XML RSS
What is this?
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My MSN
Add to Google

Home
Blog
Tucson
Drill Now
Tax Tips
Tax Truth
Soc. Sec. Info
VA Info
Blog Purpose
The Truth
Dem Dependency
Barack Obama
John McCain
About Us
Tax Deductions
John F. Kennedy
Election 2008
Editorials
IRS Info
Economic Data
Gov't  Agencies
Hillary Clinton
Contact Us
Jobs August
Conservative
Free Trade
Education
FarmPork
Jobs-2007
Jobs Sept.
Newsletter
Health Savings Accts.
Homeowner Bill
Oil drilling Update
 

Media Bias: Public Schools, Universities, Hollywood, Networks Etc.

August 12, 2008

Mainstream Media's Long Time Cover Up For John Edwards

CONTENTIONS

The MSM’s Latest Embarrassment

Jennifer Rubin - 08.10.2008

Tim Rutten, taking to task his own Los Angeles Times and other MSM outlets, writes:Full article Jennifer Rubin

Excerpts:

When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism. From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it — reporting that turns out to be largely correct — and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion. . . It’s interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed “95% to 96%” of the tabloid’s reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception. With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.

We also have the obligatory column from Clark Hoyt admitting that the New York Times was wrong, but denying that their reticence to cover the Edward story was the result of liberal bias. Yes, who could imagine such a thing of the paper which ran a front-page, uncorroborated story of the Republican nominee’s alleged relationship with a lobbyist some nine years ago?

The Edwards mess is the most recent and visible, but hardly unique, example of the mainstream media’s hear no evil/see no evil approach to newsgathering. How many other stories has the MSM missed, denied or avoided? From Rathergate to Reverend Wright to the success of the surge, the pattern is the same: MSM stalls, shuffles its collective feet, and doggedly ignores information for as long as possible until they can no longer do so with a straight face. The fact that these stories without exception work to the detriment of Democrats is apparently a grand coincidence.


July 17, 2008

NEW YORK SUN

The "Unfairness" Doctrine

The Gathering Threat

KENNETH BLACKWELL

July 17, 2008

Full article Kenneth Blackwell NEW YORK SUN

Excerpts:

House Speaker Pelosi is hinting at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and many of her liberal colleagues in Congress are doing the same in both chambers. Alleging the press isn't "balanced," they say government should be making sure that all viewpoints — meaning the left's — are "fairly" represented. I agree the press isn't balanced, but Mrs. Pelosi has it backward; liberalism dominates the press, including the three major networks and most major newspapers.

Though originally the Fairness Doctrine did not require that opposing time be equal, it came to be the standard. The concern at the time was the prevention of a single viewpoint from dominating the news and biasing the people.

By the 1980s, there were many radio and TV stations available. And many believed the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional in any event. So in 1987, Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine, opening every press outlet to freely decide what content to carry. The Democrat-controlled Congress at the time passed legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but President Reagan vetoed the bill.

July 3, 2008

REAL CLEAR POLITICS

July 02, 2008

Dire News from My Colleagues

By John Stossel

Full article John Stossel RCP

Excerpts:

"It's been described as the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. And it brings with it grave dangers for all American families ... ," said Martin Bashir on "Nightline." "Recession looms .... "

On the "Today" show June 20, David Faber referred to "the recession ... these tough economic times." Yet that very day first-quarter GDP was revised upward again to 1 percent.

America is not in recession, and who knows -- maybe we'll be less likely to have one if my compatriots would just chill. A recession is defined as two quarters of negative economic growth. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth.

June 27, 2008

REAL CLEAR POLITICS

June 27, 2008

Fairness Doctrine Limits Free Speech

By David Harsanyi

Full article David Harsanyi RCP

Nearly as loathsome as government trying to dictate what we can't say is government trying to dictate what we have to say.

Some of you, apparently, are too stupid to be free. Worse, your obtuse opinions are reinforced three hours daily by unsanctioned, fanatical talk-radio troglodytes.

This, I'm afraid, is a sin against fairness. Now, if only you had some more information. Because God knows, you're being deprived of media choices now. So it's time for re-education, or so sayeth Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

###

June 19, 2008

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Russert Took Media Bias Seriously

By BERNARD GOLDBERG

June 18, 2008; Page A15

Full article Bernard Goldberg WSJ

Excerpts:

There have been millions of words written and spoken in the past few days about Tim Russert -- words about how Tim knew his beat better than almost anyone in Washington, about how hard work was in his blue-collar DNA, and about what a decent guy he was. All true.

But days later another reality has finally sunk in: that while his colleagues loved and admired Tim, I'm not at all sure they really understood him, not the part that made him so important in American journalism, anyway.[Russert Took Media Bias Seriously]

Knowing politics as well as he did was part of it, for sure. But a lot of people in Washington know politics. Asking probing questions was part of it, too. But again, Tim didn't have a patent on tough questions. And it wasn't just that (unlike too many others) he was fair to both sides. No, what made Tim Russert different, and better, I think was his willingness to listen to -- and take seriously -- criticism about his own profession. He was willing, for example, to keep an open mind about a hot-button issue like media bias -- an issue that so many of his colleagues dismiss as the delusions of right-wing media haters. (Trust me on this one, I worked at CBS News for 28 years and know Dan Rather personally.)

footer for Media Bias page