American Elephants


Republicans Should Pull Out of MSNBC Debates by American Elephant
October 5, 2007, 1:53 am
Filed under: News, Politics | Tags: ,

Chris MatthewsChris Matthews is not a journalist, he’s a vitriolic partisan hack. (As is Keith Olberman.) Republicans should stop lending him credibility he doesn’t deserve by appearing on his show or in debates which he moderates.

I’m reluctant to make such a call after Democrats ridiculous hissy fit over FOX, but there is a major difference — Matthews is a former Democrat political operative and has demonstrated an unhinged, vitriolic bias whereas Brit Hume has been objectively rated as the most balanced of all major news anchors.

And here is just the latest example of why Chris Matthews has absolutely no business in the journalim industry:

Chris Matthews had barely finished praising his colleagues at the 10th anniversary party for his “Hardball” show Thursday night in Washington, D.C. when his remarks turned political and pointed, even suggesting that the Bush administration had “finally been caught in their criminality.” …

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials — especially those from Vice President Cheney’s office — called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. “They will not silence me!” Matthews declared.

“They’ve finally been caught in their criminality,” Matthews continued, although he did not specify the exact criminal behavior to which he referred. …

Matthews left the throng of Washington A-listers with a parting shot at Cheney: “God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We’d all be under a parking lot.” [read more]

Nevermind that his accusations are ridiculous, unhinged and baseless, the man has just demostrated he is thoroughly unfit for journalism. One of the first rules of journalism it that you dont make any accusation you cant back up. And of course the Clinton adminstration never tried to pressure him, he presents their propaganda as fact on a daily basis. But no one has forgotten how the Clinton’s threatened to sue ABC if they aired “The Path to 9/11″. And it was just last week that it was reported that the Clintons threatened GQ magazine that they would never again have access to Bill if they went forward with an article unfavorable to Hillary. (They pulled the article)

Nor does Matthews say how the Bush administration supposedly tried to silence him, but I’d bet good money it didnt try to silence him at all, but only tried to appeal to him to stop his blatant and intentional mischaracterization of administration war and anti-terrorism policy.

Apparently many of the NBC News insiders that made up the audience agree with me that Matthews has shown he is not fit for journalism:

Following his remarks, a few network insiders and party goers wondered what kind of effect Matthews’ sharp criticism of the White House would have on Tuesday’s Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, which Matthews co-moderates alongside CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo.

“I find it hard to believe that Republican candidates will feel as if they’re being given a fair shot at Tuesday’s debate given the partisan pot-shots lobbed by Matthews this evening,” said one attendee. [emphasis mine]

Of course they won’t get a fair shot. Matthews will do exactly what he’s done previously and ignore all substanative policy issues and focus entirely on trying to alienate the candidates from the base. He’ll ask Romney 20 times if he thinks people are ready to elect a mormon and focus on Giulianis abortion position and divorces. And just as in the previous Matthews debates, the candidates will get zero opportunity to address any of the issues people care about, because Matthews knows Republican policy proposals will be far better than the unadulterated socialism Democrats are serving up.

Republicans should have nothing to do with MSNBC until the network stops pretending as though Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are anything but complete partisan hacks.



Katie Couric: Press Overwhelmingly Liberal, Biased and Ignorant by American Elephant

Katie Couric

In a rare moment of accidental honesty from the mainstream press, the anchor of the third largest network news broadcast admitted Tuesday that the mainstream news media are overwhelmingly liberal, uniformly biased and incredibly misinformed.

Addressing the National Press Club, Katie Couric made the astonishing admission that, “Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war.”

First of all, the National Press Club is one of the largest press organizations in the country — certainly a veritable who’s who of beltway journalism. If you report on Washington, you’re undoubtedly in the club.

With such a large and diverse membership, reporting to news audiences from sea to shining sea, one would theoretically expect their viewpoints to be as vastly diverse as those of the Americans they report to.

Theoretically. But we know better.

Couric not only freely admitted that every one of the hundreds of journalists at the luncheon held exactly the same viewpoint, but that it was common knowledge and so uncontroversial that it could be openly addressed:

Everyone in this room would agree…,”she said.

