Power Line News

This has been noted by conservative sites like Little Green Footballs and <a href="http://www

» View the article

When are these much-vaunted slaughters going to happen in the NYT newsroom? When is Rupert Murdoch going to transform the Wall Street Journal into a hefty news daily with competent, principled staffers? When? When?

I am no longer shocked at the intentional misreporting at the Times, or at the adherence of Times readers to the Democrat party line they represent. It is a fact, like air and gravity. While the right usually uses the left’s own words, in context, the left ‘feels’ its way to what is perceived to be necessary. Increasingly it is becoming clear that, to the left, this is war. Anything goes.

The more the media shows its infantile, slobbering love for Obama, the more likely that anti-McCain conservatives will come around and vote for the old bastid.

We have to show the media that as corrupt and dishonest as they get, they still can’t win, so they may as well reform and go back to simply reporting the news.

This is shaping up to be a McCain landslide.

The final nail in the Messiah’s coffin will be when the crazier of his supporters start making public threats to torch the country if their man isn’t elected.

In the MSM’s eyes Obama is a winner all around.  Even beyond his policies they will be able to write history.  Certainly it must give any “journalist” a thrill up their leg to be able to be the one to write about the first african-american elected.  I’m sure that in their own minds they see their words being read by historians for decades to come.

They see themselves as the ones who brought down LBJ and Nixon.  They’ve damaged Bush.  They’ll be the one’s to lead us to the new America.

They are totally in this for themselves, and their legacy.

John wonders whether the NY Times will correct the story.

How about Obama? Won’t he demand a correction? After all, they’re lying about him.

If Obama were a little wooden boy (Baracchio?), he could use his nose to write his name in the dust on the moon. This is the same man that accuses his primary opponent of saying anything to get elected and accuses John McCain of losing his bearings?

Barak was never in favor of the war in Iraq, the term “never” excluding that time when he stated he would have done the same thing Bush did if he were in that position. 

Barak promised to pull the troops out if Iraq immediately.  Of course, please ignore Samantha Powers statements that no one can say with any certainty what they will do a year from now.  Oh, and pulling the troops out does not include leaving behind a little “strike force” of about 80,000+ troops.  Never mind the fact that we have less than half that number in Korea.

Brarak told the voters in Ohio that he was against NAFTA and would, at a minimum, renegotiate the treaty due to the unfairness to the American worker.  At the same time, he was telling the Canadian government to ignore his promises to voters as mere “campaign rhetoric”.  He didn’t really mean it.

Barak told all of America that he considered Jeremiah Wright a spiritual mentor and a friend for over 20 years, yet expressed total shock at some of Wright’s rantings.  At first, he tried to have us believe that he never heard those words, Then, he implied that “sound bites” were taken out of context.  Then, said he could not denounce Wright any more than he could denounce black America.  Then, after Wright proved to the world that his “sound bites” were a very accurate reflection of his beliefs and history, Barak denounced Wright.  He still claims he never heard a discouraging word, though. 

Ayers?  Why yes, he was indeed a friend.  Terrorism?  Barak noted these acts occurred when he was, like, 8 years old, strongly implying that what happened in the 60’s did not reflect the man’s beliefs today.  Pay no attention to that man stomping on the US flag. 

Rezko?  Just one of many donors.  Can’t keep track of them all, even the ones that help you try to hide the below market price of your home. 

And now, Iran.  Of course he never said he would meet with Iran with no preconditions.  Ignore his past video record and the information on his website. 

I’m sure I missed some other instances of “mis-speaking”. 

Audacity?  You bet. Audacity in believing the American people are too stupid to see through his facade of lies.

Media observers and critics have generally bent over backwards for the last two or three decades to declare that, although somewhat biased in story selection and point of view, the mainstream media is in general an honorable and reliable purveyor of the daily news on a factual basis.  Even some candidates (I think I remember GW Bush and John McCain, for two) have parroted that notion, though there’s a legimate question to be raised whether the fears by those candidates of greatly increased media hostility have forced such benign statements out of them, in place of their real feelings.

That’s the case no longer.  With the advent of blogs and YouTube, it’s finally possible to point out the vicious mendacity of media whose intent is to drive public opinion away from candidate A to candidate B.  One of the McCain-Feingold act’s worst features was its blatant attempt to suppress attack ads by individuals or organizations within 60 days of an election, while leaving a clear field for ‘news’ articles by said media which amount to the same thing as attack ads - or worse, given the remaining shreds of respectability clinging to those media.

And in my opinion, the media has been pretty blatantly pushing for its own opinion of the ‘right’ candidates and the ‘right’ issues for all those recent decades, and has only gotten away with it because the voices of those who found the flaws and contradictions and outright lies are so small in comparison with the MSM.  Someone opined a few years ago that the MSM gave the Democrats a 16-point advantage in national elections, and I see that as just one glimmering of the truth that peeked through the tidal wave of media bias.

Newsweek has a similar piece this weekend, bewailing the 527s who “give free speech a bad name” like the Swiftboat ‘lies’ about Kerry and the Willie Horton ad that “fed American fears about race and crime” against Dukakis, as if he had nothing to do with furloughs in Massachusetts.

Rush Limbaugh told incoming Republican freshmen in 1995 that they could not trust the media to be accurate when a lie would injure Republicans.  They didn’t learn.  They still haven’t learnt.

Oh, its going to get an awful lot worse than that before it is over.

Media bias? What media bias.

Tom W. - 12 May 2008 01:37 AM

The more the media shows its infantile, slobbering love for Obama, the more likely that anti-McCain conservatives will come around and vote for the old bastid.

No, he is the little turkey who benefited from this bias for the last 8 years at the expense of the republican party. I am rather enjoying seeing his former allies turning the knives on him. I hope he suffers greatly at their hands; maybe his head will explode from the anger it instigates.

horse - 12 May 2008 10:31 AM

Tom W. - 12 May 2008 01:37 AM

The more the media shows its infantile, slobbering love for Obama, the more likely that anti-McCain conservatives will come around and vote for the old bastid.

No, he is the little turkey who benefited from this bias for the last 8 years at the expense of the republican party. I am rather enjoying seeing his former allies turning the knives on him. I hope he suffers greatly at their hands; maybe his head will explode from the anger it instigates.

Seems To ME ...

That it’s YOU who could benefit from an “anger management” program.

.

I have been gone from this forum for a while.  Returning now, it seems to me you guys don’t need the media to kill the Republican cause.  You are tearing it down yourselves. All I see here is the bashing of McCain and the positing of CHANGE to the center in Obama. Weird!

Full disclosure:  I have received training three times from people who have been trained by Saul Alinsky.

It took me a while to make the connection but yesterday I realized how Obama’s statement about his willingness to meet with various unsavory government leaders fit in with what Alinksy training taught about meeting with a targeted company or department of government [mayor, CEO, board] who the “organizer” feels can give the group what it wants.

After the organizer has his group together [there is a whole process here that I won’t go into] and it has chosen the issue it wants to tackle, you work on getting a meeting scheduled with the person(s) the organizer has decided on.

The only goal of the first meeting is a second meeting. 

This is because the first goal of your group is to establish itslegitimacy or get recognition of the organizer’s group to negotiate on behalf of the problem in question.

The motto is: Organized people against organized money.

Obama, by stating that he is willing to meet with these “leaders” without any preconditions, has declared that he is willing to give these people recognition or legitimacy without their having to meet any preconditions.

Many in Obama’s base that I’ve talked to are totally ignorant on foreign relations.  They think of it in terms of personal relationships.  They think that countries dislike us because we are not “nice” enough to them.  If people in other countries liked us, all would be well and world peace would follow. Obama plays well to them.

Obama may see himself as an organizer on behalf of the aggrieved peoples of the world against the wealth of the West.

EDIT: Training also included lessons on how to “cut the issue” {define the problem or state your goal] so as to insure favorable media coverage.  Obama doesn’t need to worry about this one.  The MSM does that for him in every article that covers him.

When you are the custodian of the ultimate truth, all means are justified to spread that truth.

When your cause is going to save the world, all means are justified to promote that cause.

I have some hope that the Internet will be part of a long term solution to the problem of one sided new reporting.

On the other hand, so few people are interested in the things that actually effect their lives. They are interested instead in what celebrety is porking the other and so would not inform themselves if there WERE good news reporting.

Sadly, the public has no interest in thinking through agruments and a very short attention span. Accordingly, whoever can distort or outright lie in the fewest words carries the day. The liberals seem to be the best practicioners.