International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Media Bias’

Don’t trust a characterisation – especially from Dana Milbank

I’ve said many times, you should not trust a characterisation. Check the original source.

This is a classic example:

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who has an increasing reputation as a shill for the left wing, viciously attacked the Heritage Foundation in a column on Monday evening. The column, “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel” characterized the event as though it were a full-throated, Muslim-bashing hate-crime cleverly disguised as a public forum to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The video is in the post. Milbank’s characterisation is completely self-serving. 

For example, Brigitte Gabriel was talking about an attack on “our government” and then, by way of correcting herself, asked Ahmed if she was a US citizen. No big deal really.

But Millbank described that this way:

“Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”

Not the inflammatory language – “demanded of”, while connecting it to a later statement about political correctness. 

This, my friends, is why people loathe journalists. They twist and turn and play gotcha games. Also, they make stuff up. A good editor in my past told me that he was always suspicious of reporters who rely on breaking up a quote multiple times and adding in their own words in between. It means they’re trying to force the speaker to say something. We can now call this the Milbank Rule. I mean, was everything quoted in his piece accurate? Absolutely. Were his words or description of what transpired accurate? Hell no.

The press has a lot to answer for these days. 

Anyway, go have a read, and watch the video.

Instapundit – The Fix is In

Can’t put it any better than this.

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: “Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored.

It’s gob smacking the level of scrutiny that Palin is put under. Who doesn’t know that Palin’s daughter’s fiancee called himself a “redneck” on his myspace page, yet I challenge you to find anyone, anyone who knows about what Obama got up to as an Acorn “community organizer”.

Would a Republician Ever Get Away with this?

“CNN asked Biden’s campaign whether it could ask the senator about his earmark requests and his votes on the Bridge to Nowhere.

In response, a staffer e-mailed, “You’ve interviewed Gov. Palin re: her completely made up position on the Bridge to Nowhere right?”

Apparently the MSM finally picked up that Obama isn’t clean on the “Bridge to Nowhere” but he’s only interested in making sure Palin is embarrassed.

Guess who?

Guess who the owner of this magazine donates to.

Herald joins mean-spirited media

Huh. Looking at the Herald’s “World” section for McCain’s speech I was greeted with the headline “Glow from Palin’s speech will fade“.

Talk about mean-spirited.

Even more obviously biased when the same writer has a story entitled “Obama’s day of destiny arrives

Couldn’t be clearer really. Talk down the right, talk up the left.

Hm, a further look reveals an opinion piece on Obama entitled “The day the US found its soul”. Looking back at this week, it didn’t take long to lose it again, did it?

Obama is King

I had a conversation with some non-political types a few weeks ago, and they wondered why there was no coverage of Republican candidates. I told them I though it’d get better after the Dems decided their candidate.

How.

For years Chris Matthews has been proclaiming defeat in Iraq, on an almost nightly basis, on “Hardball” but on Tuesday night he finally admitted the success of the surge that John McCain supported. However, the MSNBC host claimed it would be Barack Obama that would get to enjoy the spoils.

After Newsweek’s Howard Fineman suggested, “We’re not losing,” and pointed out the surge success would make it easier for a troop pullout, Matthews admitted the following:

MATTHEWS: Senator McCain wanted the surge to work, it worked politically and Barack Obama is the beneficiary. Not exactly the right development, politically, for him.

Wrong.

Some of my more paranoid friends on the right see “liberal bias” in the decision of the New York Times to reject John McCain’s op-ed about Iraq. As their “evidence” they cite the fact that, just one week ago, the same paper published Barack Obama’s op-ed on the same topic.

But New York Times editor David Shipley has made it clear that the paper wasn’t rejecting any op-ed by McCain, just the one he wrote.]

Was.

In contrast, she pointed out, as if CBS News couldn’t have done anything about it, that “last night John McCain arrived in Manchester, New Hampshire” and was greeted by just “two journalists waiting on the tarmac.” She also noted that “his campaign has revealed a contest: Two videos featuring what they claim is a media love affair with Obama.” They “claim”? How about they “illustrate.”

Earlier in the newscast, she set up the second segment of the interview with Obama, which she traveled to Jordan to conduct: “Senator Obama hopes this trip will enhance his credibility as a world leader, something I asked him about in our exclusive interview earlier today.”

McCain’s three-minute interview, done via satellite from New Hampshire, delivered 18 times more coverage time than he received from the CBS Evening News during his trip to Iraq. When McCain visited Iraq the week of March 16, the MRC’s Kyle Drennen documented, the CBS Evening News allocated “only 31 words, a grand total of 10 seconds, to the Republican nominee’s Iraq visit during the entire week.”

I.

Oh, and did I mention that even after being proved wrong, he still thinks he was right to oppose the surge.

This guy has to be the king of idiots. First get your platform of anti-war and a campaign of hope, change, and pulling the troops out. After this, turn around and praise the success of a strategy you were against and change your position about troop withdrawal. After getting beaten with the backlash of your own base, go back to the original anti-war position and say something idiotic like calling a successful strategy a bad one. Don’t forget to throw in utter arrogance by stating that your plan of surrender might of, could of, should of, perhaps worked as well if certain imaginary factors might have played out differently. Also give credit for the success of the strategy you call bad to decisions made by the enemy, and belittle the U.S. military’s role as much as possible. If anything will get you elected as Commander in Chief, this will, especially if you act like an arrogant rock star on a world tour the whole time.

Media on Iraq

Well, the media will not report on the good news from Iraq, but they will report on one of their own who’s been sleeping with a married federal contractor she met there.

Oh, she’s also having his baby.

NewsBusters identifies what’s going on and they don’t mince words.

Here is the problem with the news media. Dan Rather fell for it. Walter Cronkite was overcome by it. Each of these “journalists” imagined that they were the news, that their lives and opinions were just as important to the nation as the news upon which they reported.

Sure Logan is a slightly better than average looking newsbabe, but so what? Is her horsing around with a married man something that is important to the world? Is her slutting around with multiple partners during her time as a correspondent in Iraq something that we all have a hunger, a NEED to know?

I just don’t see it. I just don’t see how her loose moral choices could be a compelling story of any kind… unless it is as an object lesson against her actions. Even then. But, here is where we are in the media today. Instead of pursuing the news, instead of worrying about the integrity of the truth, we have “journalists” who want to be the story instead of just reporting on it.

So, while the news media is steadily and universally ignoring the good news in Iraq we DO get to see the story of the somewhat comely Logan and her romantic saga involving out of wedlock birth, multiple partners, and all the mess that entails.

TV3 – Objective Journalism out the Window on Smacking

Was watching TV3 at 7:30, and their news updated reported that the smacking petition had “failed” because “people cheated by signing more than once”.

Quite aside from the fact that the petition has not failed, it paints those who signed as dishonest where reality is that all petitions have this.

The real story here is very, very different. From the Kiwi Party email:

The Government’s Statistician asked for a sample size of 1/11th to be carefully checked. That turned out to be 29,501 signatures out of the total count of 324,511. Of those signatures the Electoral Enrolment Centre ascertained that 25,754 where valid.

Accordingly, assuming that the sample was representative of the whole, the number of valid signatures should have been; 25,754 x 11 which equals 283,294. The number required is 285,027 so this indicates a shortfall of just 1,733 signatures!

However the Government’s Statistician has said that his best estimate is just 267,000 or a shortfall of 18,027; 16,294 greater than the 1/11th sample would indicate.
I think the 283,294 people who, based on the sample, validly signed the petition, deserve an explanation from the Government’s Statistician of that discrepancy. Why has he decided that the signatures of 16,294 people who are validly enrolled on the electoral roll are to be set aside?

Why indeed.

GDS

They’ve now coined a new term for the “damed if it’s up, damed if it’s down” attitude of the press toward Bush and oil prices.

Gas Derangement Syndrome.

Frankly, it’s beyond stupid what the media have done with this. Fact is, Bush isn’t responsible for prices going up or down. But facts just fly out the window when reporters go anywhere near Bush these days.

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 159 other followers