But not only did Couric admit that they all held the same opinion, she confessed what that opinion is:

“…that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war.”

And in doing so admitted that the press is overwhelmingly ignorant because that opinion is flatly, demonstrably, 100% contradicted by the facts.

There have now been three separate bi-partisan and non-partisan investigations that have looked at Iraq intelligence: the Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War Intelligence, the Robb-Silbermann Commission and the Dulfer Report (as well as the Lord Butler Report in the United Kingdom) — which interviewed everyone at every level of intelligence, from gathering, to interpreting to disseminating — all of which unanimously concluded that no one lied, no one misled, no one pressured, and no one “cooked the books.”

No, I take that back, the bi-partisan Senate report unanimously concluded that Joe Wilson is a bald-faced liar, but other than him, they all concluded that the intelligence and the processes may have been faulty, but that NO one lied.

And yet here we have Katie Couric brazenly admitting that everyone in the media believes otherwise. Are you beginning to see why Americans are so misinformed?

Furthermore, Couric claimed that among, “accepted truths,” was that the Bush administration erred by“disbanding the Iraq military.”

I’m sorry to break it to you Katie, but that’s not the “accepted truth” by a long shot.

We now know that the Iraqi police force — which never was disbanded — is so riddled with corruption that experts now argue the only chance we have to fix the police is to scrap them completely, i.e. disband them, and start from scratch. So the idea that disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake is “accepted truth” only by liberals intent on criticizing President Bush without any regard for the facts.

And how can anyone expect the public to be accurately informed when the people disseminating the news are so woefully and willfully misinformed themselves?



All enemies, foreign and domestic by American Elephant

three liars

When liberals at the Washington Post are more willing to slam Democrats for their unconstitutional power-grabs than President Bush and Republicans are, the Republican Party and America are in deep danger: (h/t Powerline)

Without a doubt, Mr. Reid and the Democrats have an obligation to pry deeply into the qualifications and character of the person nominated to the top law enforcement job in the country. What they don’t have is the right to usurp the president’s role in choosing a nominee who shares his — or possibly even her — ideology and priorities.



The Ice Age Cometh by American Elephant
September 17, 2007, 3:41 am
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Politics, Science/Technology | Tags:

Polar Bear

Surely you’ve heard the media hyperventalating about a supposedly shrinking arctic ice cap, drowning polar bears, the end of the world, yadda yadda, woof woof…

But shhhhhhh! What the media haven’t been telling you—and won’t tell you—is that the antartic ice cap is bigger than ever before.

In fact there’s a great deal they haven’t been telling you lately and won’t be telling  you anytime soon—like reporting on any of the 500 peer-reviewed scientific studies that dispute the findings of the anthropogenic global warming doom-sayers.

Or reporting on any of the increasing number of experts who believe current climate change isn’t man made at all, but part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling caused by fluctuations in the suns output.

Why do liberals hate science so much?



The NYT hits the fan! by American Elephant
September 13, 2007, 3:47 pm
Filed under: News, Politics | Tags:

The New York Times

Turns out that the New York Times published that despicable ad by MoveOn.org calling General Petraeus a liar and accusing him of betraying his country at bargain basement prices.

The fringe leftist group confirms they paid only $65,000 for the ad which according to the Times would normally sell for $181,682! That’s more than $116,000 off.

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the “family discount.”

“I’m surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad,” the GOP staffer said. “They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn’t have cost them a cent.”

But don’t call them biased!

Now Rudy Giuliani is taking on the Times, demanding the same deep discount. And Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has filed a complaint with the FEC over the Times potentially illegal sales practices.

Freedom’s Watch, who have produced ads by Iraq war veterans and their families stressing the importance of winning in Iraq (watch the ads here), plans to run an ad rebutting moveon.org’s despicable smear. They say they were charged a great deal more for ads they have already placed with the times, but they intend to demand the same discount for their new ad.

Meanwhile, Democrats in congress refused to allow a vote condemning MoveOn’s smear of General Petraeus, nor would any of the Democrat presidential candidates condemn the ad.

Despicable.

Republicans should not let the issue go until Democrats condemn such vile tactics. Of course, that would probably require Democrats to stop using such tactics themselves first.



