American media abandons objectivity in order to target Republicans

California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy on the Sean Hannity show on Fox News: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable (sic). But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”

Her defenders jumped at the opportunity to interpret that statement to mean that the Republicans held the hearings expressly for the purpose of bringing Mrs. Clinton down, an allegation that became instantly popular with the left-leaning media. Mr. McCarthy’s artless statement certainly may be read to support such an assertion, but that statement can also be interpreted in other ways. However, let’s not forget that the Select Committee was formed in May of 2014, well before Ms. Clinton appeared as an  “unbeatable” candidate.

If you read for meaning, rather than opportunity, you will notice that he also said that the hearings have shown her to be “untrustable,” a result not of Republican desires, but of Mrs. Clinton’s willful behavior that the hearings have brought to light. Her falling numbers resulted from examining her flawed performance.

Objective observers understand the Benghazi probe’s purpose is nothing other than trying to get to the bottom of a deadly foreign policy and security blunder by the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

To review, on September 11, 2012 Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi, Libya, not at the embassy in Tripoli. An armed attack on the American Consulate there occurred and ultimately resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyron Woods and Glen Doherty.

The initial explanation from the Obama administration was that the attack was the result of a demonstration spawned by an Internet video, a position the administration maintained for days after the attack.

CBS News initially reported that a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi said that an angry mob had gathered outside the consulate to protest a video made in the U.S. that was offensive to Muslims, and stormed the consulate after the U.S. troops who responded to the mob’s appearance fired rounds into the air to try and disperse the crowd. CBS later reported that U.S. officials said the attack was not an out-of-control demonstration, but a well-executed assault.

The New York Times reported: "American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning." 

Suspicions arose because while a video could have spurred a demonstration, the attack that followed was clearly mounted by a military-type organized group, not a group of upset demonstrators. 

To decide if this investigation is legitimate, all one must do is ask and honestly answer some questions about the Benghazi attack. 

Does Congress have constitutional oversight responsibility to look into executive branch actions such as why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi at a time of increasing tensions and when an organized attack by a military-like force occurred?

Should the American people know why repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens for increased security in Benghazi prior to the assault were rejected, to know who rejected those requests, and why? 

And, who made the decision to not dispatch military units to try to help the beleaguered consulate on the basis of there not being time for them to get there when no one knew how long the assault would last? 

This legitimate and appropriate investigation produced a lot of evidence about Mrs. Clinton’s performance, and her disregard of the rules about email – including using her own email system for government emails – that every Secretary of State and other Cabinet secretaries have followed since Al Gore invented the Internet that put classified information at risk. These issues have raised numerous legitimate doubts about her fitness to be president.

Yet the media seems unconcerned with these contemptuous breaches of rules and protocol, and the failure to protect classified, perhaps top secret, information. 

Meanwhile, Rep. McCarthy, the Majority Leader who was expected to succeed Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, following his announced resignation, unexpectedly declined the position. The media went wild, trumpeting the chaos in the GOP, and somewhere along the way someone suggested that Rep. McCarthy and a female representative were having an affair.

Both he and she denied it, and no evidence – let alone proof – has been produced. Nevertheless, the subject remains a part of the story about Rep. McCarthy stepping aside.

On Fox News’ “Media Buzz” last Sunday, a panel of journalists all said it is proper for this to be part of the ongoing story, despite there being no evidence that it is true. Since viewers/readers can find references to this alleged affair on the Internet, the reasoning goes, the media are therefore obligated to cite it.

By that reasoning, any allegation made by anyone about any public figure should become part of every story about or involving that person. This is the confused state of journalism today.

Message to the media: You factually report; we’ll decide.

Religious beliefs take a beating in today’s politically correct world

Issues of religious freedom have been in the news a good bit lately. Primarily, these news events occur when someone finds their religious beliefs in conflict with another person’s secular desire. A baker or a florist who regularly sells their wares to gay/lesbian customers declines to bake a cake or make floral arrangements for their wedding because their religious beliefs do not approve homosexual marriage. Despite the fact that there are many, or if not many, at least some alternatives to those bakers or florists, those who refused to provide services were persecuted and some driven out of business by the uproar the offended gay/lesbian couples instigated because these people held to their religious beliefs.

More recently, a county clerk in Kentucky refused to sign marriage licenses of gay/lesbian couples after a court ruled that treating gay/lesbian couples differently than heterosexual couples is discrimination, and therefore illegal. A judge jailed the clerk for refusing to act, despite the commonly observed practice by judges of using the least radical punishment for such problems first, and then proceeding to more stringent punishment and ultimately jail as the last resort.

This last episode is a much different situation than those previously mentioned, as it involves a government employee refusing to do her sworn duty. But the attention it received and the way the judge handled the clerk does illustrate the size of the schism between people following their religious beliefs and social preferences or legal mandates.

If there were options other than punishing these Americans for following their religious beliefs, why were bakers, florists, and others who have had similar misfortunes singled out for what may rightly be termed persecution. This point is particularly relevant in a nation in which the first right among four specifically enumerated rights in the first of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is the free exercise of religion?

It is also relevant to note the degree to which these events attract media coverage, which highlights how unpopular traditional religious practices have become to the media and many Americans in the 21^st century.

Combine a media mindset apparently hostile to religious practices with a tendency to try to tear down Republican presidential candidates and you find Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson being given rough treatment after saying that a Muslim shouldn’t be President of the United States. "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," he said a while back on NBC's "Meet the Press."

A bit later in the interview, he said, when asked about a Muslim running for Congress, that it would depend upon the individual in question. "Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just like it depends on what anybody else is," Dr. Carson said. "If there's somebody who is of any faith but they say things and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them."

Host Chuck Todd also asked him whether a president's faith should matter to voters. "I guess it depends on what that faith is," he said. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." Asked whether he thinks Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't – I do not."

Clearly, Dr. Carson believes that anyone subjugating their religious beliefs, whatever religious beliefs they may hold, to the requirements of our Constitution is the key element.

He appeared on ABC News’ “This Week” last Sunday where reporter Martha Raddatz grilled him on that same statement, either ignorant of his other comments further defining his view on the issue, or unwilling to acknowledge them. Here is part of that interview:

Raddatz: “I want to go back to your controversial comments on the possibility of a Muslim president. The question seemed quite clear. The question was: Should a president’s faith matter? You said, I guess it depends on what that faith is. The question was: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution, and you said no, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. 

Do you stand by that now?”

Carson: “Well, first of all, you know, what I said is on a transcript and it’s there for anybody.”

Raddatz: “I’m reading the transcript, Dr. Carson, that’s exactly what you said.”

Carson: “No – read the paragraph before that where I said anybody, doesn’t matter what their religious background, if they accept American values and principles and are willing to subjugate their religious beliefs to our Constitution. I have no problem with them.

Why do you guys always leave that part out, I wonder?”

Political correctness – or opposing unpopular things in favor of popular things – is the order of the day, in life and in the media.

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.

The American media’s fraud and corruption are at an all-time high

 
Commentary by James H. Shott
 
Recent dishonesty demonstrates why the mainstream media is largely no longer worthy of the trust of the American people.
 
Following the massacre of movie-goers in an Aurora, Colorado theater early last Friday morning, ABC’s Brian Ross twisted himself into knots to connect the violence with the Tea Party on “Good Morning America” with George Stephanopoulos. Here is the text.

Stephanopoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

So, Mr. Ross, if you don’t know “if this is the same Jim Holmes,” why even mention this? It’s not like “Jim Holmes” is so unusual a name that it couldn’t be shared by multiple individuals. Is wild speculation your idea of responsible journalism? Or, are you just taking advantage of a horrible crime and the pain it caused to score cheap political points for your own ideology?
 
Even if it was the same Jim Holmes, there was no indication that the shooting had any connection whatsoever with the Tea Party. Like the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords last year, this is another pitiful and failed media attempt to tie the Tea Party to violent acts.
 
ABC issued a correction, and then an apology, and that likely will be the extent of its efforts at contrition. However, the family of the man Mr. Ross falsely connected to the shooting was still getting death threats days later.
 
Question: How can anyone trust Brian Ross’ reporting hereafter, or that of ABC?
 
The cable network MSNBC got caught manipulating a comment by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, totally changing the context of a statement he made in order to ridicule and demean him.
 
The fraud that MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell palmed off on her viewers painted Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch elitist who doesn’t understand how retail commerce works.
 
Ms. Mitchell introduced a video clip, saying “I get the feeling – take a look at this – that Mitt Romney has not been to too many Wawa’s [convenience stores] along the roadside in Pennsylvania.” In the clip, Mr. Romney comments: “I was at Wawa’s, I wanted to order a sandwich.  You press the little touch tone keypad, alright, you just touch that, and you know, the sandwich comes at you, touch this, touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier, there’s your sandwich.  It’s amazing.”
 
