Currently viewing the tag: “Bias”

Stephen Colbert is excited that a government shutdown may be only 8 days away, “That means it’s time to get out my Congressional Budget menorah… You extinguish one candle on every magical night as we march toward the collapse of the republic.”

Today’s Must See Moment — Fast forward to 1:20 when Jon Stewart tries to save FNC anchor Bret Baier from bias in the news.

Take our Late Night Poll after the jump.

Hotline On Call

Tagged with:
 

Stephen Colbert is excited that a government shutdown may be only 8 days away, “That means it’s time to get out my Congressional Budget menorah… You extinguish one candle on every magical night as we march toward the collapse of the republic.”

Today’s Must See Moment — Fast forward to 1:20 when Jon Stewart tries to save FNC anchor Bret Baier from bias in the news.

Take our Late Night Poll after the jump.

Hotline On Call

Tagged with:
 

NewsBusters and others have, on many occasions, pointed out the apparent conflict of interest in NBC-Universal and its various media affiliates (both news and entertainment) pushing for policies that would benefit General Electric, who until recently was the majority stakeholder in NBC-U, and still retains a large portion of ownership over the company.

Recent events seem to vindicate that concern. Since the New York Times reported last week that GE paid no taxes in the United States despite being the country's most profitable business, no "straight news" reporter on NBC has yet mentioned the controversy. NBC's silence suggests that its news-gathering operation is, to some extent, subordinated to the interests of its parent company.

And though many on the left are disposed to label that slant a bias to the right (since many liberals simple assume that corporations are, by their nature, conservative in their politics), many of GE's ventures not only align with liberal policy objectives, but often use the power of the state, enhanced by liberal economic policies, to promote their own economic agenda.

For evidence that GE sees its own interests as aligned with the current administration, one need look no further than its CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Mere days after President Obama's inauguration, Immelt sent a letter to shareholders outlining, in no vague terms, the company's emerging partnership with the federal government (emphasis mine).

…I believe we are going through more than a cycle. The global economy, and capitalism, will be “reset” in several important ways.

The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.

This partnership Immelt referred to extended to some key legislative priorities advanced by the president and congressional Democrats during the early stages of the Obama administration. Cap and trade represented perhaps the greatest potential political windfall for GE, and the company did not hesitate to exert its influence in Washington to advance its interests through cap and trade legislation.

Since 1998, GE has been by far the largest lobbying force among private companies in Washington, having spent more than $ 236 million on its lobbying shop since then. The influence it welds as a result led to a key role for GE in actually writing the House cap and trade bill. "[W]e were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives," GE executive John Rice told employees in an August, 2009 letter. "If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses."

"The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever," Rice wrote. With a Democrat in the White House, the party's large majorities in Congress, and a liberal legislative agenda on the docket, GE's financial interests were aligned, more than ever before, with the federal government's agenda.

This is all to say that a bias towards the interests of General Electric is a liberal bias. The company advances and benefits from leftist policies, so to say that a news outlet supports GE's political interests is to say that it supports leftist policies.

Thus far only NBC-affiliated cable commentators have noted the lack of taxes paid by GE. NBC-U insists it was purely innocent editorial decision not to cover the story. But as Jon Stewart pointed out, Brian Williams still found time to report on the Oxford English Dictionary's official addition of OMG. The GE story would seem to be bigger news.

NBC's silence lends weight to claims that GE's media arm serves the company's financial interests to some extent. Since those interests and liberal politics are aligned, NBC is, whether in intends to or not, advancing a liberal political agenda.

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

Conjecture, anonymous sources, half-truths — all routine in attacking Israel.
American Thinker Blog

Tagged with:
 

Even when they tackle the question of NPR's liberal bias, NPR can't help themselves. The NPR show On The Media on Saturday aired segment a segment on the question of bias lasting 18 minutes. NPR offered the largest chunk of time (eight minutes) to Tom Rosenstiel of the Pew Research Center, who asserted that data on story selection and tone do not demonstrate a liberal bias at NPR. 

Another almost three minutes were granted to Steve Rendall of the radical-left group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. He wouldn't say NPR was conservative, but complained "we've had four decades of formal campaigning by the right, by groups like Accuracy in Media, the Media Research Center, the Heritage Foundation to portray our media, corporate and public broadcasting, as being to the left of center. It's paid off. And I think the fact that we're having this discussion here [in which Rendall was allowed to speak, and MRC and AIM and Heritage were not], the fact that there's a debate in Congress shows how much it's paid off."  

By contrast, NPR host Brooke Gladstone devoted 90 seconds to the findings of professors Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, who found, she said, that NPR was "much less liberal than the New York Times." Conservatives were represented not by experts, but by two average NPR listeners, who were granted five minutes. That's about 35 percent of the time.

The two conservatives argued for a liberal-bias thesis, but were limited to current anecdotes. There were no questions about Schiller & Schiller or the Juan Williams firing or anything about the big picture of NPR. Both their examples were also noted by NewsBusters, which Gladstone acknowleged on one: "The question that Kevin Putt objected to was also cited by the conservative media criticism site NewsBusters, which called it a liberal question that demonstrated liberal skepticism."

That dealt with Michele Norris asking the CEO of Intel if the country could "afford" a corporate tax holiday. The other example was the one-sided pro-amnesty report from Utah by Mara Liasson.

Developing…

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

Even when they tackle the question of NPR's liberal bias, NPR can't help themselves. The NPR show On The Media on Saturday aired segment a segment on the question of bias lasting 18 minutes. NPR offered the largest chunk of time (eight minutes) to Tom Rosenstiel of the Pew Research Center, who asserted that data on story selection and tone do not demonstrate a liberal bias at NPR. 

Another almost three minutes were granted to Steve Rendall of the radical-left group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. He wouldn't say NPR was conservative, but complained "we've had four decades of formal campaigning by the right, by groups like Accuracy in Media, the Media Research Center, the Heritage Foundation to portray our media, corporate and public broadcasting, as being to the left of center. It's paid off. And I think the fact that we're having this discussion here [in which Rendall was allowed to speak, and MRC and AIM and Heritage were not], the fact that there's a debate in Congress shows how much it's paid off."  

By contrast, NPR host Brooke Gladstone devoted 90 seconds to the findings of professors Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, who found, she said, that NPR was "much less liberal than the New York Times." Conservatives were represented not by experts, but by two average NPR listeners, who were granted five minutes. That's about 35 percent of the time.

The two conservatives argued for a liberal-bias thesis, but were limited to current anecdotes. There were no questions about Schiller & Schiller or the Juan Williams firing or anything about the big picture of NPR. Both their examples were also noted by NewsBusters, which Gladstone acknowleged on one: "The question that Kevin Putt objected to was also cited by the conservative media criticism site NewsBusters, which called it a liberal question that demonstrated liberal skepticism."

That dealt with Michele Norris asking the CEO of Intel if the country could "afford" a corporate tax holiday. The other example was the one-sided pro-amnesty report from Utah by Mara Liasson.

Developing…

NewsBusters.org blogs

Tagged with:
 

CNN allows a rare voice of common sense to break through amid its recent barrage of Islamic victimhood posturing stories and Islamic supremacist propaganda. “Don’t overstate anti-Muslim bias,” by William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn for CNN, March 26 (thanks to AINA):

(CNN) — Almost two weeks after the House Homeland Security Committee hearing on radicalization in the Muslim community in America, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin has announced he will hold a hearing in the Senate. But, rather than focus on the problem of radicalization in the Muslim community, Durbin’s panel will be directed to another subject: anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States.

Senator Durbin has said anti-Islamic sentiment in America is on the rise and that, “It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter’s commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.” The hearing, scheduled for next week, follows a CNN special to air this Sunday, “Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door.” […]

Despite what may have gone on in Murfreesboro with the mosque its adherents have wanted to build, the larger story of anti-Islamic bias in America does not hold water.

Let’s start with the national numbers: 8.4 percent of religious hate crimes in America were anti-Muslim in 2009 (the most recent date for which statistics are available). By contrast, that same year, nearly 72 percent of religious hate crimes in America were anti-Jewish (Muslims in America faced 107 incidents of bias in 2009; Jews faced 931).

This pattern has remained fairly consistent over the past decade. For example, in 2002, 10.5 percent of the religious bias crimes in America were anti-Muslim while 65% were anti-Jewish; in 2006 (just to pick another post- 9/11/2001 year), 11.9 percent of the religious bias crimes in America were anti-Muslim while 65.4 percent were anti-Jewish. (It is worth noting here that exact statistics on the Muslim population in America are hard to assess — estimates range from 2.6 million to 7 million, a number President Obama cited — the Jewish population is generally agreed upon at about 6.5 million). […]

So what is that larger story? Bigotry is, of course, abhorrent. But given that America has been targeted by a great deal of terrorism in the name of Islam over the past decade — targeted by terrorists who say they are acting in the name of Islam — America has not over-reacted in a wave of anti-Muslim bigotry.

Whatever may be the case in Murfreesboro, notice the rest of the story out of Tennessee: Muslim leaders in cities from Chattanooga to Knoxville to Memphis say they have “experienced no hostility.”…

Read it all.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

From Palin’s Facebook page:

Lamestream Media: Reload or White Flag?

Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense.”