Associated Propaganda by American Elephant

Bush Economy

The mainstream press (and Democrats) are lying to your face. Blatantly, intentionally, and daily.

Most Americans recognize that the media is liberally biased, but I am concerned that most Americans don’t realize the overwhelming extent to which the news has become politicized in recent years and the daunting frequency with which the press is blatantly lying to them toward political ends.

Occassionally their lies are outright fabrications such as Dan Rather and his forged memos, Reuters’ photoshops, or the New Republic’s Scott Beauchamp fiasco. Often their lies are in the form of a “myopic zeal” — so eager to discredit Bush, Republicans and the War in Iraq, that they accept enemy propaganda as truth and present it as legitimate news without even bothering to fact check it (think: Newsweek’s bogus Haditha massacre and Flushed Quran stories, CNN running al Qaeda videos, etc…) But most often their lies are intentional misrepresentation of facts, spin, and lies of omission.

I read a Washington Post story the other day, for example, that sought to convince readers that “experts” were calling claims of Surge progress into question. Naturally the WaPo neglected to tell their readers that the “expert” they were citing was a far-left, Bush-hating, anti-Israel professor who not only hasn’t been to Iraq any time recently, but has spent his time instead writing for left-wing fringe publications such as the Nation, and speaking at the Yearly Kos convention.

The problem in countering the medias (and Democrats) lies, is the overwhelming quantity of them, and that each misleading article usually requires a column of equal length to rebut.

However there are occasional lies that are so short and concise, and blatantly, demonstrably untrue, that its impossible to pass up the opportunity to showcase them. The powerhouses over at Powerline found just such an example from the AP today: 

The AP strikes again in this story on the Bush administration’s 2005 global warming initiative. The AP provides a brief history of the America and the Kyoto Protocol:

Under the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton, the United States joined a U.N. meeting in Kyoto and agreed to the protocol. But the United States rejected it under the administration of President George W. Bush, Clinton’s successor.

Readers with a long memory may recall that the United States never adopted the Kyoto Protocol because the Clinton administration never submitted it for ratification to the Senate. The Clinton administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification because in July 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 to adopt a resolution stating that ”the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.” [emphasis mine]

Scott at Powerline is more generous than I am, giving the AP the benefit of the doubt that the lie of omission could have been accidental — as of course he has to unless he has proof otherwise, but anyone who actually believes it at this point would have to be monumentally ignorant.



Feinstein screws vets for benefit of rich hollywoood elites by American Elephant

Criminally Corrupt Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein is at it again. Last month we told you how she had steered millions and millions of dollars in military contracts to companies that her husband profits from directly.

Now the Wall Street Journal exposes a $4 BILLION handout she gives to her rich contributors in wealthy West LA at the expense of Americas injured veterans:

Ms. Feinstein, who in the last election received some of her largest donations from the rich area, has been only too happy to come to its defense. She honed in on the military construction and veterans affairs bill–a sensitive spending vehicle that few Republicans would dare vote against, and that President Bush would be loath to veto. She then slipped in an earmark provision that would bar the VA from disposing or leasing any of the ground. Thus a potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation’s veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies. [read the whole thing]

So much for Democrat’s claims to care about our veterans.

And when Republicans tried to strip this egregious earmark from the bill, Feinstein’s comrade in corruption, Barbara Boxer, jumped to her feet in indignation and threatened that anyone who voted against Feisntein’s multi-billion giveaway to her rich hollywood liberal supporters, would have their projects and earmarks killed.

Republicans may have had a few corrupt members, but you’ll notice they’re all gone now. We get rid of corruption when we discover it — Democrats, on the other hand, keep them, re-elect them and promote them. (And their corrupt counterparts in the news media naturally cover for them.)

Barbara Boxer for example was one of the most egregious offenders in the congressional banking scandal, yet here she is threatening anyone who tries to stop her and Feinstein from giving a $4 billion handout to their rich Hollywood supporters at the expense of injured veterans.

In addition to her latest heinous earmark, Feinstein was discovered to have been profitting from defense contracts — yet Democrats won’t even think about investigating her.

