Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn media. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn media. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Gosnell trial revealed horrors of abortion, media silence

  • dr-kermit-gosnell-ftr

Mengele. Kevorkian. Now Gosnell can be added to that awful list. Men who perverted the idea that medicine should indeed “first do no harm.”

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was on trial for his life for the first degree murder of four babies born as a result of a failed late-term abortion. The American media that had resisted covering the gruesome case were also on trial.

Both were found guilty.

Followers of the Philadelphia case weren’t surprised with either result. 

The facts in the Gosnell case read more like a demon’s resume than a description of a man sworn to heal.

Gosnell is a monster. He was initially charged “with killing seven babies born alive," along with Karnamaya Mongar a newly-arrived, 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan. 

Prosecutors say Gosnell's staff gave the 90-pound woman a lethal dose of anesthesia and painkillers during a 2009 abortion,” according to the Associated Press. Some charges were dropped and he was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder, as well as “211 counts of failing to comply with a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.”

The facts read more like a demon’s resume than a description of a man sworn to heal. One former worker testified that she saw “a late-term baby who survived an abortion ‘swimming’ in a toilet and ‘trying to get out.’” 

Another child reportedly was big enough “that Gosnell joked it could have walked to the bus.” Child after child had life ended as scissors snipped spinal cords, decapitating them.

Yet this “house of horrors” would never have seen the light of day if the American media had their way. 

Major outlets ignored the story until conservative anger called them out. The Media Research Center (where I work), Kirsten Powers, Fox News Channel, some in Congress and an army of conservatives on Twitter provided part of the pressure.

Even then, news coverage was paltry – far less than outlets would devote to any story du jour from Manti Te’o and his invisible girlfriend to endless accounts of the Jodi Arias trial.

ABC was the worst. It took that network a couple years after the arrest and 56 straight days of trial to acknowledge Gosnell existed. ABC found more than three hours of air time for other court cases during that time, but waited until Gosnell was convicted before it ever admitted he was even on trial.

“Nightline” co-anchor Terry Moran inadvertently admitted the network’s failure during the May 13 “World News with Diane Sawyer” segment. “For two months, jurors heard often shocking, grisly testimony.” Yes, two months of “shocking, grisly testimony” and only one minute and 51 seconds of news coverage at the very end.

In short, if you rely on ABC for your news coverage, you are out of luck. It’s that kind of timely newsgathering that would have viewers expecting to see reports on the end of WWII or the sinking of the Titanic later this week.

The other two members of the Big Three didn’t impress either. NBC was bad and CBS only a little better. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie asked Obama a question about Gosnell but didn’t even bother to follow it up. And when NBC finally gave an actual report on the case on May 1, it hid the awful nature of the case. The network that had reported on the smell of a decomposing body in the Casey Anthony trial called Gosnell’s crimes “too gruesome” to tell viewers.

Other outlets were just as averse to reporting the awful story of baby murder. The Washington Post committed to the story after health reporter Sarah Kliff defended her own failure to cover Gosnell because it was a “local crime” story.

But it wasn’t a local crime story. It was part of a national belief in infanticide coming directly from the pro-abortion movement. Just in the time of the Gosnell trial, we’ve seen a Planned Parenthood lobbyist and an abortion doctor both show support for baby murder after the child is born.

Abortion lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow told an astonished hearing that the life of a baby born after a botched abortion should be “left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

The pro-life group Live Action caught a D.C. abortion doctor in an embarrassing admission of, you know, supporting baby murder. “One video features a D.C. doctor, Cesare Santangelo, who said that in the unlikely event that an abortion resulted in a live birth, ‘we would not help it,’” reported the Post. For that reveal, he said he considers the heroes of Live Action to be “terrorists.”

That is the world that Kermit Gosnell introduced to America. It’s a world where the liberal fantasies of “safe, available and rare” abortions have been twisted into a convenient rationale for taxpayer-funded baby murder, even after a child is born. It’s an image the abortion community won’t be able to erase.

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.


View the original article here

Obama loses mainstream media support as Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals grow

Brushfire season has come early to Washington. The Obama administration had been trying to stamp out persistent complaints over Benghazi. On Friday, a second fire broke out as we found the IRS lied and deliberately targeted conservative groups for special investigation.

As the IRS fire burned out of control, Fire Chief Obama tried to put out the Benghazi inferno by attacking the GOP. 

It was too late. 

Then, a third blaze caught everyone – especially the media – off guard. The poorly named Justice Department “used a secret subpoena to obtain two months of phone records for Associated Press reporters and editors without notifying the news organization,” reported NBC News.

The same administration that caught heat for lying to journalists about editing the Benghazi talking points also is investigating journalists. 

That’s when it’s not investigating Tea Party groups, pro-Israel Jewish groups, businesses and just about everybody else.

The Obama administration has been at war with the media since before it was elected the first time.

The Washington Post explains such “subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general.” In other words, this attack on press freedom goes all the way to Eric Holder.

All three networks hit hard on the IRS Monday, with NBC calling it “damage control” and “IRS firestorm.” Both NBC and CBS covered the attack on the very people who were reporting the other scandals.

Seven of the top 10 newspapers had at least one Obama disaster on their front page Tuesday. There was so much “Scandal,” you expected Kerry Washington to show up. The IRS fiasco was on all seven, with The Chicago Tribune’s headline “IRS Scandal Growing” reflecting a typical sentiment. 

The nation’s top two political papers – The Washington Post and New York Times – both had multiple stories. The Post devoted two stories to the IRS and another to the AP fiasco. The Times had one story each. The IRS stories showed the probes “reached the highest levels of the agency in May 2012” – six months before the election.

Our besieged president led USA Today. The paper had a worried picture of Obama responding to both the IRS and Benghazi scandals. The headline read: “UNDER FIRE: Scrutiny of reporters adds to administration’s woes.” The paper ran two stories beneath it – a Q&A about the first two scandals and another story on the “AP phone records.”

Obama is rapidly became the butt of jokes. Big time lefty Jon Stewart devoted 10 minutes of his program to the scandals, repeatedly dropping a bleeped F-bomb in frustrated response to both the IRS scandal and the AP investigation. David Burge, the funniest man on the Internet, joked on Twitter: “And now I think we all know why Obama picked Biden as VP.” And Jay Leno led off his show with several digs at the president.

Forget Gate 1 (Benghazi – horrific and deadly), Gate 2 (Nixonian – even down to the language used) and focus on Gate 3. This one is so bad that the liberal, pro-Obama Huffington Post ran headlines like “ASSOCIATED MESS!” and my current favorite “DOJ WTF.” Since Obama is taking us back to the Nixon era, I’ll paraphrase LBJ. If Obama has lost HuffPo, he’s lost. Period.

Now, HuffPo and the rest of the media are fickle and still love Obama. But this fits a pattern of anti-media attacks and deception. 

It appears journalists have temporarily noticed. 

AP President and CEO Gary B. Pruitt wrote a scathing letter to Holder saying “there can be no possible justification” for what his department gathered. “We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” he continued.

I can see him being upset. But don’t act so surprised. The Obama administration has been at war with the media since before it was elected the first time. Obama kicked three reporters off the campaign plane in 2008 because their papers backed his opponent.

He followed that with an endless crusade against conservative media or any who criticized him. The administration went after Fox News, Drudge, Tea Party inspiration Rick Santelli and even liberal CNBC host Jim Cramer.

A full-scale spat with the press corps led sometime sane Helen Thomas to compare the administration to Nixon. (Ah, there’s that Nixon guy again.) Obama stayed aloof from the press and his agencies shut them out. 

The federal government locked out the press from the disastrous BP oil spill – so much so that CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune all complained. 

And that’s only the highlights.

The press can no longer say the Obama scandals are a case of smoke but no fire because they are getting burned, too. There’s a hellacious amount of fire and it’s spreading. 

If Obama can’t contain it, the fires will merge into one mighty conflagration – and light up just how awful his administration has been to the press and opponents.

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.


View the original article here

Media can't ignore Obama IRS, Benghazi scandals

Watching the Friday briefing with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, it was easy to believe the media were going to hit hard on the Obama administration. 

Carney had to endure 46 questions about two big scandals hitting his boss – Benghazi and the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The Washington Post later called it a “feeding frenzy.”

Over the weekend, the top 10 newspapers seemed to lose interest. On Sunday, just two of the eight that published that day had any mention on their front pages. 

But by Monday, the stories had returned with a vengeance. Half of the top 10 papers – including the influential trio of The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal – all featured the IRS scandal on the front.

Will journalists allow the IRS attack on the Tea Party to drown out the Benghazi follow-up or will they link them to an administration spiraling out of control?

USA Today had the lead headline: “GOP Demands Obama Apology” and the Post got hold of the “draft audit by the inspector general that has been given to Capitol Hill.” 

The Denver Post once again devoted front-page play to the IRS scandal, running the same Washington Post story under the headline: INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT: IRS’s scrutiny went beyond keywords to target ideology.”

The New York Times also aired the IRS scandal on its front page Monday, but focused less on the scandal and more on how the GOP would use it against Obama. “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On.” The Wall Street Journal led with the tax scandal under the bold headline: “Wider Problems Found at IRS.”

On Sunday, only The Washington Post and Denver Post mentioned either scandal. The Denver Post had the story in a prominent place under the headline: “TEA PARTY TARGETED: IRS leaders knew in 2011: A draft of IG report seems to contradict the commissioner’s words.”

The Washington Post mentioned the scandals in a front-page story, but in typical Postian fashion, put them in Obama context. Under the headline, “Can Obama avoid curse of 2nd term?” the paper discussed the “two flaring controversies.”

To put that in perspective, early on Sunday, even the lefty Huffington Post had the tax story featured prominently. The headline “Plot Thickens in IRS, Tea Party Debacle” was accompanied by three other stories further down the page. 

Naturally, since HuffPo has been downplaying the attacks in Libya, there were only two words about the “Benghazi Drama.”

The scandals kept moving forward over the weekend. On the IRS disaster, we became aware that “senior officials at the Internal Revenue Service were aware that its agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011.” National Review revealed “the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.”

The Washington Post reported that not only are top IRS officials math deficient, they are truth deficient. The paper explained “the IRS made no mention of targeting conservative groups in five separate responses to congressional inquiries between Nov. 18, 2011, and June 15, 2012.” Too bad that story was buried on page A6 Sunday.

As the Benghazi scandal escalated, the lawyer of whistleblower Gregory Hicks revealed he’s no GOP stalking horse. “Mr. Hicks is a Democrat. He voted for Hillary – I’ve yet to announce this – he voted for Hillary in the primary and Obama twice,” attorney Victoria Toensing told WMAL.

On Sunday morning, the talking head shows dwelt heavily with both issues. Conservative George Will told ABC’s “This Week,” “we would have all hell breaking loose,” if President George W. Bush had used the IRS against left-wing groups. Will hammered home his point by reading from the Impeachment Articles of Richard Nixon and how they specifically referred to misuse of the IRS.

On CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” former Time magazine reporter Margaret Carlson had the audacity to blame conservatives for how poorly the Benghazi scandal was covered. “The right wing went so far on this story, ‘it’s Watergate, it’s impeachable,’ we couldn’t hear Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard. It did take somebody who is just a meat and potatoes reporter.”

Scheduling conflicts limited the weekend impact of network news, but conservatives still mocked “Nightline” co-anchor Terry Moran for his network’s hypocrisy. Moran tweeted about the IRS scandal on Friday: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration: IRS Apologizes for Targeting Conservative Groups.” That night, his own show ignored the scandal.

The question remaining is how the media handle both scandals going forward. Will journalists allow the IRS attack on the Tea Party to drown out the Benghazi follow-up or will they link them to an administration spiraling out of control? 

The question remaining is how the media handle both scandals going forward. Will journalists allow the IRS attack on the tea party to drown out the Benghazi follow-up or will they link them to an administration spiraling out of control? 

The Benghazi scandal has gone too far to be completely ignored, but the major media probably only have room for one Obama disaster at a time. So expect the focus on the IRS to largely push it out of the Washington conversation.

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.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013

Napa wineries embrace social media

The web has done amazing things for the wine world and has enormously helped to educate novices like me. But one Napa winery has taken social media a step further.

St. Supéry Estate Vineyards & Winery saw an untapped opportunity. Four years again, it was one of the first wineries to hire a social media director, according to CEO Emma Swain. And they have been making online strides every since.

Social media has allowed St. Supéry to connect with its trade partners, guests, and wine club members instantly.  “It encourages interaction between the winery and our community so we can share the latest news, upcoming events both at the winery and across the U.S., and also allows us to learn from our guests about what they enjoyed during their visit to the winery and what wines they’re drinking at home,” says Swain.

They developed #Cabernet Day back in September 2010.  And on that day, anyone on Twitter was encouraged to drink a great cab and share their thoughts.

And this May 17 is #SauvBlanc Day, which they will be hosting for the fourth year consecutive year. So get out your Sauvignon Blanc and get ready to tweet!

They recently rolled out a new series of Interactive Wine Classes.  To participate, wine lovers purchase a group of wines and a kit that includes all the materials they need to conduct a tasting with their friends and family…At Home!  So cool!

I had the pleasure of participating back in one back in March and literally did it at my kitchen counter.  Their winemaker, Michael Scholz, was live via the web explaining the wines, taking questions off Twitter. 

“We like to think of it as a way for our wine club members and customers across the country to bring the Napa Valley home and enjoy a virtual vacation,” says Swain. And that is exactly how I felt.

And I can’t wait to do it again.

Cent’ Anni.


View the original article here

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 Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

Media blame America for Boston bombings, ignore ties to radical Islam

Comedian George Carlin famously joked about the seven words you couldn’t say on air. Add two more – “Islam” and “Muslim” – but only if you use them in a negative context. 

In the week following the terror attack on the Boston Marathon, lefties and their media clones have been desperate to point out the attack had nothing to do with those two scary words.

After all, journalists and pundits have had time to reflect on the bombing – from the safety of their posh offices and not Boston’s crowded hospitals. The brothers were just poor and misunderstood. It can’t be their fault.

The Brothers Tsarnaev have set media tongues a-wagging looking for someone to blame other than Muslims – like Americans.  

Famed newsman Tom Brokaw took up the blame America crusade on Sunday's NBC “Meet the Press,” discussing “motivation” like he was in an entry-level acting class.

Today in American we have a media so obsessed with feeling good about themselves, that America can’t have a conversation about the dangers of radical Islam.

According to Brokaw, we’re to blame. “I think we also have to examine the use of drones that the United States is involved in and – and there are a lot of civilians who are innocently killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.” 

Why? American “presumptuousness,” a crime which now merits the death penalty in certain Islamic circles.

The Washington post claimed on Tuesday that “Boston Marathon bombing suspects elude labels.” Oh? How about radical Islamic terrorists? Radical Muslim terrorists? 

According to AP, “U.S. officials said Tuesday, adding another piece to the body of evidence they say suggests the two brothers were motivated by an anti-American, radical version of Islam.”

The media felt they knew better. 

At MSNBC, they must be hanging gymnastics medals after the contortions it put its staff through.

When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked a Georgetown professor about “some radicalized YouTube clips” on the older brother’s YouTube page, she received a classic response. 

Prof. Charles King told her: “Well, and keep in mind that on his, on the elder brother's, Tamerlan's YouTube channel, there are an equal number of rap videos.” When Georgetown professors start commenting on the content of rap videos, it’s fair to say they’re clueless. Or tragically unhip.

Another MSNBC host continued that smokescreen theme, comparing the bombers to famous murderers. 

On Tuesday, Alex Wagner said if the brothers had acted alone, “it ends debate regarding whether to try him as an enemy combatant,” wrote Mediaite. “With no ties to foreign terrorist networks, there would be little difference between him and so-called homegrown and lone wolf terrorists including Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski.” Only neither of those was motivated by a global belief system linked to hundreds or thousands of terror attacks.

Perhaps, instead of being PC, they might address the issue of radical Islam, especially since two Muslim men were just arrested for a Canadian terror plot. 

The media are doing law-abiding American Muslims no favors by refusing to acknowledge a problem – radical Islam – that threatens them as well. But note the term, “radical Islam.” 

It is not being overly PC to admit that millions of American Muslims don’t go blowing up their neighbors. Since I have Muslim neighbors, I appreciate that fact.

On Monday, Politico’s Josh Gerstein claimed that “the Boston Marathon bombing suspects’ geopolitical leanings are still largely a mystery.” 

He clearly didn’t watch a week filled with news where we learned the older of the Tsarnaev brothers had visited Russia’s terrorist-filled Dagestan. And that Russia had asked the U.S. to investigate his ties to radical Islam. Oopsie.

One of The Atlantic’s “reporters” even did her best to minimize the skill of the terrorists to downplay the attack. “The more we learn of Boston bombers the more they seem like bumblers. And there's the rub: any idiot can terrorize, doesn't require genius,” tweeted Garance Franke-Ruta Tuesday. 

Boston health authorities say 264 people were treated at local hospitals, along three killed. 

Evil? Yes! Bumblers? Hardly.

Then there were those who couldn’t let that old crisis go to waste. So they used a terror attack on Americans to promote...gun control. New Yorker editor David Remnick told the “Charlie Rose” show that guns were part of the problem. 

“We see yet another act which might have been a Hell of a lot more difficult to pull off with effective gun control.” Remnick is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t get it in logic.

Even my friend, lefty radio host Thom Hartmann used the bombing to attack “all forms of religious fundamentalism that lead to violence.” Thom, like most liberals, isn’t especially tolerant of religion and said this was “a good opportunity for us to have a conversation about modernity versus Bronze Age gods.” Nothing says open-mindedness like calling Christianity “Bronze Age gods.”

What it all adds up to, is a media so obsessed with feeling good about themselves, that America can’t have a conversation about the dangers of radical Islam. It’s a world tailor made for people like nutty columnist David Sirota (OK, that’s like saying “wet ocean”). Sirota, you’ll recall, hoped that the bombers might be “a white American.”

As it turns out, it didn’t matter. The media just report what they want anyhow.

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.


View the original article here

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.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 1 tháng 4, 2013

Apple issues apology in China over service policies, but state media attacks seen backfiring

  • apple apology.jpg

    Apr. 1, 2013: A statement posted to Apple's website said complaints from China had prompted "deep reflection" and persuaded the company of the need to revamp its repair policies and boost communication with Chinese consumers.FoxNews.com / Apple.com

Apple has issued an apology to Chinese consumers after government media attacked its repair policies for two weeks in a campaign that reeked of economic nationalism.

A statement posted in Chinese to Apple's website on Monday said the complaints had prompted "deep reflection" and persuaded the company of the need to revamp its repair policies, boost communication with Chinese consumers and strengthen oversight of authorized resellers.

State broadcaster CCTV and the ruling party's flagship newspaper People's Daily had led the charge and portrayed Apple as just the latest Western firm to exploit the Chinese consumer.

The attacks started backfiring almost as soon as they began and were mocked by the increasingly sophisticated Chinese consumers who revere Apple and its products. Nonetheless, Apple responded with an apology from CEO Tim Cook.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 28 tháng 3, 2013

Pew's social media study pushes all the wrong buttons

  • Mobile Surfers_Cala.jpg

    HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL 12:01 A.M. EDT. THIS STORY MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR POSTED ONLINE BEFORE 12:01 A.M. EDT - Donald Conkey, 15, checks his smartphone while doing homework in his bedroom on Monday, March 11, 2013, in Wilmette, Ill. A new report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project says more teens are using smartphones as a main means of accessing the Internet -- moreso than adults. (AP Photo/Martha Irvine)

Most Americans like to poke fun of just how tech savvy Asian-Americans are. The stereotypical assumption is often accurate when it comes to finding the coolest social app or digital designer. 

Experienced business travelers know that if you want to find the latest generation gadget, go to Seoul or Hong Kong or Tokyo. This fact, however, seems to be lost on the well-respected Pew Research Center.  How else can you explain their latest work, “The State of Social Media Users,” which remarkably excludes Asian-Americans from the study?

The February 2013 report of social media users has either forgot about Asian-Americans, lumped them in with their white counterparts or refused to score them. Why would Pew publish a comparison of social media users that doesn’t track Asian-Americans?  Perhaps it might be that Asians’ social media habits score so high against other races that it might not be an interesting or alarming comparison.

Why wouldn’t Pew want to compare Asians to the other minority groups?

Demographic research shows the rapid growth of Asian-Americans – an increase of 46 percent between the 2000 and 2010 Census. And even though Asian-Americans comprise a smaller part of the population than other groups, their growth rate is four times that of the general population. So why wouldn’t Pew want to compare Asians to the other minority groups?

It’s not the first time policy makers, the mainstream media, advertisers, think tanks or influential research groups have forgotten about Asian-Americans.  Sadly, it probably won’t be the last.

The studies that ignore the rise of Asian-Americans and the Asian impact on American culture not only deprive Asians a seat at the table, but it denies our society as a whole valuable information.  Dismissing Asian-Americans when it comes to social media is a particularly bad idea.  According to the most recent Nielsen Social Media Report, Asian-Americans are the most likely group to have visited a social network, interacted with social media advertising and made purchases through social media.  So why are we ignoring the leaders’ habits?

