Liberal Media Bias - Don Lemon is pissed edition

13

Comments

  • nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    the bloom is off the obama rose, he makes more gaffes than dan quayle

    he is teleprompter dependent

    when it breaks then he has to wait fumble bumble can't even remember his own speeches

    i wish he would show what's in his heart, and fewer "code words" code language

    we deserve less teleprompter
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    For all those who are outraged over these "disruptive" protests:



    Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest



    Quote:

    News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.



    When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.



    One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.



    "BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."



    Another poster showed Bush's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"



    A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.



    Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"



    Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.



    Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.



    The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush's motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president's moving limousine.



    All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"



    Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire.



    The lead story in Wednesday's Washington Post, for example, is headlined: "Obama Faces 'Scare Tactics' Head-On."



    "As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him 'Obamahdinejad,' in reference to Iran's president," the Post reported. "People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. 'Nobama Deathcare!' one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: 'Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.' Images of a protester wearing what appeared to be a gun were shown on television."



    On Sunday, The New York Times reported that a Democratic congressman discovered that "an opponent of health care reform hanged him in effigy" and was confronted by "200 angry conservatives." The article lamented "increasingly ugly scenes of partisan screaming matches, scuffles, threats and even arrests."



    No such coverage was given to the Portland protest of Bush by The New York Times or the Washington Post, which witnessed the protest.



    Were you outraged at the behavior of these protesters? Were you making assertions that this behavior was typical of all liberal Democrats?
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    jazzguru those were peace protestors that confronted Bush. They were merely expressing opposition to the Iraq war policy.



    Ironically the news papers were doing what the democrats wanted and needed politically while the leftist were upset that they weren't getting enough coverage.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    PowerlineBlog.com



    I'm sure the complete lack of curiosity will of course be rationalized away now. Van Jones? Who is that?



    The media isn't just biased for Obama. They are his propaganda department at this point. They are confounded why no one tunes in for the daily dish of fake news. They wonder why no one can tell the difference between a comedian reading the news and an actual anchor. The only confusion is why Katie Couric doesn't hire funnier writers.



    Quote:

    Jones also signifies the cooperation of the mainstream media in Obama's machinations. The nonfeasance of the mainstream media in the performance of their job has been virtually complete. They have left it to the likes of the indomitable Gateway Pundit to reveal what a man we have in Jones, and therewith the project in which the Obama administration is engaged. The mainstream media have Obama's back. Yesterday Byron York ran a Nexis search on Van Jones and posted the resutls:



    Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.

    Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.

    Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.

    Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.

    Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.



    As of today, I think York's calculation still obtains for the New York Times, but the Washington Post has contributed a few words on the White House's "tepid support" of Jones. A reader is more or less left to fend for himself in figuring the the substance of Jones's statements or views that have produced this "tepid support."



    Why would they run an article about Van Jones and the issues that prompted him to resign? I'm sure there are more pressing issues like... how much it cost to reprint the stationary due to Palin resigning or perhaps we could get a clarification from Levi Johnston about whether he thought the amount of hot sauce packets the Palin's took from Taco Bell were appropriate for the amount of food ordered or actual theft.



    Van who.... well... um.... look we'll report on him resigning, help Obama spin it positively and also remind everyone that all this only happened because Republicans are racist psychopaths who control everything even though they are extinct.



    But the news... who the hell would be interested in that.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    They have run stories on Van Jones.



    Shocking news: Powerlineblog is a partisan shithole.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    The NY TImes doing what it does so well, creating propaganda out of the air.



    Let's start with the title... Judges’ Frustration Grows With Mortgage Servicers for proof of this they cite, the views of one judge. The judge is a movement of one.



    Now we move to this....



    Quote:

    Under cross-examination by Mrs. Giguere (who had a little assistance from Judge Haines), the bank’s defense withered.



    The judge becomes the prosecutor and the bank has no defense. Is there a defense to a judge who is not acting impartially?



    Quote:

    The spectacle of a high-ranking banking executive being grilled by an ordinary homeowner was the result of an unusual decision by Judge Randolph J. Haines of the United States Bankruptcy Court to summon a senior executive from Wells Fargo to appear in Mrs. Giguere’s bankruptcy case.



    At the hearing, Judge Haines made it clear that he was acting out of concerns about Wells Fargo’s mortgage modification practices generally.



    “This is certainly not an isolated case,” he said. “The kind of story I hear from this debtor is one that I and other bankruptcy judges around the country are hearing over and over and over again.”



    Wow that is some very interesting double-speak. Perhaps I need another round of re-education because I clearly see problems here. As proof it is not isolated we have the very judge that did it declaring that all the gossip says it happens often. Not a single number is presented to justify the claims. The gossip justifies the judge taking whatever "unusual" steps he feels are necessary.



    Quote:

    The hearing with Wells Fargo did not result in any sanctions against the bank for its failure to provide timely information to Mrs. Giguere about her mortgage modification application. But the bank did pledge to improve its communications with customers and to explore avenues for increasing the ease with which homeowners can seek loan modifications.



    There wasn't really anything that could be done by the judge but we called the suits in and yelled at them for a few hours and they promised to help all the trainwreck people do better.



    Quote:

    Wells Fargo has been criticized for its slow pace in modifying mortgages under the Treasury Department’s foreclosure prevention initiative, which was begun in April.



    Criticized by whom? Republicans, Democrats, or as is often the case, the criticisms come out of the ether so that the media can press the agenda. There are critics but we don't need to name them, talk to them or have numbers from them.



    Quote:

    Experts said the hearing in Phoenix reflected rising frustration by federal bankruptcy judges with mortgage servicers, which process payments for banks and the investors who own large pools of loans. In recent months, judges in Ohio and Pennsylvania have chastened mortgage servicers for failing to process payments properly and for errors in foreclosure filings, among other concerns.



    Which experts from where? Again names and numbers are not needed. We have this nice compelling story about a sad, poor woman who needs help and that is more important.



    BTW we will sleep some information in to this article at some point... right before the end when the reader might have already lost interest and quit reading.



    Quote:

    When her home shot up in value, she refinanced it several times, pulling out equity to pay off credit card debt and other expenses. She and her husband are divorcing, and he is no longer willing to help pay the mortgage. With little in savings, she has not made a full mortgage payment since November.



    “I’m not perfect, I’ll be the first to admit that,” Mrs. Giguere said. “I’ve fallen behind.”



    She isn't perfect. I mean everyone will need help when they can't afford their home, but can still afford french-tip manicured nails. Why anyone could have refinanced their home SEVERAL times and spent all the money, thus having nothing in savings even after not making a mortgage payment and having free housing since November of last year. That mean soon to be ex-husband of hers apparently doesn't want to take care of her either.



    In the meantime you can go to her Facebook page
    where we learn that she has two more children who are adults and not mentioned in the article. Why they won't help mom isn't explored at all. We can also see those nails continue to be done, the large tattoo she wants to share and the snarky t-shirt from her son that declares "All the good paying jobs start before I get up" to which she adds the comment that her son knows her so well.



    Sorry, but I'm not compassionate for this woman. BTW in the NY Times this is in the "Business" section. People wonder why that newspaper needs a bailout. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad but true.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    When bringing up the many instances of the media ignoring Democratic scandals, the refrain comes out again, "Yes but it isn't really about scandals, it is about sex." Sex sells, scandals about sex sell. Things like not reporting assets and income while being a Democratic house leader, that doesn't sell.



    So what happens when there is a scandal involvins some nice juicy sex? Well the same old stonewall treatment.



    Newsbusters



    Quote:

    You would think videos exposing representatives of the controversial organization ACORN giving advice on how a couple can get a loan to set up a brothel would be BIG NEWS.