No, mark my words, the very same corrupt crew of Democrats that were stripped of power in 1992 are still there, they’ve been promoted since, and they’ve been waiting 15 very long years to get their corrupt clutches back on the reins of power. Now that they have it, they are doing everything in their power to make certain they never lose it again (undermining the war, the fairness doctrine, amnesty, etc), and I’d be willing to bet good money that they’re already up to their eyeballs in corruption that will make anything Republicans did look like child’s play.



Vile, reprehensible ABC News sinks to yet another new low by American Elephant
September 5, 2007, 2:11 pm
Filed under: News, Politics | Tags: ,

Just listening to the ABC top of the hour news report, and following a touching report on the standing ovation Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota received upon his return to the senate following his long recovery from a brain injury, ABC News had the following to say on the death of Ohio Congressman Paul Gillmor:

An Ohio House seat is empty, Representative Paul Gillmor was found dead in his apartment.” [emphasis added]

That’s it. That was their entire report on the matter.

No mention of his decades of service to Ohio and the country. No mention of his accomplishments or the loved ones he leaves behind. The only thing that matters to ABC is that a dead republican leaves a (pant, pant, drool, drool) seat open in the House of Representatives.

It sincerely makes me sick to my stomach.

Here is a more fitting report:

Ohio Congressman Paul Gillmor

Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) — Republican Representative Paul Gillmor of Ohio was found dead in his apartment in Washington today, an aide said. He was 68.

Brad Mascho, a spokesman for Gillmor, said authorities are investigating the death. “From everything we know, it’s from natural causes,” he said. “It’s an extreme shock to all of us.”

Mascho said Gillmor’s death is particularly shocking in part because he was so active last week, traveling during a congressional recess to all 16 counties in his district.

Gillmor was first elected to Congress in 1988 and won a 10th term last year. He served on the Energy and Commerce as well as the Financial Services Committees.

“Paul Gillmor was a man of genuine humility and deep conviction — a great public servant and a good friend,” House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said in a statement. “His love for his family was matched only by his love for this nation.”

House Republican leader John Boehner called Gillmor “a good friend and a trusted colleague who served his constituents with honor for nearly two decades.”

U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sergeant Kimberly Schneider declined comment on the investigation of his death.

Before winning a seat in Congress, Gillmor was elected to the Ohio state Senate at age 27 and served 22 years, including as Senate president, according to his Web page biography. He is married with five children. [read more]

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Representative Gillmor’s family and loved ones.



How to end the Larry Craig controversy by American Elephant

mens room

It’s time to end this hullabaloo.

While the media broadcasts, “Larry Craig, Republican scandal!” 24 hours a day, there actually are important scandals and corruption getting swept under the rug (Hillary’s 157th campaign finance scandal, and Democrat 527, America Coming Together, illegally spending $137 MILLION to elect Demcorats.) The GOP needs to end this one yesterday — and I know just the way.

Craig’s resignation will not end the issue. Democrats and the media will continue to milk it for everything they can — whether Craig resigns or not. Already they are subtly, and not-so-subtly, suggesting that Craigs pervy indescressions in an airport bathroom are evidence of a corruptive nature that permeates the entire GOP. Of course its ridiculous on its face, but when has that ever stopped them before?

No, if Republicans want this one to go away, and go away immediately, there is only one thing to do — Senator Craig must switch parties.

The only thing Democrats prize more than attacking Republicans, is what they think it gets them — more power. If Craig were to declare himself a Democrat, this would go from a case of a lying hypocritical Republican being sleazy in a public bathroom and breaking the law to a case of privacy, homophobia and entrapment faster than you can tap your toe.

Of course i say this with tongue planted firmly in cheek, but you know it’s true.



“Filtering” the news by American Elephant
August 23, 2007, 4:04 am
Filed under: Blogging, Media Bias, News, Politics | Tags: , , ,

I was reading the president’s speech to the VFW today, when I was reminded of an alarming display of the dangerous state the “mainstream” news media is in…

In 2005, CSPAN aired a panel on journalism and blogging hosted by the National Press Club entitled, “What is a Journalist?”

