Bozell: Media Definitely Unfair to Romney Campaign

Comments Off

As if…..but here it is in Black and White….from News Busters…


By Brent Bozell

The Media Research Center has released a new analysis of the 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s trip to London, Israel and Poland between July 25 and July 31. The report’s findings are absolutely staggering. 18 of the 21 stories emphasized Romney’s perceived gaffes. That’s 86 percent!

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that the media took this opportunity to thoroughly trash Obama’s rival, but the near unanimous negativity of their coverage is as outrageous as it is transparent. MRC’s analysis also found:

– NBC and CBS savaged Romney for an innocuous remark about London’s readiness for the Games following security issues widely reported by those same networks. The comment was so unremarkable that NBC cut it out of their original taped interview with Romney.

– NBC and CBS only made Romney’s Olympic comments an issue after taking their cues from British tabloids.

– When candidate Obama toured abroad during the 2008 campaign, the networks ignored that Obama falsely presented himself as a member of the Senate Banking Committee to reporters in Israel referring to “his” committee’s calls for divestment in Iran.

– Four years later Romney’s tough talk on Iran in defense of Israel was reported as an “error.”

– During Romney’s week-long trip, the networks committed 53 minutes of almost entirely negative coverage to the Republican candidate. During Obama’s trip in 2008, they spent 92 minutes gushing over Obama.

It’s impossible to look at the fawning coverage of Obama’s trip in 2008 compared to the sliming Romney has taken in 2012 and not see a clear agenda on the part of the liberal media.

There is no low to which they won’t sink to damage Mitt Romney in order to help Obama win re-election, even if it means shouting questions about gaffes at him during a visit to Poland’s Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It’s absolutely despicable.


True Journalism, there’s A Skunk Amongst Us…

Comments Off

I just read with interest how Rush Limbaugh has apologized for his use of descriptors for the woman who wanted Obamacare so she could have sex after free contraceptives. Now, as journalists, I guess for lack of a better way to phrase it, thought about the use a better tone of speech when we’re broadcasting or writing is a good idea. The fact is, that he said “slut” and “prostitute” when maybe  “trollop” might have fit better. Or maybe it would have been better had he said “promiscuous woman” on “public aid”. Puh-leeze. It is what it is, and I won’t go into the story, but suffice it to say that journalists have always bore the brunt of how they report their stories. He might have been a little more creative with his description.

This comes from Rush’s show:

A Statement from Rush

March 03, 2012

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.


I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Now, the stupid part…he has lost advertisers because of it. I am not a Rush fan. I think he’s a blowhard. I think that he does what he does because he’s full of himself. But, he has listeners. He also pays dividends for Premiere Radio Networks, owned by Clear Channel, and he makes money for the radio stations he is on. He makes lots of money for them, and for himself. The seven businesses who pulled their ads are the ones who will lose, not Rush or the network. He is, (sorry, Mr O’Reilly), the MOST listened to conservative on the air today. Here’s a few of the words of the advertisers who say they can’t abide by his remarks:

Quicken Loans has pulled its ads saying in a Tweet: “Due to continued inflammatory comments– along w/valuable feedback from clients & team members– QL has suspended ads on Rush Limbaugh program.”

Sleep Number has also withdrawn its sponsorship with this Tweet: “Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program.” 

Legal Zoom tweeted:  “Legalzoom has pulled all advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show.”

Citrix Systems has also pulled plug on Rush: “We have listened to our customers & have decided to cease our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show immediately.”

ProFlowers has written it is reconsidering its connection to the Rush Limbaugh Show, saying, “Rest assured, your feedback is heard. We heard about the comments and we will reevaluate our marketing plan.” 

How about all the folks who listen to Rush every day who are going to re-evaluate all their spending dollars. They don’t think about the 3/4 that DO listen to the show as the reason they bought ads there in the first place. Research proves that pulling ads from controversial programs don’t hurt the programs (ie Howard Stern), they only take the advertising value away from the companies who choose to be stupid and ignore the obvious. They had rather listen to the 1% rather than consider the 99. See, there is a reason that they started advertising there in the first place.  Semantics….

That’s not why I’m writing this. We have not asked for advertising on our blog site, and probably won’t. One reason is I don’t want to stifle either Mike’s or my point of view. I won’t be held hostage by an advertiser who thinks their opinion is better than Mikes, mine or our readers. That’s the nice thing about owning the site and the content. Now, WordPress furnishes the blog, but they’re pretty much hands off from what I’ve seen. That’s a good thing, because the internet right now is the last place to find true unfettered information, left, right or middle. Most all of the politicians jumped on Rush today…including Ron Paul, the arbitor of free speech according to the Constitution. That bothers me, because he is supposed to the the one who cares the most about the Constitution, and moreover, basic Libertarian ideology. So, how then should he explain to his followers his statement. How does he know if Rush was honest? Makes me question a lot of his statements now.  This story was on Reuters today:

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul expressed doubt on Sunday that conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh truly meant it when he apologized for calling a law student a “slut” over her support for President Barack Obama’s new policy on insurance coverage of contraceptives.

“I don’t think he’s very apologetic. He’s doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line that he was concerned about,” Paul told the CBS program “Face the Nation.”

“Yes, I think he should have apologized. I had said he used very crude language. And I think he gets over the top at times,” added Paul, known for his libertarian views.

Limbaugh offered his apology to Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, 30, in a written statement on Saturday.

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices,” Limbaugh said.

The controversy prompted Obama to call Fluke on Friday to express his support. Several of Limbaugh’s sponsors said they would stop advertising on his program following his remarks.

Fluke was caught in an election-year fight between Obama and Republicans over a policy that requires health insurance plans to cover contraception. Religious-affiliated organizations, the Roman Catholic Church and social conservatives have protested the policy as an infringement on religious liberty.

Fluke told a Democratic congressional hearing last month that female students at Georgetown, the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in the country, suffered financial hardship because contraception was not covered by their health insurance, and some had stopped taking it because of the cost.

“What does it say about the college co-ed Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex,” Limbaugh said on Wednesday on his radio show.

Appearing on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Republican president candidate Newt Gingrich said, “I think it was appropriate for Rush to apologize and I’m glad he apologized.”

But Gingrich added, “I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president’s apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion-dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week.”

At least Newt recognized the fact of what the National Media wants to focus on. Like Rush or not, like Alan Colmes or not, freedom of the press is just that. It begins to get dangerous when advertisers want to call the shots. If they don’t like what a commentator says, don’t advertise there in the first place. Everyone knows that Rush is over the top…to quote Ron Paul, they also know where their bottom line is. Shame on Ron Paul for ditching his beliefs for a better image for his campaign. But it’s like I told you in my last post. He’s a good man, but just like the others, he’s in it for the campaign, and I believe it now more than ever.

Even a Good Man Can’t Recover if the Swamp’s too Deep

Comments Off

How much more. I talked with someone who knows folks on the Herman Cain team today…they are totally dismayed and flabbergasted. Well, I’ll show you what he sent me.

I have friends that have worked with and for Cain at different points in his Career and on the campaign trail and not one of them ever saw anything that would make them think this stuff was true, and at least someone would ya know.  People have been coming out of the wood work backing Cain that know him and that says ALOT.

I agree, why does everything hinge on the National Restaurant Association? Why only during that time? Oh, and the time period that the affair with Ginger White  was supposed to be going was while Herman Cain was at his most virile…colon cancer surgery and recovery. 

Here is Mr. Cain’s statement in the National Review:

“This is cause for reassessment,” Mr. Cain said, according to one participant on the call who spoke on condition of anonymity. “During the summer we had to make some reassessments based on our financial situation. We were able to hang in there.”

Mr. Cain denied the accusations from the Atlanta woman, Ginger White. But he acknowledged that the latest report of sexual misconduct might be more difficult to overcome, considering that the first voting is set to take place in five weeks at the Iowa caucuses. He said that he had not lost his enthusiasm to run, but suggested it was a distraction thatcould be difficult to recover from.

“With this latest one, we have to do an assessment as to whether or not this is going to create too much of a cloud in some peoples’ minds as to whether or not they should support us going forward,” Mr. Cain said, according to the participant on the call.

Mr. Cain doesn’t deserve the instant conclusions, and it’s a shame that his candidacy has been destroyed without the first iota of proof, but that seems to be what this country is all about now, you’re guilty until proven innocent. Well, at least in politics.

Another issue, I did like Michelle Bachmann, but her camp sent a tweet about moving vans moving in.

