Add Another Name to the Lamestream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame

Picture from Roll Call

Bookmark and Share  As most of us know, the lamestream media is dominated by mushy minds that have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda and media elites. Of course there are in fact many true journalists, who if charged with delivering just the news, can do so without even subtle hints of political bias.  But  journalists of that sort seem to be far and few between .  They are also the ones whom the liberal media holds up as evidence when they try to claim that the media is not biased.  Sadly though, there are far more examples of media bias than there are of impartial reporting.

Take for example the treatment of the rise of the TEA movement as compared to the spread of the “Occupy” protests which have taken place.

While TEA Party protests and demonstrations gathered tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands, the Occupy “Whatever” protests have

produced numbers in the hundreds.  But despite the obvious lack of populist appeal of the liberal endorsed demonstrations, the mainstream media tends to downplay the TEA movement and inflate the  Occupy protesters.  For example, when anywhere from 200,000 to 400,00o or more TEA activists showed up in Washington, D.C. , on September 12th of 2009, newspapers reported that there were tens of thousands in attendance.  But now that a few thousand leftwing, anti-capitalists band together with big union organized,  professional, protestors, the event is described as “outrage” that “ has spread all the way to Anchorage, Alaska” and  as “a group of protesters that is certainly growing in size and  diversity.”  Those comments came from so called “reporter”cilia Vega.  On that same “unbiased” news” program, Vega and World News anchor David Muir, spoke of how the Wall Street protests have supposedly “gone global

But as the TEA Party rose, it was described as little more than a group of angry Republicans and was accused of being violent and racist.  That certainly isn’t the case here.  Put a smiley face button on a person wearing a tie died t-shirt and put in their hands a sign with anything liberal written on it, and you have what the mainstream media is describing as being similar to “the Arab Spring of uprisings in the Mid East.”

As I said, none of this is new.  We have all come to expect liberal bias from the mainstrem media.  And I am not talking about clearly defined opinion programs such as Hannity or the Rachel Maddow Show,  or periodicals like National Review or New Republican.  I mean straight news services like CBS News, or The New York Times.

Which brings us to today’s new entrant into the Mainstream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame.

His name is Steve Peoples and he works for Roll Call while the Associated Press often farms out some of his work.

Now according to Asssociated Press their mission is to “be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the
highest quality, reliability, and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

Given that description, I find it hard to accept Mr. People’s October 10th story (and I do mean story) entitled “GOP presidential candidates keep focus off the economy“.

In  it, Peoples, along with contributors Holly Ramer and Philip Elliott, try to live up to the AP’s mission of objectivity by writing a piece which insinuates that Republicans are trying to avoid the topic of the economy.

Peoples writes;

In an election that’s supposed to hinge on jobs and the economy, the Republican presidential contest in recent months has been defined by almost everything else.

Immigration and children’s vaccines. Race and religion. Homosexuality and health care. The issues range far from the economic woes that concern most voters, but they have captivated Republicans in New Hampshire and other early voting states, providing the candidates with ways to distinguish themselves from  their rivals. The biggest applause lines on the campaign trail usually have little to do with a candidate’s economic positions.

I am not sure if Mr. Peoples realizes it or not, but we are not electing a Chairman of the Federal Reserve and their running mate, the Secretary of Treasury.  We are in the midst of a long campaign to elect or reelect a President and Vice President of the United States.  That responsibility deals with a host of issues, including those that are a part of the economic priorities that no one is doubting.  As such, all issues are, and should be discussed.  Additionally perhaps, Mr. Peoples missed the coverage of the economic programs which almost all of the Republican candidates dedicated their very first major policy announcements to.

To be sure, there is no doubt that the economy is in such dire straits that it is indeed a priority.  To deny that would be like claiming that it is more important to put someone’s cigarette out while a woman is hanging out of the window of an inferno filled house, right in front of your face.  But it is equally absurd to deny that the economy is not a primary issue in the Republican presidential primaries. Republicans have been and continue to make it a theme of their campaigns.  Why wouldn’t they?  Furthermore, the economy is just about the only issue that all the Republican running for President have similar ways to address.  And all agree that the first thing to do is everything that President Obama is not doing.

Did Mr. Peoples dare write a similarly “objective” piece in 2009  about  President Obama when many argued that the President made “a colossal miscalculation” by choosing the wrong priorities and instead of focussing on the economy “like a laser beam”, he essentially prevented government from dealing with anything else other than healthcare reform?  Which ironically has proven to do little more than exacerbate the economic predicament we are in by creating a greater uncertain future among investors and businesses.  I seem to have missed the story that Mr. Peoples and his liberal collaborators wrote about the President not devoting enough time to the Obama economy back then.

Did Mr. People’s accuse President Obama of avoiding the issue of the economy when he turned the nations’ attention to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?  Did he criticize the President and prompt people to provide him with quotes criticizing President Obama for traveling to El Salvador to discuss immigration and drug trafficking with President Mauricio Funes, instead of focussing on the economy?  Or does  Mr. Peoples just not understand that the presidency of the United States does not allow one to drop all else for the sake of just one aspect of life in America.