Jeff GannonThe panel consisted of several young mainstream journalists and several bloggers—gossip columnist, Wonkette, and blogger, Jeff Gannon, are the only two I remember by name. In the exchange, Wonkette and the rest of the panel were attacking Gannon regarding the questions he asked during White House press conferences.

Gannon’s simple assertion was that the president’s policies, positions and his rationale for supporting them are news and should be heard, and the media weren’t reporting them. The rest of the panel was nearly apoplectic. The basic gist of Wonkette’s argument was that the president is pushing his agenda and therefore must be “filtered.” The rest of the panel agreed whole-heartedly with her.

Of course Gannon was right and the panel was decidedly, unanimously wrong. The president is the most powerful man in the world, not to mention the elected leader of the nation—it’s news if he sneezes—let alone if he lays out his policies and reasons for them. Precisely why major newspapers used to, not long ago, publish every major speech by the President of the United States in their entirety.

It is rare that you get such unwitting candor from the “press”. But the fact they unwittingly divulged is that they do indeed see their job as “filtering” the news—cherry picking what they want you to see, and what they don’t want you to see. If balance is their concern, surely the response from his political opponents is newsworthy as well, but that’s not what they were advocating. They were advocating deciding for the consumer which of the presidents statements they felt were true and which they felt were not, and refusing to publish those they did not approve of.

Now, how do you think that works out in a press that study after study confirms is 85-90% Liberal/Democrat? A press that polls show is more interested in “making a difference,” than in reporting the facts?

“We report, you decide,” not, “we decide, then report” is the proper function of the media. “Filtering” is propaganda—”who, what, when, where and why” is journalism.

“Filtering” is what China, Cuba, and Venezuela do. “Filtering” is what Stalin did—and now, self-admittedly, the liberal mainstream news media.



They needed a poll to tell them this??? by American Elephant

“More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don’t care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed” ~Breitbart

Well, duh! Tell us something we don’t know. We’ve been telling you this for decades. Nor should it be a surprise to anyone. This isn’t just a matter of public opinion either—there is a great deal of fact to substantiate the claims. Just a cursory look at who these people are should immediately dispense with any notion of objectivity:

Dan Rather

Dan Rather, erstwhile CBS anchorman, has a history so replete with deep and blatant partisanship, it’s almost impossible to limit myself. Suffice it to say, he will forever be known for lying about President Bush’s military service and using forged documents to back-up his partisan attack. What is not as well known is that Rather has close, personal ties not only to former Governor Ben Barnes, the partisan Democrat that Rather interviewed in his discredited story—but also to the highly partisan Democrat district attorney, Ronnie Earle, the hack responsible for bringing phony charges against Tom Delay.¹

George Stephanopoulos George Stephanopoloulos was Bill Clinton’s Senior Political Adviser, and later, his White House Communications Director.² Now we are expected to swallow that he is completely objective and fair in his role as Chief Washington Correspondent for ABC News and host of ABC’s primary political news show, This Week with George Stephanopoulos. All one has to do is watch his show for a few minutes to dispel that myth.
.

Chris Matthews Chris Matthews was a top aide to former Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, and served as one of Jimmy Carter’s top speech writers for four years. Matthews also worked for Democrat Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before he became host of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews and NBC’s The Chris Matthews Show. Media watchdog group, Media Matters, named Matthews “Misinformer of the Year” for 2005.³
.

Tim Russert

Tim Russert, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News and host of NBC’s top rated Meet the Press, also got his start as a Democrat political operative. Russert also hosts Tim Russert, a weekly interview show on CNBC and makes frequent appearances on the Today show, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Dateline. Before his successful media career, Russert worked Legal Counsel for hyper-partisan Governor Mario Cuomo and was Chief of Staff to Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.4

Jeff Greenfield Jeff Greenfield was a speech-writer for Democrat Senator Robert Kennedy before his career in journalism where he worked as a political and media commentator for CBS News, Political and Media Analyst for ABC News, and Senior Political Correspondent for CNN where he has covered elections and campaigns and even moderated debates.5 Based on this year’s primary campaign debates, CNN’s idea of fairness is to ask Democrats to bash Republicans and, in order to present balance, ask Republicans to bash Republicans as well.

