For WashPost, right-wing protesters are Page One news; in 2002 liberal war protesters were not
September 13, 2009 11:04 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Behold the media's glaring double standard. Today, the Post puts the "tens of thousands" of Obama-hating tea bagger protesters on A1; makes it the lead story as a matter of fact.
Back in 2002, when more than 100,000 anti-war protesters gathered in the nation's capitol to protest the Bush administration, the same WashPost did its best to ignore them:
The Washington Post put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section with, as the paper's ombudsman later lamented, "a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest's fringe elements."
This simply proves again that when right-wing (and mostly white) conservatives get angry, it's big news. When liberals get angry, it's just annoying.
UPDATED: Credit goes to the NYT for being consistent. In 2002, the newspaper kept its article about the massive anti-war rally off Page One. Today, it kept its article (but not photo) about the much smaller 9/12 rally off Page One.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Who would have ever guessed that the media was so 'liberally' biased... ??
Just one look at its Op Ed section and there's little doubts where its editorial sympathies lie.
That opinion is only held in the right-wing conservative echo chamber.
And in that teeny tiny world, EVERY publications is liberal except if it is owned by News Corp.
Most of these conservatives have no tolerance for any viewpoint that contradicts all of the Rush/hannity/Fox they have been spoon fed for years and years. They can't handle a world that is more complicated than the one encapsulated in a 3 hour Rush limbauh monologue.
Starkers, you're so internally inconsistent a laxative would probably constipate you.
2) Who has the funds to pay 100,000+ people to protest, anyway?
Nary a word in there, tho, about how many were paid to be there.
I guess that was just a "grassroots" bus not paid for with ANY corporate money as well, right?
Question - How many Lefties does it take to change a light bulb?
Leftie Answer: That's not funny!
But you are 100% spot-on there. Because those righties sure are funny, funny, funny, right? And they ALWAYS get the joke!
There was noooo questioning of Dave Letterman or late-night hosts joking about Sarah Palin.
I, for one, find it HYSTERICAL when Rush Limbaugh calls Obama the magic n*gger and Glenn Beck pretends to poison Nancy Pelosi. Ha ha ha!
I am just rolling on the floor laughing at the incredible jokesters from the Right Wing Nut brigade!
LA Times link
You have no clue.
Additionally the line:
"The L.A. Times, they called him that
Cause he’s not authentic like me."
Is not accurate. If you read the history of the literary tool you'd find that it refers to a black man who appears one day to help a white protagonist.
Incidentally, the literary tool was used in 6th to the 9th century Chinese literature.
Wrong. Check your facts.
"and Glenn Beck pretends to poison Nancy Pelosi. Ha ha ha!"
Yeah. That was about as funny as the movie about the assassination of President Bush, right?
The film was made by a British studio, by a British director, in the UK.
Liberals had absolutely nothing to do with the film.
Haha?
When the subject was Faith Based Initiatives, Bush was on page one and stories trended negative. Obama is on page 17A with mostly positive or neutral press according to the Pew Reasearch Center...Hmmm
WSJ article dated 11SEP09: (I've heavily paraphrased this article...I couldn't find it online)
Faith-Based Double Standards
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway
Remember all the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over Pres Bush's faith based initiatives? How the left was fearful of a "national religious party"?
As Hemingway reports "now that Mr Bush is gone, no one seems particularly worried about the entanglement of the federal government with religious organizations."
According to the Pew Research Center, the media ran nearly seven times as much coverage of Bush's FB initiatives during his first six months in office as Mr. Obama's. Stories on Bush were 50% more likely to be on the front page emphasizing the controversial nature of the program as opposed to Mr. Obama's stories buried deep in the paper and focused on procedure. Few stories focused on whether the current president would use the office to advance a religious agenda as compared to coverage during Pres Bush's term.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has noted that Obama has left "the entire architecture of the Bush Faith Based Initiative intact-every rule, regulation, executive order." In fact Obama has expanded the political outreach during conference calls to rabbis around the country to give sermons on health care policy during the holidays.
Obama expanded the scope of the office and took religious groups reps and appointed them to a 25 member advisory council. The office was involved in drafting the June "apology" speech delivered in Cairo. Now the head of Americans United for Sep of Church and State, who was a VOCAL critic of Pres. Bush, now serves on the advisory council of 25. He has had a "come to Jesus" moment and now is giddy about Mr. Obama's handling of the office. Hypocrite thy name is liberal.
So I ask...where is the outrage now?
You get bonus points for mentioning Wright and ACORN in the same post though! Keep up the good work snuffy!
Why do wingnut articles never support the points they think they do?
Now thats funny!:-)
Bony used snuffy....ummmmmm...naw man, let me give you
one...scooter, snippy,I'd go along those lines.:-0 I got your whine Bony,damn it wasn't that deep and so what. You guys repeat it everyday and the media capitulates to YOUR working the press,but grown-ups know better. But if Obama is continuing Bush policies did that make Bush a socialist commie too! :-)
As for the rest of your nonsensical rant goob...save it for the Twitter.
Keep trying smeg...you'll score some points one day.
Every time I have shot down some stupid argument, where the person was stating the "truth", I would rebut with a statistic or something I had gotten from a newspaper article (or website, etc.). Their response was that the source was a liberal commie outlet (they even called the World Health Organization a communist leaning group when I mentioned statistics released by them regarding something, and I am sure everyone has heard CNN be called the Communist News Network even though Lou Dobbs is on it). It is as if they are trained to attack any credible source.
One particular person I know was arguing that NBC sells Obama merchandise in their NBC Universal store, indicating network bias. I pointed out that to the same person making the argument that during the election he had voted and supported McCain but sold Obama t-shirts to make some money. Apparently that was different.
Hypocrites.
Maybe a million or two million. UK's Daily Mail says. The left has awakened a Grizzly bear and made him very, very angry.
The D.C. fire dept. (you know, those silly liberals!) estimate it at 40,000.
The Mall Park Service (socialist scum!) say 60,000 is generous.
So I'm not certain why you take the word of an overseas tabloid (seriously, they're front page story is Carly Zucker's possible pregnancy) over that of folks who have experience gauging crowds.
Unless of course you're just troll. Which I hope, as I can't imagine how you manage to feed yourself with that level of stupidity.
Someday the Dems are going to awaken to the fact that they are in serious trouble with people who both vote and pay taxes.
This administration is even more incompetent than Carter's was.
you call out the entire right wing (and mostly white) media based on the inconsistency of the washington post... should the entire left wing media (what might they mostly be?) get credit for the consistency of the new york times'?...
and what's the problem with "mostly white"?... leave it to media matters to play the race card at every opportunity... they'd have their readers believe, as countless of them have posted before, that because conservatives disagree with obama they might as well be klan members...
yet another weak-a$$ thread...
thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
media matters
"whining about the vast right wing conspiracy since 2004"