Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category
Garofalo: Tea Party Goers Are Racists Who Hate Black President
From Noel Sheppard @ NewsBusters we have this:
During last year’s election campaign, liberal media members treated Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin with a hatred most Americans had never witnessed from the press.
On Thursday’s “Countdown,” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and his guest Janeane Garofalo defamed fellow citizens who attended the prior day’s Tea Parties with the same vitriolic contempt. Garofalo actually called Party-goers “a bunch of teabagging rednecks,” adding “this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”
But that’s just the beginning, for what Olbermann and Garofalo engaged in Thursday evening is amongst the most vile, hate-filled attacks on average American citizens ever conveyed on national television by so-called journalists. Please brace yourself…
NY Times Under Fire for Cindy Story
The New York Times today has a very strange, lengthy front-page story on Cindy McCain — by Jodi Kantor and David Halbfinger — dredging up some unpleasant episodes in the distant past of her private life without adding any new information, sprinkling some innuendo about the McCains’ long-distance marriage, analyzing her personality and health mostly with pure speculation, and just generally dissecting her private and emotional sphere for no apparent reason beyond idle voyeurism.
Some of the facts discussed are, I suppose, arguably relevant (her connection to the Keating Five scandal and how Washington scorned her as a result of McCain’s ugly treatment of his first wife), but the vast bulk of the article, while quite invasive, seems indistinguishable from lowly, rank gossip.
The article doesn’t even arguably raise an issue of political bias, as the NYT has long been obsessed with the Clintons’ marriage and sex lives (one of the worst, though by no means only, examples being this 2006 sleazy, highly detailed front-page gossip item from Patrick Healy — entitled “For Clintons, Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives” — “reporting” that “Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife” and that “Bill and Hillary Clinton have built largely separate lives” while chronicling the number of nights they’ve spent together).
But this Cindy McCain article does seem to suggest that there are no longer any standards governing when “political journalists” dig into the private and sex lives of political figures — and their family members — even when doing so lacks even a purported connection to some matter of public interest.
Who cares how many nights John and Cindy have spent together over the past couple of decades, or how affectionate they are with one another when sitting at home, or that — 15 years ago — she “was caught stealing drugs from her nonprofit organization to feed her addiction to painkillers,” or whether her 2004 separation from McCain was due (as she claimed) to a stroke, or whether their marriage is a union of convenience and business rather than true love, or whether she actually crossed into Rwanda from Zaire during a 1994 trip to help refugees, or how often his friends in DC interact with her socially? How is there a public interest in knowing any of that?
Way worse, in order to write the article, the NYT’s Kantor trolled Facebook and found adolescent classmates of Bridget McCain’s and — at least in one case — sent an email that said this: I’m a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I’m reaching out to fellow parents at her kids’ schools.
Is investigating Cindy McCain’s fitness as a mother actually a legitimate function for the political reporters at the NYT? Doesn’t that question answer itself?
Is That All There Is? Better Call Peggy Lee!
The New York Times does the all-so predictable Sarah Palin bill of indictment for its Sunday front page. It certainly sounds compelling in the paragraph called the “nut graf”:
Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
But what is so remarkable is how little there is in the page after page of minutiae thrown against the wall by the Times. And indeed there’s plenty of favorable material there. Up front we learn:
Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering “our Sarah” and hissing at her critics.
In just the first few paragraphs you have testimony that she was “effective and accessible.” So where are we going here? Well, despite the testimony that she was ”accessible,” others find her “secretive” and inclined to put a premium on “loyalty.” The evidence? The Governor’s office declined a request for emails that would have cost over $400,000. Proof positive. Oh, and the records sought (about Polar Bears and such) were in fact obtained.
Then there is the ” she blurs personal and public behavior” charge. The evidence? A phone call from Todd Palin to a state legislator about the latter’s chief of staff, which Palin denies, was mentioned. Pretty thin gruel.
Next we have her tenure as mayor, where again all heck breaks loose because — are ya sitting down? — she brought in her own team. No! Unheard of. Jeeez. Next she’ll be firing the town museum director. Oh no– it’s true! Palin says (”Oh yeah, she says,” you can hear the Times reporters hrrumphing) she was cutting the budget.
This is pathetic, really. Is there something illegal here? Is there something nefarious? What is the point?
The next offense: while she was mayor city employees were told not to talk to the press. The horror! Might there have been a procedure, a public affairs or press person for that? We don’t know and the Times doesn’t tell us.
Then we get to the book banning. But if you read carefully there is no banning, no censorship, no list and no nothing other than someone became “scared” of Palin:
“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”
Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”
So Palin talked “about” removing books — but the piece doesn’t tell us what was said. And we hear about Palin’s distaste for a book about homosexual parenting. Again, is there some story in here? We’re up to page three and it hasn’t popped out yet.
We then learn that she did take on her own Republican Party and won the election for Governor by, goodness gracious, preparing for debates with notecards! Color-coded no less.
Then on page four of this eye-popping account, we learn as Governor she had the temerity to have ”surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.” No! She hired people she knew ? And people she trusted because she had just run against a hostile machine of her own party? The Lieutenant Governor offers up that they were “competent, qualified, top-notch people,” but are you going to believe him? And then the kicker: it seemed to, well, work out pretty well. We learn:
To her supporters — and with an 80 percent approval rating, she has plenty — Ms. Palin has lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption. She gained the passage of a bill that tightens the rules covering lobbyists. And she rewrote the tax code to capture a greater share of oil and gas sale proceeds.
“Does anybody doubt that she’s a tough negotiator?” said State Representative Carl Gatto, Republican of Palmer.