Bill Moyers Bill Moyers, poisonously partisan PBS host, served first in the Kennedy administration, and later became Special Assistant to Lyndon Johnson, where he played a key role in organizing and pushing Johnson’s “Great Society” legislative agenda—the second largest expansion of the federal government in American history. He was the chief architect of Johnson’s re-election campaign before being promoted to Johnson’s informal Chief of Staff when the previous Chief resigned amidst a sex scandal involving a YMCA men’s bathroom. Moyers now decries the “right-wing” media bias while simultaneously badmouthing republicans and having been recently urged to run for president by the venomous Molly Ivins and the socialist/communist, the Nation magazine.6

Mark HalperinMark Halperin, erstwhile ABC News Political Director, and Political Correspondent for both ABC News and Time Magazine is perhaps most famous for a leaked memo he wrote directing the journalists and producers at ABC News to favor John Kerry in their coverage of the 2004 presidential election.7 In a 2006 book tour, Halperin admitted the overwhelming liberal bias of the media on many talk radio interviews. But when asked by a caller to the Michael Medved show if the way to correct the liberal bias would perhaps be to hire an equal amount of conservative journalists, Halperin quickly assured him, “No, no, that’s not the solution”.

Tom Johnson, former president of CNN, was Special Assistant to President Johnson; CBS’ Lesley Stahl worked for Democrat Mayor of NY, John Lindsay; CBS News opinion columnist Dotty Lynch was the Democratic National Committee’s Polling Director; David Burke, Ted Kennedy’s Chief of Staff for six years, in 1988 became president of CBS for two years and later returned to the visciously partisan Kennedy as a Strategy Adviser; Former NPR President Delano Lewis was Chief Campaign Fund-raiser for Washington Mayor, and convicted felon, Marion Barry. Katie Couric, Walter Cronkite, and others have admitted their liberal bias. (As if it weren’t obvious.) And I could go on and on…

Numerous Studies Prove Liberal Media Bias

Numerous studies and surveys have further documented not just that the overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democrat:

“The Media Elite,” a book written in 1986 by Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter, surveyed 240 journalists at ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. It found that in the presidential elections of 1964, 1968, 1972 and 1976, on average, 86% of responding journalists in America’s top media voted Democratic.

In 2001, Rothman and Amy Black updated the “Media Elite” survey of national journalists and established that 76% voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and 91% for Bill Clinton in 1992. A Freedom Forum Poll reinforced the “Media Elite” survey when it documented that 89% — nine out of 10 — Washington reporters and bureau chiefs voted for Clinton in 1992 and 7% voted for George Bush.”8

and that they are decidedly out of the American mainstream:

A 2003 survey by the Pew Research Center…showed that 34% of national journalists admitted to being liberal and only 7% admitted to being conservative. Also, by a ratio of 7-to-1, journalists felt they weren’t critical enough of President Bush. By contrast, the poll showed that the public, by a 3-to-2 ratio, thought the press was too critical. Curiously, in 1995 when Clinton was president, Pew found that journalists felt they were too critical of the Democrat in the White House and didn’t focus enough on his accomplishments.

The minuscule 7% of admitted conservatives correlates with a 1996 poll by the independent Freedom Forum. It found that only 7% of Washington correspondents voted for the first President Bush in 1992 and that 89% voted for Clinton — a 12-to-1 ratio of Democratic voters over Republican.9

And that they flatly deny their bias, despite all the evidence to the contrary:

Most liberals deny the media are loaded with liberals or that liberal bias enters into their selection and presentation of national news. But 20 years of surveys and a more aware public clearly prove otherwise. As a result, some media liberals now try to hide in a safer category, claiming to be “moderates.” The data, however, show that 85% to 90% consistently align with the Democratic Party’s agenda, policies and positions.10

But most importantly, that despite all their claims to the contrary, the stories they choose and the content therein is overwhelmingly biased to the left:

According to Public Opinion magazine, Reagan got 7,230 seconds of bad press and 730 seconds of good, while Mondale enjoyed 1,330 seconds of good press and 1,050 seconds of bad. Reagan’s vice president, George Bush Sr., got a goose egg — zero seconds of good press vs. 1,500 seconds of bad.11

Maura Clancy and Michael Robinson recorded and rated positive and negative spin comments before the 1984 election (10-to-1 against Ronald Reagan).

