Who Lost The Debate?

Today, people are asking who lost the debate. I'd say JournoLism did. Candy Crowley by injecting herself into the debate and constantly handing Obama soft questions and interrupting Romney showed that JournoLists can no longer be trusted. She gave Obama more than 9 minutes of time to answer questions. This shows that an anti-conservative bias is alive and well in the Jurasic media. Any conservative who runs for president and agrees to having "moderators" that are from the heavily biased media is a fool.

On The MSM...

The credibility of the Jurasic Media (aka MSM) has eroded a great deal over the last decade.   Until now, most JournoListers, held grimly onto the facade of impartiality.  But starting with the 2004 election in which the internet played  a huge role in disseminating John Kerry's  anti-American activities, alternative sources of news and information began to spread. 

Today, with nearly all JournoListers carrying water for the Obama administration to the extent that only one major television outlet (FoxNews) will dare to carry any coverage that is critical of either the Democratic Party's agenda or that of the Obama administration.  Here's how one woman in Virginia put it:




This view is very wide spread, even in my very heavily Democratic/Jewish neighborhood.  The media has dropped it's curtain, and is now openly biased  against anything remotely conservative.  This week, we have reporters, on an open mic, freely coordinating between themselves, trying to make sure that they get certain questions asked of Mitt Romney,

Newsbusters says the the CBS News reporter is Jan Crawford and she was discussing this with the NPR reporter Ari Shapiro

This has become common over the past 10 years, yet after 3 1/2 years of a Democrat in the White House, NOT one JournoList is asking Obama anything remotely difficult.  Gas prices are soaring, yet nary a word  from the media about it....but in 2008, during an GOP administration, it was all over the news...




It doesn't fit the carefully contrived media narrative...that's why I don't buy newspapers.  If I want to read propaganda, I'll go to DNC/Obama websites, not a damn news outlet.

Study Of Economic Reporting: Democrats Favored

Here's a study of economic reporting and the purported bias showed by the top 10 newspapers and AP.  Here's the conclusion:

Our results suggest that newspapers do not treat all news the same. Given the same news, Republican presidents receive about 20 to 30 percent less positive coverage from all newspapers and 20 to 40 percent less positive coverage from the top 10 papers than was provided on average for Democrats and these results are quite statistically significant. This partisan bias is associated with about a seven to nine percent increase in respondents viewing the economy as getting better. Overall, the headlines affect people’s perception of the economy and, for at least some people, the impact does not appear to be offset by other news sources.


However, newspapers don’t treat all economic statistics treated the same way nor do all newspapers have the same partisan gap, but the vast majority of newspapers cover any given economic news more favorably under Democrats. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times’ headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. When combined with how the Houston Chronicle treated both the two Bush administrations, there is at least a possibility that Republican presidents receive at least some home state backing.

There is some modest support for the hypothesis that newspapers find it more difficult to negatively report on Republicans when Republicans control both the presidency and the congress, but even when Republicans control both branches the implied effect is that they still receive less positive coverage than Democrats. Despite the common perception, newspapers actually provide more coverage when the news is good and at least the top 10 papers are not monolithic in their biases. More durable goods, GDP growth, retail sales and jobs and less unemployment all produce more positive news coverage.

We have tried to account for various factors that could explain the partisan gap in headlines, but variables measuring whether Republicans control the presidency or congress or even the different administrations could reflect other things that are not directly measured by our regressors, including “bias.” It is not obvious what these other factors are, but this is possible just as a lot of black-white, male-female differences can reflect factors other than race or gender.

While we have provided some information on the incentives that the media has to cover political parties differently based upon how much of the government they control, the central question that remains: why does this partisan gap in news coverage persists over the fourteen years examined here? Others have started offering different theoretical explanations (e.g., Baron, 2004; Bovtiz, et. al., 2002), though there are still questions about why customers might prefer biased information.

So, does anyone else know of a study that has similar results?  Just from reading coverage on a daily, weekly and yearly basis over the past 40 years, I've noticed that journalists (and the JournoList) have a sharp tendency to play down success of Republican administrations, while at the same time, playing down the seriousness of a Democratic administration's misteps...the current mess is an excellent example.

Hat Tip:  Instapundit

JournoList Successor Up & Running?

JournoList's successor seems to be up and running.  A large number of rerports covering the Glenn Beck rally, "Restoring America" are using the exact same phrasing to describe the rally in Washington, DC, yesterday.  Try googling the phrase "overwhelmingly white" and you'll get dozens of hits to articles describing the rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial.  When you throw in Google Maps giving directions to the FDR Memorial (when you put in the Lincoln Memorial)  you begin to think "collusion."

Salon's, Mark Benjamin,

Tea parties "overwhelmingly white"? A term that a peculiar number of articles seem to be using ... but no evidence of liberal collusion in the media here.

The Spokesman Review,

...Sarah Palin and other speakers at the “Restoring Honor” rally exhorted a sprawling and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that...

The San Francisco Chronicles's Kate Zernike,

While the crowd at Dunbar was mostly African American, the audience at Beck's rally was overwhelmingly white, though a number of speakers and performers ...

