Archive for the ‘Biased Media’ Category
For the past two months the media has been consumed with talk of Hamas ruled Gaza and the flotillas meant to break the Israeli blockade. But how one might ask did Gaza come to be overrun with Hamas terrorists. The answer is that the world forced Israel to let them in.
Who could have predicted the explosive growth in the popularity for blogs as news or media outlets? Today, more and more people are tuning into their favorite news blog instead of catching the morning or evening news on the TV or radio. While the majority of those receiving news still get it from the major media outlets, more and more media blogs are becoming the go-to source for news.
Short for “web log,” a blog is a specialized site that allows one or more people to share a running log of events and personal insights with online audiences. Basically, a blog is an online journal.
There are millions of blogs currently out there. In fact, there is probably not one topic out there that does not have its own blog. With topics ranging from food to fantasy, home improvement to hot news topics, college sports to celebrities, or baseball to beauty products, blogs are everywhere. Blogs that are particular to political or current-events themes have especially grown in popularity. These blogs, serving as news outlets, have become “soap boxes” for instant mass-audience commentary.
After all, what is media without criticism or commentary? Who does not want to talk about what they see, hear, or read about in the news? The news is a part of our everyday lives – what we see, hear, or read about largely affects us – worldwide, nationwide, and even community wide. With all of the news stories thrown out there, you can hardly expect people to keep quiet about it.
Hence, this is the number one reason for the ever-growing popularity of media blogs as news and commentary outlets.
By Warner Todd Huston 
On the 25th, the Washington Post served up a lament for Hollywood’s dismal box office returns for the many Iraq war pictures it has churned out over the last several years, wondering why they have all failed so spectacularly? The whole article amounts to the Post just not understanding why moviegoers have stayed away in droves from these dark and dismal movies. But with the anti-Military, anti-American point of view depicted in every single one of these movies, it is no surprise that Americans have ignored these self-denigrating flicks. After all, with soldiers really taking casualties on the battlefield, who wants to see a film that tells us all it’s OUR fault?
Still, the Washington Post is mystified.
After five years of conflict in Iraq, Hollywood seems to have learned a sobering lesson: The only things less popular than the war itself are dramatic films and television shows about the conflict… A spate of Iraq-themed movies and TV shows haven’t just failed at the box office. They’ve usually failed spectacularly, despite big stars, big budgets and serious intentions.
The Post then goes on to wonder if audiences are “turned off by the war, or are they simply voting against the way filmmakers have depicted it?” As the post asks that question, you’d think they are on the verge of understanding. But, this question is dropped right away as the story details one flop after another. Ridiculously, the Post seems puzzled by the fact that audiences have not just mindlessly followed into the theater the “big stars, big budgets and serious intentions” of these failed flicks and no further attempt is made in this story to explore the public’s disinterest.
The Post quotes TV legend Steven Bochco who imagines that his TV series “Over There,” which failed after only 13 episodes, was not well received because Americans felt “a certain sense of powerlessness” about the war. The Post also quotes film historian Jonathan Kuntz of UCLA that the whole thing is just a “bummer.”
By Warner Todd Huston
The newest update to a study published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, claims that 655,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq. This absurd claim has been hailed around the world as evidence of the evil American empire’s murderous reign in the Mid East. But it turns out that the entire study is not only filled with lies, the creators of the study even tried to hide the fact that George Soros funded the thing.
MSM sources like the AP and the Washington Post, among many others, highlighted the report lending it credence when it came out last month but few of those news outlets revealed the source of the study’s funding. While most did reveal that the study was "controversial," few went into just how far off from the truth the details of this study are.
The real facts, however, are beginning to come out.
Michael Fumento has penned a great expose on how many lies fill the famed Lancet Study on Iraqi war deaths and the UK’s Timesonline also revealed the connection with Soros.
The Times tells of the Soros involvement.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
"The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research," said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
And Michael Fumento has a great run down on all the spurious mathematics promulgated by the study. When comparing the numbers offered by the Iraq Family Health Survey study to that of the study in the Lancet, some startling differences are seen.
So for that last period, while the IFHS daily figure was 2.3 times higher than that of Iraq Body Count, the Lancet 2006 daily figure was a stunning 7.3 times higher than that of the IFHS and 17 times higher than that of Iraq Body Count.
By Thomas Lindaman
I was chatting online with a friend of mine watching CNN’s coverage of the South Carolina Republican Primary when my friend mentioned something said by one of the political experts they had. One of the experts said, hopefully with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that John McCain and Fred Thompson are working together to weaken the other candidates. Yeah, because as we all know, Thompson is secretly a liberal Republican who is only acting like a conservative Republican to undermine Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
For the people who believe CNN is the epitome of fine political reporting and analysis, that was sarcasm.
Is it just me, or have the media done a horrible job covering this election? Reading the online newspapers and magazines and watching the cable news coverage has been more painful than watching any of the recent "American Pie" sequels, but with many more exposed boobs. I know journalistic standards have declined in recent years, but there’s a big difference between declining and devolving. And from where I sit, the New York Times is only a couple steps up from the Weekly World News as far as journalistic quality.
Part of the reason is what the media do every time there’s a national election. In order to generate interest in the coverage, the media love to set up a horse race mentality. Which candidate is ahead? Which candidate is starting to fall back? Which candidate will be turned into glue at the end of the election?
By Alan Caruba
After a while, one grows accustomed to the environmental rants that appear in The New York Times. This newspaper, so often pointed to as an exemplar of the highest standards of journalism, has been repeatedly revealed to employ fantasists for whom truth and facts are mere impediments to the advancement of their obsessions and agendas.
A perfect example of this is the January 27th rant, “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler” by Mark Bittman, identified as the author of “How to Cook Everything Vegetarian” along with the disclaimer that “He is not a vegetarian.” He writes for the “Dining in and Dining Out” section. If it looks like a vegetarian, walks like a vegetarian, and quacks like a vegetarian, it probably is a vegetarian.
His commentary is a cornucopia of assertions and cherry-picked facts that beg to be rebutted, but I shall choose just a few, starting where he started. “Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government.” By subsidized, the reader is asked to assume that the raising, packaging, and distribution of meat products depends on government subsidies to exist and that the oil industry does as well. Unlike the European Union, those engaged in either industry in the United States are expected to make a profit on their own without such dependence. It’s called capitalism.
“Finally—like oil—meat is something people are encourage to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.” Visible to whom? Do supermarket sections offering abundant choices of meat products suggest anything other than the fact that people want meat as part of their diet? Does anyone really give any thought to how it got there?
The only people recommending we eat less meat are vegetarians. Read the rest of this entry »
By Thomas E. Brewton
The New York Times is distressed that private philanthropists can give money to any charity they choose.
Only a socialistic Federal government is capable, says the Times, of making wise decisions about dispensing money to achieve social justice.
The flip side of American private largess is the stinginess of the public sector. Philanthropic contributions in the United States — about $300 billion in 2006 — probably exceed those of any other country. By contrast, America’s tax take is nearly the lowest in the industrial world. Federal, state and local tax collections amount to just more than 25.5 percent of the nation’s economic output. The Finnish government collects 48.8 percent. As a result, the United States spends less on social programs than virtually every other rich industrial country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Finnish government probably has money to build children’s health clinics.
Critics of government spending argue that America’s private sector does a better job making socially necessary investments. But it doesn’t. Public spending is allocated democratically among competing demands. Rich benefactors can spend on anything they want, and they tend to spend on projects close to their hearts.
The real point, of course, is not that private philanthropists misplace their donations. The point is to move the United States farther toward what Hilaire Belloc called The Servile State and Friedrich Hayek called The Road to Serfdom.
True socialism of the kind lovingly promoted by the New York Times requires that all economic resources of the nation be collectively controlled by government ownership or by regulation.
Social justice being defined as equality of income, the Federal government must roughly double income taxes to bring the United States up to par with other socialist nations.
The Democratic Party's presidential candidates, all liberal- progressive-socialists, have not explicitly acknowledged that goal, but Senator Hillary Clinton's recent pronouncements make clear the direction in which she intends to head if elected.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com
By Christopher Adamo
Perhaps it is overly limiting to discuss the present state of our nation, and thus its prospects for the future, without broadening the topic to include all of Western civilization. Nevertheless, for at least the past century as well as a goodly portion of the century before that, America provided the primary defining force of Western culture. So it is no overstatement to assert that life in the free world will live or die based on the direction America takes in the upcoming years.
Corrosive forces are hard at work to ensure that the former power with which this nation moved the rest of the world is diluted and eventually neutralized. Worst of all, many who express outward belief in the worthiness of the American experiment are nonetheless helping to eradicate its founding philosophies, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they too will fall if it falls.