Upon my return from an outstanding and productive trip to India and Israel, I’ve been inundated with requests to respond to petty comments made in the media the past few days, including one little fella’s comment which decent people would find degrading. (I won’t bother responding to it though, because it was made by he who reminds me of an annoying little mosquito found zipped up in your tent; he can’t do any harm, but buzzes around annoyingly until it’s time to give him the proverbial slap.)

I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I’d like to share my thoughts on the never-ending issue of media bias.

When it comes to responding to the media, the standard warning is: Don’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel because calling out the media and holding them accountable is a risky endeavor. Too often the first instinct is to ignore blatant media bias, crudeness, and outright lies, and just hope the media instigator will grow up and provide fairer coverage if you bite your tongue and not challenge the false reporting of an openly hostile press. But I’ve never bought into that. That’s waving the white flag. I just can’t do it because I have too much respect for the importance of a free press as a cornerstone of our democracy, and I have great respect for the men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much to defend that First Amendment right. Media, with freedom comes responsibility.

Friends, too often conservatives or Republicans in general come across as having the fighting instinct of sheep. I don’t. I was raised to believe that you don’t retreat when you’re on solid ground; so even though it often seems like I’m armed with just a few stones and a sling against a media giant, I’ll use those small resources to do what I can to set the record straight. The truth is always worth fighting for. Doing so isn’t whining or “playing the victim card”; it’s defending the truth in fairness to those who seek accurate information. I’ll keep attempting to correct misinformation and falsehoods about myself and my record, and I will certainly never shy from defending others who are unfairly attacked. This is in the name of justice.

But two decades in politics have taught me that when it comes to picking battles, often it’s best to ignore the truly petty, ugly personal media shots because engaging in a counter argument with disreputable, intolerant people doesn’t vindicate me; it merely gives those people the attention they seek. It wastes my time and it distracts from what we should focus on.

We must always remember the big picture. The media has always been biased. Conservatives – and especially conservative women – have always been held to a different standard and attacked. This is nothing new. Lincoln was mocked and ridiculed. Reagan was called an amiable dunce, a dangerous warmonger, a rightwing fanatic, and the insult list goes on and on. (But somehow Reagan still managed to win two major electoral landslides, and this was in the days before the internet and talk radio when all he had were three biased network news channels spinning reports on him. If he could do so much with so little and still be such an optimistic and positive leader, then surely we can succeed with the new media tools at our disposal.)

Let’s just acknowledge that commonsense conservatives must be stronger and work that much harder because of the obvious bias. And let’s be encouraged with a sense of poetic justice by knowing that the “mainstream” media isn’t mainstream anymore. That’s why I call it “lamestream,” and the LSM is becoming quite irrelevant, as it is no longer the sole gatekeeper of information.

Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Even with limited time we can try to call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense.

I’ll keep correcting false reporting, and I’ll defend others to the hilt; but I won’t spend any more precious, limited time responding to personal, vulgar, sexist venom spewed my way.

Read the rest here.


Big Journalism

Tagged with:
 

It is most interesting to see how the mainstream media’s initial breaking stories betray their inherent anti-Israel bias. Then when their attention is called to this, they quietly change their articles, without acknowledging the initial bias.

For the second time in three weeks, Reuters has shown what they really think of Israel.

On March 12, Reuters referred to the IDF as “Israel’s occupation forces” – an anti-Israel term used by Arabs only. They silently corrected that.

This time, Reuters headlined its story about the terror attack today this way:

Jerusalem bombing kills woman after 7-year lull

And then it says:

Police said it was a “terrorist attack” – Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.

I grabbed this from the Reuters-UK feed, because the American version was quickly changed (and the UK version might be changed by the time I post this.). The headline is now

Bomb explodes near Jerusalem bus, 1 dead, 30 hurt

and the other sentence has been turned into a lie:

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the explosion, which Israeli police termed a Palestinian “suicide attack.”

No one said this was a suicide bombing!

But back to the initial headline. Reuters is saying that there has been a seven year lull in bombings in Jerusalem.

This is not only a lie, but it is intentionally misleading.

The last suicide attack in Jerusalem was in September, 2004. But there have been other suicide bombings in Israel since then, as recently as 2008  (Dimona.)

But let’s say that Reuters is only talking about Jerusalem, for some reason, as if terror attacks there are different than those in the rest of Israel. The last fatal terror attack in Jerusalem was a man being knifed to death in October, 2008, and in July 2008 three Jerusalem Jews were killed by a terrorist who rammed into them with a bulldozer.

But let’s say that Reuters is only referring to roadside bombs. There was a pipe-bomb in Gilo, Jerusalem only a couple of weeks ago, and a sanitation worker lost his arm in the explosion. Obviously the intent was to kill there as well.

