Archive for the ‘Media – Bias’ Category

WaPo Misses The Point

Monday, September 28th, 2009

The Washington Post’s Ombudsman wrote a blog post in what can only be considered a follow up to his recent discussion about his paper’s tardiness in reporting on Van Jones and the ACORN scandal. This latest post appears to be prompted by some items written on Twitter that clearly exposed one of their managing editor’s left-wing bias. It also follows the call from the Ombudsman to include ideological diversity in the newsroom.

Now the article does not have the complete policy, but it states the following, according to the Ombudsman blog post.

“When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”

Another section reads: “What you do on social networks should be presumed to be publicly available to anyone, even if you have created a private account. It is possible to use privacy controls online to limit access to sensitive information. But such controls are only a deterrent, not an absolute insulator. Reality is simple: If you don’t want something to be found online, don’t put it there.”

It continues: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”

Of course this new policy misses the point entirely. It is not the perception of bias that is the problem, it is the actual bias. Personally, I could care less whether a reporter or editor admits their partisan bias and in fact, prefer that they admit it so I know where a particular reporter is basing his knowledge on to write an article. It is utter nonsense for The Post to think by hiding the biases of their reporters they are making themselves more “objective”.

All they are basically stating with this policy is “We know we are biased, just don’t confirm it to the public”….

Hollow Whining From The Media

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Every time Barack Obama demands an hour of free air time to hold one of his “press conferences”, we hear the same complaints in the media over and over again about how much money the networks are losing and how it affects their “primetime” schedules in a negative way. Howie Kurtz becomes the latest in a string of articles complaining about this in today’s Washington Post.

In the days before President Obama’s last news conference, as the networks weighed whether to give up a chunk of their precious prime time, Rahm Emanuel went straight to the top.

Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney. Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric. He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS Corp., the company spun off from Viacom.

Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months. But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the economic downturn.

I love this quote from a head cheese at CBS.

The networks “absolutely” feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS’s senior vice president: “It’s an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours. The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used.”

Sorry, it isn’t a case of “whether” you are being used – you are being used. Then there is this quote:

One of the broadcast networks could demonstrate its independence, Friedman says, by breaking with the pack and refusing to air Obama’s next prime-time extravaganza. But, he says, “that would take an extraordinary amount of courage.”

Uh, one broadcast network, FOX, did refuse to air the Obama infomercial and managed to win the ratings battle both times, showing there was really no courage required at all.

And seriously, with three 24-hour cable networks and limitless space on the Internet, is there really any need for the broadcast networks to even air press conferences that really don’t amount to anything more than a free one-hour campaign ad for Barack Obama? It isn’t like every word of these press conferences isn’t gone over minute by minute anyway. And if you were really interested in watching it, finding an unedited version of the press conference online isn’t too hard.

The “mainstream” media has had a love affair with Barack Obama since the day he announcement. So for them to be complaining about it now rings rather hollow to me. If the media really wanted to show some backbone, just refuse to air the press conference, or better yet, refuse to show up for it unless Obama allows open questions and follow ups. Otherwise, the “mainstream media” is really just whining for the sake of whining without any really threatening to do anything about it….

The real truth, to me, is the reason these news organizations don’t stand up to Obama is because they are afraid of losing access, plain and simple…they just won’t admit that out loud….

So Which Political Party Do They Belong To Exactly?

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

I finally got around to reading my Saturday Washington Post and in it was this short article with the title: “Bribery Allegations Topple N.J. Mayor, Assemblyman“. In the short article, there were these three references to persons who were caught up in the scandal.

Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano III resigned Friday, one month after taking office and a week after becoming snared in a federal corruption probe.
Later Friday, Republican Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt of Forked River became the third to step down. Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell resigned earlier this week.

Note that absence of any party reference to the two mayors, yet a reference to the party of the Assemblyman mentioned in the article. Would it surprise you to know that the two mayors happen to be Democrats? Why was their party identification ignored while Van Pelt’s party identification was mentioned? Never mind…too easy….

OBAMA Radio Dead

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

Just follow up on a previous post I did, last week, I highlighted a radio station in Washington DC that had branded itself OBAMA 1260. Turns out that using the Obama name to sell your radio station only gets you so far, as was reported by Howie Kurtz in The Washington Post this morning.

