Archive

More slime on my former profession as liberal journalists planned ways to help Obama

  • Writerbuckeye
    during Rev. Wright fiasco in 2008. Information obtained and released by Tucker Carlson (yes he's conservative) show a group of influential and elite journalists and journalism academics were wanting to do things like accuse a prominent conservative of racism -- to turn attention away from Obama's troubles with Rev. Wright.

    It is just more stink on a profession that has already exposed itself of late as being so in the tank for the President, they simply won't do the job they have been entrusted with doing (watchdog) with this administration.

    If anyone still doesn't believe that most journalists went "all in" to get this guy elected, this is more proof you are dead wrong, and just adds to the black marks the profession keeps accumulating at the same time many of them are struggling to survive.

    Here's a link to the Fox News story http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/20/liberal-journalists-reportedly-plotted-protect-candidate-obama-jeremiah-wright/

    And for those of you who want something a bit more sophisticated, the Wall St. Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
  • iclfan2
    Color me shocked!
  • Mr. 300
    Why we were told there's no liberal bias in the media.....are you now trying to tell us there actually is??
  • tk421
    No, I'm so shocked. The liberal media is biased?
  • sjmvsfscs08
    It's Bush's fault.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Mr. 300;428383 wrote:Why we were told there's no liberal bias in the media.....are you now trying to tell us there actually is??
    Well... some will say that there might be a LITTLE bias going on, but nothing outright ;)
  • Writerbuckeye
    I know. People are shocked...SHOCKED that this could happen.

    But they have to be told. ;)
  • IggyPride00
    The media as a whole, both liberal and conservative, is all screwed up.

    Turns out that NAACP story about the racist woman at the Georgia rural development department all the news stations have been running was a cut up and edited video.

    The whole video has now surfaced, and apparently this part of the story was left out of the edited version Breitbart initially posted which got Fox and the other networks in a tizzy:
    It was actually part of a 25 year old story Sherrod said the short video clip excluded the breadth of the story about how she eventually worked with the man over a two-year period to help ward off foreclosure of his farm, and how she eventually became friends with him and his wife. "And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."
    This game is getting so old. It's like the liberal media wants to focus on the Tea Party being racist so they selectively edit to push their agenda, and then Fox and the Conservative media then have to do their own selective editing to make liberal groups seem like racists.

    All the while most of the people watching Fox and the regular networks are clueless as to the fact the videos they are showing to push their narrative are all doctored. They get their world views reinforced, and perpetuate the madness.

    I wonder why the American electorate is so stupid sometimes, and it is because we have a media that just continually lies to us. There is not an honest platform out there right now, and we are worse off for it as a country.
  • Footwedge
    IP..you crapped on another love-fest here. Seriously, I think that the race baiting, exacerbated by the internet, is setting us back. If dogs could talk, I wonder if they too would be racist. I know they don't kill each other...for any reason. Not like the homo sapiens. Dogs would probably balance the national budget too.
  • gut
    While the WSJ is a long-respected publication, it's somewhat humorous to back-up a Fox News pub with a WSJ link....You do realize both are owned by News Corp and Rupert Murdoch?

    I don't get the Fox hate. They are no better or worse than the others, IMO. I watch them all - I can filter out the BS. I will say, however, that after the merger WSJ took on a considerably more conservative tone that it already was as a mostly finance/business pub.
  • IggyPride00
    during Rev. Wright fiasco in 2008. Information obtained and released by Tucker Carlson (yes he's conservative) show a group of influential and elite journalists and journalism academics were wanting to do things like accuse a prominent conservative of racism -- to turn attention away from Obama's troubles with Rev. Wright.
    Is this really any different than Breitbart and his cronies releasing the Sherrod video of her addressing the NAACP heavily edited as to fan racial flames in an effort to turn the attention away from the recent accusations of the Tea Party being a racist organization? Breitbart posts the video on the biggovernment.com site, Fox runs with it all day yesterday with O'Reilly and Hannity nearly having a coronary, and it turns out the video was a total misrepresentation edited to make it look like something it wasn't.

    Glen Beck of all people came to the woman's defense today saying that it would be no different than editing a video of him saying he use to be drunk all day as an alcoholic, and leaving out the part where he says before he found Christ. Context is wildly important.

    As Conservatives we are supposed to be better than liberals about this kind of stuff, or at the very least no hypocritical. You make a post excoriating the liberal media for trying to divert away from Rev Wright, yet is the Conservative media not engaged in the same thing on Fox and talk radio by running with cooked up stories about a supposed racist (which turned out not to be the case) as payback for others calling the Tea Party racist?

    I don't like it when Liberals do it, and I won't support Conservatives doing it. There is no moral high ground to preach about the liberal media when we're actively engaged in the same thing.
  • believer
    IggyPride00;428667 wrote:I don't like it when Liberals do it, and I won't support Conservatives doing it. There is no moral high ground to preach about the liberal media when we're actively engaged in the same thing.
    Perhaps but I think it's reasonable to say it's not nearly to the same degree.

    While the liberal "mainstream" media cries foul that the "new media" (IE: Fox News and talk radio) has severely eaten into that tried and true capitalist idea known as market share, the mainstream media has made spinning & distorting facts to advance the liberal political agenda an art form.

    I strongly believe that if the "Fourth Estate" had been doing its job the past couple of decades by practicing true objective and balanced professional journalism as opposed to being a sickeningly obvious mouthpiece for the political left, the "new media" may not have arisen at all.

    Talk radio is definitely biased because it is not truly journalism. It's more political commentary/entertainment than journalism and most of these talk show hosts admit they are not true journalists. Remove the talking head shows from the Fox News line-up (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) and I can honestly say that Murdoch's Fox News - while clearly more slanted right than the mainstream media - tends to be far more "fair & balanced" as their moniker suggests than their counterparts in CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, the NY Times, etc., etc., etc. It also explains why Fox News is #1.

    Maybe someday some clever liberal media capitalist will finally see that a truly fair & balanced news network might draw an audience from both sides of the political aisle by trying something new....true professional journalism.

    In the meantime I for one am glad that we have now have optional sources of spin and biased news.
  • IggyPride00
    Maybe someday some clever liberal media capitalist will finally see that a truly fair & balanced news network might draw an audience from both sides of the political aisle by trying something new....true professional journalism.
    The sad thing is that people always say that about some news organization trying to be non-biased and people might flock to it, but over time I have realized that for the most part people look to news outfits that are just going to reinforce their beliefs. Conservatives watch Fox because they will like what they hear and more importantly won't hear, and Liberals frequent MSNBC for the same reason. CNN tried the centrist thing the past few years in their prime-time line-up by avoiding the Olberman/Maddow, Beck/Hannity type commentators and instead trying to do the fair and balanced presentation thing. It left them in the abyss ratings wise because people want to watch people that have an opinion.
  • QuakerOats
    IggyPride00;428688 wrote:The sad thing is that people always say that about some news organization trying to be non-biased and people might flock to it, but over time I have realized that for the most part people look to news outfits that are just going to reinforce their beliefs. Conservatives watch Fox because they will like what they hear and more importantly won't hear, and Liberals frequent MSNBC for the same reason. CNN tried the centrist thing the past few years in their prime-time line-up by avoiding the Olberman/Maddow, Beck/Hannity type commentators and instead trying to do the fair and balanced presentation thing. It left them in the abyss ratings wise because people want to watch people that have an opinion.

    It is when "journalists" allow their idealogogy to influence their reporting, yet all the while put on a serious front implying that they are serious journalists only reporting the facts, which makes my stomach churn. They realize they are influencing the dumbed down masses to a great degree and it is the left that has made a living from it for 4 decades. Unfortunately for them, in the information age, both sides of every story are now available and all the facts can be examined ----- thankfully.
  • Bigdogg
    Their only objective is to make money. If they can do it by furthering the owners personal philosophy then all the better. If your not smart enough to collect your information from multiple sources and filter out the B.S. then that is your problem.
  • stlouiedipalma
    Quaker--

    Do you realize that over the past four decades the left (meaning the Democrats) have occupied the White House for just over 13 years? This goes all the way back to 1968, when Nixon was elected. If the liberal media has been influencing the "dumbed down masses" as you say, I believe they haven't done a very good job at it. If their influence is as great as some here believe, it would stand to reason that more left-leaners would have been elected President.

    Or it could be said that the "dumbed down masses" don't vote.
  • Writerbuckeye
    stlouiedipalma;428805 wrote:Quaker--

    Do you realize that over the past four decades the left (meaning the Democrats) have occupied the White House for just over 13 years? This goes all the way back to 1968, when Nixon was elected. If the liberal media has been influencing the "dumbed down masses" as you say, I believe they haven't done a very good job at it. If their influence is as great as some here believe, it would stand to reason that more left-leaners would have been elected President.

    Or it could be said that the "dumbed down masses" don't vote.

    And during that same period, how much have the Democrats dominated Congress? One could argue that having control of Congress is a bit more important than the presidency -- because if you have enough control, you can pretty do as you like when it comes to creating laws. A president alone can't do squat if he's facing an opposition Congress that is intent on stopping him (see Clinton for an example).

    I'd say the media has had more influence in this area than you think -- and I also think the "dumb masses" aren't as dumb as the media elites have viewed them as being for decades.
  • Writerbuckeye
    IggyPride00;428667 wrote:Is this really any different than Breitbart and his cronies releasing the Sherrod video of her addressing the NAACP heavily edited as to fan racial flames in an effort to turn the attention away from the recent accusations of the Tea Party being a racist organization? Breitbart posts the video on the biggovernment.com site, Fox runs with it all day yesterday with O'Reilly and Hannity nearly having a coronary, and it turns out the video was a total misrepresentation edited to make it look like something it wasn't.

    Glen Beck of all people came to the woman's defense today saying that it would be no different than editing a video of him saying he use to be drunk all day as an alcoholic, and leaving out the part where he says before he found Christ. Context is wildly important.

    As Conservatives we are supposed to be better than liberals about this kind of stuff, or at the very least no hypocritical. You make a post excoriating the liberal media for trying to divert away from Rev Wright, yet is the Conservative media not engaged in the same thing on Fox and talk radio by running with cooked up stories about a supposed racist (which turned out not to be the case) as payback for others calling the Tea Party racist?

    I don't like it when Liberals do it, and I won't support Conservatives doing it. There is no moral high ground to preach about the liberal media when we're actively engaged in the same thing.

    Yes. Immensely different. One was during a presidential primary and was intended to influence the outcome of that primary. Huge difference.
  • jhay78
    Writerbuckeye;428852 wrote:Yes. Immensely different. One was during a presidential primary and was intended to influence the outcome of that primary. Huge difference.

    Exactly. It took, what, 24 hours to figure out that video was doctored, when by comparison, no one in the mainstream media to this day gives two cents about Rev Wright and his influence on Obama.

    And with regards to racism, it's not just the liberal media that perpetuates the myth. Liberals in Congress (multiple ones in fact) have stated, or at least implied, that the Tea Party is racist. Nancy Pelosi and the two black reps strolling down the street the day health care passed were deliberately looking to bait protesters into doing/saying something awful. Despite multiple videos rolling, and with no evidence whatsoever, they still cooked up allegations of racial slurs and spitting.

    I think Americans are figuring out that 1) the race card is getting old, and ain't working so well any more; and 2) racism is a two-way street. We don't need a doctored video of a black USDA official to prove that. Look no further than Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and the New Black Panthers in Philly on election day 2008- where there is definitive video evidence of racism and a crime being committed (even though the Justice Dept. practically ignored it), and per usual the liberal media yawned at that story. So I disagree with IggyPride and others claiming "oh yeah, liberals and conservatives are no different" when it comes to the race issue.
  • Bigdogg
    jhay78;428878 wrote:Exactly. It took, what, 24 hours to figure out that video was doctored, when by comparison, no one in the mainstream media to this day gives two cents about Rev Wright and his influence on Obama.

    And with regards to racism, it's not just the liberal media that perpetuates the myth. Liberals in Congress (multiple ones in fact) have stated, or at least implied, that the Tea Party is racist. Nancy Pelosi and the two black reps strolling down the street the day health care passed were deliberately looking to bait protesters into doing/saying something awful. Despite multiple videos rolling, and with no evidence whatsoever, they still cooked up allegations of racial slurs and spitting.

    I think Americans are figuring out that 1) the race card is getting old, and ain't working so well any more; and 2) racism is a two-way street. We don't need a doctored video of a black USDA official to prove that. Look no further than Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and the New Black Panthers in Philly on election day 2008- where there is definitive video evidence of racism and a crime being committed (even though the Justice Dept. practically ignored it), and per usual the liberal media yawned at that story. So I disagree with IggyPride and others claiming "oh yeah, liberals and conservatives are no different" when it comes to the race issue.

    The media yawned at it because they saw it like most people did, I non story. So some idiot stands outside the poll and looks scary to you, where were all the interviews of the people who were "scared away" from casting their vote?
  • Writerbuckeye
    Do you honestly believe that if the situation had been reversed (scary white guys in a black precinct) the media would have ignored it?

    Of course you don't.

    There's your answer, fishbulb.
  • QuakerOats
    stlouiedipalma;428805 wrote:Quaker--

    Do you realize that over the past four decades the left (meaning the Democrats) have occupied the White House for just over 13 years? This goes all the way back to 1968, when Nixon was elected. If the liberal media has been influencing the "dumbed down masses" as you say, I believe they haven't done a very good job at it. If their influence is as great as some here believe, it would stand to reason that more left-leaners would have been elected President.

    Or it could be said that the "dumbed down masses" don't vote.
    Or could it be that they didn't have the truth on their side ............
  • QuakerOats
    Bigdogg;428923 wrote:The media yawned at it because they saw it like most people did, I non story. So some idiot stands outside the poll and looks scary to you, where were all the interviews of the people who were "scared away" from casting their vote?

    Wow.
    http://www.gryffn.com/blog/2010/07/new-black-panther-cover-up-uncovered/
  • jhay78
    Bigdogg;428923 wrote:The media yawned at it because they saw it like most people did, I non story. So some idiot stands outside the poll and looks scary to you, where were all the interviews of the people who were "scared away" from casting their vote?

    Scared or not, a crime was committed, and blatant racial slurs were being used.

    If a couple of KKK dudes stood outside a polling place dressed in white robes, uttering racial slurs and wielding a freaking nightstick, you and I and everyone else who watches more than 5 seconds of TV news would've heard about it and been reminded about it 3 times a day for the past 18 months, the perpetrators would've had the book thrown at them by the (In-)Justice Department, and it would be front-page, in your face reminders come November 2010: "Law enforcement officials are cracking down at polling places across the country to avoid a repeat of the hideous, scary, intimidating KKK incident two years ago." Every member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be foaming at the mouth denouncing what happened.



    But two members of the New Black Panthers do it? YAWN . . .
  • jhay78

    Utterly freaking outrageous.

    Sound familiar?
    Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.
    Of course they didn't. Then they actually might be compelled to enforce the law. All the criticism of Obama that gets deflected by the spineless members of our media should fall on the cowardly thugs he appoints to government positions.