Reporters flocked to Herman Cain’s Iowa headquarters in Urbandale Tuesday night after Michele Bachmann’s state chairman tweeted that moving trucks were sitting outside the offices of a candidate who said he’s “reassessing” his campaign.

The catch: They weren’t moving trucks, but delivery trucks full of campaign signs.

The Bachmann aide, Iowa Sen. Kent Sorenson tweeted: “Moving trucks at Herman Cains office in

Bachmann’s Iowa office is in the same office complex as Cain’s.

The Des Moines Register arrived at the offices at 8550 New York Ave. to find more than 3,000 campaign signs leaning in the entryway and first reported it. A volunteer sat on the floor in the room, putting the signs together.

A tweet from Cain’s Iowa chairman, Steve Grubbs, came shortly after: Not moving trucks, delivery trucks with signs…want one?

“I kind of want to say it’s karma, but I shouldn’t,” said Cain’s Iowa spokeswoman, Lisa Lockwood. “People should not jump to conclusions.”

Sorenson deleted his tweet and its attached photo later that night, but not before Gov. Terry Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht caught it.

We know politics is dirty, but that was a very cheap shot from someone who calls herself a passionate conservative.

Expect Chicago style politics out of the Republican camps…even before they get into the dirt with Obama.

At least Newt Gingrich has had the class not to get into mudslinging. He has said from the first that the party needed to be focused on getting the current White House cleaned out and not petty digs on the party. Looks like he’s the only one that remembers Reagan’s 11th rule.

When questioned about what will come out about him…

Newt Answers

I’m reminded of a favorite quote of mine… “When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s hard to remember your original task was to drain the swamp”

Keep your chin up Mr. Cain, there are some of us who need to see some hard proof!

Tucker Carlson, Where Do You Really Stand?

1 Comment

I am getting less sure of Fox News since Rupert Murdoch’s son has taken the helm…there seems to be a lot more attacks to the right from the anchors of Fox…and even the “supposedly” conservative contributors. I don’t like Tucker Carlson for that reason. He has a terrible knack for hammering true conservatives. He’s labeled Ron Paul as a kook (which he is not) and has run down Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. For someone who claims to be conservative, he sure is doing a lot to damage his credibility. Now comes a bashing of the tea party. Not only does he mistakenly say that the Washington establishment is done, he foolishly thinks the tea party is over as well. Oh, and the chance of Mitt Romney ever being conservative? At least, Sarah hasn’t attacked her fellow republicans like Carl Rove. At most, the conservative Romney is but a show:

Tucker Carlson: The Tea Party Has Destroyed The Republican Establishment

by Colby Hall | 12:04 pm, November 16th, 2011


Sarah Palin offered some unsolicited advice last night to Mitt Romney, the red-headed stepchild of GOP presidential frontrunners, encouraging him to more openly embrace the fiscal and social conservative side of the Republican party, and to develop a more robust relationship with the Tea Party movement. This morning on Fox News’America’s Newsroom, host Martha MacCallumasked Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson and liberal “embed” Alan Colmes to discuss Romney’s strategy in engaging the powerful Tea Party contingent, which Carlson put in remarkably stark terms.

After openly questioning why Romney hasn’t made more of an effort in including an energized side of potential GOP voters sympathetic with the Tea Party movement, Carlson boldly stated what he felt to be an under-told story in the evolution of conservative politics, saying of the Tea Party:

Well I think the explanation is a little broader. Leaderless movements don’t endure because they can’t. This is basically a leaderless movement. But I think it’s had a huge effect, and its biggest effect that almost no one ever mentions is that the Tea Party destroyed the Republican establishment. All the people Republicans and conservatives have looked to for guidance have been basically discredited by the Tea Party, which has alllowed this current chaos to flower. That may be a good thing, it might be a bad thing. I don’t even know. But that is the legacy of the Tea Party. No more Washington establishment on the right.

One of the leitmotifs of the 2010 midterm election was what we called the GOP Civil War, and was perhaps best evidenced by the ongoing rhetorical battle between GOP operative Karl Rove and Tea Party Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell. Carlson makes the astute point that business as usual inside the D.C. beltway is a thing of the past, which is evidence of a Tea Party victory in the battle for the soul of the conservative movement.

