I don't think this qualifies as proof the press is liberal. It proves they are willing to work together to see that a particular question is answered. But, it does not prove bias.
I don't think this qualifies as proof the press is liberal. It proves they are willing to work together to see that a particular question is answered. But, it does not prove bias.
Find me an example of the same news organizations doing this to Obama and I'll be happy to consider it.
I don't think this qualifies as proof the press is liberal. It proves they are willing to work together to see that a particular question is answered. But, it does not prove bias.
A question they would never raise, let alone press an answer for, if it were Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or any Democrat who was challenging a Republican president.
Other examples:
George W.'s golf-time as president(massive media outrage), vs. Obama's far greater golf-time as president(virtually no coverage)
Bush's Jan 2005 re-inauration that cost 40 million (that the liberal media endlessly blasted as a heartless out-of-touch Republican extravagance while our soldiers were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan) vs. Obama's Jan 2009 inauguration that cost 160 million (without the slightest ripple of criticism from the Obama-adoring media).
The endless years of media outrage that Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq was an "illegal war" (despite that Bush went before the Senate and got the approval of congress, including virtually every Democrat) vs. the actual illegal war in Libya, where Obama at no time sought constitutional process or Senate approval, and the liberal media voiced absolutely no objection.
The allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain from 2 women of highly questionable character and financial problems, with a history of accusing other men of sexual harassment, but lacking any evidence whatsoever that the media eagerly sold as absolutely true... vs. the quantifiably less reported allegations of Rep Anthony Weiner, who e-mailed photos of his penis to women nationwide, who was absolutely proven guilty beyond any doubt. But the media overwhelmingly reported mere allegations against a Republican, and gave far less reportage to absolutely proven allegations against Weiner.
There are many other examples. Bernard Goldberg cites many in his book, BIAS.
Liberal bias against Republicans is proven, not speculative.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Here's another clip of him mocking the shameless bias of the liberal media:
Media Matters reports "white people showing up with guns" to protest an Obama appearance. The only problem is, MSNBC edited the footage to crop out of the video footage that the guy who showed up with a gun was actually black.
"Why did MSNBC go way out of its way to obliterate the race of [a black guy on video at a Tea Party protest packing a gun named] Chris? Because it didn't fit the story MSNBC wanted to tell. That to disagree with Obama, you must be a white crazy person with guns. Even if you're black."
Having a free press does seem to be a problem for the GOP.
Interesting. You didn't say they weren't biased. In fact, you conceded they were against the GOP. I guess the cartoon is true and no one's hiding that the press is in the tank for the regime.
Saying 'Fox News is biased on the right" in no way disproves bias in all the other news sites. So we're still looking at you admitting the rest of the news media is liberal.
A free press doesn't equate to a liberal bias. Considering I already pointed out some examples of media that's conservatively biased the generalization that the media is liberally biased is patently untrue.
It's undeniable the news media is liberal-partisan.
You can read the statistics of how news reporters overwhelmingly identify themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal" by a ratio of 80% in poll after poll. BIAS by Bernard Goldberg is one source that cites these polls, and has bibliography that lists many others.
If media coverage of the 2008 and 2012 elections alone were not evidence enough.
I don't even think Goldberg is a conservative. He's an old school centrist journalist who doesn't like the way the "mainstream" press stopped being objective. That's what makes most of his critiques so damning to the left.
Further evidence: Martha Raddatz moderating the Vice-Presidential debate tonight.
She rarely missed an opportunity to pull the reins on Ryan, when Ryan was ever-so-politely tearing Biden's head off with the facts. At several points Raddatz and Biden were both at once shouting at Ryan.
The economy really does stink. • Massive debt and entitlement crises loom. • ObamaCare isn't what it was cracked up to be. • Obama's deficit-cutting plan won't work. • Questions about Benghazi still demand answers.
Considering the "facts" he recites is just propaganda anyway, you would be correct. It's just extra points for trying to trick people into thinking it's from a university.
Groseclose joked when he appeared on O'Reilly about his book that he made sure he had tenure before he released a book so critical of the media and academic world.
On a recent program, O'Reilly interviewed a student/editor at Harvard school newspaper and made the kid look like an idiot for his criticism of O'Reilly in print, and how little the kid knew about what he wrote. Asked how many conservatives were on staff in Harvard's political science dept, the kid had no idea. O'Reilly enlightened him that there were 0 conservatives, and 25 liberals, and that O'Reilly's own criticism of Harvard had been its loss of diversity of opinion.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Considering the "facts" he recites is just propaganda anyway, you would be correct. It's just extra points for trying to trick people into thinking it's from a university.
Which you reflexively assume without ever examining Prof. Groseclose's facts.
I don't know how you can just assume with no examination that what he cites is "propaganda" when he clearly cites statistical fact.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I've noticed consistently, M E M, that your tactic is to attack the reputation and character of opinions you don't like, rather than address the actual issue. As is the deceitful tendency of the Left.