It is as if they think they can selectively remove the sometimes inconvenient building blocks of the American foundation without ever weakening the overall integrity of that foundation. And if they believe thus, they believe what is not and will never be.
The present, absurd nature of the presidential race, daily exhibiting less and less substance while any real consideration of the issues is increasingly being replaced by a media circus reminiscent of American idol (but possessing far less genuine talent), did not evolve overnight. Rather it has resulted from an ongoing effort of the mainstream media to shift the focus from a thoughtful consideration of weighty issues (which would leave the Democrats at a disadvantage) to ever more frivolous assessments of prospective candidates.
In the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate, the first such event to be broadcast on television, public opinions were swayed by Nixon’s appearance of discomfort in front of the cameras, "darkness" of facial features, and five o’clock shadow. Nixon’s real qualifications notwithstanding, these were extremely weak reasons to support or oppose a particular candidate.
In the same vein, Hillary’s crying episode last week (for those able to recognize its transparency) was no more about bolstering America’s standing in the world than it was a genuine outpouring of emotion. Rather, it was only a matter of jumping through whatever hoops was necessary to claim a dubious victory in the New Hampshire primary. In the process, America’s greatness was lowered a notch in the eyes of the world. And more of the same is likely to follow.
Furthermore, to listen to the catcalling that has erupted between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama since then, one can only fear for the future of the country if either assumes the reins of power by offering such morally and intellectually vacant ideas. But sadly, they are not alone.
By Erik Rush
"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."
–President George W. Bush, January 10, 2008
Geopolitics is such a complicated subject, you see, far beyond the comprehension of the average American. Those whom destiny has ordained to ameliorate the world’s geopolitical woes are far more insightful and inherently capable that you or I could ever hope to be.
I’m being facetious, of course. Without going into the promotion of that belief by politicians over the years due to spineless vacillation or their quest to keep Americans ignorant and uninvolved in the political process, I’d be interested in hearing how the Founding Fathers of this nation would have viewed the above concept, those who took on the most powerful empire on the planet and declaring that they were prepared to fight, kill and die to throw off the yoke of tyranny.
President Bush has gotten a lot of bad press from the establishment media because of who and what they are. I was forwarded some factoids the other day which, though verifiable, I was reluctant to use simply because the initial contact was a group email from a business associate.
There have been 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
Though some claim that President Bush "shouldn’t have started this war," consider:
FDR (a Democrat) led us into World War II. Although we were attacked, from 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman (a Democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy (a Democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson (a Democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
President Clinton (a Democrat) went to war in Bosnia without United Nations or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
By Warner Todd Huston
In an article that is ostensibly supposed to be about the many Iowa homeschoolers that are supporting Mike Huckabee, the Washington Post pins the reason to the fact that homeschooling parents must hate Mormons! This has easily become the MSM’s favorite theme as they try to divide and anger portions of the GOP primary voting base against each other. In this MSM meme, anyone who votes against Romney or questions the relative Christian merits of the Mormon faith is a bigot who hates Mormons and won’t vote for Romney merely because he is one. They are also unanimous in pinning support for Huckabee to an anti-Mormon sentiment. The MSM is doing their level best to start a religious war on the right.
In the Post’s article, religion is the central theme of pro-Huckabee homeschool advocates. Here the Post reveals the efforts of a homeschooling Mother named Julie Roe (bet they chose her for her familiar name: Roe) who has stumped for Huckabee by making homemade buttons and making numerous phone calls.
Julie Roe, an early believer in Mike Huckabee, worked with what she had… With no buttons, no yard signs and no glossy literature from his nearly invisible Iowa campaign, she took a pair of scissors and cut out a photograph of the former Arkansas governor. She pasted it on a piece of paper, scribbled down some of his positions, made copies and launched the Huckabee for President campaign in rural Hardin County.
So, why Huckabee? (My emphasis added throughout).
Huckabee’s name is no longer a mystery to Iowa’s Republican voters, in large part because of an extensive network of home-schoolers like Roe who have helped lift his underfunded campaign from obscurity to the front of a crowded field. Opinion polls show that his haphazard approach is trumping the studied strategy of Mitt Romney, who invested millions only to be shunned by many religious conservatives such as Roe, who see the former Baptist preacher from Hope, Ark., as their champion.
But, even the Post contradicts this religious basis only a few paragraphs later.