Brent Bozell’s latest column is posted on NewsBusters, and he makes a very good point.
In October 2006 the national media projected Rep. Mark Foley’s online sex chats with House pages into a disaster that would swallow the Grand Old Party whole. CBS, for example, proclaimed it the “congressional equivalent of Katrina.” In 2008, when federal investigators found Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich trying to put Barack Obama’s Senate seat on the auction block, these same “news” gatherers found a storm, to be sure, but a storm they suggested would in short order be “pushed out to sea.”With the governor caught on tape unloading obscenity after obscenity about how he expected to reap a financial bonanza for handing out his gubernatorial perks, this story was so undeniably big, even the Obamaphile press couldn’t ignore it. So instead these reporters tried to downplay its impact on the President-elect and the Democrats.
First, as with other Democratic scandals (Spitzer, Jefferson, McGreevey, et cetera), anchors and editors again purposely dropped the “D” out of the equation, laboring not to tell viewers or readers that the offenders were Democrats. In a Republican scandal, the offending politician is usually described as a Republican in the very first sentence, and deservedly so. In a Democrat scandal, the party identification of the perpetrator can arrive in paragraph eight. Or not at all.
Then, reporters declared that a Blagojevich resignation or impeachment could arrive any day, and suggested the story could soon be finished. (When Republicans are in the crosshairs, reporters announce “this story isn’t going away any time soon.”) Reporters insisted the Blagojevich story might end soon with the governor’s removal, even before Team Obama fully explained its contacts with the governor’s office on the Senate-seat matter. They wanted Blagojevich removed from the Democratic elite before he infected the party’s anti-corruption claims like an Ebola virus.
Third, they labored mightily to separate Team Obama from the Blagojevich camp. Take CBS, and reporter Chip Reid, who cited local CBS reporter Mike Flannery as an expert, and never mind if local bloggers call him “Chicago’s version of Chris Matthews.” Flannery insisted one could only call Obama and Blagojevich the “most distant allies,” and Reid insisted Flannery told him “Obama has often gone out of his way to avoid any close association with the ethically challenged governor. But that’s not stopping the Republican National Committee from trying to tie the two men together.” Reid read a line from RNC chairman Mike Duncan, then insisted “Despite the occasional photo together, though, linking them could be a tough sell.”
Newsbusters shines the light on one of the MSM tricks that are less odvious to the general public.
One of the favors the media routinely perform for liberal politicians is citing left-of-center think tanks as “non-partisan” entities, who just happen to have evidence proving the awfulness of conservative policies. A classic example occurred on the July 7 CBS Evening News, as reporter Chip Reid cited “the non-partisan Tax Policy Center” as showing how Barack Obama’s “tax cuts” are superior to John McCain’s
The other side of the story comes from the conservative Tax Foundation, which reported that Obama would shift more of the tax burden to a relative few families: “Obama’s plan would greatly accelerate the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people….1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.”
That’s an aspect of tax fairness that rarely gets mentioned by TV reporters who seek out liberal analysts to prove liberal points. A Nexis search shows the Tax Foundation has not been cited on network TV in more than three years.
I’m guessing that they don’t dare, lest they be pelted with excrement by those after “non-partisan” coverage.
Well, the MSM has finally got to admit that Iraq is getting better.
Here’s how they do it.
“No matter who’s elected President in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with…the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.”
Always the negative, but they can no longer claim that the new president will face an Iraq in violent turmoil.
What’s that sound? Oh, the bubble of hope of all those Bush haters that history would judge Bush’s Iraq excursion a failure.
Sorry about that.
Brent Bozell makes some salient points on the behavior of the left in this year’s presidential election.
The general election season is under way, and the leftists are already displaying their hypocrisy. They’ve launched pre-emptive warnings against a Republican “swiftboating” of Barack Obama at the same time they’re making up wild allegations about the villainous ultraconservative plots against goodness planned by John McCain. The supposed civility police in the media are emphasizing the Obama warnings of a right-wing onslaught, but not the nasty leftist attacks on McCain. Once again, Republicans are painted as the agents of character assassination, while Democrats are angels whose style is sweet civility and whose substance is the refreshing truth.
