Americans depend on accurate, balanced information from the media

Commentary by James Shott

After seven months since her last press conference in December, Hillary Clinton appeared before journalists last Friday. As Slate.com reported, “Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ).” This lengthy hiatus has brought heavy criticism from Donald Trump’s campaign, and even from the mainstream media.

Clinton held what many called a press conference in Washington, DC, last Friday that was open only to members of the NABJ and NAHJ – two ethnic groups that are generally friendly to her – according to a press release for the event. “It is notable that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has recognized the 2016 NABJ-NAHJ Convention as a vital gathering to discuss her platform and the issues impacting black and Latino communities,” said NABJ President Sarah Glover in the news release. 

While the Slate piece was generally not complimentary of the responses Clinton gave to questions from the journalists, it did not mention the positive reaction she received to campaign positions prior to the question/answer period. Slate suggested the questions were submitted in advance for approval. A campaign appearance at a minority journalist organizations’ convention, with attendance limited only to members of those organizations, does not a press conference make.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Clinton, or any candidate, would want to speak at such an event, but it is fair to ask why objective journalists of any description would allow that, let alone invite it.

The Media Research Center outlined the fondness of CNN’s “New Day” for Donald Trump issues over the issues surrounding Iran and the payment of $400 million in possible ransom money for four hostages held by the Islamic nation. MRC’s Newsbusters.org detailed the allotment of time on the two topics: “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday's “New Day” to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn't think much of the Wall Street Journal's Tuesday revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn't mention that the payment was sent on ‘an unmarked cargo plane.’ ‘New Day,’ therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”

No matter what you believe about the Iran hostage release and potential ransom payment, no matter what actually transpired, the utter clumsiness of making a payment for any purpose that way on that date warrants more than a half-minute in a three-hour program that spent 84 minutes on the Trump issues.

All major media organizations spent hours of broadcast time and dozens of printed pages on the Republican and Democrat nominating conventions. At each of these events one speaker addressed the delegates about the loss of a child.

At the Republican convention the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four American heroes killed in the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, spoke movingly about losing her son, and laid responsibility for it at the feet of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Pat Smith also noted that when her son’s body was brought home, Clinton “looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible.”

The following week at the Democrat convention Khizr Kahn and his wife Ghazala appeared and Mr. Kahn talked about the death of his son, Marine Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq heroically protecting his men. Kahn described himself and his wife as “patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country.” He then criticized Donald Trump for his comments about Muslims, and said, “You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” Predictably, Kahn’s comments about Trump triggered a response.

“While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention,” Newsbusters.org reported. “Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazala’s DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.”

The First Amendment protects free speech, and that includes newspapers, television and radio news operations; they are free to say what they like, bound generally by the same restrictions as individuals. The difference is that the public depends upon media sources for information upon which people base important decisions, such as deciding whom to elect to important positions.

Therefore, news organizations have a solemn duty to provide balance to the news they cover and how they cover it, and news journalists – as distinguished from opinion journalists – should be proscribed from injecting bias and opinion into their work. 

These recent examples show decision-making by journalistic organizations in selecting a convention speaker that raises questions about objectivity, and a clear, undeniable lack of balance in reporting on important events that Americans will use in deciding their choice for the presidency and other offices.

Surely the U.S. media can do better than this.

Cross-posted from Observations.

The Trump Effect

The Trump effect

 

Collective efforts by 17 Republican candidates to energize the public in their direction have not caught fire except for one person, Donald Trump. Media programs that lean towards one side of the aisle or the other are endlessly discussing the Trump effect on the potential electorate. Core topics from immigration to national health care have been transformed by an outsider who has placed a new twist on these banal subjects. Donald Trump has codified his message with a simplicity that resonates across a gamut of the population. From state fairs to corner stores Trump appears to be everywhere willing to discuss his message with anyone willing to listen.

 

Pundits of all stripes continue to assault this political outsider noting his meteoric rise will crash and burn in due course. Extensive polls done pre and post the first debate continue to indicate Trump is firmly planted at the top of each one. With a finesse reserved to a polished few, the Donald as many call him, easily deflects questions that deteriorate from his message. From bankruptcy to his position on women’s issues he discusses the basics while directing the conversation on to the next subject before fully answering the first one. Consequently some have become suspicious of him for the profound lack of depth in his answers to issues others have algorithmically discussed. Nevertheless Trump has been able to jump over this hurdle by mesmerizing those who come before him noting his successes while deflating his failures.

 

In interview after interview most reporters have gingerly discussed his background and preparation to become Commander in Chief. As Trump notes he built a vast company which has tentacles that reach into many areas that a president should have knowledge of. He wastes no time inferring how poor our American leadership is compared to that of China, Mexico and other countries. Trump’s major theme is these countries dump their products here and we send our money there. On immigration he has echoed an array of proposals to slow the rate of new arrivals and a methodology to repatriate illegals to their home countries.  Many question whether Donald Trump has the staying power to remain in the race. For now he is on the top of the heap and continues to defy the logic of the pundits calling for him to fail. The road to the November 2016 election is long and treacherous. All eyes, presently, are on the street fighter from New York who does not plan to go down for the ten count.

Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Media and Writing Services.

www.daviswritingservices.com, platomd@gmail.com

News media decline in credibility took less than a hundred years

Some recent media meltdowns call attention in the worst way to the continuing failures of much of the American news and information media. Bad judgment and abandonment of basic principles in three recent cases call attention to a long-standing slide from respectability to corruption for the nation’s news purveyors. Some examples from the recent past include: 

First, the Rolling Stone rape story, in which contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote about a female freshman at the University of Virginia identified as “Jackie,” detailing an alleged sexual assault by seven members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.

Ms. Erdely did a poor job of fact-checking the story and failed to interview key individuals involved in the episode. The story was unfit to be printed in any credible publication, and caused quite a bit of turmoil at UVA. 

In defense of this journalistic malfeasance, the following notion has been floated: “Just because it wasn’t true in the Rolling Stone case doesn’t mean it isn’t true somewhere.” Such foolishness is a common defense of beliefs thought to be so important that truth takes second place.

Although Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine, not a “real” news source, it is not excused from following the rules.

The New York Daily News, however, is a real news source, and has no excuse for this failure:
“Sarah Palin has gone rogue again - this time, giving her fans a fleshy surprise as a holiday gift,” wrote Adam Edelman in the Daily News, describing a video of Ms. Palin.

“In the episode, Palin demonstrates how to make her favorite iteration of blueberry pie, but as she delicately kneads the dough, her sweater falls down to her arms, revealing a whole lot of sun-kissed Alaskan skin and a sexy black undergarment,” wrote Mr. Edelman, a political writer for the paper.

Clearly implying that Ms. Palin was deliberately provocative, the headline blared: “Ho, ho, ho! Sarah Palin wishes fans holiday cheer as sweater falls down,” alleging she “gifted them with the naughtiest Christmas present of all – flesh.”

Perhaps Ms. Palin’s good looks dazed Mr. Edelman, confusing him about what he saw. Or didn’t see. She wasn’t wearing a sweater, as anyone who watched the video knows. The political writer’s imagination ran wild, and visions of underthings danced in his head.
It appears the delicious opportunity to ridicule Ms. Palin easily overpowered whatever journalistic ethics he and the newspaper might once have had.

For the third example, when a white police officer in Ferguson, MO shot and killed an 18 year-old black youth, the media widely portrayed the black youth as a gentle giant who had his hands up in surrender, saying “don’t shoot.”

The reaction to this seemingly tragic event was swift and angry. And wrong.

You see, it never happened. The “gentle giant,” Michael Brown, who was a giant, but was anything but gentle, had just minutes before the confrontation with officer Darren Wilson stolen cigars from a store and assaulted a store worker, disobeyed the police officer’s lawful instructions to move out of the middle of the street, attacked the police officer in his car and attempted to take his gun, then ran from the police officer. An autopsy revealed that he had marijuana in his blood, and according to grand jury testimony, never put his hands up and never said, “don’t shoot.” Instead, he attacked the officer again and died from gunshot wounds in response to his attack.

The media rushed to judgment, accepting without examination the idea that an innocent 18 year-old black youth was murdered while he was surrendering to police with his hands up. Was it because this scenario fit the preconceived notions of much of the mainstream media?
It is the reporter’s duty to scrupulously avoid injecting opinion in his or her reporting, and to carefully label unverified information, so that those in the audience have reliable information from which to form their opinions. 

American journalist and educator Walter Williams founded the world's first journalism school at the University of Missouri in 1908, and in 1914 created the Journalist’s Creed. Among the elements of the Creed are the following:

**I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

**I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

Now, one hundred years after its creation, after witnessing so much news coverage that falls so far short of the lofty standards of the Journalist’s Creed, one may justifiably wonder whether the Creed was ever a part of the training of so many practitioners, or has merely been forsaken by them, and is as carefully concealed from journalism students as so much information is hidden from the public by our government.

The three examples listed previously only scratch the surface of the of the failure of modern news journalism to adhere to its moral and ethical mandate. Like our nation’s founding principles, journalism’s ethics and morality need to be restored.

One investigative reporter’s intriguing trials and tribulations

Sharyl Attkisson is an award winning television journalist who until recently worked for CBS News. She received two Emmy nominations in 2010 and another in 2011 for investigating members of Congress and the government’s wasting of tax dollars. Her reporting of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “Operation Fast and Furious” debacle won CBS News the Investigative Reporting Award from Accuracy in Media in 2012, and also won CBS Evening News the Radio and Television News Directors Association's National Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Video Investigative Reporting.

You may remember “Operation Fast and Furious,” although it received much less coverage than it deserved. That was the name attached to the ill advised, poorly conceived, and error-ridden misadventure devised by ATF, an effort to shut down the flow of U.S. guns to Mexican drug cartels. The idea was to allow guns to be put in the hands of Mexican drug traffickers for the purpose of tracking them to cartel members and arresting them.

Not only did ATF botch tracking the weapons, but people who were armed with two of those “Gun Walking” weapons and were illegal aliens that the ATF had not arrested, killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on the U.S. side of the Mexican border. While it is certainly possible to dream up a more preposterous plan than this one, “Fast and Furious” richly deserves the Dubious Achievement Award.

While working for CBS News in 2013, according to huffingtonpost.com, Ms. Attkisson told a Philadelphia radio station that "[t]here has been an issue in my house and there has been an issue with my computers that's gone on for quite a long time that we're looking into.” The issues, she said, had been occurring for about two years. An investigation by CBS News confirmed that, indeed, an external third party had accessed her computer numerous times.

Further problems were outlined by Erik Wemple on washingtonpost.com: “By November 2012, writes Attkisson, disruptions on her home phone line were so frequent as to render it unusable: ‘I call home from my mobile phone and it rings on my end, but not at the house. Or it rings at home once but when my husband or daughter answers, they just hear a dial tone. At the same time, on my end, it keeps ringing and then connects somewhere, just not at my house. Sometimes, when my call connects to that mystery-place-that’s-not-my-house, I hear an electronic sounding buzz,’ reads one passage in [her new book]. She also alleges that her television set ‘spontaneously jitters, mutes, and freeze-frames.’ The home alarm, too, ‘sounds at a different time every night’ and when she checks with the alarm system, it indicates that there’s ‘trouble with the phone line.’”

Who had the motive and the means to do such things?

Could it have been a competitor network? Perhaps. But would a competitor have strong enough motivation to take on such a project? How about a foreign entity, like China? China has the wherewithal, but would it be interested in the subjects Ms. Attkinsson was investigating? Probably not.

How about the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ or other government department? Well, given that she was looking into misbehavior of members of Congress and the “Fast and Furious” mess, yes, both motive and wherewithal exist in administrative agencies. However, the Justice Department denied any involvement, so we can just follow the lead of the mainstream news media and put that suspicion to rest, can’t we?

Ms. Attkinsson did yeoman’s work investigating and reporting on the “Fast and Furious” government screw-up, but CBS’ interest ran out before the story was over, as did the government’s interest in explaining to the American people how such a thing happened.

You would probably use more than all your fingers and toes counting the prominent media outlets that share a grand lack of curiosity for epic blunders, bungles, fiascos and miscalculations by our government over the last few years, like the Benghazi security failure, the Solyndra financing boondoggle, the IRS targeting non-profit applicants, the NSA mass spying project, the failure to secure the southern border, and the Justice Department spying on reporters’ private communications.

Finally, however, after more than five years a few media outlets have started to notice and point out the administration’s many shortcomings, and to ask questions about these things.

Ms. Attkinsson left CBS News this year due to what she said is the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting. She has written a book, Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington, published by Harpers, and focusing on difficulties she has experienced in reporting on the Obama administration.

Sharyl Attkinsson epitomizes what the Fourth Estate is supposed to be: the people’s guardian against government misbehavior. A responsible and determined news media provides the public the information it needs to properly evaluate what its government and elected officials are doing, and as such is an indispensable tool for a free society. This function has been largely missing since January of 2009. Maybe if a Republican is elected president in 2016, the function will be revived.

Ferguson, Missouri, is really a story of inappropriate reactions

Commentary by James Shott

The death of a black teenager at the hands of a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, and the events before and after the shooting, have raised many questions: about race relations, about the behavior of police, about the militarization of local and state police forces, and whether and to what extent the self-serving and often-biased behavior of the national media makes things worse.

The most important thing about this episode is that no one really knows what happened, except the 18 year-old male, who is now dead, and the police officer who shot him.

Maybe the black residents of Ferguson are correct in their belief that the police officer murdered an innocent black teen.

If the police officer did indeed kill the boy without justification, or used excessive force, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Several times this column has pointed out examples of unjustified and stupid use of force by law enforcement officials at all levels. Police must be held to account when they break the law, or injure innocent people, just like the rest of us.

But perhaps other information that shows the young black male as something other than the “gentle giant” he has been portrayed to be is correct. And if so, that also has to be taken into account.

In such emotional situations as this one, people’s initial reactions are usually based upon their existing attitudes about those involved. Perhaps they believe white police officers are biased against black residents. Or, perhaps they believe the worst of the black people involved. And, the stronger the emotions involved, the stronger the reaction to the situation is likely to be.

That seems to be precisely what happened.

The majority black population in Ferguson immediately believed the white policeman murdered the black youth, while others believed the worst about the black youngster and thought the police officer was justified in shooting him. Black residents demonstrated and protested, leading to police responses that mostly made things worse.

There are pieces of information floating around to support both the black youth and the white policeman, but what is lacking is being able to know which of all of these various pieces of information are credible and which are not. Investigating crimes frequently takes time, and first impressions about what happened are often wrong.

If they are devoted to objectively and accurately reporting events, news organizations can help settle initial emotional reactions. But if other considerations take precedence, the way news outlets handle events can stir things up further.

One issue is that of proportionality: as serious as this situation is in Ferguson, Missouri, one must ask the question of whether in the universe of important events this situation truly justifies the hundreds of hours of breathless, up-front coverage given to it by the dominant news outlets?

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a 501(c)(3) media watchdog organization, which is one of several organizations that looks and reports on the performance of the national media. Brent Bozell, MRC’s founder and president, comments: “You’ve got a hundred blacks [that] have been shot by white cops. What happened to the other 99? Why don’t they merit coverage?” And then, “You’ve got 5,000 blacks killed by blacks. Why isn’t that news?”

Both are fair questions, and important questions.

In cases such as the Ferguson shooting death, Mr. Bozell rightly says that “this is where the media, more than ever, need to be disinterested, neutral observers.”

There’s enough tragedy in this story to go around. The parents, relatives and friends of the young black man whose life is now over obviously have a tragedy to cope with. But so do the relatives, friends and co-workers of the white policeman.

If we analyze how the national broadcast and online media, and major daily newspapers operate, it is evident that news organizations often glom onto a story based not just on the news value of the story itself, but whether the story fits in with certain of the dominant media’s favored narratives. A story about a white cop shooting a young black male has greater media appeal than a story about white man killing another white man, or a black man killing another black man.

Further, too often it is a matter of who is first with something, not who gets it right. The online and cable/broadcast outlets have to furnish 24 hours of content a day, and if you ain’t first, you ain’t in the game. So any little tidbit of new information becomes a headline, or “Breaking News.” And it is not unusual for these “urgent” items to be relatively unimportant, or may be either iffy or flat out wrong.

Quite a lot of the accounts we have seen, heard and read in the news are incomplete, contain unverified elements, and sometimes are biased. The media may eventually report the unvarnished truth, or not, but the chaos that occurs in the interim stirs emotions on all sides, and obfuscates the truth, which is precisely opposite to the responsibility the news media have to serve the public.

Good journalism demands more, much more, than this.


Cross-posted from Observations

Obama criticizes Republican "phony scandals," "short-term thinking"

When questions arise about why four American foreign service personnel died at the hands of Libyan terrorists, or why a Border Patrol agent was murdered by Mexican drug cartel thugs possessing US-provided guns, or why the Internal Revenue Service improperly delayed action on some religious and conservative applicants for non-profit status, or any of the numerous other irregularities under this administration, Democrats and the agenda-driven media say, "That's old news. Move on," as if relevance depends upon the calendar, not the substance of the events.

And that is a pretty convenient modus operandi: They avoid coming clean with the American people on legitimate questions of competence for months on end, virtually never hold guilty parties accountable, and then complain that those asking the questions are living in the past and the answers they seek no longer matter. And they do so knowing that millions of people won't care.

All the while President Barack Obama blames every problem in the country on someone or something else, and calls the government's disgraceful handling of the aforementioned boondoggles a bunch of "phony scandals" manufactured by Republicans. It's a great game of Beat the Clock.

But honest Americans realize that their government failed miserably to do its job as dictated by the US Constitution and want to know who screwed up and what penalty they will pay for their gross incompetence and/or illegal behavior. So far, only lip service has been paid to accountability, and some of the most likely culprits have escaped reaping their just reward, while others have been promoted to higher positions.

Several months after Mr. Obama took office the Department of Justice's (DOJ) gun running operation known as Fast and Furious began. Intended to track gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, it backfired and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in 2010 by people possessing two of those guns provided by the DOJ. The Obama administration's response was something like: "Ooops! Gawrsh, we didn't expect any o' them guns to be used against us. Sorry 'bout that. Nothing to see here; keep moving."

On September 11, 2012, after multiple requests to beef up security at the American diplomatic sites in Libya had been denied or ignored, terrorists attacked the facilities in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Politics demanded that 2 months before a presidential election no screw-ups be under investigation or terrorist activity be fresh in voters' memories, since President Obama had declared the War on Terror over, so the administration concocted a lame excuse that a video that hardly anyone in the entire world had seen, let alone in Libya, caused a spontaneous demonstration at the US consulate. That idiotic story was repeated for weeks by administration spokespersons, including President Obama himself.

Barack Obama, the “news” media, and millions of liberals showed little interest in the inconveniently-timed deaths of these brave Americans.

Unanswered questions persist, but instead of keeping these important events in front of the American people, the media most recently have focused on the shooting of a black high school student by a "white Hispanic" in Florida and the birth of a future monarch in Great Britain. Perhaps if the five murdered government employees looked like Trayvon, Mr. Obama and the media would give a hoot.

Not everyone is as cavalier about these tragic government failures as the administration, Congressional Democrats and the agenda-driven media. A group called Special Operations Veterans, the mission of which is to uncover the truths about the Benghazi terror attack, took its demands to Capitol Hill last week in the form of a 60-foot-long petition, which was unfurled near the steps of the Capitol. It demanded that the government “End the cover-up” of the attack. The petition was signed by more than 1,000 people and called for a special congressional committee to investigate the incident.

Each of us either believes that the deaths of the five government workers are important, or we don't. Apparently, most people don't, or are too-easily satisfied with the partial information provided that doesn’t explain what went wrong.

The Internal Revenue Service targeted scores of conservative religious and political organizations seeking non-profit status with improper questions, and denied action on their applications for up to two years, then tried to blame it on a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, Oh. It turns out there were 12 different IRS offices involved. Now the administration tells us that the targeting was actually non-partisan. That's a low threshold; even one liberal organization makes that technically true. But the reality is that 292 were conservative; 6 were liberal.

Each of us either believes that our government must operate honorably and follow the rules set forth for it in the US Constitution, or we don't. There is a shockingly large faction of Americans that apparently don't, because they are not demanding answers to these questions, or that people responsible for these events be disciplined, or that such dishonorable and un-American activities be stopped and government restored to functioning constitutionally.

Which side are you on: Honorable government or the status quo?

Media Have Become an "Enemy of the People"

Pat Caddell, a former Democratic pollster, discusses how the media has now become an enemy of the people of the United States of America.  He specifically speaks to the media's handling of the attack on our ambassador in Libya, and how the media controls what you are allowed to know, and what you are not allowed to know, as the American people.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/brDZJA8j-8c

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Lack of media integrity represents yet another serious crisis

Commentary by James H. Shott

A major factor in this year’s presidential campaign is something that should not be a factor at all: the media. 

What the nation needs, what the media are expected to provide, and what some Americans think they are getting, is objective, balanced and fair coverage of the events of the day. 

That, of course, is what the Society of Professional Journalists intends its profession to provide, and so stated in its Preamble: “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.” 

America suffers mightily because the media have largely abandoned their ethical and moral obligations in favor of pursuing political goals; no longer information purveyors, they are partisan players, who instead of providing accurate, objective news now push deliberately distorted partisan messages. 

This has earned the media a few derisive names: the lame stream media, the drive-by media, the lapdog media or press, the Ministry of Propaganda, the Talking Point Monkeys, presstitutes … the list goes on. 

The bias exhibited by the major media exists not only in how they present information, but also in what information they present, what they don’t present, and the amount of emphasis certain items receive. The issue is further clouded by the fact that many media outlets provide both news and opinion. 

There is nothing wrong with that, so long as news and opinion are carefully handled and kept separate, and opinion is clearly labeled as such. Far too often, they get mixed together. 

It doesn’t get much worse than when the media take sides, as they have done in the presidential campaign. One recent example resulted from a meeting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney held with a few supporters in a private home in Florida. Speaking to a group of like-minded supporters, Mr. Romney made comments that on the surface conveyed a message that seemed to show his apparent lack of concern for approximately half the country. 

Such an interpretation doesn’t pass the smell test, of course, as indicated by the high level of charitable giving the Romneys donate each year – nearly 30 percent of net income in 2011 – but it makes a good story and helps the media boost their candidate, Barack Obama. 

Some facts need to be considered: First, it was a private, off-the-record meeting; no press invited, and he spoke to people who understood that his comments were not intended to be taken absolutely literally. Furthermore, a whole lot of the people in that 47 percent that Mr. Romney mentioned not only know what he meant, but agree with him. 

Second, a spy secretly – perhaps illegally – recorded his comments, and then an openly left-wing publication edited the comments and published them without explaining the circumstances of the meeting or confessing that it had doctored the contents. The recording became a handy Romney-bashing tool for other media outlets, which either didn’t research the source or notice the clandestine nature of the recording, or just didn’t care about the lack of honesty and forthrightness. There can be no reasonable doubt that this cheap-shot episode was designed solely to hurt Mr. Romney to the benefit of Mr. Obama. Such “reporting” is dishonest and beneath responsible journalists, who are now in short supply. 

However, stripped of the spy’s and the media’s disreputable conduct, and the media’s opportunistic parsing and misstating of his beliefs, what Mr. Romney said was true, and important: Half of the country pays taxes to the government and half receives money from the government. In fact, 70 percent of federal spending goes to 47 government dependence programs, according to the Heritage Foundation, and that is a serious problem. 

The national media largely reported the Romney non-story rather than objectively cover the nation’s fiscal crisis and the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, whose administration danced, dodged and twisted into knots to avoid admitting that the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya was a terrorist attack. 

The public has taken notice. Distrust of the mass market mainstream media – newspapers, TV and radio – hit a new high this year, with 60 percent in a Gallup survey saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news “fully, accurately, and fairly,” while only 8 percent have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence. 

Last year, Gallup found that almost half of Americans (47 percent) believed the mainstream media had a liberal bias, but in the 1970s trust in the media was as high as 72 percent. 

Alas, the good old days of the media, like the good old days of many other things, are long gone, and the American media seems not to care about its reputation. 

Cross-posted from Observations

Liberal U.S. media working to subvert Mitt Romney’s candidacy

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

The experiences of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney last week illustrate how the media fail to provide adequate, objective and balanced coverage of serious campaign issues.

Campaigning in Colorado last week, Mr. Romney gave an interview to a local TV reporter, no doubt wanting to talk about his ideas for combating the horrible economic conditions, the need for jobs, and other weighty problems that threaten the nation.

The reporter began by asking about Mr. Romney’s inability to connect with Colorado Republicans, and following his 24-second answer then moved to same-sex marriage. Mr. Romney gave what he said was the same answer to this question as he has given from the beginning. The reporter then asked follow-up questions on that same subject. After two minutes of questions and answers on same-sex marriage, the reporter then asked if illegal aliens should receive in-state tuition. And then after that she asked Mr. Romney about medical marijuana.

So, given the opportunity to interview the likely Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, a local reporter spends three minutes of the four and one-half minute interview asking about social issues.

Mr. Romney had about all he could stand, so he protested, since medical marijuana, same-sex marriage and tuition for illegals are neither the most important issues facing the nation, nor something about which a President of the United States should be concerned, since they are state issues.

And, indeed, there are obviously more important issues needing attention, such as the $16 trillion national debt that runs to $50,000 for every one of the more than 300 million Americans. How about the highest corporate tax rate in the world that makes U.S. corporations less competitive in the world market? How about the 16 percent of American workers – about 13 million, all together – that can’t find a job at all, or are underemployed? What about a nuclear Iran, and the mess in Afghanistan? How about the fact that the Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate have shirked their obligation to pass a budget for three straight years?

None of that seemed important to the reporter, but she finally did get around to asking questions about energy.

While the Colorado reporter was focusing on less relevant topics, the intrepid investigators at The Washington Post were busy looking into Mr. Romney’s high school days, searching for archaic dirt. And, they found some.