Ms. Mitchell and her accomplice yuck it up at the candidate’s obvious ignorance of this common method of selling food: “It’s amazing,” she smirks. 
 
But she pulled a fast one on viewers who trust her to honestly tell them what is going on the in the world. What actually happened was that Mr. Romney, prior to relating the Wawa’s anecdote, commented on how a friend had a simple procedure badly mangled by incompetent government bureaucracy that required him to fill out a 33-page form to notify the government of his change of address. Twice. 
  
He was contrasting government inefficiency with the efficiency and innovative nature of the private sector. But that’s not the message Ms. Mitchell wanted her viewers to get, apparently.
 
Question: Is Andrea Mitchell’s reporting trustworthy?
 
After the shooting death of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida, a large number of people, aided by media reports, rushed to judgment accusing Mr. Zimmerman of a racially motivated killing of the young man we all came to know from the photo of an angelic-looking youngster taken when he was 12 years-old. 
 
Whether Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime, or merely defended himself will be determined at trial, which every American – even those knee-jerks who jumped to the conclusion that the shooting was racially motivated – needs to understand is the proper setting for such determinations.
 
News organizations are expected to accurately report to the public what is known about events. A well-informed public is less likely to react emotionally and inappropriately, as so many did in the Trayvon Martin shooting. These days it seems the mainstream media frequently ignores ethical standards.
 
Supporting that point is the way NBC News edited the recording of Mr. Zimmerman talking with a police dispatcher, and creating the impression that Mr. Zimmerman had a racial prejudice against Trayvon Martin. It then broadcast this deception on the “Today Show”: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good.  He looks black,” George Zimmerman tells police in NBC’s edited version.
 
Here, however, is original text of the call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

In these examples, people were deliberately trying to manipulate you with fraudulent reporting, or they are incompetent. When news organizations slant the news, or manufacture the news, whatever the cause, it is unethical, underhanded and unforgiveable.
 
Cross-posted from Observations

His Cover Is Blown…..

By: J Robert Giles

@JRobertGiles

“Anyone who doesn’t take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.”  - Albert Einstein

Trust in the media is becoming an ever more foolish investment, yet exposure to their prospectus is nearly impossible. The influence of those loyal to the dangerous ideology of liberalism is inescapable. To hear the depictions of the candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election, both forthright and subliminal, you would think that the incumbency of His Barackness is all but assured. He’s the hero. He’s the one who stepped in and rescued us from the abyss of George W. Bush, remember? He stepped in and heroically choked the life out of bin Laden’s terrorist hiney with his star spangled, bare hands. Remember? He’s the one who single handedly rescued our economy from the disaster left by his predecessor. Mitt Romney, by comparison, is portrayed as a drooling bag of idiocy whose ethics are as questionable as his right to stand in the same room with such genius as that possessed by Barack Obama. The truth, as is so often the case, lays gasping for air, battered, and bruised on the side of the trail, tossed from the moving vehicle of Obama’s campaign. Much like someone who dared to question the authority of a 1930’s style Chicago gang where Obama seems to have learned so much of his social grace.

In reality, Mitt Romney is just as intelligent as Barack Obama and he comes with the distinct advantage of being able to prove it by the very means Obama and his people have spent many years and millions of dollars to hide. See, we don’t know anything about the grades Barack Obama received at Harvard or any of the rest of his schooling. For some reason, that information has been carefully and skillfully purged from databases who always seem to have information about Republican candidates printed, and ready to ship. We know what degrees Obama earned because he tells us every chance he gets. Yet without providing proof of his own grades, the Obama campaign sees no problem with questioning Romney’s. Mitt Romney graduated from Brigham Young University with a 3.97 GPA. He then went on to earn simultaneous degrees in law and business from Harvard. That’s an amazing feat in and of itself, but when the stories of Romney’s leadership within the Harvard community are added to the mix…..it’s more impressive than anything in Obama’s shady past.