Obama’s campaign is putting up its dukes with a new website called “Fight the Smears.” It’s topped by an inspirational quote from Obama’s June 3 victory speech. “What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge or patriotism as a bludgeon.” In the words of the Almighty Barack, Team Obama pledges to steer clear of negative personal attacks, and avoid seeing their opponents “not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.”
Already, Obama’s army of left-wing slime merchants is up on the television airwaves running ridiculous commercials. Did you see the one from MoveOn.org? It features a quavering blond mommy talking about how her baby makes her heart pitter-patter fiercely, but she’s gravely concerned the baby might be going to war. “John McCain, when you say would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”
What a pile of ridiculously inaccurate assumptions. First, we have an all-volunteer military. Second, even if President McCain were elected, he wouldn’t serve in office for eighteen years so he could make sure all the liberal babies of 2008 are sent to Iraq. USA Today was one of the few media outlets to suggest this ad was a foul ball. The Washington Post declared it “dramatically and personally” illustrated McCain’s open-ended approach to Iraq better than Obama had done.
So in other words, the left go full out screaming about how Republicans have a hateful attack machine that will use race as a weapon, while running their own… hateful attack machine that uses race as a weapon.
This is how the media bias elections.
If a Republican Congressman publicly announced that he will not endorse John McCain because the GOP presidential nominee is too conservative and has a track record of refusing to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats, would the press report it?
Probably 24 hours a day, seven days a week until this Republican Congressman became a household name, right?
Well, on Tuesday, the Associated Press revealed the name of a Democrat Congressman from Oklahoma that is refusing to endorse Barack Obama for president because he believes the nominee is “the most liberal senator” in the nation whose “record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.”
It’s becomming increasingly clear that, far from Obama being the bipartisan guy and McCain the “8 more years of Bush” the reverse is true.
McCain has a clear record of being bipartisan, Obama on the other hand has a clear record of being as far left as possible, taking “my way or the highway” approaches.
But you won’t hear that in the media.
A new movie called “Bloodline” purports itself to be a documentary that claims to have found evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and their “bloodline” has been kept secret by the Catholic Church and a group called the “Priory of Sion.” (NB’s Scott Whitlock and Mark Finkelstein have written on this as well.)
But the truth is that the film’s premise is based on a complete fabrication. The “Priory of Sion” was founded in 1950’s France as a hoax by a known trickster. Yet the group’s fictions continue to be forwarded by those despise Christianity and seek to degrade the Church. The Priory and its related claims have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over again.
This is the bones of the Da Vinci Code as I understand it.
It’s laughably false. The “Priory of Sion” is so secret, that the files were held in public record and the trickster who created them (and purported to be a member of the group) explicitly pointed out their existence to the investigator who “found” them.
That alone should have clued him in.
Although many came to believe it to be the most influential cabal in Western history, the Priory of Sion has been exposed as a ludibrium created in 1961 by Pierre Plantard, a false pretender to the French throne. The evidence presented in support of its historical existence and role prior to 1956 was discovered to have been forged and then planted in various locations around France by Plantard and his accomplices. Nevertheless, many conspiracy theorists persist in believing that the Priory of Sion is a 1000-year-old secret society which conceals a subversive secret.
The Priory of Sion myth has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century. However, some skeptics have expressed concern that the proliferation and popularity of books, websites and films inspired by this hoax have contributed to the problem of conspiracy theories, pseudohistory, superstition and other confusions becoming more mainstream. Others are troubled by the romantic reactionary ideology promoted in these works.
Anyway, it’d be a good measure of just how truthful (or biased against Christianity) your local MSM outfit is as to how the portray this movie. I’m guessing that most will fall a long way short.