Media Matters: Obama abroad; media conservatives on tour from reality
President Obama's trip to the Middle East and subsequent speech in Cairo were a predictable source of fodder for media conservatives. Then again, Obama's trips abroad tend to bring out the worst from the right: a complete rejection of honest self-reflection, implicit xenophobia and anti-Islamic bigotry, relentless fearmongering, and a desire to portray any critics of U.S. policy as being un-American.
In order to prove their point, the conservative media have routinely cropped Obama's statements, including his honest assessment of U.S. failures under the Bush administration while excluding his critiques of other nations. This gave rise to the "apology tour" theme that Fox News pushed heavily during Obama's trip to Europe in April. That theme was rekindled this week as Fox's Sean Hannity aired an Obama "apology tour" video montage, while Fox & Friends asked if Obama would continue his "'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia. This time, however, the theme had broader reach and was repeated by CNN's Lou Dobbs, as well as MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Ironically, the typically abysmal right-wing fringe radio host Neal Boortz defended the president, claiming that he "didn't see any apologia, show of weakness" in Obama's Cairo speech.
When Fox's Steve Doocy claimed that "some" commentators have referred to the trip "as President Obama's Muslim apology tour" (by "some," he apparently meant "Steve Doocy"), he found a way to link the right-wing belief that honesty equals weakness with conservatives' deathly fear of the world's largest religion, Islam, practiced peacefully by well over 1 billion people around the world, as well as millions here in America. Commentator Joe Pagliarulo joined in the fun while guest-hosting Glenn Beck's radio program. Channeling his inner 11th-grade thug, Pagliarulo showed stunning ignorance when he stated that instead of reaching out to Muslims, Obama should have said what he claimed Ronald Reagan would have: "Hey, screw you. We're big and bad, and we are the promoters of peace and independence and liberty around the world. Either get with us or you can go on hating us and we'll enjoy life and you'll live in your cave." And during a discussion of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the always-sage Ann Coulter made perfectly clear just who the far right thinks Obama was talking to this week, claiming, "Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful." No wonder, then, that the purportedly bias-free Fox Nation website felt compelled to warn its readers that "Obama Says U.S. Is a 'Muslim Country.' "
Classic right-wing fearmongering was on constant display this week, as Fox News' Dick Morris warned of an impending Holocaust, Hannity claimed that Obama had given Iran the "go-ahead" to build nuclear weapons, Rush Limbaugh stated that Obama is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, and radio talker Lee Rodgers held out the specter of a "few million dead Americans" finally proving that we are all under the thumb of an "anti-American president."
Rodgers really hit the nail on the head for the right, returning to the central theme of its argument over the past 18 months: The U.S.-born, Hawaii-raised, former senator from Illinois just isn't one of us. While CNN's Candy Crowley implied that the Obama administration wasn't a "stalwart defender" of Israel, numerous conservative media figures did whatever they could to prove that the president is taking orders from Riyadh, all while he is continuing his campaign to sublimate American sovereignty to the United Nations and turn America into a socialist/fascist nightmare.
It was fine with the right when President Bush held hands with the Saudi king as they walked through his palace, but ever since Obama politely bowed to the monarch, the right has been foaming at the mouth. The fixation with Obama and the king continued this week, as Fox's Gretchen Carlson and Doocy cited their initial interaction as the "most important moment" of their meeting. While CNN questioned whether shouts of admiration during Obama's Cairo address would be taken poorly "at home," a blog post at The Weekly Standard asked conspiratorially if the president secretly spoke "the language of the Koran."
When Joe Scarborough declared Obama to be "perhaps the greatest challenge Osama bin Laden has faced" since 2001, he gave the week one of its only moments of sanity and perspective. Unfortunately, he stood alone, and it was Fox News' Martha MacCallum who embodied the remarkable and dangerous lack of thought among those in the right-wing media establishment when she asked why we would "have to reach out to the Muslim population" when "we were the ones attacked on September 11th."