Even though his opinion on this issue is greatly flawed, Mr. Peoples’ article might have a place in an opinion oriented tabloid if it were written by an admitted partisan author.  But it has no place in a newspaper or on an online newspaper, and especially not coming from a “news” outfit that claims its job is to be objective.  You see,  there is a difference between opinion and news.  White House 2012 makes it clear that it covers the Republican race for the White House.  It does so by also making clear that it covers the race from a conservative viewpoint and with opinions of the facts.  Contrarily, the Associated Press bills itself as a news organization, a “premier” news organization, that delivers the news, not editorials.

You might think that this one story is not enough to hold one person up as a example of unsavory  journalistic conduct.  And that might be right……..if it was the only example.  But it’s not.

Before jumping to conclusions, I tested my suspicions about Steve Peoples by researching past stories he wrote.

While there were many accounts of obvious bias that he penned under AP’s banner of objective reporting, one of the most interesting discoveries was an article by Tom Blumer for News Busters.  In his September 7th piece entitled “AP’s Partying Peoples and Blathering Blood Celebrate Tea Party Negatives in  Cooked AP-GfK Poll“, Blumer writes that Steve Peoples tailored an interpretation of poll results to “celebrate” negative sentiments towards the Tea Party that were created by a skewed  AP-GfK .  Blumer goes on to note that  somehow, People’s article  “failed to report on the  president’s growing negatives found in a separate AP-GfK poll report with the  same respondents.”

It is all just indicative of how careful Americans must be when it comes to trying to have a real picture of public sentiments and our political environment.

One must really be careful about what information they use as a foundation for establishing their own conclusions.  What may seem to be fact is often in fact, not.  Steve Peoples is just one example of that.  And there are many other examples of  Peoples’ and the AP’s crimes against journalistic integrity, but suffice it to  say, White House 2012 is confident in the knowledge that Steve Peoples truly deserves to be hung in the Lamestream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame.

The Associated Press’ picture has already been hanging there for quite some time now
Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Romney Hanging Metaphor Gave the Media the Rope to Hang Themselves With

Bookmark and Share At a Friday night Americans for Prosperity event in New Hampshire, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in an attempt to lay blame where blame is due, spoke of hanging the old 1980 misery index around the neck of President Obama in regards to the miserable economy of the past few years. As seen in the video below, he said:

You remember during the Ronald Reagan/Jimmy Carter debates? That Ronald Reagan came up with this great thing about the misery index, and that he hung that around Jimmy Carters neck, and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing. Well, were going to have to hang the Obama Misery Index around his neck

The Governor went on to say;

And, Ill tell you, the fact that youve got people in this country, really squeezed, with gasoline getting so expensive, with commodities getting so expensive, families are having a hard time making ends meet. So, were going to have to talk about that, and housing foreclosures and bankruptcies and higher taxation.

Then he added; Were going to hang him uh, so to speak, metaphorically with, uh, with, uh you have to be careful these days, Ive learned that, with an Obama Misery Index.”

Since those remarks, the unbiased mainstream media has tried to incite racial tensions as a means to denigrate the tentative frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. With headlines like Mitt Romney Suggests its Time to Hang President Obama and Romneys Comment on Hanging Obama Sparks Controversy,the lamestreammedia has begun to act like bloggers seeking to make a name for themselves by pushing the limits of truth and twisting facts. And the media’s actionswarrant the need to make the point that the only reasonRomney’s remarks became controversial, was because the media intentionally interpreted them to be controversial. The episode raises the question of who is really at guilt here and what are they guilty of?

Is Mitt Romney guilty of suggesting that Americans should hang the President? Is he guilty of suggesting that Caucasians should resort to the horrors of racist lynch mobs that would hang African-Americans from tree limbs? Of course not. The statement was metaphorical, not literal. For his part, it is true that Mitt Romney made a mistake here. But his mistake was not that he made some sort of Freudian slip that revealed some deep-rootedracial sentiments. His mistake was that he gave the lamestream media the opportunity to create that perception? After the words came out, the Governor did realize that they would be taken out of context by the left and he clarified the context in which he used the metaphor.

But that did not prevent a hit man-like media from running with headlines intended to fan the flames of racism in order to put the heat on Mitt Romney and insinuate that he is a bigot. The truth is that if the African-American half of our Presidents racial makeup was an issue or something Mitt Romney had a problem with, he would have been more careful so as to not drop any hints of prejudice. But the fact is, Mitt Romney is not seeing color when it comes to the President. What he is seeing are the problems being exacerbated by our President. And it is those problems which Romney was addressing, not President Obamas color.

It’s clear that Mitt Romney is not the one guilty of anything here. Any existing guilt in this situation must be placed on the media. They are the ones who instead of reporting the news, tried to create the news. They are the ones who intentionally tried to interpret Romney’s words to be racially divisive.

