Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Liberal. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Liberal. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013
Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama
Bản tóm tắt này không có sẵn. Vui lòng
nhấp vào đây để xem bài đăng.
Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013
Excuses, excuses after liberal media finally covers Gosnell trial
Now that some in the media have finally been shamed into covering the Gosnell abortion trial, the only thing left for journalists is finding the right alibi for ignoring it for so long. It’s like watching an episode of “Law & Order,” complete with a horrific journalistic crime and an endless stream of media excuses.
In print, online and on TV, lefty journalists came up with excuse after excuse to say they couldn’t possibly have had a typical lefty bias. Journalists offered up racism, classism, ignorance and more as possible excuses.
CNN’s resident media critic Howard Kurtz tried the blame-conservatives approach, claiming “The conservative media didn't do much either.” Ah yes, those tens of thousands of conservative reporters and editors who work, where exactly?
Shame is an amazing thing.
Kurtz couldn’t even be honest or factually correct enough to call the victims “babies,” choosing the lefty term “fetuses,” even for living, breathing children.
CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was just as willfully ignorant during the April 12 “Anderson Cooper 360.” Toobin knocked any conservative allegation of bias. “Well, the people making those criticisms by and large are conservatives, who are saying the liberal media is trying to protect abortion rights by not showing this horror show. I don’t buy that at all,” he claimed.
Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi raised the tough question. He gave the “conservative Media Research Center” credit (Hint: It’s where I work.) for pushing the story. Then he asked: “Could it be, as conservative bloggers have charged since shortly after the trial began March 18, that the media had taken a pass because Gosnell — who stands accused of killing seven newborn infants and one mother — is an abortion doctor whose alleged crimes run counter to the mainstream media’s supposed support for abortion rights?
He included several unsatisfying answers. ABC didn’t say. NBC tried to dodge. CBS admitted correctly that it planned to cover it. “Fox News has been the only consistent national TV source on the story,” Farhi wrote. He added that MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” would cover it on April 15 and they did.
His own paper had given multiple responses.
On April 11 at 7:08 p.m., health reporter Sarah Kliff defended her failure top cover Gosnell. “I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention,” Kliff said. Conservatives set Twitter aflame that night, making “Gosnell” a trending topic.
By 5:43 p.m. on the next night, the Post had changed its tune. Executive Editor Martin Baron, told the paper’s Erik Wemple Blog: “We believe the story is deserving of coverage by our own staff, and we intend to send a reporter for the resumption of the trial next week. In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner.” The Post was joined by The Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Shame is an amazing thing.
CBS, the only broadcast network that has ever previously mentioned the case in its coverage, back in 2011, covered it over the weekend and on Monday morning. The “This Morning” story had reporter Jan Crawford warning that “some of the details you are about to hear are very disturbing” and “there are almost no words” to describe what witnesses said happened in the clinic. One quote in the story had a man saying “the grand jury went to the scene wearing Hazmat suits.”
While CBS acknowledged there was a debate over the media coverage, it did its best to do CYA reporting. The segment interviewed Walt Hunter, who “broke the original story,” and reminded viewers it had reported on the story in 2011. The network left out how CBS had ignored the story ever since, admitting “his trial has received little national news coverage.” The report cited a USA Today column by Kirsten Powers with complaints about the lack of coverage “that went viral on Twitter” and were then picked up by House Republicans.
Liberal outlets, while bashing Gosnell, were mostly dismissive of the whole debate.
The lefty American Prospect came up with “Five Lessons from the Gosnell Abortion-Clinic Controversy” – essentially ways to rationalize the media not covering it. Those included claiming that “many prominent feminists” had covered it and the evil media ignored them and that somehow the stigma of abortion hurts women. The Prospect didn’t explain how women had gotten past that “stigma” 50 million times since Roe v. Wade. And while it mentioned the Powers column, it didn’t even spell her first name correctly.
Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald tried the Kurtz strategy, blaming conservatives. After all, it’s not like most in the media will point out how silly that was. He whined, “it’s difficult to take complaints seriously from people who haven’t used their own public platforms to push a story they think others are now ignoring.”
Even liberal Wikipedia considered deleting its own page on the trial because “his case has not received national attention.” Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media ignore something and then when it doesn’t get press, Wikipedia disappears it like in the old Soviet Union.
The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf, who had created a stir admitting the “trial should be a front-page story,” tallied the 14 different theories why the “case didn't get more media attention.” Most of those were media or liberal rationales. It was an extensive list including the laughable Mother Jones theory that conservatives were “working the refs.” The lefty, Soros-funded magazine charged: “it didn't get much coverage until conservatives decided they could make hay with charges that the story was being deliberately suppressed by the liberal media.”
Because, of course, that’s what conservatives wanted was “hay,” not balanced news coverage on a life-or-death topic. The Mother Jones big complaint was that the conservative media hadn’t reported more thoroughly on the case. That’s right, because the conservative media’s non-existent pool of thousands of reporters is equal to what the Times, Post, Gannett and others can bring to bear.