So Reuters, by seemingly referring only to the lack of major, fatal bombings in Jerusalem itself as a “lull,” was  consciously trying to minimize the number of terror attacks in Jerusalem – in the headline of an article about the latest attack!

Not to mention that Reuters pooh-poohs the term “terrorist attack” as some sort of Israeli propaganda when a mere 38 people are injured and only one dead. Reuters instead refers to it in more military terms: a “Palestinian strike.” No doubt the lady who was killed was a legitimate military target as well, in Reuters’ writers’ minds.

They say that you can find out how people really think when they are drunk or sleepy.  In reuters’ case, you can see how they really feel in the initial bulletins after Jews are killed.

(h/t Zach)



Elder of Ziyon

Tagged with:
 

APbias.jpg

Shameful. (Thanks to Multisync.)

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

APbias.jpg

Shameful. (Thanks to Multisync.)

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Newsweek’s Howard Kurtz suggests “What’s Killing NPR” is its failure to strike back at conservative charges of liberal bias: “Staffers flown in for a recent meeting in Washington groaned when executives said it would be too risky for them to aggressively defend NPR, and that perhaps they should get media training for Joyce Slocum, who took over on an interim basis after the firing of CEO Vivian Schiller.”

Kurtz quotes a series of angry NPR anchors who think they are the essence of fairness and balance. Morning Edition anchor Steve Inskeep insists. “I actually get accused of being a conservative as often as I get accused of being a liberal.” Kurtz asserted in an NPR survey last year, 37 percent of listeners described themselves as liberal or very liberal, 25 percent as middle of the road, and 28 percent as conservative or very conservative—a split he said was very much on Inskeep’s mind. “If you’re saying we’re a liberal propaganda front,” he says, “you’re insulting the intelligence of millions and millions of conservatives who listen to us every day. You are saying they’re stupid.”

MSNBC also has a decent chunk of audience members who identify as conservatives – nearly every political news/talk show in America would have a decent chunk of conservative audience members. That’s no way to measure bias. Besides, I would tell pollsters I listen to NPR every day – and I think it’s thoroughly, intensely biased. Some of us listen precisely to hear how liberal or radical it gets. The apparent source for all this is a Mediamark survey touted in an April 2010 blog post, but that piece does not say when the survey was done.

Kurtz omitted what NPR’s own ombudsman Alicia Shepard acknowledged in 2009 about NPR’s surveys and bias:

The Ombudsman's office gets deluged with emails, comments, phone calls, and the perception here — among a staffer, an intern and me — is that the majority of them are critical of NPR for being too "mainstream" or for being too conservative. [That sounds like the Inskeep defense.]

But that doesn't gibe with recent NPR-commissioned scientific polling on how its audience views the coverage. A June 30 report says that 50 percent of the total audience sees NPR's news coverage as balanced; while more than 40 percent see NPR as liberal and only 4 percent thought it had a conservative slant.

Bizarrely, Shepard reported that only two percent of self-identified “very liberal” survey respondents thought NPR was conservative, but 15 percent of “very conservative” respondents said it was. (I would challenge the intelligence of someone who says they’re “very conservative” and thinks NPR is “conservative.”) One would assume this survey asked if they listened to NPR, not that they listened to NPR news programming. So conservatives could listen to an NPR station daily to hear classical or jazz music as well.

Kurtz quoted a series of outraged NPR journalists who dismiss conservative charges of bias:

“Our problems don’t have much to do with what we do, but with the people who manage what we do,” says Robert Siegel, co-host of All Things Considered. “I don’t think we’re antagonists to Fox the way MSNBC is. We certainly seem to disappoint a lot of doctrinaire liberals who expect different programming from us.”

Scott Simon, who hosts Weekend Edition Saturday, says that “every NPR journalist I know makes a real attempt to be fair and balanced. That’s why Schiller’s remarks were so repugnant to me … Ron Schiller seemed to be expressing an almost perfect caricature of a smug, elitist, toadying viewpoint.” 

Simon somehow thinks it's not smugly liberal for him to seek out Christopher Hitchens to trash Mother Teresa when she died. But NPR celebrated radical lesbian feminist Mary Daly as an "icon" to nuns. Ira Glass of the show This American Life seems the angriest that NPR's not whacking back at conservatives:

“Public radio is being hit with a barrage of criticism that it’s left-wing media–biased, reprehensible—and we’re doing nothing to stand up for our brand,” he tells NEWSWEEK. “They’re not responding like a multimedia organization that’s actually growing and superpopular.” 

Glass's show celebrates eight-year-old transgenders – but who's saying that's edgy and progressive?

NewsBusters.org blogs

Tagged with:
 

WI judge and her conflict of interest problem.
American Thinker Blog

Tagged with: