Books, movies, politics, and whatever I want

Honesty from the Press, after the deed was done

Saturday, July 11th, 2009

Via Newsbusters, White House reporter Carl Cannon, admits that the majority of the MSM was hostile toward Gov. Sarah Palin and “seriously failed to scrutinize Joe Biden, especially his fact-mangling and odd statements in the vice presidential debate.”

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don’t know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I’m not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn’t hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.

First off, thanks for admitting the glaringly obvious. Secondly, it’s pretty cowardly of Cannon to come out with this nine months after the election. Saying this publicly back in October 2008 would have show real guts and journalistic integrity. Cannon goes on to point out just how much of a free ride the press give Joey Biden, the Gaffe Master.

Sen. Biden, however, was in a place by himself when it came to bogus claims, absurd contentions, and flights of rhetorical fancy. He threw out several assertions that were so preposterous that – had Palin made them – they would have prompted immediate calls for McCain to dump her from the ticket.

The good senator from Delaware warmed up slowly, erroneously claiming that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution, and asserting wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. He also embarked on an appallingly wrongheaded monologue about the constitutional history of the vice presidency. But when the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden’s purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid.

To me Biden’s most discordant claims concerned his Animal House-like history lecture about the office of the vice president. It came while Biden was dressing down Dick Cheney, who was not present, for supposedly being unfamiliar with the Constitution. “The idea (that) he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States – that’s the executive branch – he works in the executive branch,” Biden said. “He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and, as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit….He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us.”

Lord, would Tina Fey have had fun with this jumble of misinformation – if only Palin had said it! Article I defines the legislative, not executive, branch. The vice president is, indeed, mentioned there. What Biden finds “explicit,” hasn’t been so to previous vice presidents or to most constitutional scholars. Prior to the 20th century, vice presidents didn’t even have offices at the White House compound – they were housed in the Capitol. The notion that a veep’s constitutional authority is to provide advice to a president springs from Biden’s brow; it certainly isn’t mentioned, or even contemplated, in the Constitution, which doesn’t even say whether the vice president should receive a salary.

Should Joe Biden have known this stuff? Since he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, you’d hope so. But even if he didn’t, you’d think it would be news when he unleashed a veritable fount of misinformation to impugn Palin’s knowledge of the federal system while attacking a sitting vice president. It barely rated a mention in the collective mainstream media.

This isn’t “news” to anybody paying attention, but it is interesting to see a member of the DNC/MSM out his profession for blatant unprofessionalism. Of course, he is doing nine months after the election, and well before the next election cycle. Either way, I don’t think readers of the New York Times will ever know of Cannon’s confession.

Here is an impression of Gov. Palin from “Saturday Night Live” senior producer Marci Klein, that is more accurate than any mocking satire from Tina Fey, “This is the most confident person I’ve ever met.”

Tags: , , ,

Where the New York Times gets its talking points from

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Liberal NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd was caught lifting her leftist talking points directly, word for word, from a far hard left extremist blog.

Color me not surprised.

Tags: , , ,

Bias and the Media

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Ask any leftist and odds are that they think that Fox News is “far right wing” and just repeats what the RNC tells them.

If you ask a few more questions, you’ll find out that these same people think CBS/ABC/MSNBC/CNN & the New York Times are “centrist” and not pushing any agenda.

Then they will tell you that they get most of their “news” from Jon Steward, that Olbermann really is continuing in the footsteps of Morrow, and that Michael Moore makes documentaries.

They passionately believe all of this,even though none of it has any basis in reality.

For example, let us look at what the scholarly journal Mass Communication and Society, which is edited at Illinois State University, found when they researched the media in the 2004 election cycle.

…Fox News showed more structural bias toward Democratic candidate John Kerry than any other network, and that its bias was stronger than that on other networks. This was true contrary to criticism cited by Fico in which former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite labels Fox News as a “far-rightwing organization.”

That means Kerry and his supporters received more air time on Fox and were more likely to receive primary placement in stories. The four determinants of structural bias were the number of supporters quoted or given a chance to speak, the candidate whose supporters spoke first, the time they spent speaking, and whether there were visuals of both candidates or only of one. Neither the tone of the quotes used nor talk and commentary were analyzed, but only packaged news stories and segments.

Not quite what you would expect from a “far right wing” news organization.

Let us look at another example. The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University had this to say on bias and coverage of the News media.

“…Fox News Channel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.”

Wow! Balanced coverage from Fox News? Point this simple and verifiable fact out to a leftist and it’s a safe bet that they will deny it.
The CMPA goes on:

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

If the leftists are getting a simple and basic fact about media bias wrong, it begs a couple of questions. One, are they seeing MSNBC, the self proclaimed “Obama network”, as “centrist” because they are personally skewed to the Far Left? Two, what other simple and basic facts are they getting wrong?

Tags: , , , ,