Other major stories this week:
The murder of Dr. George Tiller
Dr. George Tiller, a doctor whose clinic legally performed late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Kansas church this past weekend. In 1985, Tiller's clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot by an anti-choice activist in both arms. Following news of his murder, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry released a statement saying in part: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God."
As Media Matters noted, on the February 2, 1992, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reported: "While Terry insists he has never committed any violent acts himself, this footage, taped by the staff of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, shows him asking his followers to pray for either the salvation or the death of the clinic's doctor." 60 Minutes then aired video of Terry stating, "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him." Stahl added, "The doctor he's talking about is Warren Hern, who runs the clinic. He's been a major target of pro-life groups for years because he's one of only three doctors in the country who specialize in late-term abortions."
Coverage this week of the murder varied.
A report in USA Today falsely suggested that Tiller indiscriminately aborted viable fetuses. Its June 1 story reported that Tiller was a "controversial figure" whose clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable." But USA Today did not report that Kansas law permits the abortion of viable fetuses when the doctor performing the abortion and a second doctor agree that the "abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" or that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed -- physically or mentally -- by giving birth.
The right-wing media police at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog complained that media reports of Tiller's death failed to describe him as "controversial," even though several outlets described him just that way, including the previously mentioned USA Today article. To make its point that Tiller was in fact "controversial," NewsBusters cited a Kansas City Star "timeline of major events in George Tiller's career." The first entry in the timeline was the 1986 bombing of Tiller's clinic. The second was the 1991 blockade of his clinic by anti-choice protesters, leading to more than 2,500 arrests. The third was the 1993 shooting in which Tiller was hit in both arms. The fourth entry was a 1998 letter Tiller received threatening to contaminate his clinic with anthrax. The fifth was another illegal protest outside Tiller's clinic. The sixth and seventh were proceedings that found no wrongdoing by Tiller. And that was it; that's the whole list. Calling Tiller "controversial" just because conservative anti-choice terrorists tried to, and finally did, kill him is insulting and suggests some justification for his murder. Calling Tiller "controversial" blames the victim. In subsequent posts to its website, NewsBusters would go on to fault the media for "do[ing] nothing to help their audience understand why [Tiller] was targeted."
Following Tiller's murder, Media Matters unearthed video of a Bill O'Reilly producer's 2007 ambush interview of Tiller and 2006 "confrontation" with Tiller's attorney. Additionally, Media Matters posted a 2006 rant from O'Reilly's radio show, in which the Fox News host said, "[I]f I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
Salon.com's Gabriel Winant wrote regarding O'Reilly that there was "no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on 'The Factor' on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' "
Responding to the widespread criticism, O'Reilly falsely claimed he had only "reported what groups" were calling Tiller. Reading an email from a viewer who asked, "Mr. O'Reilly, how can you be sure that reciting 'Tiller the baby killer' over and over again did not inflame the assassin?" O'Reilly responded, "The doctor was involved in a criminal case. I reported what groups were calling him. I reported accurately." In fact, O'Reilly has not only "reported" on the term's usage by "pro-life groups," but also repeatedly referred to Tiller as "the baby killer" himself. To put a finer point on the criticism, during a June 2 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Patricia Ireland caught O'Reilly red-handed referring to Tiller as "Dr. Killer."
Fanning the flames further, O'Reilly referred to his critics as "pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters" who "attempt[ed] to blame us" for Tiller's murder. He also hosted a panel of anti-choice guests asking whether "the far left is exploiting this, trying to shut guys like me up."
BREAKING NEWS: Michael Savage tells the truth!
Well, for about a third of a sentence, anyway. Still, it's a start. Here's right-wing radio host Michael Savage, as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle:
"I'm going to make an allegation that I can't support: these out of context soundbites came from Media Matters, funded by George Soros, whose goal is to wipe out conservative voices in America,'' he told the Chronicle. "If it turns out they're continuing to do this, they're next on my list. I'm not going to tolerate them trying to get me killed."
What has Savage, the third-highest-rated radio host in America, so upset this time? He thinks Media Matters is responsible for his being banned from the United Kingdom.
