question is a Democrat.
Thus, John Edwards is given safe haven protection from the MSM while Ted Stevens is vilified.
This is all part of the stellar, unbiased journalism to be found on ABC (All Barack Channel), NBC (National Barack Channel), CBS (Cheerleading for Barack System), and CNN (Clinton News Network).
And as for the silence of the major daily newspapers such as the New York Times on the John Edwards scandal, that silence shouts louder than a foghorn that they are beneath the dignity of even the National Enquirer, which has at least a year's worth of investigative work to back up its allegations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)