One online news source, The Examiner, writes;

The use of imagery which involves a “misery index” noose being put around President Obama’s neck seems insensitive to say the least, and will surely be called downright offensive by some.

To deny that there is any truth in that statement would be a lie, but at the same time, pushing headlines that try to visualize the hanging metaphor for readers along racial lines is disingenuous. In fact, it is more than that. It is dangerously irresponsible. And at the same time, there is a severe pot calling the kettle black (pun intended.hang me) syndrome going on here. Lest we forget President Obamas hang-ups with race. Did he not describe White Democrats in rural Pennsylvania as follows;

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Or how about his direct reference to typical white people when talking about his Caucasion grandmother and said:

She is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”

And how can we ever forget the great Beer Summit which was a necessary meeting to relieve racial tensions after President Obama stated “The Cambridge police acted stupidly.”, before he knew the circumstances that surrounded the arrest of a black professor.

Then there was President Obamas attempt at humor when he tried to describe his poor bowling game to that of the abilities of handicapped youth in the Special Olympics.

The point is both sides can and do play this game of gotchya. And there will always be occasions when people phrase things less than perfectly, especially people who spend10 to 14 hours a day, constantly in the spotlight, while discussing issues, giving speeches, and answering questions. This does not mean that people should not take responsibility for their words. They must. But it is not the job of the media to twist words. If anything, as a supposed non-partisan entity, they have a responsibility to clarify the meaning of the words spoken by those that they cover, no muddle them.

As for this latest brouhaha, despite some who are trying to hang Mitt Romney with his metaphorical mishap, his campaign will survive. This is not the end to his race for the White House that some sources have tried to suggest. But it is another nail in the coffin of trust that the public has for todays biased news media.

Bookmark and Share

The Pomposity of the New York Times’ Nate Silver

Bookmark and Share Wow. I believe pompous arrogance would be the most fitting way to characterize Nate. Silvers recent analysis entitled On The Largely Irrelevant News About Haley Barbour Not Running for President.

First of all, for Mr. Silver to characterize Haley Barbours decision not to run for the Republican presidential nomination as irrelevant, is mind numbingly ignorant. The Barbour decision is one of the most important decisions to have been made regarding the 2012 presidential election to date. As noted in White House 2012, Governor Barbours decision not to run, has freed up many supporters and much money. Furthermore; whether Silver wants to deny it or not, that decisions has increased the chances that one of the top tier Republican presidential contenders, Governor Mitch Daniels, will run. This is far from irrelevant.

But beyond this, Mr. Silver takes it upon himself to bestow great credit to himself for never having given much thought or ink to the possibility of a Haley Barbour presidential candidacy. This is not something which I believe he deserves either personal or public credit for. Perhaps part of the reason as to why Silver did not take the potential candidacy of Governor Haley Barbour seriously was because he is utterly blind to the art of political campaigning and its powerful ability to overcome some negative perceptions, and to accentuate positive ones. Perhaps another reason is because Mr. Silvers liberal biases do not allow his mind to be as open as he would have us believe.

Haley Barbour is conservative, a point that I am sure did not go unnoticed by the New York Times Nate Silver. And it is that point which more than likely accounted for his tendency to not take Barbours potential candidacy seriously.

The fact of the matter is that for Mr. Silver to give himself a Super Bowl ring for Monday morning quarterbacking a game that has not yet even begun, is a bit silly. For him to imply thepossesion ofsome greater political instinct or knowledge than others, including Jonathon Martin of Politic, simply because he had not given much ink to the possibility of a Barbour presidential candidacy, is utterly ridiculous.

Two days prior to Governor Barbours announcement, I made my own assessment here in White House 2012 and in it I questioned the certainty of a Barbour presidential campaign. The accuracy of that post did not give me license to arrogantly discount the opinions of others and claim or imply that I have shrewder political instincts than George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Jonathon Martin.

The truth is that Mr. Silver may not have wanted to advertise the possibilities that existed within a Barbour candidacy, but that didnt make him any more correct than those who refused to deny those possibilities. While Barbour had several obvious handicaps, most of which White House 2012 acknowledged, he also had the capacity to rise above them. His fundraising ability is almost unmatched, his organization reach and ability was endless, and his record, policies and vision were more than powerful enough to build a credible candidacy on. But Mr. Silver claims he never believed so, so he deserves credit.

Credit for what? Denying the potential that existed? I dont think so.

Although I tend to believe that Haley Barbour and his family, decided against a run for President because of the obstacles, I do not believe the decision was reached because they concluded that they could not overcome the obstacles. I believe they decided not to run because they did not know exactly how committed they were to insuring that they overcame those obstacles. It is that uncertainty of commitment that Haley Barbour cited as the reason for deciding not to run. Yet in his analysis, Nate Silver suggests that his colleagues would be best advised to not take what those they write about so literally. I suggest that Mr. Silver listen to what those he writes about have to say and instead of automatically discounting the truth in what they say, perhaps he should first be open to thepossibility of thetruth.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: