Liberal Media At It Again

[loosecannon]

Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things: buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people with whom he disagrees.

Now here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with me on this. Most of Soros' political money flows through his Open Society Institute. You see it there on the left, which is almost unlimited funding.....

IOW you got nothing but an editorialized propaganda article that is long on hyperbole and short on any facts.

Their chart on the left for example, the one that was supposed to affirm the ridiculous claim that Soros had contributed "unlimited funding" didn't even exist.

And what Soros is claimed to be doing is exactly alike what the GOP think tank apparatus has been doing for over a decade.

So I yawn and say, "so what".

Wake me when you get any evidence of Soros' real constributions or can actually make your case for this "vast left conspiracy" (see how that phrase keeps coming up again and again?) imagined ion this article and the thread opener.

So far you are becoming thematic and not in a glamorous way.

Yawn.

 

[red states rule]

IOW you got nothing but an editorialized propaganda article that is long on hyperbole and short on any facts.

Their chart on the left for example, the one that was supposed to affirm the ridiculous claim that Soros had contributed "unlimited funding" didn't even exist.

And what Soros is claimed to be doing is exactly alike what the GOP think tank apparatus has been doing for over a decade.

So I yawn and say, "so what".

Wake me when you get any evidence of Soros' real constributions or can actually make your case for this "vast left conspiracy" (see how that phrase keeps coming up again and again?) imagined ion this article and the thread opener.

So far you are becoming thematic and not in a glamorous way.

Yawn.

I am very sorry

I NEVER should have confused the issue with facts

 

[red states rule]

What is interesting is that only the editorialist who wrote the article blamed Bush for anything. Which explains why no mention of Bush's declaration of a state of emergency was relevant.

Sounds like somebody(s) imagines a vast left wing conspiracy where there is none.

Tornado Survivors Overwhelmed by Government’s Quick Response, Media Mum
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 11, 2007 - 10:02.
During the 2005 disaster in New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina, you couldn’t turn on a television set without seeing some washed-out resident complaining about the terrible job the federal government was doing with rescue, relief, and evacuation.

By contrast, in the days following the destruction of Greensburg, Kansas, by an F-5 tornado, the only one complaining is the state’s Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who, as we’ll discuss later, might have been set up to do so by DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

Yet, have you seen any interviews with Greensburg residents unhappy with the government response to the disaster?

Well, on Wednesday, the website for WCBS-TV in New York published an article suggesting that “residents were overwhelmed by the immediate response, and that the governor's fuss was for her own good” (emphasis added throughout, h/t Gateway Pundit):

While Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and the Bush administration jaw back-and-forth over the relief efforts for Greensburg, Kan., the town devastated by Friday night's F-5 tornado, town residents have chimed in and say they couldn't be any happier with the response from the government and other rescue units.

"The poor response thing is just political BS," Greensburg resident Mike Swigart, 47, who lost his house and four vehicles from the storm, told wcbstv.com in an exclusive interview. "I saw her on television and I'm disappointed in that because she doesn't know what she's talking about."

Haven’t heard about this? Haven’t seen Swigart interviewed by a teary-eyed Katie Couric or Meredith Vieira? Wonder why? Well, there’s more:

"You may have seen her on television when she said that, and she talked about Hummers, that we needed Hummers. There were Hummers sitting in front of my house every day. The National Guard was there," he said. "I saw people from all over who came right away to help and nobody sent them, they just came because they knew it was going to be big. The response was excellent, the rescue efforts were all night long, and I even made a comment to my wife later that night when we came back into our basement that I can't imagine anyone saying we had a poor response to this tragedy, that it was so quick and it was amazing."

Swigart says the general feeling around the town is that residents were overwhelmed by the immediate response, and that the governor's fuss was for her own good. White House press secretary Tony Snow responded to Sebelius by saying that there was no request by Kansas officials for extra equipment, and that if there is anyone to blame, it's her.

"I was told she wanted to run as vice president on the Democratic ticket, and honestly, I wouldn't vote for her if they paid me because of that one thing she said on television right there. It was a political slam is all it was," he said. "It was a political statement and as far as the military thing overseas, I support what they're doing over there, and the military that came here is doing a great job too."

Any questions as to why it appears that the only other media outlet that has spoken or referred to Swigart is Investor’s Business Daily in a May 9 editorial slamming Sebelius for “Katrinafying” the tornado? Think he'd be getting a lot of interviews if he agreed with the Governor's negative view of the relief?

Regardless, there may be another political reason Sebelius has fabricated this story about a poor National Guard response that the media are currently ignoring. According to Bryan at Hot Air, XM Satellite Radio’s Quinn and Rose reported Thursday that DNC Chairman Howard Dean “called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early Sunday morning and instructed her not to request federal assistance in recovery from the Greensburg tornado, and to lie about the federal response to date.”

An update at Hot Air stated:

I’ve placed calls to Sen. Brownback, Gov. Sebelius and the DNC. I left a message with Brownback’s office and Gov. Sebelius’ staff. The DNC spokesman denied that the phone call took place and is working on getting an official denial out to me as soon as he can.

However, Bryan included a text of an e-mail message he received from Quinn and Rose claiming that Sebelius had called Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) apologizing for the statements she made concerning the federal response:

She explained that she did not believe them and that they actually had too many National Guardsmen show up.

Governor Sebelius explained “Sam, you know how political everything is right now and we’re not allowed to let an opportunity like this just pass.” She continued “I made sure not to blame you or Pat (Senator Roberts?) or anybody outside the White House. With his (Bush’s) numbers, you can’t really blame me for usin’ that.”

Once again, at this point, there has been no official statement confirming or denying this allegation. However, if the situation had been reversed, and Sebelius was a Republican who had been instructed to lie about this response by RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, would this be headline, front-page news regardless of the lack of an official statement?

If the answer is an unequivocal “Yes,” the question is “Why?”

Stay tuned.

*****Update: Hot Air reported that the DNC, Brownbeck, and Sebelius have all written formal denials that this took place.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12683

 

[loosecannon]

OMG, RSR, I can not BELIEVE that you actually BELIEVE that the "hotair" you posted is news.

You will literally believe anything that supports your Bush won't you?

Truth is tho that NOWHERE in any of your posted articles is an actual mention of anybody blaming BUSH for anything.

You imagine a vast leftwing conspiracy everywhere, don't you RSR?

Is the media you quoted librul too?

 

[red states rule]

OMG, RSR, I can not BELIEVE that you actually BELIEVE that the "hotair" you posted is news.

You will literally believe anything that supports your Bush won't you?

Truth is tho that NOWHERE in any of your posted articles is an actual mention of anybody blaming BUSH for anything.

You imagine a vast leftwing conspiracy everywhere, don't you RSR?

Is the media you quoted librul too?

It would seem you have a problem with anyone who points out the left wing slant of the MSM

 

[red states rule]

OMG, RSR, I can not BELIEVE that you actually BELIEVE that the "hotair" you posted is news.

You will literally believe anything that supports your Bush won't you?

Truth is tho that NOWHERE in any of your posted articles is an actual mention of anybody blaming BUSH for anything.

You imagine a vast leftwing conspiracy everywhere, don't you RSR?

Is the media you quoted librul too?

AP and Yahoo’s Misleading $4 Per Gallon Gas Picture
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 13, 2007 - 17:57.
Have you seen the picture on the right showing a Shell station in San Francisco with gas prices in excess of $4 per gallon?

Well, there’s only one problem with it: this isn’t close to indicative of what gas prices are in the Bay Area. Not even close.

Yet, the following was captioned next to this Associated Press picture at Yahoo Thursday (h/t NB reader Brian Mortimer, emphasis added):

High gas prices are posted at a Shell gas station in San Francisco, Thursday, May 10, 2007. With gasoline prices poised to break records at the pump, energy futures prices jumped Thursday as traders noticed a gas supply imbalance in the fine print of Wednesday's government inventory report.(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

Sadly, the caption didn’t make clear that the prices at this station are high as a form of protest by the owner. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle Thursday (emphasis added):

Putting the price way up over $4 a gallon isn't about making a profit. It's about making a statement to a multinational corporation. After Shell forced him to pay higher prices for gas in San Francisco and jacked up his rent, [owner Bob] Oyster says, he decided to fight back.

"I got fed up,'' Oyster admits. "It makes a statement, and I guess when people see that price they also see the Shell sign right next to it.''

In reality, as identified by AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report, the average price for regular unleaded in San Francisco is currently $3.62 per gallon.

Certainly, that’s nothing to cheer about, but a far cry from the $4.39 in the picture.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to folks that have been watching the media predict $4/gallon gas prices for the last two years. As reported by the Business and Media Institute in its special report "Media Myth: Gassing Up":

ABC, CBS and NBC have done at least 70 stories that mentioned $4-a-gallon gas or higher since Jan. 1, 2005. The national average for regular has never gone above $3.06 in that time.