The Washington Post's Amy Goldstein and Carroll Morello,

... Sarah Palin and other speakers at the "Restoring Honor" rally exhorted a sprawling and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that ...

Now, doesn't that sound like collusion to you?  When you have this many diseparate news organizations using the exact same phrasing, then it's called propaganda and conrolling the narrative.  That's exactly what JournoList did and its successor seems to up and running already.

JournoList Members Plotted To Control Obama Narrative During 2008 Election

When the Jeremiah Wright story emerged in February 2008, members of the Journolist plotted to control the narrative and change it to "opponents are racists"...sound familiar?  Anyone who opposed Obama was labeled a racist.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.


In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.  The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.  [emphasis is mine, ed.]

Now we know what the real purpose of Journolist was/is...to protect and control the narrative of those people/candidates who are favoured on the left.  If you ever wondered why so many stories seem to have exactly the same talking points, now you know.

Andew Breibart points out that, Yes, But the Reporters at Pravda Weren’t Such Insufferable Assholes

American journalism died a long time ago; today Tucker Carlson got around to running the obituary. What The Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs. They deserve the deepest levels of public consternation. We must demand that they do.

The only way that the media will recover from the horrifying discoveries found in the Journolist is to investigate and investigate until every guilty reporter, professor and institution is laid bare begging America for forgiveness. Will they do it?

Nope, the media will insist (if not outright ignore) that this sort of thing is an aberation, and couldn't possibly happen, much less be real....

Unprofessional Comments At CSU-Stanislas

You think that Dave Weigel is the only journalist who says dumb things...semi-publicly?  Here's some "journalists" making unprofessional comments at the end of Mrs. Palin's speech: 

“The dumbness doesn’t just come from soundbites.”

“I can’t believe she quoted Kennedy – twice.
“How am I going to write about this-there’s nothing there-answer well there’s your story”

Fox40 claims they are unassociated with it's camera crew...but you be the judge.
 
via Ed Driscoll

Helen Thomas, Jew Get Out Of Palestine

This woman is the doyen of the White House Press Corps and has been a fixture in the press room since the 1960's. For someone who is in a position to affect policy reporting to say such things is unconscionable. She must go...NOW!



I guess she's forgotten that Polish Jews were nearly wiped from the face of the earth in the 1940's...how quickly liberals forget history...that means we're damned to repeat it.

H/T Breibart TV

CBS News Crying In Their Beer

It's really hard to find any pity for CBS News on this one. They along with NBC and ABC led the charge on TV news to get Barack Obama elected. They have refused to properly vet any of his appointees and have ignored his extra-constitutional dependence upon "Czars". Additionally, during the last presidential campaign, they refused to do any investigation on his background. Furthermore, they refused to investigate John Edwards' extra-marital affairs until the National Enquirer published their report on his infidelity. So, it's sort of is amusing to watch them melt down.

COURIC FACES PAY CUT; DEEP LAYOFFS HIT CBSNEWS
Wed Feb 03 2010 09:11:21 ET

CBSNEWS anchorwoman and 60 MINUTES contributor Katie Couric faces a dramatic pay cut at the network, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

CBS boss Les Moonves is determined to save money and trim expenses -- from top to bottom -- at the former crown jewel of broadcasting.

Couric, the highest paid TV news personality in history, commands over $14 million a year, plus bumps for non-EVENING NEWS appearances.

But her salary is now in the direct line of fire, network insiders explain, and a populist backlash against Couric's cash is said to be forming inside the newsroom.

"She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."

The angry source continues: "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. Well, look at Katie!"

...

Couric's $300,000 a week paycheck has become the obsession of disgruntled CBS staff, just as deep layoffs rock the fishbowl.

Dozens of employees -- including staff members in D.C., San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow -- are being let go, the NEW YORK OBSERVER reports.

Couric's current CBS contract expires next year.

How much you wanna bet...they don't renew her contract...she's lost huge numbers of viewers. Fox News is now the leader in broadcast news...network and cable across all categories. They are the only news organization that even pretends to be 'fair and balanced"...and the people of this country have long since recognized that.

"Journalists" now rank BELOW lawyers for prestige...which is really pretty sad. Because a proactive press is necessary in a modern democracy/republic in order to keep government honest...but the majority of our journalists are now mere propagandists for the government and democratic party which I believe is a huge reason for the now failing print news industry. They've turned off half (or more) of their audience, that's the recipe for failure.

Why Palin Has The Left Foaming At The Mouth

Mrs. Palin has everyone on the left foaming at the mouth because she is the epitomy of everything the femisitic left has desired for all women of this country. A supportive loving husband, a good family, a family business…and then a successful political career, and is literally a beautiful woman to boot. Unfortunately, as a conservative she is literally rejecting their basic premise…that successful, liberated women are Democrats…that in a nut shell is why they hate her.

Journalistic Mysogyny

Just read a couple of posts on blogs that I would not have thought, ever in a million years, would comment derisively on a left leaning weekly glossy magazine. Bogth mediamatters.com and hulabuloo, left, to far left organizations are slamming Newsweek for the abysmal choice of cover photographs.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/gamming-up-works-by-digby-joan-walsh.html

Joan Walsh was just on MSNBC this morning arguing that it was sexist to put Palin on the cover of Newsweek in her running shorts, when she obviously didn't pose in that particular outfit for that particular cover. Others on the show disagreed, saying that Palin just happens to be a politician who has nice legs. I think Joan is right, especially considering what is being said about the Palin Phenomenon among the village media in general:

That's just for starters on hullabaloo. Digby goes to great lengths to rightly hammer Newsweek.

Media matters is even worse...

Newsweek should worry more about how to solve its problem with sexism
November 17, 2009 3:16 pm ET by Julie Millican

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don't have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek's November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear."

Needless to say, I was very surprised at both their headline, but the lead paragraph as well.

The treatment that Hillary Clinton (whom sometimes I used to think of as being the anti-christ...prior to the advent of Barack of course) has treated horrendously by the MSM during the run up to the primaries. Once actually voting started, major media's utter bias toward Barack Obama began to genuinely shine through, so much so, they utterly failed to vet him at all during the campaign.

On the other hand, their "vetting" of Mrs. Palin has been minute. It continues to this day with AP wire service devoting 11, ELEVEN journalists to use a fine toothed comb on Mrs. Palin's book. My question is, how many did they assign to Mr. Obama's two books? Any at all. I cound't find any record of any.

So, my hat is off to Media Matters and Digby of Hullabaloo for their posts. Thank you both for standing up and doing the right thing.

CNN Throws Grenades...At Itself

Politics daily has a great post on CNN's inability to actually report facts and figures. Instead CNN has become a partisan in pushing the Obama Administration agenda.

In an epic segment on Oct. 12, Stewart spent 11 minutes -- half of the entire Daily Show -- pouring through clips of CNN's blatant disregard for fact checking the statistics spewed by actual politicians and pundits on its shows. According to Stewart, "Fact checking is the function of news. This is the public service provided." Never one to make a point without sarcasm, Stewart added, "It is one of the reasons the health care debate has been so fruitful."

As usual, Stewart nails it. He argues that the news organizations should educate the nation with fact checking and an open, intelligent evaluation of each side of political debates so that the public discourse is not mired in lies and partisan bickering. Idealistic as it may sound, there is a word for this: journalism. Instead, CNN brings together partisan experts that bash each other in divisive quarrels masquerading as real information. Issues such as the uninsured and the deficit take a back seat to fiery buzzwords like death panels and socialism/fascism that have no basis in the reality of the health care overhaul. We are constantly bombarded by the explosive attacks of partisan conflict and emerge deaf to the real substance of our political debate.

Basically, CNN, MSNBC, NBC & CBS are failing in their mandate to report the news. They have become defacto propaganda arms of the Obama Administration. They never, ever report anything negative or adverse. On the other hand, they constantly reported on negative aspects of the Bush Administration. This goes hand in hand with the inability of the Obama Administration to take responsibility of any of their actions or of the present situation the country is in. It's all "inherited" and the "news" organizations fully support this meme. Fox News now has a larger audience than ALL the other news networks combined. Yet, those networks refuse to see the problem that their biased reporting as a problem, all the while they bleed viewers. Print media has the same problem...and I don't think either will wake up until it's too late.

Our democracy requires a robust news media that reports facts on what our political "elites" are attempting to inflict upon us. Without it, we are doomed. Right now, only Fox News the Wall Street Journal and a few regional papers attempt to present reasonably balanced reporting. This cannot continue...but the Obama Administration has declared war on Fox News, and is attempting to marginalize it because they are not fully supporting the aims of this administration. It's wrong and will probably result in a huge backlash, just as Nixon's "enemies list" did 37 years ago.

Baier Shares Poll on How 90% Recognize Media Helped Obama Win

Via Newsbusters.com comes a VERY frightening statistic...

“A new national poll finds most of the people surveyed think the media helped get President Obama elected,” FNC's Bret Baier noted in his Thursday night Grapevine segment in highlighting a September 8-11 national survey of 800 Americans by Sacred Heart University
http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/30046_shu_national_poll_trust_and_satisfaction_with_the_national_news_media.cfm
which discovered “a large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama.” (Noel Sheppard's earlier item on the survey's finding: “Almost 90% of Americans Think Media Helped Get Obama Elected.”)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/24/almost-90-americans-think-media-helped-get-obama-elected

Baier related how the university in Fairfield, Connecticut also determined “almost 70 percent think the 'media are intent on promoting' his presidency and 56 percent say the 'media are promoting his health care reform agenda without objective criticism.'”

...and when Mr. Obama fails, much like Mr. Carter did in the late 1970's it will hurt Major Media in a huge way. Already many people outside the DC Beltway/NY, LA areas don't really trust journalist to report the news with any objectivity at all. Editorialization belongs on the editorial page, not in news stories.