President Obama may be riding high in Washington, but OBAMA 1260 is not.

The area’s only progressive talk station is changing formats, dropping such syndicated liberal hosts as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press in favor of financial news, starting next week.

The move by Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who purchased the station, WWRC, and others in Washington last summer, leaves the city without a liberal radio outlet. Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election.

But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at Snyder’s conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett.

Even if he was dumb enough to buy the evil Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder wants to make money and apparently making money using Obama’s name was doing it for him. I did chuckle at this one particular line in Kurtz’s article.

The move by Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who purchased the station, WWRC, and others in Washington last summer, leaves the city without a liberal radio outlet

No liberal outlets? Ummmm, is Kurtz completely unaware of the local National Public Radio station, WAMU?

“Why Are You So Angry?”

Saturday, March 8th, 2008

I wake up this morning and find this string of headlines from various news organizations claiming John McCain “lost his temper” with some reporter from the New York Times. Then I actually see the video of the event

Huh? That’s it? I’ve been more angry when I just miss making a green light driving home from work. In fact, the only one who looked like they lost their temper was the reporter who asked the odd question: “Why are you so angry?” Where on earth did that come from? I suppose someone will tell me the question: “Why are you so angry?” is part of the “objective” reporting that supposedly comes from the “mainstream” media….

Can someone explain to me why Republicans continue to cater to anyone associated with The New York Times? After they tried to smear him two weeks ago, hasn’t John McCain figured out The New York Times is NOT on his side? Why are they even still on his campaign plane?

They Don’t Even Hide It Anymore

Saturday, December 29th, 2007

The “mainstream media” and their liberal bias that is. I just laughed out loud this morning when I opened up MSNBC this morning and saw the headline for an article describing the ad war in Iowa between the contenders in each party. Here is a full screen shot (click for readable version) of the site this morning with the headline highlighted.

For simplicity, here is that headline blown up.

Now here is the article being linked. I read through this entire article and it looks to me as if both Edwards and McCain are comparing their records against their opponents, yet the Democrat is portrayed as “drawing a contrast” while the Republican is portrayed as “going negative”.

Get used to it folks, it will only get worse in the General Election….

The “Mainstream Press” Hard At Work, Part II

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

This is an actual question from today’s Presidential press conference from a “reporter” with the first name of “Mark”.

Q Mr. President, are you considering a plan to cut corporate taxes? Do you believe America’s corporations are not making enough money these days?

Of course we all know all corporations pass any tax levied on them to the consumer which purchases their product or services. The actual tax rate is basically immaterial to corporations in the grand scheme of things since all they do is just charge you and me more to cover whatever increase there might be in the corporate taxes, but apparently that is lost on this reporter. In the thought process of this reporter, apparently there is some magic amount of money (read profit) corporations should be “allowed to make”….

I really wish The White House would put names of the reporters with these questions….

The “Mainstream Press” Hard At Work

Monday, August 6th, 2007

I was catching up on the White House briefings and I just about laughed out loud that I saw from the July 26th briefing. This is an actual exchange from the White House press briefing last week.

Q The Nixon tapes case, though, presents certain limitations on the President’s assertion of executive privilege, doesn’t it?

MR. SNOW: How on earth are you trying to apply the Nixon’s tapes case here? That seems an awful stretch.

Q I read it in the paper. It sounded logical when I read it.

MR. SNOW: Well, it’s — nice try.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Okay, thanks.

I really wish they would include the names of the reporters in these transcripts….

Journalists Heavily Favor Democrats Over Republicans

Thursday, June 21st, 2007

Is it really surprising at this point that journalists support Democrats over Republicans (9-to-1 according to MSNBC) at an even higher margin than African Americans. MSNBC needed an investigative reporter to determine this?

This is news?

Bush Versus Helen Thomas

Monday, August 21st, 2006

I had to post this from today’s White House press briefing when President Bush called on Helen Thomas.



What’s so funny about me saying “Helen”?


It’s the anticipation of your question, I guess.

Of course the question turned out to be another anti-American/anti-Israeli harangue, but that is to be expected from Helen Thomas.

There is a big difference between Les Kinsolving and Helen Thomas. Both are considered comic relief in the White House press room, but I believe Kinsolving knows it whereas Helen Thomas probably still thinks people actually take her seriously. It is almost pathetic when you think about it….