The nerve — hiring trusted people and running a competent, popular administration. So we veer back to “secrecy” –dastardly tales of using a private email account and reliance on a circle of close advisors. Once again, the sheer banality of it all is both numbing and humorous. Surely the Old Grey Lady hasn’t devoted all this space for nothing? But that’s the conclusion one reaches as we stumble into page five. And that seems to have more of the same — people who didn’t get emails returned or thought she was too adversarial, harboring a “siege-like” mentality against her foes.
Wow, are you shocked and appalled yet? Me neither, and I can’t for the life of me figure out the point of the story. Ah, yes: the reporters were told to “get the goods” and this is all they found. But being the New York Times they made it really long, put it on the front page, and hoped people wouldn’t read it all that closely and say, “I guess she has a pretty good record if that’s all they had.”
And if you are looking for any detailed description of any of her accomplishments — presumably the reason for her 80 percent popularity — forget it. No room for that.
The New York Times Is Now Supporting…..Palin? What!
The New York Times supports Gov. Sarah Palin for VP?
It’s hard to believe. We had to read it twice to believe it ourselves.
But there it is for all to see, an editorial from The New York Times that calls for fairness in selection of vice presidential candidates, that it’s a wonderfully practical idea for the major parties to pick political unknowns and test them in high office and allow them to become statesmen. And especially so if they are women.
And it was the day’s lead editorial to
o, right at the top of the very grey page for all to wade through.
Here’s part of that editorial to see for yourself:
“Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy.
“One might even say demography is destiny; this candidate is chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party.
“On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
“We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who — someone who helps the ticket.”
Well, there you have it. The New York Times obviously endorsing Alaska’s Gov. Sarah Palin, who, judging by recent polls and all the media attention, certainly has helped John McCain’s Republican ticket.
This New York Times editorial, by the way, was just published on July 3.
Oh, wait. It says July 3, 1984.
Oh, and it was talking about someone named Walter Mondale plucking a New York nobody with no executive experience from the oblivion of the House of Representatives, Geraldine Ferraro.
Well, sure, he and she were Democrats. But what difference should party possibly make if we’re truly talking about advancing American democracy by making it more fair?
Especially if we’re talking about the gender area where the other party’s candidate, Barack Obama, so ostentatiously passed over a qualified woman as his vice presidential running mate? (And another New Yorker at that!) Not to mention skipping over the female governor of Kansas and the female senator from Missouri.
Instead, he picked a male 36-year-senator from the same old boy’s club. How is that change we can believe in needing? Or whatever this week’s motto is…..
Notable & Quotable
September 6, 2008; Page A9
From a New York Times editorial on July 3, 1984, on Geraldine Ferraro’s nomination for vice president:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? . . . Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? . . . Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? . . . Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. . . . What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. . . . Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
Gibson/ABC Misrepresents Palin Quote in ‘Holy War’ Question [UPDATED]
Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”
The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.
But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.
In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”
Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:
“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”
“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.
.
But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.
Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.
In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”
A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.
ABC’s mis characterization of Palin’s words was not the only one in the media. The Washington Post also did some last-minute clean-up in one of its articles on Palin — a front-page story Friday with the headline “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska.”
As pointed out by The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the original version posted online used harsher language than the one that hit Beltway newsstands early Friday morning.
The original passage, written by staff writer Anne E. Kornblut, read:
“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’
“The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”
But in the print version, and the version now appearing on the newspaper’s Web site, the article softened its claim a bit by swapping in the last line with this:
“But it is widely agreed that militants allied with Al Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.”
These are the sort of things one is used to in Blogs at The Atlantic, something written by Marc Ambinder or Andrew Sullivan, journalism being passed of in a personal blog, being so blatant and all.
Below, you will see the questions Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin in red and the questions Gibson asked Barack Obama in blue. The questions appear in the order in which they were asked:
- “Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”
- “Today, in our ‘Who Is?’ series, a Democrat relatively new to national politics; Senator Barack Obama. Your mom comes from the Pacific Northwest, migrates to Hawaii, goes to college there, right away, meets a dashing young Kenyan, gets pregnant and the result [is] you.” (Voiceover) His father got a fellowship to study on the mainland and never came back. “Obama’s mother would remarry and take her son to Indonesia for five years. Only once again did he ever see his father, that, when Obama was 10, he didn’t care enough to stay. How did you internalize that?”
- “And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?” … Didn’t that take some hubris?”
- “For five years out of college, he worked to pay off student loans and was a community organizer in Chicago, which led him back to school, Harvard Law School, and on a summer job, met this young woman. Did you know right away?”
- “But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?”
- “They have two daughters, Malia and Sasha. At first, Obama was intimidated by the Harvard law students, but he found he could more than hold his own, finishing first in his class and being editor of the ‘Harvard Law Review.’ He’s candid: it was at Harvard he first thought of running for President. So did you think to yourself, ‘Barack, what kind of hubris is this that I am thinking about being President?’”
- “Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?”
- “You have written, ‘I learned to slip back and forth between my black and my white worlds.’ The simple question I guess is in which world do you really belong?”
This is where Gibson ended his initial interview with Barack Obama. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, continues to get hammered …
- “Have you ever met a foreign head of state?”
- “The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?”
- “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?”
- “Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?”
- “And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?”
- “And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade?”
- “Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?”
- “So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?”
- “What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?”
- “So, if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?”
- “We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?”
- “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”
- “Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?”
- “You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?”
- “Then are you sending your son on a task form God?”
















Stumble It!