Savage is now threatening to sue Media Matters, which would be consistent with his history of suing his critics. His lawsuits don't tend to be successful in court, but maybe they help him feel like he has regained the "manhood" that he says the government "stole" from him. In any case, Savage has a long and despicable history of making baseless and false allegations; it's nice to see that, for once, he admits he's making things up.
Previously:
- Savage claims Media Matters is "trying to get me killed"
- Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Is Fox News making money off of its Al Gore lies?
On Thursday, Fox News began promoting a segment on "Gore's green money" for The O'Reilly Factor, asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"
Given The O'Reilly Factor's track record on the subject, one could guess what to expect from the teased segment.
Just last month, while guest-hosting the Factor, Laura Ingraham said: "It seems that being green does pay big time -- just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he's now reportedly -- get this -- worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing."
Ingraham then aired clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a nonprofit organization.
So, how did the Factor's latest segment on Gore's "tons of cash" turn out?
True to form, O'Reilly smeared the former vice president by stating that Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, while Fox's Megyn Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony Gore gave to suggest that he had lied when he said otherwise.
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert discusses Sotomayor, Gingrich, and the demise of our press corps, and Karl Frisch wonders if TheFoxNation.com is the seedy underbelly of Rupert Murdoch's evil, right-wing media empire.
Don't forget to order your autographed copy of Eric Boehlert's compelling new book, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press, May 2009).
Do you Facebook or Twitter?
If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our senior fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch on Twitter!
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary.
Awesome.
They so want to tell the world what to do. They can't stand telling us what the world's doing.
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." ......
Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."
Here is the EDITOR of a MAJOR publication in the tank for Obama, and you folks think the media is conservative.
It is to laugh.
Notice in their own mission statement that they say "U.S. Media." It is not their position to decide whether or not the media is Liberal or Conservative and I don't believe I have ever heard them make any such claims. What they do, however, is report misinformation from Conservative "news" programs.
I for one would welcome the opportunity to debate topics from a website that would be the mirror to MMfA. Unfortunately Bill O', Limbaugh, Hannity and the others have'nt told you guys to put one together yet, so no one has taken the initiative. The closest thing you guys have to this site is FoxNation, and that has become a downright hate filled cesspool of anti-Obama rhetoric, blatent and constant misinformation, dubious topics of discussion, all wrapped up in misleading headlines that do nothing but enflame the masses who go there and post.
I would laugh, but seriously, it just isn't funny anymore.
Certainly you have heard the term 'right wing conspiracy'
If you truly want to debate topics on a conservative site go to
http://ace.mu.nu/
BTW I'm still laughing.
You do realize that there are literally thousands of stories, examples, and studies listed on here that refute the point you "laugh" at?
Ignorance has no better spokesman than you.
As he marks his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House, according to a new study of press coverage.Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op-ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during their first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
Lest you accuse me of taking things out of context here is the full article
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1206/media-coverage-of-obama-100-days
What this site does is highlight the 20% unfavorable coverage while ignoring the 42% positive coverage.
If you had enough sense to recognize what a disaster W. was, you'd understand this.
Positive stories also don't show bias. Not this early in a president's term, and also, when he enjoys the majority of people in this country approving of the job that he's doing, is it so crazy and weird to think that there are going to be lots of positive stories?
Never mind though, there is plenty of negative out there as well, such as Fox, 24/7 negative almost towards the president, no matter what he does. Talk radio? Almost all negative. MSNBC? Lots of negative stuff there as well.
Yet, if a consumer of conservative based radio or TV shows says anything close to a Rush or Sean, they are castagated for listening to two personalities that barely reach 5% of the nation's listening or viewing audience.
The liberal slant on the nation's public airwares has a dominate sound without throwing into the pot the network and public television programs that spout their talking points.
I would enjoy reading Media Matters reviewing about 12 hours of documentary programming on Current TV and fact find or verify statements made. It would keep the fine volunteer intern staff busy for a finite amount of hours without avail.
What a fricking joke.
And your point is? How about this one about W: "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."