    Such would seem especially the case if the proposed house of ill repute would be employing minors illegally smuggled across the border from Central America.



    Yet, when Andrew Breitbart's new website Big Government published such videos Thursday morning, media normally fascinated with sex stories almost completely ignored it.



    The boycott continued even after several ACORNers were fired as a result (sting videos embedded below the fold):

    Story Continues Below Ad ↓



    * ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC have not aired one television report concerning this matter

    * The New York Times has not published one article concerning this matter

    * USA Today has not published one article concerning this matter

    * The Boston Globe has not published one article concerning this matter

    * The Los Angeles Times has not published one article concerning this matter

    * The Chicago Tribune has not published one article concerning this matter



    Sex sells as long as it is a married mother of five having it with her husband.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Time for another edition of "What has salacious sex and other assorted afternoon talk show type details but is still being ignored by the media?"



    The latest example was so bad that even Jon Stewart had to mock, I guess himself and the media in general for not attending to it.



    I talking of course about ACORN and the round of videos that reveal employees showing how to keep your prostitutes from costing you big tax money while you hold them against their will after bringing them up illegally from El Salvador. Another ACORN employee can show you how to shoot your spouse without getting in too much trouble and of course the list goes on.



    Only it really doesn't because major media aren't interested in reporting on this.







    Quote:

    You're telling me that two kids from the cast of "High School Musical III" can break this story with a video camera and their grandmother's chinchilla coat? And you got nothing? They did it for $3,000, and that's Blitzer's monthly beard Wetvac budget. It probably cost CNN that much to turn on their hologram machine.



    I'm a fake journalist, and I'm embarrassed these guys scooped me. Let's get to work people.




    Prepare to keep being embarassed Jon. Being a lackey of the Democratic Party and attacking and blasting critics rather than reporting news also embarrassing even for a fake journalist.



    Speaking of embarrassing, ol' Wolf Blitzer needed a bailout of his own after going on celebrity Jeopardy.







    No wonder the comedians get so much respect in this day and age. They appear to know a hell of a lot more than the reporters.
  • formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    I'll take "Talking To Themselves" for a thousand, Alex.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post


    I'll take "Talking To Themselves" for a thousand, Alex.



    And the question is...."What is preferable to talking to people who have no ideas and call everyone -isms and -ists."



    That is correct.



    Time Magazine has resorted, as has much of the Democratic party, to recycling the criticism they "investigate" that just magically appears out of the air and has no real source.



    Newsbusters



    Quote:

    "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?"







    Quote:

    "Is Rush Limbaugh Good for America?"







    Meanwhile, Chris Matthews is really pissed that conservatives read books.




    Quote:

    "There?s so much right-wing crap on the best seller list these days. It?s great to see a book that you might want to put on your shelf and let your respected friends see you actually reading."



    Please go buy some liberal books so Chris can get the thrill back up his leg and also so you can be respected by him and his friends.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Powerline - Sliming James O'Keefe: A case study



    Quote:

    More nefariously, the Post implies that O'Keefe and Giles worked with racist motivations:



    Though O'Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.

    "Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," he said. "No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find."



    If O'Keefe had said something incendiary about a racial motivation for undertaking his investigation of ACORN, one can be sure that the Post reporters would have quoted it instead of simply larding the context with an imputation of racism. The Post certainly provides no supporting quote.



    It appears to me that Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol D. Leonnig are alone responsible for introducing race to the discussion.
    Associated Press reporters Sharon Theimer and Pete Yost pick up where the Post left off in this story:



    James O'Keefe, one of the two filmmakers, said he went after ACORN because it registers minorities likely to vote against Republicans: "Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," O'Keefe told The Washington Post. "No one was holding this organization accountable."



    But did O'Keefe say any such thing? The Washington Post reporters imply the existence of a statement that is nowhere quoted. The AP takes the cue and puts the words in O'Keefe's mouth. It's quite a racket they've got going here, and someone really should call them on it.