There was nothing in that video or the article I linked that Groseclose didn't back up with facts.
He cited facts and quoted statements by Van Jones of his unapologetic communism, that the media selectively ignored. When Glenn Beck and the conservative media circumnavigated the mainstream press and exposed it, Van Jones was fired (but still works in unison externally for the Obama White House).
Groseclose pointed out the facts of the Bush tax cuts (incomes less than 30,000 got a 17.3% cut; incomes 30,000 to 100,000 got a 13% cut, and incomes greater than 100,000 got an 11.7% cut) proving that "the rich" DIDN'T get the greatest tax cut, as was widely reported (propagandized) by the liberal mainstream media.
You consistently counter-attack rather than answer for the blatant holes in your own propaganda.
So you attack me for saying Prager University isn't a real university, but that still doesn't make it a real university WB. And when facts about media bias have so much conficting data, is it really a fact? It looks like this guy is cherry picking studies to suit his own bias and ignoring what doesn't fit.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
How is it that liberals keep getting tripped up by the Alger Hiss Soviet spy case over 75 years after it happened? MSNBC host Karen Finney raised eyebrows yesterday when she hung up on conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt after she turned down several chances he offered to acknowledge that the late Alger Hiss was a Communist. He barely got to the point of discussing if Hiss was a spy for the Soviet Union.
Finney, a former head of communications for the Democratic National Committee and a former press secretary for Hillary Clinton, was invited on Hewitt’s show to discuss her statement that Senator Ted Cruz’s attacks on Obamacare are reminiscent of the “fear stoking” of Joe McCarthy, who she said “also wanted to take his country back. Then, it was from the Communists, who had supposedly infiltrated it.” She said that while Cruz was focused on a different issue his “rhetoric sounds eerily the same” as McCarthy’s.
This prompted Hewitt to test Finney’s attitudes on and knowledge of the Cold War. Here is some of Politico’s blow-by-blow account.
Hewitt kicked off his interview with Finney by asking, “Did any communists infiltrate the United States government?”
“I think if we go back to the McCarthy hearings, it’s pretty clear that he created a culture of paranoia and fear that people later recognized, they sort of bought into it and then recognized that it was absolutely misplaced,” Finney told Hewitt. “That’s the point.”
“But Karen, did any communists infiltrate our government?” Hewitt asked.
Finney asked Hewitt to “go ahead and name them,” and Hewitt replied, “Can you? I’m trying to figure out if you know if any of them did.”
Finney likened his question to the same concept as “Michele Bachmann accusing my friend Huma Abedin of being in the Muslim Brotherhood because somebody she may have known, who may have known, may have known somebody.”
Hewitt, meanwhile, said the two statements weren’t at all alike, and it was “just a historical question” he was asking. The radio host then first posed the question he would repeatedly ask Finney during the five-minute interview.
“Was Alger Hiss a communist?” he asked.
Finney responded, “I understand where you’re going with this, and I get why you want to do this, but again, I think that’s distracting from the point I was trying to make.”
Hewitt tried for several more minutes to engage Finney on the issue. “This is astonishing. You can’t bring yourself to say that Alger Hiss was a Communist spy,” he concluded. He then posed it one more time, whereupon Finney hung up on him. “She can’t deal with that question. I am flabbergasted, I am astonished,” Hewitt concluded. “She has a show on MSNBC called ‘Disrupt’ and she can’t handle a little tiny question about Alger Hiss.”
Finney insisted later that “I answered — Hewitt was interested in a shout fest not an honest conversation.”
What is astonishing is that some liberals still can’t have an honest conversation about Alger Hiss, a top State Department official who accompanied FDR to the Yalta Summit in 1945 and was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations. I don’t believe Finney, a savvy operator, didn’t know who he was. Instead, as former Washington Post editor Susan Jacoby wrote in her book on Alger Hiss, the case “strikes chords located along ideological fault lines” to this day.
Back in 1996, the Hiss case forced President Clinton to withdraw his candidate to become the country’s top spymaster at the CIA. Tony Lake, who then directed the National Security Council, told NBC News that the evidence against Alger Hiss was “inconclusive.” His office then refused to make any other comment on the issue.
After a firestorm of protest in which such liberal notables as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it was clear Hiss had been guilty, Lake’s nomination for CIA director was withdrawn. Even a liberal observer such as Chris Matthews (now with MSNBC) said it was astonishing that anyone would take the view that Hiss, who was convicted on two counts of perjury because the statute of limitation on espionage had expired, could be viewed as anything less than guilty. Matthews points out that John F. Kennedy, then a young congressman, was convinced of Hiss’s guilt. “This is not a case of liberal vs. conservative,” Matthews concluded. “It is a matter of clearing up Tony Lake’s sense of history.”
Apparently, we still have to clear up the historical perspective that some of today’s liberals have about the Cold War and the seeming inability some of them have to acknowledge that there were Communists in government back then — and that that fact is distinct from Joe McCarthy’s endlessly cited excesses.
Further proof that liberal journalists are far to the Left of the people they report to.
And that marxism/anti-Americanism runs deep not only in the Obama White House, but in Hillary Clinton's inner circle as well.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
So McCarthy and his tactics were/are ok because of Hiss?
As I've said repeatedly, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russians made public their Cold War secret documents, it turned out that McCarthy was right, and there really were Soviet spies everywhere.
As I've pointed out with names like William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and Valerie Jarrett, they personally or members of their families, or both, were part of Soviet-funded communist front groups.
You can't just sweep all that under the rug by invoking "McCarthy".
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
When I wrote a ferocious defense of Sen. Joe McCarthy in Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, liberals chose not to argue with me. Instead they posted a scrolling series of reasons not to read my book, such as that I wear short skirts, date boys, and that Treason was not a scholarly tome.
After printing rabidly venomous accounts of McCarthy for half a century based on zero research, liberals would only accept research presenting an alternative view of McCarthy that included, as the Los Angeles Times put it, at least the "pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity."
This week, they got it. The great M. Stanton Evans has finally released Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies. Based on a lifetime’s work, including nearly a decade of thoroughgoing research, stores of original research and never-before-seen government files, this 672-page book ends the argument on Joe McCarthy. Look for it hidden behind stacks of Bill Clinton’s latest self-serving book at a bookstore near you.
Evans’ book is such a tour de force that liberals are already preparing a "yesterday’s news" defense — as if they had long ago admitted the truth about McCarthy. Yes, and they fought shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan to bring down the Evil Empire. Thus, Publishers Weekly preposterously claims that "the history Evans relates is already largely known, if not fully accepted." Somebody better tell George Clooney.
The McCarthy period is the Rosetta stone of all liberal lies. It is the textbook on how they rewrite history — the sound chamber of liberal denunciations, their phony victimhood as they demean and oppress their enemies, their false imputation of dishonesty to their opponents, their legalization of every policy dispute, their ability to engage in lock-step shouting campaigns, and the black motives concealed by their endless cacophony.
The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.
In the face of the Democrats’ absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.
Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn’t like communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.
Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day. In hiding their own perfidy, liberals were guilty of every sin they lyingly imputed to McCarthy. There were no "McCarthyites" until liberals came along.
Blacklisted by History proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:
– That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II;
– That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night;
– That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs;
– That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism.
Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories — the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears’ career, etc., etc. — when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.
Then as now, liberals protect themselves from detection with wild calumnies against anybody who opposes them. They have no interest in — or aptitude for — persuasion. Their goal is to anathematize their enemies. Blacklisted by History removes the curse from one of the greatest patriots in American history.
So McCarthy and his tactics were/are ok because of Hiss?
If the journalist had answered like you did acknowledging that Hiss was a communist but arguing that Hiss and others like him did not justify McCarthy's tactics, it would have been a valid point. Instead the journalist couldn't even acknowledge an historical fact. It makes him look ideological.
"Obviously, spying on this country and betraying this country is absolutely wrong. Of course it is." So she wasn't endorsing Hiss's activities.
Did Hewitt offer anything negative towards McCarthy's tactics however? It looks like he doesn't and than we have WB to be fully endorsing McCarthy and his tactics. Is this a conservative value? I just figured both sides recognized his tactics were wrong but now there appears to be a defense for it.
NBC's Chuck Todd just can't escape the backlash over a stray comment he made about the media earlier in the week.
The background, briefly: Todd was speaking with former governor Ed Rendell about Obamacare on Wednesday's "Morning Joe." Rendell said that the White House had not sold the program successfully, and that most Americans opposed to Obamacare had probably been given incorrect information about it.
Todd replied that, "more importantly," that incorrect information "would be stuff that Republicans have successfully messaged against it." He continued, "They don't repeat the other stuff because they haven't even heard the Democratic message."
Then came the fateful words:
"What I always love is people say, 'Well, it's you folks' fault in the media.' No! It's the President of the United States' fault for not selling it."
That quote led to articles with headlines like "Chuck Todd: It's Not Media's Job To Correct GOP's Obamacare Falsehoods," and "MSNBC's Chuck Todd Explains Media Don't Need To Show You No Stinking Facts On Obamacare," and "Inform the Public? Not My Job, Says Chuck Todd."
Yes!
It's the liberal media's job to fly air-cover for a Democrat president, and reinforce the Annointed One's propaganda. And any support for the Republicans is just because "Americans opposed to Obamacare had probably been given incorrect information about it."
Because, y'know, the Republicans can't possibly be right about anything, and its the liberal media's function to discredit them and support whatever Obama (or any Democrat) is selling. Despite that Obamacare is a stillborn disaster, and the Republicans are demonstrably right, to the point that many DEMOCRATS are not supporting Obamacare.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