Some of the former governor’s high school classmates from 1965 said that he had indulged in boyish behavior, and one incident allegedly involved forcibly cutting the long blonde hair of a boy a year younger than Mr. Romney, who the classmates said may have been gay. If true, this was clearly wrong and indefensible. But it was nearly 50 years ago in high school, and appears to be an isolated incident. Yet, The Post thought it was important enough for 5,000 words starting on page 1 above the fold. And since then these allegations have “evolved” into proof that Mitt Romney was a homophobic bully. He also is accused of pulling classmate Susie Jones’ hair in the third grade.

The Post’s crack investigators successfully found this 47 year-old story about Mr. Romney (13 times longer ago than the last budget passed by our Democrat-controlled Senate), but gave little attention to Barack Obama’s history with former members of the Weather Underground and his admitted “enthusiastic” drug use, and were unable to find any information about his mysterious college days, including his grades, his formal papers, his days at the Harvard Law Review, his friends, etc.

Some people’s past apparently deserves closer scrutiny than others. You can understand why The Post might regard Mr. Romney’s past as more important: he’s running for President.

It is relevant to note that the family of John Lauber, the victim of Mr. Romney’s alleged brutish haircut, is appalled that their relative would be used for political purposes. His older sister, Christine, was unaware that Mitt Romney, or anyone else, “bullied” her brother, who passed away from liver cancer in 2004, but she was clearly not pleased by the story. “Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” she said. “If he were still alive today, he would be furious.”

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda,” she said. “There will be no more comments from the family.”

The treatment of Mitt Romney in 2012 and the treatment of Barack Obama in 2008 couldn’t be more different. In the Romney story, an unproved allegation of bullying gets front page treatment from The Washington Post, but admitted drug use, et al, by Barack Obama goes virtually unreported.

By emphasizing peripheral issues like same-sex marriage, illegal alien tuition, medical marijuana, and high school behavior, the liberal media distracts attention from President Obama’s dismal record on the critical economic problems. And in the attempt to discredit Mr. Romney, The Washington Post story denigrates John Lauber’s memory and upsets his family, presumably because of its obligation to inform the public. Well, about some things, anyway.

Cross-posted from Observations

TSUNAMI MEDIA ALERT

TSUNAMI MEDIA ALERT
June 17, 2009

“SERVE AMERICA” Marches On -
Community Organizers Step Up Their Take Over!

Main Stream Media has, in large part, given little report of last week’s AmeriCorps change of command. Obama’s unceremonious firing of its Inspector General reinforces Wake Up America movement’s forewarning that the new “Serve America” law is intended primarily to provide political cover for coast-to-coast community organizing! Ironically, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the White House gave praises to AmeriCorps management record. But that was before the Inspector General, charged with oversight, caught the new Chief Executive’s pal Kevin, Johnson, with his hand in the cookie jar - again.

On uncovering misuse of funds to the tune of $800,000, the Inspector, Gerald Walpin, issued orders cutting off Kevin’s group from any further Federal funding. However, by last Wednesday night, the tables were turned in favor of Johnson. Obama reinstated Johnson’s funding status and dismissed the Inspector General instead. As the Wall Street Journal commented, Walpin’s only crime was trying to protect taxpayer dollars. Since $5.5 Billion dollars in Federal funding is given AmeriCorps for expansion, this signals cause for apprehension in how the total funds will be used and supervised.

As Glenn Beck demonstrated on his Tuesday PM FOX show, this firing leaves the current chain of authority of the expanded AmeriCorps programs entirely in untrustworthy and politicized hands.


SERVE AMERICA CHAIN OF COMMAND:

1. Obama is in ultimate charge of Serve America’s future - like that of the auto industry and banking on his growing list of potentate powers.
2. Next comes the Corporation of National & Community Services - which is now headed by
3. Michelle Obama’s Chief of Staff, Jackie Norris. In other words, under Obama’s authority, Serve America will be controlled by his own wife. Managing “Serve America” under the above Federal corporation, is AmeriCorps itself, whose current task appears to be promoting its cause and distributing its vast new funding among aligned “community organizations.” Now in charge is Alan Solomon, a former Democratic fundraiser. What a dream come true for a party fundraiser - to grow a nationwide political organization with federal funding, under the guise of “Civil Service!”
4. Remaining oversight falls to H.E.L.P. - the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. As it happens this powerful committee is chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy, for whom the “Serve America” Act has been named. Considering the critically ill Kennedy is rarely in Washington and his undying support of “Serve America” is a well-known fact, little to no investigation of AmeriCorps politicization nor its distribution of billions of tax-payer dollars is likely - unless there is widespread public protest of this management debacle.

For example, back in 2008, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) had already accused Johnson of wasting its money and directing corps members to do things clearly outside the bounds of AmeriCorps service. Johnson's non-profit group, HOPE, has since made a settlement with the Federal government, in part to be repaid, patiently, over a 10 year term. Clearly that was before Michelle Obama had influence over the CNCS. Also clear is Johnson’s current extreme good favor with the Obama’s. Saddest is Congressional disinterest in this corrupt history of cronyism when they passed into law AmeriCorps increased influence and funding a few months ago, via the “Serve America” Act.

This former basketball player, turned mayor of Sacramento CA, is also pushing for Federal Stimulus dollars there, making it evident that Johnson is high on the Obama food chain and capable of having his hand in more than one pot.


Byron York, of the Washington Examiner, reports the most immediately “alarming” aspect of last week’s chain of events is that the Inspector General received an abrupt call on his cell phone, while on the road, informing him he had one hour to retire or be fired. Acting in integrity, Walpin refused to resign, but as the corrupt new “Save America”s only watchdog, he is gone nonetheless. Reports indicate this position requires 30 days notice and an explanation of termination. Neither was given - which could be a violation of the Inspector General Reform Act.

“Serve America” - as forecast - translates to “Serve Obama” If you object, phone or fax your Congressman and Senators! FREE FAX and complete Capitol Hill contact information are available online to all who sign in with Wake Up America movement

TAGLINES: Michelle Obama oversees Serve America; Community Organizers take over D.C.; Kennedy used as a front for Billions, SERVE AMERICA LAW means Serve Obama

If any of 3 links above fail, here they are in order:

Walpin's only crime:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html

Johnson's non profit group:
http://servicewire.org/node/3951


Wake Up America movement:
http://www.wamaction.org/GetInvolved.html

Holocaust Museum Shooter NOT A CONSERVATIVE!

Holocaust Museum Shooter
NOT A CONSERVATIVE!
A Commentary by: J. D. Longstreet

**********************************

The MsM (or The Mainstream Media) or as some of our colleagues in the conservative movement have taken to referring to them…”The Government Controlled Press” immediately leapt upon the story of the single shooter at the Holocaust Museum and within near record time were associating him with the political right, or conservatives. You could see it coming from the moment the story broke. And, as is so often the case these days, they got it wrong!

The shooter was identified as a longtime neo-Nazi. One security guard was shot and killed. The 88-year-old shooter was, himself, shot, and as of this writing, was in critical condition.

Apparently our political leftist community decided to use the events at the Holocaust Museum to beat the conservative movement severely about the head and shoulders with stories of this truly awful incident by associating the lone gunman with the conservative movement itself. (Remember now, even the Department of Homeland Security recently identified those in the conservative movement as “Domestic Terrorists”.) There was just one problem with their efforts. Well, there was MORE than ONE problem with it, but the one that stands out and tends to make the leftist press, not only in America, but around the world, REALLY look foolish is the inconvenient fact that the shooter is not a conservative! Shocking! Absolutely shocking, what?

Turns out, the gunman is not a Christian. (Somehow the political left has decided that only rightists can be Christians. Go figure!) In fact, he is a SOCIALIST! He is reported to have made the statement: ““SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West.” I hardly think such a statement would indicate any connection to the conservative movement in “The West.”

Whatever happened to “research”? There was a time in the news business (anywhere on the globe – not just in this country) when journalist actually researched an article before rushing to the presses with words penned from their emotions rather than from careful consideration – and words which had been CHECKED OUT at least once, better yet, checked out three times from three different sources. Not anymore. As a result, this is the kind of reporting we get from a press that swears, with their ink-stained hands over their hearts, that they are unbiased in their reporting. The claim of unbiased reporting from today’s press is pure, unadulterated, Bovine Scatology!

There is an article you need to read just to get a flavor of how deeply the leftist press is willing to go to smear those of us on the right side of the political spectrum. It is titled: “Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist”. Ben Johnson wrote the article. You will find it at Frontpagemag.com HERE.

The left, it would seem, are desperately attempting to re-define socialism. They have for years, now, been referring to conservatives as fascists. That could not be farther from the truth and has had me scratching my head for the SAME number of years wondering how in hell they could make THAT association. Then, I remembered the quality of our public education system in America. Anyone with a good, solid, education KNOWS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that fascism is not associated, in any way, with the right, but with the left.

With a leftist/socialist President and a leftist/socialist Congress, and a political party, which has all but completely embraced the socialist agenda for America, they’re shuffling about as fast as an ant on the surface of a hot stove. What they fail to understand is - another of those inconvenient facts – “fascism is a totalitarian ideology concentrating all power in the hands of the State and thus not a conservative ideology but a creature of the Left.” (From Mr. Johnson’s article.)

If nothing else good comes of the Obama Regime, hopefully, the American public will finally understand what we conservatives have been decrying for decades now. I refer, of course, to the oh, so obvious pro-left-wing bias of the Mainstream Media in America - AND those countries around the globe that shared our democratic form of government WHEN WE STILL HAD a democratic form of government instead of the socialist government we have now.

J. D. Longstreet

********************

Conservative+Obama+Socialism+America+Collapse+Media+Bias

Washington Post Ombudsman Confirms Obama Tilt

Deborah Howell, Ombudsman for The Washington Post admits that her survey of articles written at the Post confirm reader’s criticism that the Post tilted toward Obama in campaign coverage.

Howell examined Washington Post campaign coverage “on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants.”

Howell’s findings confirm the many complaints of journalistic bias from readers.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. . .

Howell and her assistant found that news stories and photos about Obama outnumbered McCain coverage. Additionally Howell wrote that “like most of the national news media”, post reporters, photographers, and editors found Obama just more “newsworthy and historic” than an older well-known battle-scarred McCain.

Howell wrote that their survey results are comparable to a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that from June 9 until Nov 2, 66% of campaign stories were about Obama.

Howell confirms that “Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got.” Howell was specifically concerned with the lack of coverage of his undergraduate years, his Chicago connections, his relationship with Tony Rezko, and that “The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.”