A 1983 survey by the Institute For Applied Economics showed nearly 95% of economic statistics were positive, yet 86% were reported negatively…

…And the brilliant 2003 study “A Measure of Media Bias” by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo scientifically documented that the national media slants your news left, with CBS and the New York Times leading the parade.12

Fox News scientifically proven most fair and balanced!

By all means, use this study by a team of 23 UCLA political scientists to drive your liberal friends and family absolutely apoplectic! They used a standard measure of congressional political ideology and applied it to the mainstream media. The results are thought to be the first successful objective measure of media bias.

The study confirms everything that conservatives have been saying for ages, and turns liberals accusations on their heads. For example, yes, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages are conservative, but their news pages lean even further left than the NYT (which the study finds overwhelmingly liberal.) And the results that will drive liberals the most hysterical are that Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume is more centrist than any of the three major networks news, and that not only is The Drudge Report not conservative, but the content of his site has a decidedly liberal slant! (They attribute this not to Drudge’s personal ideology, but the general liberal bias of the media he links to.)

http://www.foxnews.com/i/podcasts/grapevine2.jpg

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. …Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. 14

If the liberals at the broadcast networks were smart, or if they were truly conservative as liberals claim, one of them would hire Brit Hume away from FOX so they could dominate the network news ratings the way he has helped FOX dominate the cable news networks. Alas, they are neither smart nor conservative.

And Americans know it!

The new Pew poll also shows that people who use the internet for their main source of news, who tend to be better educated according to Pew, are even more critical of the mainstream news.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don’t care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased. 15

And 53 percent of internet users resented news organizations for, “failing to stand up for America.” I couldn’t agree more.

So the only question that remains is will the liberal media change their wicked partisan ways now that the jig is up? I doubt it. They are hemmoraging viewers and readers and have been for some time. They’re having to fire staff left and right to stay in business, and if that hasn’t caused them to try being more balanced, I doubt any poll will. No, the entire reason they are “journalists” is to indoctrinate not inform. They have power and they intend to use it. And, as they have shown, they would rather destroy their respective institutions than give that power up!



If you were an idiot, what would you print? by American Elephant

No, don’t bother. That question has already been answered by the radical, subversive, treasonous New York Times.

No longer content with simply divulging national security secrets and publishing enemy propaganda, the Times has taken upon itself the role of Offensive Operations Research Management—A terrorist think-tank if you will. Ever seeking to plumb new depths, the Times has published an article online, entitled, “If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?” Unbelievable!

“Hearing about these rules got me thinking about what I would do to maximize terror if I were a terrorist,” writes Steven Levitt as he waxes philosophic how best to inflict maximum pain and damage on the United States and the American people.

Apparently the Times feels the terrorists are not having enough success, for after he proposes his own ideas he closes by recruiting readers to take up the cause, “I’m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them.”

Well, let me take a stab at answering the Times’ question… If I were a terrorist, I would bombard the useful idiots in the mainstream media with propaganda, staged video and photographs, fabricated stories of massacres and other fictional attrocities. (Why bother fighting the American military? I know full well I’d be obliterated if I did.) And I’d attack civilians for the benefit of the cameras—all with the hope that the media would be stupid enough, and despicable enough to publish and broadcast my lies, propaganda and photo-op-attacks, and use them to turn public opinion against those who are fighting me.

Oh wait! They’re already doing that! …God help us all!

If, by chance, you still subscribe to the Times (or as I like to call it, “the Mouth of Sauron”), and you’d like to cancel your subscription, you can do so by calling 1-800-NYTIMES or by visiting homedelivery.nytimes.com. If you patronize Starbucks, or any other business that offers the Times, ( i.e. hotels or doctors’ offices) you might consider suggesting that they drop the Times, and offer more responsible papers (the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times or even Weekly World News for crying out loud) instead.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,433 other followers

%d bloggers like this: