30 4 mins 14 yrs

Newsbusters brings us what for some may be a shocking transcript and video of two ‘journalists’ showing their total bias and lack of objectivity (and therefore ability to do their damn jobs!) for all to see. Whichever side of the debate you’re on, it is clear that this pretty pair have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about bringing their own side of the debate to work with them, so to speak.

Howard Kurtz is asking them why positive indicators from Iraq were buried to obscurity by most media outlets in the US, but negative events would always be splashed over the front pages. The responses were quite blatant examples of the enormous ideological agenda which these so-called ‘journalists’ bring to their supposedly objective work.

Troop casualties fall for the fourth straight month?

Robin Wright of the Washington Post:

"The fact is we’re at the beginning of a trend — and it’s not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers."

Pretty simple, moron. Note the names of the poor bloody soldiers who have died while you were busy undermining their mission, add them up. That’s how we count numbers in the real world.

Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent:

"But that’s the problem, we don’t know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress."

Got that? Troop casualties falling for four months straight is unclear and definitely not any kind of a trend, and of course there is a mythical ‘dispute’ over how to count to a few dozen. Bet if it was a few hundred that ‘dispute’ would vanish like a puff of integrity.

But, asks Kurtz, what if the figures showed US and Iraqi civilian casualties going up instead of down? The instant response from dear Barb:

"Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that’s certainly — that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We’ve had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this."

Wow. She might as well have gone into the studio wearing a MoveOn T-Shirt. And this is a chief correspondent from a national news station…the naked face of the media enemy, there for all to see.  

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

30 thoughts on “The Naked Face Of The Media Enemy

  1. A free press is an enemy? If one accepts these journalists as unduly biased for the sake of your argument, one must also point out that the bias was featured by another journalist. A corrective action.

    It is the role of journalists to try to make the government accountable.

  2. Absolute rubbish. It is the job of journalists to report the news, not to only report the news that fits their own political agenda. Equating a journalist exposing bias with others who publically justify it is ridiculous.

  3. Mahons: "It is the role of journalists to try to make the government accountable."

    I think the role of journalism is to report the news. Not to be an activist watchdog for the "people."

    Or, if a reporter choses an activist role, he/she should state clearly that they are performing such a role.

    Yours is a common, accepted belief, however.

  4. DSD: Well their reporting doesn’t suit YOUR agenda, and that is clear.

    I don’t think you understand what I meant. You launch a broad attack on journalism without acknowledging that the alleged bias was exposed by a journalist.

    We have a free press and it makes mistakes just like other areas. While its mistakes and/or bias is rightly subject for review, the alternative (a non-free press is unthinkable).

  5. It is the job of journalists to report the news, not to only report the news that fits their own political agenda.

    LOL!

    DSD, do you ever watch Fox News and its "fair and balanced" commentators like Bill O’Reilly?

  6. Interesting evolution in news reporting going on under our noses.

    We can get the news – straight-up – from the internet now.

    Leaving the MSM either in the dust. Or becoming partisan bullhorns. I actually see nothing wrong with the MSM being highly partisan — I just think that they need to stop pretending that they are not partisan.

    Before the Fairness Doctrine (1949 -1988?) media was outspokenly partisan. Especially in the early part of 1900’s. Fairness Doctrine was enacted because of the virtual monopoly so few news carriers had over the public airways. It was only fair to present both sides.

    Now, there are more ways to get the news than humanly possible – no monopoly. And certainly no need to pretend "objective fairness."

  7. Patty: Mine is a common belief, shared of course with the founding fathers of our nation (indeed Thomas Jefferson remarked that he would rather have newspapers and no government than a government and no newspapers).

    The concept of the Free Press is a hallmark of our nation, and in fact predates its founding (recall the Zenger trial?). Government used to be able to punish any criticism of the state, even if true.

    We are a nation formed in revolution that recognized the need of the people to challenge the state and the need for a free press to do so.

  8. Its their job to factually report the news or make it clear when it is an op-ed and the press has been well murky on this issue regards the war. I agree with DSDs post but I also agree with Peter that overall bias cuts both ways.

  9. You make a very good point, Mahons.

    In reality, much of the MSM is so overwhelming liberal that they are not "watchdogs" so much as partisan cheerleaders for the Democrats. Which is why Rush, and Fox represent a breath of fresh air for conservatives. And why "free speech" should remain free of governmental meddling.

    Henry Waxman (D) is now investigating RUsh, and several other talk show hosts…investigating! For having conservative opinions?!.. this is the Government (albeit not the current party of the current administration) investigating a journalist…. for what? Because people are listening to him?

    Whether Repub. or Dem. or Independent or indifferent — this seems like a bad road to go down.

  10. Peter: Agree. I would change FOX’s motto — from "fair and balanced" – to "Generally but not always COnservative"

    Doesn’t roll off the tongue exactly.

  11. Patty: Waxman has always rubbed me the wrong way (figuratively) and I welcome conservative media types into the general mix for an overall balance. I’ve always thought of Rush Limbaugh as an unfunny sad man who parrots the resentments of elderly conservative shut-ins and calls it a program, but he’s certainly no more grating than Garafalo and others of the ultraliberal set. He’s more entertainer than journalist, but he certainly should have his say.

    The media seems overwhelming liberal to some conservatives. I suspect that the majority of journalists are liberal, the owners of media outlets not necessarily so. And in the US media liberalism in is generally a mainstream liberalism despite what some grouchy conservatives might claim. And the media enter into a feeding frenzy against liberals when the time comes (the Clintons for example are notorious for their distrust of the media).

  12. I would change FOX’s motto — from "fair and balanced" – to "Generally but not always COnservative"

    How about Right wing fascist bollocks for a motto.for Fox

  13. Submariner: Your motto doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

    Mahons: I hope to God that the MSM starts to sit up and notice that having Waxman and other Govt. reps., including Hillary, try to regulate/control speech on talk radio is a terrible precedent.

    (FYI, I wasn’t always a Goldwater Republican. I used to think Government offered solutions. And I always disagreeed with the endless partisan knife throwing that the Republicans did to the CLintons, especially when the Clintons first came into office. It set a bad precedent which as now been repeated by the Democrats — ad infinitum. It was the Marc Rich pardon and then 9/11 that first turned me against the CLintons.)

  14. Patty – I understand the Mark Rich pardon which was disgusting, but I don’t understand the 9/11 reference. Well I should say I understand that some folks add that to their list of alleged Clinton trangressions, but I don’t see it.

    In any event even Barry Goldwater didn’t remain a Goldwater Republican so no worries. By the way, you must know Hillary was a Goldwater Republican – you share that at least.

  15. Sorry Mahons, but I dont view condemning only ‘reporting the news thats fit to print’ as attacking the concept of a free press. Think of it as ‘legitimate criticism’ of the biased liberals in the MSM. That way I can call them ‘apartheid TV’ or Nazis and its cool, see?

    I dislike partisan journalism whichever side it comes from. The only really free press is now, as has been pointed out, on the Net.

  16. Mahons: After 9/11, I became an information junky — and the web became a primary source of info. Call it the "discovery process." I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11 — the country had no appetite for facing the radical islamist problem even if he had recognized it. And I wish the Republicans had shut-up about his sex-scandals. His personal sins are/were, well, personal.

    But my eyes were open to his big government solutions which are wrong-headed and to his sleazy under-belly (Marc Rich etc.) which I detest.

    Goldwater never deviated from his "less government is better government."

    Obviously, Hillary found socialism more to her liking than Goldwateresque government reduction. She is so smart, and yet so dumb.

  17. DSD: I don’t mind partisan journalism so long as it identifies itself as such. I’ve watched allegedly objective reports and laughed at times at how one-sided they can be (is it a practice of the BBC to interview only one side? on BBC America that is what they often seem to do).

    I try to avoid invoking the Nazis since that was such a singular experience. There are more reasonable ways of comparison.

    I think the Net provides great opportunities, but it also has its limits (especially in the area of verification).

  18. Patty – If you are an information junkie allow me to suggest you need a new dealer. I suppose someone could claim that Hillary Clinton is a socialist, though how they can say that with a straight face is beyond me. Certainly no socialist would say so, and she’s pretty in touch with capitalism as far as I can see. She may advocate certain programs that her political opponents can decry as socialist (I suppose certain health care positions are vunerable), but that hardly makes her a socialist.

  19. Patty: There’s no need to be condescending, true, but it is so much fun.

    A national health plan is not nationalized health care.

    I doubt there is real support that a campaign comment to certain wealthy supporters that they may be taxed more equates with socialism.

    She’s quite a capitalist as far as I can see.

  20. Mahons: "A national health plan is not nationalized health care."

    Denial is a river in Egypt.

  21. Patty – Again, nice bumper sticker but little analysis. What aspects of the Clinton proposal would you identify as socialism?

  22. Mahons:

    National health care. Taxing the rich for the "common good."
    It takes a village. (not a nuclear family) etc. etc.

  23. Mahons: It’s philosphical.

    As a socialist, Hillary "celebrates" community at the expense of the individual. She looks to government as a solution for the human condition.

    A capitalist would "celebrate" the individual at the expense of the community and looks to individual initiative as a solution for the human condition.

  24. "is it a practice of the BBC to interview only one side? on BBC America that is what they often seem to do"

    My favourite Al-Beeb quote of all time has to be that moron Gavin Estler, outside the courtroom where a would-be Islamic terrorist had just been sentenced.

    "As he was led away struggling the defendant yelled out ‘Allah will take your blood!’ Whatever that means."

    http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com

  25. Patty – once again you haven’t articulated any serious criticism, just vague rightwing retreds. Surely if you are arguing that the woman is a socialist you might have the ability to back up your statement with that rare creature – facts.

  26. Mahons: What about "national health care" don’t you understand?

    What about higher taxation for the "common good" don’t you understand?

    What about Hillary makes her a capitalist and not a socialist?

    Why is a statement about the fundamental philosophical differences between the two schools of thought – capitalism and socialism – considered by you to be "vague right-wing retreads?"

  27. Patty,

    "A capitalist would "celebrate" the individual at the expense of the community and looks to individual initiative as a solution for the human condition."

    A statement that is about as plausible as the notion that a capitalist would build a spaceship to take sick children’s prayers into space so that God could hear them better.

    A capitalist would look for a way to make money from the situation and that’s it.

Comments are closed.