Here is NBC in the tank for Obama, as even the liberal John Stewart laughs at the bias.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=229009&title=the-real-world-d.c.
I posted a quote, complete and unedited, just like this site does. It doesn't post full transcripts either.
Positive coverage could have been superficial (like Bush in that flight suit) or based upon policy decisions, like Obama actually including the cost of wars in Iraq & Afghanistan in the budget instead of "emergency supplementals."
As for the media? I'll see your Evan Thomas and raise you THE MEDIA. Look at how the MSM, including MSNBC outside of Olbermann and Maddow, on the whole have treated:
1) Newt Gingrich as opposed to Nancy Pelosi (as partisan S'sOTH)
2) Norm Coleman as opposed to Al Gore (as sore losers)
3) John McCain as opposed to John Kerry (as men who lost elections)
4) Dick Cheney as opposed to Al Gore (as formed VP's critical of the new guy)
5) Samuel Alito as opposed to Sonya Sotomayor (as 'racist' SC nominees)
In every case the Conservative is given the utmost respect and deference and all thebenfit of the doubt, while the liberal has had scorn heaped upon them without restraint or the slightest bit of respect shown. Now... YOU may think that those opinions are justifeid, and that's fine: you're entitiled to your opinion. But you can't say that all that conservative respect and liberal scorn is well deserved and then at the same time claim that there's LIBERAL BIAS at work. That's nonsense. You may think those situations are fine, but if you do, at least admit that SYSTEMATIC LIBERAL BIAS is BS.
Otherwise, you really look like an idiot.
I believe this "apology tour" stuff hides and covers a very sensitive nerve with these people... they (Fox News Channel) are as guilty as sin itself for the past eight years, specifically for BUSH and IRAQ, as they (FNC) were such cheerleaders of BUSH and IRAQ, as to rightly say they were enablers of BUSH, and they were expediters of the IRAQ invasion and occupation.
And those two words, those two great sins, BUSH and IRAQ, they're truly what caused the historic reversal of political power in Congress in 2006, and then again the further loss of political power in 2008, when more Senate seats and more House seats were lost to the point of nearly making Democrats into a three-fifths majority of both chambers... BUSH and IRAQ are the prime reasons for that (Congressional ethics, and names like delay and ney and foley and randall 'duke' cunningham and many others, they hold a contributing place under the names BUSH and IRAQ).
And so that's what's supposedly being "apologized" for, BUSH and IRAQ... and this "apology" nonsense (which is obviously meant to dissuade us from reflecting or "apologizing" for the sins of BUSH and IRAQ) also has taken the form of "let's move on, the past is past, why dwell on it", and it especially takes the form of spinning those election results mentioned, in 2006 and 2008 : as the spin was nearly instant, before the ballots had even been counted... it was the economy, and high gas prices, and (laughably) that Democrats were mouthing 'conservative values', those were the false reasons being given for the disaster that the Republican Party had become in just two elections from November 2006 to November 2008... instead of "apology-looza", that noise was more like "ignore-o-rama", ignore the things that primarily brought Republicans down, ignore them at every opportunity, ignore BUSH and IRAQ (and isn't it strange how George W. Bush cooperates with this strategy, as he appears to have disappeared from the face of the earth, and at the same time IRAQ has disappeared from Fox News Channel, particularly from bill o'reilly's shows, as he used to make a living cheerleading IRAQ, and publicly denigrating the grief stricken mother of a fallen U.S. Soldier for the outward appearance of her grief, which was her political activism against the war that took her son from her)...
OK, anyway, this is my point : this "apology" crap is just more running from BUSH and IRAQ, isn't it?
And as they (Fox News Channel and the Republicans they represent) run from BUSH and IRAQ, they also run from all their other sins of the past eight years, don't they?
And as they do that, the reason they do that, is to paint themselves anew with the American People, and get out from under the stain of their brand name, a stain that cost them so much in just a couple years time... and they hope to rebuild their lost empire, don't they?
They hope to rebuild it on your lapsed memory of them and their many sins, great and small, of the past eight years...
"Don't look back, let's move on, let's be forward looking, why dwell on the past"
Because rebuilding the Republican Party means never saying you're sorry...
And it means never saying the names BUSH and never saying IRAQ... like bill o'reilly for example, why today you'd think he'd never even heard of BUSH and never even heard of IRAQ, and never ever said a thing about Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in that place.
I don't care about apologies, but I like to remember.
Also can you point out this event in reality. Perhaps give me a link to the story? Cause this sounds like right-wing nuttery.
If the owners wanted to keep a right wing bias they could just kill the stories before printing.
Here is the exact quote
"Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox table."
The crowd cheered immediately after.
And netsez either is too ignorant to realize that what happened was jokes at an event aimed at poking fun at the invitee and the sponsors, or he knows that he (netsez) is being dishonest and you are egging him on.
Neither option make either of you come out smelling like roses!
the Faux table of course would not allow any cheering. Some people cheered, others were silent.
Please get a clue. The press has a corporate bias. They'll go after anyone that will jack up their ratings and they're too lazy to get some real reporters on the air. Instead we get tired old pundits who are wrong most of the time and never get punished for it.
I enjoyed the repetition; only way to catapult the propoganda ;-)
If you want to keep citing the press corp dinner, go ahead, but it's proving nothing.
The Hollywood/liberal thing is ridiculous as well.
Denying Hollywood is liberal is absurd. Your perspective is way off.
As for the press, perhaps it would behoove you to actually read the Media Matters research articles before you start posting about something.
Better still, read David Brock's book The Conservative Noise Machine in which he documents in excruciating detail how the right developed think tanks and media outlets to push their talking points into the mainstream press.
As for reading material, you can start by reading anything by Bernie Goldberg.
You dishonest and disreputable hack. The press corps was responding to a joke, so your attempt to pretend that it was indicative of anything other than them wanting to continue the joke is ludicrous and unbelievable. You didn't show a 'loving puff piece by NBC News' either. It's a fact that Obama is well-liked around the world. Acknowledging reality is not liberal bias. It's not our fault that reality has a liberal bias. We're willing to share reality with your side - any time you decide you want to embrace reality, come back over from the dark side and we'll gladly help you remember how to tell the truth.
And your study didn't show liberal bias. It showed reality, again, and the 'study' was done by a biased rightwing group, and so even if the study did show what you suggest, the results would be suspect!
You are 0 for 4. Corporate managers and executives lean heavily Republican. That's undeniable. They're the ones that write the paychecks and give direction to the businesses, not the reporters and other employees that work for them. For you to deny that the leadership of businesses is who leads the businesses, and to ignore that the leadership of almost all corporations is right-leaning, is, again, ludicrous.
The press, for the most part, especially on that occasion, represents the inside the beltway scummy bunch of inbred, socialite, whoring cocktail party circuit rats who print what their corporate masters tell them to. They are beyond useless. Whatever they personally think about Obama is very much beside the point.
However, the fact that President Obama is popular seems to grate on the all of a sudden delicate flower sensibilities of the hard righties is just too bad, so sad imo. And pretty darn funny.
As the Beltway churns
The Edge of Psychobabble Fight or Flight
Days of our Lies
And, what was that old vampire soap called?
Dark Shadows: Cheney edition
It is funny to hear you insult the people at that dinner, when many of the experts that are lovingly quoted here along with staff from MMFA were there.
That you also cling to that "corporate masters" canard shows that group think is alive and well here.
Anyway, this dinner obsession with you is puzzling. Perhaps you need to read the article we're supposed to be commenting upon, then try again.
What article are you talking about? I want to discuss the liberal bias in the media. That is what my original post was about.
Media Matters: Obama abroad; media conservatives on tour from reality by Karl Frisch.
This column is commenting on what it feels is conservative mistakes, but ignores the huge disconnect from reality by liberal reporting.
This site ONLY looks at one side, which is their right, but pointing to MM as unbiased is ridiculous when they ONLY look at conservative misinformation while ignoring the huge amount of liberal misinformation.
If you have any real examples of liberal misinformation, post some links. But remember, this site is cluing people in on the considerable amount of conservative misinformation broadcast by both right-wing pundits and the mainstream press. It's abundant and well documented on here; it's pretty hard for you to cling to your theme in the face of it. (Unless you aren't reading the articles at all.)
Not ONCE in this article did it point out a mistake made by the press.
If you are now excusing all the outrageous right-wing remarks such as "apology tour" and "anti-American president", you need more help than a web site can provide. Good luck.
It is an opinion what USA "suggested", the USA article was factually correct.
Those other remarks you cited are also matters of opinion, not misinformation. They are the flip side to "the tea parties were racist", "prop 8 voters are homophones", "Bush is a murderer", and a ton of others.
Your outrage is selective
It is an opinion what USA "suggested", the USA article was factually correct.
Those other remarks you cited are also matters of opinion, not misinformation. They are the flip side to "the tea parties were racist", "prop 8 voters are homophones", "Bush is a murderer", and a ton of others.
Your outrage is selective
There is no flip side worth mentioning. Bush is a murderer; that's a fact. The tea parties definitely were racist; did you see some of the signs? that doesn't mean that everyone attending was a racist but cheez louise, just like at the McCain Palin rallies, you saw and heard the ugliness.
Prop 8 voters? were duped. If you heard someone on the teevee or major media outlets referring to them as homophones, post a link.
There is no flip side worth mentioning. Bush is a murderer; that's a fact. The tea parties definitely were racist; did you see some of the signs? that doesn't mean that everyone attending was a racist but cheez louise, just like at the McCain Palin rallies, you saw and heard the ugliness.
Prop 8 voters? were duped. If you heard someone on the teevee or major media outlets referring to them as homophones, post a link.
You just keep proving that you don't know what you are talking about, and your only role here is to distract us from the real topic, as several other posters have already called you on.
And I have reported your conduct to Media Matters staff.
Media Matters: Obama abroad; media conservatives on tour from reality by Karl Frisch.
And there is such a thing as subjective reality. The "news" organizations featured here with regularity (the main stream media) are often clueless, lazy and repeaet each other. They also depend on hyperbole, half truths, dissasembly, outright lies, strawmen and fabrication to sell their product, which is a phony news/entertainment/drama hybrid. And it doesn't serve the public well.
Now there are journalists who I admire very much. I can site Dana Priest and Walter Pincus with WaPo (unfortunately their very well done and important stories are often shunted to pages 16 and 17 of the paper).
There are independent journalists like Glen Greenwald, Amy Goodman and Greg Palast who do terrific work. Seymour Hirsch is another among a good group of people who still have integrity.
But unfortunately, the "news" organizations and people featured here with regularity are the type I mentioned above that are in the Beltway bubble. They are little better than propagandists.
I'm sorry you're having trouble with this concept. And I'm still not sure why you're going on about that dinner. You'll notice I didn't say all, but most of the people attending were of the ilk I described. I'm certain there were others there with their integrity still intact.
It is immaterial if there is a ring of truth to the joke. Your point was that the audience's response was indicative of their true voting patterns, and that's clearly not true. Their response was indicative of the fact that the joke made fun of the sponsors of the event, the joke was made by the person the sponsors invited as the guest of honor, and they were continuing the joke by doing a fake cheer. In a real situation, reporters, even reporters who had voted for Obama, would not cheer for Obama like that - it is only because it was part of the continuation of the joke that they did it.
It is funny to hear you insult the people at that dinner, when many of the experts that are lovingly quoted here along with staff from MMFA were there.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to people. It's not the messenger who is important, it's the message. And so contrary to your assertions, there are no liberal darlings in the media who are above reproach by MMfA, and there are no conservatives who are going to be scolding for admitting to reality rather than toeing the conservative line.
It is immaterial if there is a ring of truth to the joke. Your point was that the audience's response was indicative of their true voting patterns, and that's clearly not true. Their response was indicative of the fact that the joke made fun of the sponsors of the event, the joke was made by the person the sponsors invited as the guest of honor, and they were continuing the joke by doing a fake cheer. In a real situation, reporters, even reporters who had voted for Obama, would not cheer for Obama like that - it is only because it was part of the continuation of the joke that they did it.
It is funny to hear you insult the people at that dinner, when many of the experts that are lovingly quoted here along with staff from MMFA were there.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to people. It's not the messenger who is important, it's the message. And so contrary to your assertions, there are no liberal darlings in the media who are above reproach by MMfA, and there are no conservatives who are going to be scolding for admitting to reality rather than toeing the conservative line.
It is immaterial if there is a ring of truth to the joke. Your point was that the audience's response was indicative of their true voting patterns, and that's clearly not true. Their response was indicative of the fact that the joke made fun of the sponsors of the event, the joke was made by the person the sponsors invited as the guest of honor, and they were continuing the joke by doing a fake cheer. In a real situation, reporters, even reporters who had voted for Obama, would not cheer for Obama like that - it is only because it was part of the continuation of the joke that they did it.
It is funny to hear you insult the people at that dinner, when many of the experts that are lovingly quoted here along with staff from MMFA were there.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to people. It's not the messenger who is important, it's the message. And so contrary to your assertions, there are no liberal darlings in the media who are above reproach by MMfA, and there are no conservatives who are going to be scolding for admitting to reality rather than toeing the conservative line.
We know who is not objective. That would be you, Netsez.
When the Prez makes a funny joke, and the audience joins in the frivolity at an event they sponsored, an event they hope will make light of both the invitees and the sponsors, they are going to join in by pretending that the joke isn't really a joke at all, and they will continue on the 'joke' in the way they did.
There were no serious comments from either side in that exchange. Either you are too ignorant to understand this simple concept, or you fully understand that you were lying to your readers by claiming that the audience's response to Obama was an indication of their Obama bias.
So, tell us Netsez, are you an ignoramus, or are you dishonest?
Post 9-11... Afgan War... ouster of the Taliban? Great stuff. Could have had a majority for a generation. Even had me won over for about 15 minutes. Then he starts talking about Saddam Hussein and nothing's adding up! It's cleary a bad idea diplomatically, militarily, stategically, etc... But he dupes Colin Powell into whoring himself out in front of the UN, and even I grudigingly accepted that this Iraq war was probably a necessary evil, thought I still though they were ignoring obviously more beneficial alternatives. Then we found out it was all a bunch of b*llsh*t. And we found out either how utterly incompetant these guys were or (worse) how pathologically they would follow their own self-interests, at the expense of military lives, our countries economic stability, our position of moral superiority and our standing in the world.
And they were voted out.
And Cindy Sheehan need not have played ANY part in that.
She doesn't speak for me, and the facts above speak for themselves.
So stop holding up ONE, SINGLE publicty stunt as if that's what our whole argument is based on. Your WHOLE PARTY has become nothing but a publicity stunt (tea bags, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, etc...) so your hypocrisy on that front is astounding.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
1) Newt Gingrich as opposed to Nancy Pelosi (as partisan S'sOTH)
2) Norm Coleman as opposed to Al Gore (as sore losers)
3) John McCain as opposed to John Kerry (as men who lost elections)
4) Dick Cheney as opposed to Al Gore (as formed VP's critical of the new guy)
5) Samuel Alito as opposed to Sonya Sotomayor (as 'racist' SC nominees)
As I've explained above, you may feel their reporting in these cases JUSTIFIED, but you can hardly feel that way and at the same time claim that there's systematic liberal bias at work. It's nonsense.
One minor point/question...
"world's largest religion, Islam"
World's LARGEST? I thought it was just the FASTEST GROWING but that Christianity is still the largest.
I could be wrong. Don't really care, it will just be some other screwball religion for me to rail against once they to dominte the Gov't. Kidding - obvioulsy it would be some time before that could happen here. And one of the beutiful things about Obama is that he's helping liberals and moderates get elected in Mid-East countries as well. Unlike Bush and Cheney, he understands that you can't get people's hearts and minds by gradding them by the balls.