    There it is folks. The clearest example of made up racism and using the race card to divert from reality. The man has various ACORN employees helping to commit all manner of fraud and crimes but that isn't the important thing. The important thing is to create a conservative caricature and then smear him with it by using an out of context quote that isn't related in any fashion.



    I'm sure someone on SNL will soon have him seeing Russia from his backporch pretty quickly. Call Jon Stewart quick, someone need so be SLAMMED. Get Dave Letterman, someone needs a top 10 done on them.
  • formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post


    I'll take "Talking To Themselves" for a thousand, Alex.



    And the answer is.... A DAILY DOUBLE!!
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    You could try to address, the content, but there is no answer for that. The media bias is disgusting and factual.
  • involuntary_serfinvoluntary_serf Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    You could try to address, the content, but there is no answer for that. The media bias is disgusting and factual.



    That's because there is no content and you are obviously just an idiotic, Obama-hating racist for even pointing out this supposed "bias".

    [/SARCASM]
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    That Time cover with Limbaugh actually seems fairly prescient given how much damage talk radio and demagoguery in general has done to our national political discourse.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    A cute cartoon that illustrates who got what level of attention related to lies and lying.







    Who got the rebuke?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    WaPo to O'Keefe: Sorry We Called You Racist in ACORN Story



    Quote:

    The Washington Post today published on page A2 a correction to a September 18 article on James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, the duo behind "The $1,300 Mission to Fell ACORN" (h/t NewsBusters tipster Sean O'Brien):



    A Sept. 18 Page One article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly becase its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.



    In other words: sorry we tagged you as a racist by putting words in your mouth
    .



    Sorry we couldn't report reality because we were so busy smashing you into a caricature. Sorry we couldn't use your actual words and instead had to substitute what we thought you would say.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Reporters Should Be Upfront About Political Beliefs



    The highlights..........



    Quote:

    When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."



    Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement."

    So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?



    Yes it is bias.



    Quote:

    Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.



    Again bias....



    Quote:

    In addition, reporters seem to think they've done their job if they merely describe the intentions behind the proposed "reform." But the burden of proof should be on the sponsors of regulation and spending. They should have to make a convincing case that their new rules are superior to the free market. Who cares about intentions?



    Who cares about intentions? Well liberals and Democrats of course who use them to ignore reality.



    The rest is a great read as well.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdkUqGSU4z



    A nice comparison of the "news" as generated now for President Obama as opposed to when the facts were the same under President Reagan. Since Gibson doesn't care to give follow up numbers all the numbers are worse for African-Americans, Men and most subgroups under Obama as well.



    We also have this article from Business and Media.org



    Quote:

    Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.

    Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).



    Finally.............



    Quote:

    Under Obama reporters have gone to great lengths to spin rising unemployment by finding “positive trends” in the job losses, even focusing on as few as 25 jobs being “saved” by the economic stimulus package. But when Reagan was president journalists showed unemployed families living out of their cars under a bridge in Texas and quoted Democrats or union leaders’ attacks on the president’s “wicked” and “sadistic” fiscal policies.



    ABC’s George Stephanopoulos looked on the bright side for Obama Sept. 4, 2009, telling viewers, “the unemployment rate nears 10 percent, but the numbers aren’t all bad.” Rewind to May 7, 1982, when unemployment hit 9.4 percent – three-tenths of a percentage point lower than it would be in August 2009. That night, NBC found people in Seattle in dire straights.

    “The lines for free food at food banks are four times what they were six months ago,” NBC’s Don Oliver told “Nightly News” viewers. Oliver’s report focused on the “new poor” and the emotional effects of unemployment, including suicide and battering.



    It will be very interesting to see when the liberal media members themselves join the unemployed due to generating propaganda instead of news. Maybe Charles Gibson would be interested in raking my yard and painting a few rooms at a rental home of mine.
Sign In or Register to comment.