There are far greater consequences for those minorities left behind in studies like Pew’s latest.  Government and non-profit funding for social, health and economic programs use these studies to make grant decisions. While national organizations like Pew marginalize Asian-Americans in their studies, critical research is left to smaller, regional groups and universities that don’t have the same clout. If an audience isn’t counted, it doesn’t get any attention, funding or support for pressing issues. Consequently, myths about Asian-Americans as the “model minority” prevail.  In the U.S., the common perception holds that Asians are harder working, more educated, higher earning and more successful than other ethnic groups.

Stereotypes like this, however positive they may seem, are detrimental in that they gloss over the serious problems facing Asian-Americans.  Pew’s refusal to include Asians in their social media study creates an over-hyped distraction that diverts attention from the threats and problems facing Asian-Americans.  Every ethnic group has unique and inherent problems that should not be overlooked by false narratives.  For example, black Americans have diabetes at nearly twice the rate of whites and nearly half the Hispanic population considers access to affordable health care a “very serious” problem. The successful Asian stereotype also means less than 1-in-3 Asian-American children receive mental health care treatment when parents determine there’s a need, but fear the stigma attached to seeking treatment.

Are Asian-Americans perceived as non-existent, unimportant or maybe just honorary Caucasian? The problems facing researchers in counting smaller groups is understandably an inconvenience.  Asian-Americans are frequently undercounted because of linguistic and cultural barriers -- the result of grouping together dozens of peoples from diverse ancestries that sometimes share little more than a common region of the world. But the invisibility created by being left out also creates countless problems.  Health needs are not met.  Funds for social services are unfairly distributed. Politicians and policy makers ignore the problems they don’t even know exist.  Entrepreneurs, particularly social entrepreneurs, miss opportunities to generate business, jobs and tax revenues.

Studies that omit key groups are a waste of time and lack credibility because their conclusions are based on only part of the picture.  It seems to me, Pew should want to study the social media habits of those leading the digital revolution.

Julia Y. Huang, CEO of interTrend Communications - a national advertising agency connecting FORTUNE 500 companies with Asian-American audiences.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 22 tháng 3, 2013

Cyberattacks on South Korean banks, media outlets hard to trace

The attacks that knocked South Korean banks and media outlets offline this week appear to be the latest examples of international "cyberwar." But among the many ways that digital warfare differs from conventional combat: There's often no good way of knowing who's behind an attack.

South Korean authorities said Thursday that the attack, which shut down scores of cash machines and hampered business, had been traced to an "Internet Protocol" address in China. But that doesn't mean the attack was launched from there. The general assumption in South Korea is that the attack originated in North Korea.

"IP" addresses are, roughly speaking, the phone numbers of the Internet. Each connected computer has a number that identifies it uniquely on the network, so the Chinese IP address implies that a computer in China was involved in the attack.

However, that computer could have been controlled from elsewhere, either because someone bought access to it, or because it's been infected with malicious software. To determine the location from which it's being controlled, investigators would need access to that computer, or to the records of the company hosting the computer. That's unlikely to be forthcoming from a Chinese company.

"China is obviously a popular place to hide things," said Dan Holden, director of security research at Arbor Networks' Security Engineering & Response Team. Chinese authorities are difficult to work with and there's a language barrier, he said.

In addition, China is believed to be conducting its own campaign of cyber-espionage, which means that attacks launched from there are often simply attributed to the Chinese government, even if it isn't responsible for the aggression, Holden said.

"If you are any nation state or even any attacker right now, why wouldn't you hide in China right now?" Holden asked rhetorically.

Apart from tracing the path an attack takes through the Internet, there's another way to figure out who's behind it: analysis of the software involved. Malicious software, or "malware," can provide clues to its creator. Some of those are obvious, like comments inserted into the written code. However, such comments can be easily faked to lead investigators astray. More subtle analysis can be fruitful, according to Christopher Novak, managing principal of the global investigative response team at Verizon Communications Inc.

"In many cases, the malware that you see on the computer is very similar to a cold or an illness that a person gets ... The strain of the cold that I have and the strain of the cold that you have may be slightly different, but when we look at the DNA and makeup and see they're 99.9 percent the same, there's a pretty good chance one of us transmitted it to the other," Novak said. "When we analyze malware codes, we see the elements that are copied and reused, certain programming styles."

Such analysis can yield important clues, but rarely rock-solid attribution. The U.S. Department of Defense has said that a cyberattack can merit a violent response, but first you have to know who to target.

"Digital attribution is extremely difficult and if you want to do it, it takes some serious effort," Holden said.


View the original article here

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.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 27 tháng 2, 2013

Sequester fears take mainstream media hysteria to new heights

R.E.M. sang, “It’s the end of the world as we know it.” If ever there were a theme song for the liberal media’s coverage of the sequester the band's iconic song would be it. 

The “broad and sweeping federal budget cuts” being debated on the Hill are being reported breathlessly in the news media. NBC’s Brian Williams called it “high anxiety” and a “Good Morning America” graphic sounded the alarm: “Seven Days to Fiscal Emergency.” ABC’s David Kerley said the sequester “sounds like a disaster movie.” He didn’t scream, but he still has time.

In one of the best examples of political theater, famed Washington Post editor and reporter Bob Woodward reminded the world recently that the sequester was Obama’s idea. That set in motion a bizarre circumstance where Republicans were relying on Woodward and Democrats were trying to discredit him as a tool of the right. Yes, this was the same Bob Woodward who helped destroy Republican President Richard Nixon.

Turn on almost any network newscast and there’s one theme. The federal budget might be cut! The horror!

The New York Times warned the $85 billion in budget cuts – just 2.4 percent of the budget – were ushering in an era of “federal austerity.” The story began in a typically apocalyptic manner: “Fear of U.S. Cuts Grows In States Where Aid Flows – Recovery Seen At Risk – Wide Impact Looms on Jobs, Tax Revenue, and Schools.” Even the Times’ pretend conservative David Brooks blasted Republicans as “mindless anti-government fanatics.”

The Huffington Post screamed with predictable hyperbole “AUSTERITY COUNTDOWN: 4 DAYS TIL PAIN” across its front page like Mr. T had taken over headline writing. It was followed by subtle subheads like: "'Prepare To Suffer’” and “‘The Road To A Lawless Society Is Being Paved.’”  Who knows, tomorrow’s headline may lament “dogs and cats living together.”

Every major old-school news outlet has shouted about the “worst-case scenario for government spending cuts,” as if they were deliberately doing the bidding of the liberal Democrats who couldn’t find a way to cut in a Ginsu factory. We’ve been told about cuts in research, cuts in jobs, defense-crippling cuts at the Pentagon that keep carriers in port and even vaccines that won’t ever get made.

CBS’s Wyatt Andrews warned on February 25, about NIH research that “will one day find a drug to diminish the impact of old age.” As if prescription drug firms wouldn’t pay for that research … if they thought it potentially viable. 

Yet the sad truth is that in the eyes of the news media, every government program is perfect. It’s those evil Republicans who won’t raise taxes, after just raising them only two months ago.

Turn on almost any network newscast and there’s one theme. The federal budget might be cut! The horror! By March 1, when the cuts start taking effect, the broadcast networks could well be using Hindenburg graphics with desperate government workers bailing out of jobs in mid-air to avoid the explosion.

Not all journalists have been bad on this – just most. 

Surprisingly, CNN’s presidential debate star seems to have grasped some basic economics or reporting. (Maybe even both!) Crowley called out one of the administration’s many liars, er, department heads, pretending the cuts will end the world as we know it – in this case air travel. Crowley had the audacity to tell Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that your post-sequester total at FAA ops and facilities and equipment is going to be about $500 million more than 2008 and the planes were running just fine.”

When LaHood responded by talking about the dreaded “furlough of air traffic controllers,” Crowley came right back. “Is it true that domestic flights are down 27 percent from pre-9/11 levels and the budget at the FAA is up 41 percent?”

That is the essence of the sequester. Federal budgets seldom really drop and any cut is seen as a crime against nature. Journalists, meanwhile, regurgitate talking points from their statist buddies who think the taxes should take every dollar out of your wallet, and then sell your wallet for good measure.

Almost no one in the press is pointing out that all this budget cutting is just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s really needed to rein in trillion dollar deficits and our $16.5 trillion national debt. Any attempt to do that will require true cuts to our bloated government and its No. 1 fans in the media will again scream the sky is falling and the world is about to end.

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.


View the original article here