Maybe some day they'll be right.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12726

 

[Rosotar]

You imagine a vast leftwing conspiracy everywhere, don't you RSR?

Is the media you quoted librul too?

It's a game he plays. Rsr's "librul" media paranoia is the monster under his bed. It keeps him distracted from the sins of this president that he blindly supports.

As long as all of his president's errors are simply the fault of the librul media he never has to do any soul searching about his support.

 

[red states rule]

It's a game he plays. Rsr's "librul" media paranoia is the monster under his bed. It keeps him distracted from the sins of this president that he blindly supports.

As long as all of his president's errors are simply the fault of the librul media he never has to do any soul searching about his support.

Maybe one day the facts will support your statements

 

[Rosotar]

Maybe one day the facts will support your statements

Truth is you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass!

 

[red states rule]

Truth is you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass!

the facts seem to get under your skin pretty good

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's a game he plays. Rsr's "librul" media paranoia is the monster under his bed. It keeps him distracted from the sins of this president that he blindly supports.

As long as all of his president's errors are simply the fault of the librul media he never has to do any soul searching about his support.

So are you insisting that there is no liberal bias in the MSM? Most sane people stopped making that claim years ago.

 

[Care4all]

I think Rosotar is saying is that there is a bias but the bias is not as it seems to the political genre...

it is a bias on "what sells" and that the corporations that own these media outlets, go with where the money is....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is because the vast majority of people that currently call themselves journalists are left of the political spectrum. A lot of that is because of indoctrination in college. Something like 80 percent of the press identify themselves as democratic or left of center. There was a study done on this a few years back, not sure if any new one has been done lately.

The old claim was that " while I am left of center politically, my politics don't intrude on my job as a Journalist" which is bullshit plain and simple. It doesn't help that the old standard of reporting news objectively is long gone. The MSM is heavily into creating news and to slanting what they do report.

 

[Rosotar]

It is because the vast majority of people that currently call themselves journalists are left of the political spectrum. A lot of that is because of indoctrination in college. Something like 80 percent of the press identify themselves as democratic or left of center. There was a study done on this a few years back, not sure if any new one has been done lately.

The old claim was that " while I am left of center politically, my politics don't intrude on my job as a Journalist" which is bullshit plain and simple. It doesn't help that the old standard of reporting news objectively is long gone. The MSM is heavily into creating news and to slanting what they do report.

Here's your chance to shine Ret. Gunny.

How about providing some examples of news that the media simply "created."

Or even some they've "slanted."

I'll be waiting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want slanted? Watch any report out of Iraq.

You want fabricated, try CBS and Dan Rather.

Slanted would be allowing Obama a pass on getting the number of dead in a tornado wrong by the count of , what was it 9988? Slanted would be reporting 600 plus thousand Iraqis have died since 2003. Slanted would be so called reporters paying Iraqis to go make news for them while they sit in the green zone. Slanted would be the green helmet guy in Lebanon last year. Slanted would be the coverage of a certain Governor claiming there wasn't enough National Guard troops or Equipment for an emergency while burying the response from the Guard and federal Government that those statements were absolute fabrications. Slanted would be the total failure of the press to investigate Fienstein. On and on.

 

[Rosotar]

You want slanted? Watch any report out of Iraq...

What are you disputing about these reports?

Maybe you have your own reports and they all look rosy?

You want fabricated, try CBS and Dan Rather..

Yeah.

They fabricated documents to establish a uranium connection between Iraq and Niger didn't they?

Oh wait! That was the Bush administration!

Slanted would be allowing Obama a pass on getting the number of dead in a tornado wrong by the count of , what was it 9988?..

He was corrected immediately in the press.

So what's the problem?

Slanted would be reporting 600 plus thousand Iraqis have died since 2003.

Well since the government has neglected to keep official records on dead Iraqi civilians you really can't dispute that figure. Unless of course you've got your own source that's more "reliable." LOL!

Slanted would be so called reporters paying Iraqis to go make news for them while they sit in the green zone..

When was the last time Bush, Cheney, or rice ventured outside the green zone or for that matter made an "announced" trip to Iraq? Why do they have to sneak in in the middle of the night if everything over there is so much better than the "liberal" press reports?

Slanted would be the coverage of a certain Governor claiming there wasn't enough National Guard troops or Equipment for an emergency while burying the response from the Guard and federal Government that those statements were absolute fabrications...

The first time I heard of this story was on one of the networks and that reporter gave both sides of the story. In fact I'm sure they all did. Have you got a link that proves otherwise?

Maybe this librul media paranoia is just inside your head?

Slanted would be the total failure of the press to investigate Fienstein. On and on.

Fienstein has been "investigated" to everyone's satisfaction.

Maybe there's simply nothing there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hate to tell you but the Iraqi Government provides death certificates and unless something like 550000 Iraqis died and were swallowed by the sand in the invasion the number is a pure unadulterated fabrication.

I guess Britian lied about that cake too? Maybe Bush used that secret mind control ray he has? I guess the records recovered in Iraq after the war were all fabricated as well?

I suggest you read some blogs from people that actually know whats going on in Iraq.

As for Fienstein the press buried the story, she hasn't been investigated at all.

 

[red states rule]

So are you insisting that there is no liberal bias in the MSM? Most sane people stopped making that claim years ago.

There liberal slant is why they are losing viewers/readers

 

[red states rule]

I think Rosotar is saying is that there is a bias but the bias is not as it seems to the political genre...

it is a bias on "what sells" and that the corporations that own these media outlets, go with where the money is....

Then why is Fox News the #1 cable news network, and talk radio continues to grow?

People want their news delivered in an unbiased fashion

 

[red states rule]

Here's your chance to shine Ret. Gunny.

How about providing some examples of news that the media simply "created."

Or even some they've "slanted."

I'll be waiting.

NYT in Denial: 'Unclear What Role, If Any, Religion Played' in Fort Dix Six Terror Plot
Posted by Clay Waters on May 14, 2007 - 14:11.
New York Times reporter Alan Feuer, seen on Times Watch last May giving respectable coverage to a convention of "Bush-caused-9-11" conspiracy nuts, went to enormous (and erroneous) pains on Monday to soft-pedal the Muslim beliefs of the Fort Dix terrorist plotters in "Two Mosques Are Shaken by Ties to a Terror Plot."

"It is unclear what role, if any, religion played in the attack Mr. Shnewer and the five other men are charged with planning. (The sixth suspect, Agron Abdullahu, had no apparent connection with Al-Aqsa or the South Jersey Islamic Center.) The authorities have described the suspects as Islamic extremists, but the lengthy criminal complaint summarizing the F.B.I.'s 15-month undercover investigation of the group does not mention where -- or how often -- they prayed. Certainly there is no evidence that they picked up radical ideas at either mosque."

In contrast to the Times' uninformative, politically correct take, the New York Post filed a complete story, with details on the suspects' radical Islamic beliefs.

"When the teen and another employee went into a back room and began the conversion of the tape, they saw a group of bearded men wearing 'fundamentalist attire' and shooting 'big, f-ing guns,' the teen later told co-workers.

"Throughout the 90-minute-long tape, above the booming gunfire at a Pennsylvania target range, the jihadists could be heard screaming 'God is great!'"

[…]

"That call to authorities set in motion a 16-month undercover investigation in which six of the men caught on tape chillingly discussing killing soldiers 'in the name of Allah.'"

In a related story, the Times entered a familiar plea for sympathy on Saturday's front page, a predictable story by Richard Jones on the plight of a father of one of the "Fort Dix Six" terror suspects -- "Fort Dix Case Empties Pizzeria Where a Father's Pain Is Double."

The paper shows while it does not put terror threats against the U.S. at the top of its priority list, it at least remains sleepless in its dedication to stomping out the hint of a possibility of a shadow of a backlash against Muslims in America.

"After the third death threat of the day, Muslim Tatar decided on Thursday to telephone a sign maker. He had an assistant dictate precisely how he wanted the big new banners to read: 'Under New Management.'

"Not that Mr. Tatar was certain he would be able to sell his beloved and suddenly beleaguered pizzeria here, Super Mario's. Not that he was even sure he wanted to. But he had to do something about the empty tables, the car honks, the nasty taunts.

"'Now, I am target,' Mr. Tatar said, standing in the deserted restaurant on Thursday afternoon. 'How do I know some kid won’t come and. ...' Instead of finishing the sentence, he raised the thumb of his right hand and jabbed his forefinger, riddling the air with invisible bullets.

[...]

"Federal prosecutors said there were no indications that the elder Mr. Tatar had any idea about the plot, and the father said he and his son had grown largely estranged in recent years as Serdar’s religious zealotry increased."

Jones didn't add the quote Tatar gave the Newark Star-Ledger about the terror charges against his son, which may have made Tatar appear less sympathetic: "It's persecution, religious persecution. Nothing more.''

http://newsbusters.org/node/12749