On Oct 22, Journalism.org published the results of a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that covered the time frame since the two national political conventions ended. The study confirmed that the media portrayed John McCain in a “substantially negative” light.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,John McCain,Washington Post,media bias,campaign coverage,Pew Research Center,Project for Excellence in Journalism

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=3348, Rosemary's Thoughts, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, A Newt One, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Media Palin Assault Strategy Inadvertently Revealed

Before political correctness emerged as the dominant MSM ethic, it was called “Chinese Water Torture.” Water is slowly dripped onto a person's forehead until the person is driven insane, or in the case of McCain/Palin, until Palin is driven off the ticket.

Craig Gordon of Newsday let it slip:

The real danger for Palin would come if this revelation were the first of a steady drip of stories . . .

Here’s what Peter Wallsten of the LA Times wrote:

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. . .

The story about Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is clearly too dangerous for the Obama folks (including the MSM media) to dwell upon in the long term. Expect media focus to intensify on Alaska’s state ethics investigation of Palin in the the so-called "Troopergate” or “ Wootengate” controversy involving the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. Monegan claims that he was fired because he was reluctant to fire an Alaska state trooper, Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law, who has been involved in a bitter custody fight with her younger sister. Palin’s staff had contacted Walt Monegan about two dozen times about Wooten.

Here’s an excerpt of a piece of “News Analysis” by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer:

. . .The youthful mother of five whose placement on the ticket was meant to reinforce traditional values has now revealed that her unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant -- a piece of information that the family and the campaign said they had hoped to keep private. . . .

The woman introduced to America as a reform-minded Washington outsider who opposed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" -- the symbol of McCain's hatred of wasteful spending -- originally supported its construction. The governor who in her introductory speech decried the practice of budgetary "earmarks" sought, as the state's chief executive and as mayor of Wasilla, hundreds of millions of dollars in such federal funding for local projects.

Moreover, Palin has now retained a lawyer to represent her in a controversy the McCain campaign said it had fully researched -- Palin's role in dismissing a state police official who had refused to fire a trooper who divorced Palin's sister.

On Monday, the McCain campaign dispatched lawyers to Alaska in a move described as an attempt to manage a growing crowd of journalists who have traveled there to inspect Palin's background. But the move raises the impression that the McCain campaign didn't know everything about his No. 2 and is now racing to learn what it can while trying to avoid tough questions about the Arizona senator's decision-making process. . . .

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said. . . .

Critics continue to question why McCain, after months of assailing Democratic nominee Barack Obama as lacking foreign policy experience, would tap a running mate who has been governor for less than two years and before that was mayor of Wasilla, population 7,000.

The campaign has little room for error. A new CBS News poll found that 66% of registered voters were undecided about Palin. . . .

Here’s an excerpt from Newsday by Craig Gordon:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Sarah Palin was on a roll, fresh-faced and fiery, just the boost of energy John McCain's slow-but-steady campaign needed.
Now that's over.

So far anyway, it doesn't look as if news that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter is enough to knock her off McCain's ticket. . . .

Many experts said Palin could weather the story about her daughter because most voters are willing to accept that it's a private, family matter. "She going to get three strikes, and this is one," said independent analyst Charles Cook.
The real danger for Palin would come if this revelation were the first of a steady drip of stories - and already, news came out yesterday of her husband's long-ago drunken-driving charge and the fact that she hired a lawyer to defend herself in an ethics probe in Alaska. . . .

It also dramatically raises the stakes for Palin's acceptance speech to the nation, originally scheduled for tomorrow night. No longer is that speech merely a high-energy, get-to-know-you address, like her appearance Friday as McCain's running mate. Now it becomes a closely watched moment where the country will try to take her measure - as a possible president, and perhaps, rightly or wrongly, as a mother. . . .

And just as the Palin pick all but dared Democrats to challenge her credentials as a two-year Alaska governor, some Republican strategists yesterday said Democrats will pay the price if their activist supporters point out that the "family values" party has a teen pregnancy in the family.
Obama saw the dangers of that yesterday, issuing a statement where he said Palin's daughter was off-limits in the campaign - and noted he was born to an 18-year-old mother, just a year older than Bristol Palin.

See Associated Press take on the McCain camp's detailed review of Palin

Here’s an excerpt:

. . . In the days since, Republicans and Democrats have privately questioned whether the Arizona senator chose the first-term governor without fully looking into her background. McCain's campaign has vehemently defended the review.

Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., the lawyer who conducted the review, told The Associated Press in an interview Monday that Palin underwent a "full and complete" examination before McCain chose her. Asked whether everything that came up as a possible red flag during the review already has been made public, Culvahouse said: "I think so. Yeah, I think so. Correct."

Stoking the notion of a rushed examination, a timeline issued by the campaign indicated that McCain initially met Palin in February, then held one phone conversation with her last week before inviting her to Arizona, where he met with her a second time and offered her the job.

Raising additional questions was the campaign's disclosure Monday that Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter was pregnant, and reports that Palin's husband, Todd, had been arrested in 1986, when he was 22, for driving under the influence of alcohol.

McCain's campaign has dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to Alaska.

Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said the campaign always planned to send a "jump team" to the eventual running mate's home state to work with the nominee's staff, help with information requests from local and national reporters, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review. . . .

The public search also unearthed details of the Legislature's investigation into the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner, allegedly because he would not fire Palin's former brother-in-law as a state trooper.

Culvahouse said he asked follow-up questions, and "spent a lot of time with her lawyer" on the matter.

"We came out of it knowing all that we could know at the time," he said.

Throughout the process, the campaign said, Davis had multiple conversations with Palin.