Obama and the media love to portray Romney as a greedy fat-cat who cares about nothing but money. They act as if acceptance into the circle of friends with which Romney is linked requires serious skeleton’s in the closet. Like there’s something inherently wrong with financial success. Does anyone out there think Obama would wait an entire heartbeat to accept if Romney offered all his money in exchange for the White House? The Obama family would set a trail of fire behind them as they blasted out of there with their big bags of cash. Michelle could finally be proud of her country again as she spends that greedy white-man’s money on the servants in her new tropical paradise. Again, apply logic to these insane accusations and they crumble quickly. Past friendships and relationships are the very last thing Obama should want to bring into this election but the media’s fascination with him assures that his own youthful friendships will not be closely examined. While Romney’s study group describes him as a natural leader who always demanded and personally summoned their very best during their Harvard years, Obama’s friends are known terrorists, extremists, and radical hate peddlers. While Romney abstained from the typical trappings of college life like alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and even caffeine; Obama partook in all. Mitt and Ann Romney still take time out of whatever they are doing to attend the dinner his Harvard study group still holds every few years. He even stopped in for a few hours on his way to Athens to clear the troubled Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2002. All speak of Romney as a dear friend, a devoted husband and father, and a natural leader. There is no psychotic gleam in their eye. There is no “bonded through lunacy” tone in their rhetoric. In fact, it’s not rhetoric at all. Obama dismisses his relationship with Bill Ayers as something we shouldn’t worry about. Instead, we should focus on the fact that Mitt Romney’s friends are rich. As we all know…..people who knowingly try to kill others with bombs and ideology are not nearly as dangerous as those who obtain personal wealth through sound business strategy and ethical living.

His Barackness and his subordinates seem to derive great pleasure from the act of twisting the truth. Obama bashes religion with every official act his administration pushes upon us. He preaches to us as if any interpretation of scripture that doesn’t support his intentions is foolishness interpreted by fools. He dismisses religious tradition and belief as crutches of the weak. In reality, Obama’s understanding of the Bible and its infinite wisdom are just about as accurate as his interpretation of the United States Constitution. Both are horribly twisted and made to accommodate lunatic levels of liberalism. Obama dismisses our concerns over his involvement with “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright as “unwarranted and conspiratorial.” For twenty years, Obama was an active member of the blatantly racist pastor’s black liberation theology church. Yet, in 2008, when the story first came to the surface, Obama’s church was said to be “off-limits” and like the good little puppet Obama told us he was, McCain obeyed and refused to run ads telling independent voters about Obama’s Wright connection. Silence is no longer an option. If Obama and his loyal subjects can attack Mormonism, then I have a few questions about Obama’s chameleon-esque religious beliefs. As I sit here guzzling coffee and cussing at each typo I make, it is painfully obvious that I am not a Mormon. That does not mean that I would abandon my Christian beliefs in the face of fear. Romney has upheld his incredibly strict beliefs and moral code in the face of what I am sure is unyielding pressure. Obama changes his mind to suit the ever shifting winds of public opinion. His Barackness will do his best to cast a shadow of doubt over Romney’s spiritual beliefs but his own are seemingly off-limits to us, the lowly public.

Obama asks us to consider whether Romney would have had the courage to “do what {Obama} did” with regard to Osama bin Laden. My answer is yes. Not only would he have had the courage, but he would have had the knowledge to think beyond the glory-grabbing headlines. Romney would have had the courage to praise the men who carried out the mission, not the men who watched the raid unfold on TV from the safety of another continent. Romney would have praised the methods of interrogation that brought forth the critical information leading to Jihadolf’s death, even if they were controversial and approved by political adversaries. Romney would have made sure that Dr. Shakil Afridi and his entire family were safe and out of Pakistan before the raid ever took place. Romney would never have left the man that risked his own life to provide America with the undeniable DNA proof of bin Laden’s location to rot in a Pakistani jail for 33 years. Obama’s failure to plan beyond the personal glory of the raid is horrible and will most likely cost the life of a man who should be heralded as an American hero. Now that there is no political value to be wrung from the Doctor’s involvement, he’s of no use to Obama. Besides, why would Obama share the glory? His blindly loyal subjects would not approve.

No more silence. No more bowing to the pressure of Obama’s self appointed power. His past is as scary as his present and neither can be allowed to live in the White House beyond January of 2013. Get this word out to the independents. They’re notoriously out of touch. They don’t pay attention to the news until just before the election and we need to get these ideas implanted in their heads much earlier than that. Get the truth out there. No matter what Obama and the media may say, Romney is NOT the one with the questionable past. Put that idea to bed. Otherwise, we’ll be fighting an uphill battle in late October against an enemy with superior weaponry. Please share the link to this article with as many people as possible. The differences in the candidates are not the differences being portrayed in the news.

As always, thanks for playing.

J Robert Giles