Conservative blogger David Burge summed up conservative criticism of the media succinctly. “Ben Carson or Kermit Gosnell: guess which doctor the media consider ‘controversial.’”
We all know the answer, but at least journalists have to admit both exist now.
Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.
Thứ Sáu, 1 tháng 3, 2013
Liberal media attacks as Woodward 'threat' seen as political threat to Obama
Former hoops star Dennis Rodman is on a diplomatic mission to North Korea and Watergate legend Bob Woodward is being defended by Republicans for his reporting.
Maybe the Mayans were right after all.
The stranger of the two is Woodward’s new-found star status with the right and his persona non grata status with the left.
Bob Woodward was just the latest example of an Obama administration that has run roughshod over a press that caters to its every whim.
It was all Woodward’s fault. He committed apostasy, not once, but twice.
He called out Obama’s lie about the sequester and reminded the world the whole ridiculous plan had been the president’s idea. Then, when the White House gave him heat, he told Politico that they had threatened him, though he never used the “T” word.
That “threat” came in email form after a 30-minute yell fest from White House economic adviser Gene Sperling.
Many in the media have said Woodward overreacted.
Former Obama adviser David Plouffe set in motion a Woodward is over-the-hill theme: “Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated,” he Tweeted. (Yes, only Obama is allowed to be perfect more than once.)
The result was a social media feeding frenzy, followed by enormous coverage on the left and the right with Woodward even appearing on “Hannity.”
The broadcast networks talked about the controversy in their morning shows, but were completely silent the following evening, less than 24 hours later. -- It was hardly the way old style media have treated big news from Woodward in the past.
Even the morning show coverage was less than stellar.
“Today” gave the story just 16 seconds out of the 14,400 it had available on February 28.
CBS “This Morning” did a bit better and noted Woodward was “accusing the White House of threatening him.”
At least ABC treated it seriously, with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl mentioning Woodward’s importance. “Woodward isn't just any reporter. He's the one portrayed, along with Carl Bernstein, in the movie ‘All the President's Men’ as taking down Richard Nixon.” Karl also included the White House “threat.”
None of this is new – neither the actions of the administration or the media under-reaction.
The Obama administration has intimidated journalists since before it won in 2008. Intimidation, harassment and lack of access have been tools it’s used all along. But when the lefty icon of D.C. political journalism is the victim, it sets the gab-osphere aflame.
Liberal talking heads targeted the long-time journalistic celeb as only a betrayed lover could.
MSNBC host Ed Schultz called Woodward’s actions “a total failure by a legendary journalist” and Woodward himself “nothing but a drama queen.”
MSNBC goofball Internationalist Martin Bashir dug deep for a metaphor. “I’m actually reminded of that British parliamentarian who, when he was attacked by Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, described it as the equivalent of being ravaged by a dead sheep.” (It was vintage MSNBC. There aren’t enough viewers for that to have to make sense.)
“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski made fun of Woodward during the left’s favorite morning show, asking: “is he really afraid of a little aide who said that to him? Really?”
The liberal outlet Huffington Post, which operates like a voice of the administration, was quick to dismiss someone the left used to love. “Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening,” read one headline. After Woodward appeared on “Hannity” on February 28, the site called it “Fox & Friend.” (In the lefty world, being friends to Fox is a mortal sin.)
CNN’s John Avlon was just as dismissive, he was just on a theoretically neutral network. “This is Bob Woodward who fought with the Nixon White House? I mean Chuck Colson and H.R. Haldeman would be ashamed to see Gene Sperling not come at Bob with anything stronger than that.”
Even The Washington Post, which has prospered about four decades on Woodward scoops, made light of the battle, saying, “only in Washington does the back and forth between a legendary journalist and a White House wonk turn into an epic talking-head fest and trending Twitter topic.” An Alexandra Petri column on “How to Threaten Bob Woodward” actually included a color-coded graphic of “The General Scale of Threateningness” with the Sperling quote listed under the “Mickey Mouse” category.
Once more, the media are choosing to bury a major issue in garbage, rather than address it.
Woodward was just the latest example of an administration that has run roughshod over a press that caters to its every whim. If Obama was the head of a political party whose name began with an R instead of a D, the American media would have declared war on him years ago.
Instead it’s the reverse.
The liberal press adore Obama no matter how poorly he treats them. And anyone in the media – from CNBC stars Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer to Matt Drudge and, yes, Woodward – gets targeted if they dare challenge our thin-skinned overlord.
Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.
Thứ Tư, 27 tháng 2, 2013
Liberal media will 'shut you down, stab you, kill you, fire you' if you disagree
Fox News political analyst and “Special Report” panelist Juan Williams said in an interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas that mainstream media outlets “stab” and “kill” dissenting voices.
Williams was fired from National Public Radio in 2010 after saying he sometimes gets “nervous” when seated on an airplane with Muslims, while making a broader point about the importance of religious tolerance.
“I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded about hearing the other side,” he said. “In fact, what I have learned is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down, stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not telling the story in the way that they want it told.”
Catch the rest of the Ginni Thomas’s interview with Juan Williams this week exclusively on The Daily Caller.
Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)