Given that Carlson has a lengthy resume of defending the GOP and conservative movement, it’s not difficult to imagine that when he says that he isn’t sure if this is a “good thing or bad thing,” he really is shooting a cannonball across the bow of the USS Tea Party, especially when Tea Party endorsed candidates like Herman Cain (and Sharron Angle of last fall) brought embarrassment to some in the GOP ranks. Perhaps the Tea Party has won the GOP battle, but some might suggest that they will lose the eventual war against their Democratic foes.

Romney, The GOP Love Child

Comments Off

The lame stream media say that Herman Cain doesn’t matter now, that he can’t win. Guess what, he’s pulled out front because THE PEOPLE like what he says. Mitt Romney seems to be their love child. Guess what ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and all the rest of you…if you’ve paid attention, it wasn’t you that changed congress in 2008…and it won’t be you that puts more conservatives in the Senate and White House in 2012. Shut up, quit trying to kiss up to Romney, and report the dayam news….let the people make up their own minds…it’s media that has poisoned the people, along with all the crooked politicians that have poisoned WDC.

Realize this…every candidate can be picked apart…look at the story below with the audit thing. How much can you say about Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum (who I think is a real nurdo), Newt Gingrich, or any of the rest? How many times have we preached the constitutionalism of Ron Paul, and his near spotless record, but what do you hear in the news about him? Huh? Be honest. Ron Paul IS NOT A LUNITIC. Herman Cain is not either. It’s a choice people, who would be best in the office to lead us back to prosperity and conservatism? Is Romney, who can’t figure what his stand is today, how about Rick Santorum, who richly endorsed Romney in 08 as “the conservative”, and now he’s not. (Oh, and Cain endorsed him too, but not as a conservative…as a businessman.)

Herman Cain is leading the polls, and it’s different than because Romney got in first and has raised a lot of money…or Rick Perry, who came in as an alternative to Romney. Cain has earned his marks, and if the media doesn’t kill him, the establishment RINO’s will…and we as the people who are begging for change, if we accept that, should be ashamed. Is Cain perfect? Nope, but he is different…he’s not a politician…what we’ve been begging for, and it looks like it just may be resonating.

Today on Laura Ingram, Haley Barber (R, MS) said the following: “If this election is where it ought to be, and that is a referendum on how President Obama is doing, Republicans are going to win. If Herman Cain is our nominee against Barack Obama, I think he’ll sweep the south,” Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) told Laura Ingraham today.

“I think if it were today my wife would vote for Herman Cain. One of my sons, I have grown children, you know, from the first day said ‘Dad, do you know Herman Cain?’ I said sure, I’ve known him since I was Chairman. He said “Man, I like him, I like what he says,” and that is one of his great strengths Laura. He is likable. He does not give you the impression that he is full of himself, but rather than he is a straight-talkin’ person who, will tell you, he call it like he sees them. He’s not trying to sugar coat anything and at the same time he is not trying to be shrill and a chest beater. He’s a straight talker and I think that makes him very, very attractive to people.”

Pat Buchanan on the “Political Dirtball”

Comments Off

From World Net Daily:

Pat Buchanan
On Feb. 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara, delusional and a loner, fired his .32-caliber pistol at FDR in the Bayfront Park area of Miami.

Five feet tall, Zangara could not aim over the crowd. So, he stood on a folding chair and was piled on after the first of five shots. He wounded four people, including Mayor Anton Cermak of Chicago.

In two weeks, Zangara, who pleaded guilty, had been sentenced to 80 years. When Cermak died on March 6, Zangara was retried for murder and sentenced to the electric chair, where he died on March 20, 1933.

In that time, if you knew what you were doing, knew the penalty for it and then committed the crime, you paid the price – and swiftly.

There was no wailing that Zangara, a misfit suffering from a stomach ailment, was not fully responsible.

There was no campaign to accuse Republicans, after a rough election, of creating an atmosphere in which a deranged mind may have been driven to try to kill FDR.

That came three decades later, when conservatives were charged with having “created the atmosphere” in which JFK was assassinated.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist who had defected to Russia and a member of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, who had only recently arrived in Texas. Yet moral culpability for what he did was laid at the door of the city of Dallas and the rising American right.

Had not, the press asked, Adlai Stevenson been lately jostled by a crowd in Dallas? Had not LBJ and Lady Bird been verbally abused in the lobby of a Dallas hotel in 1960? Was Dallas not a hothouse of the right?

The same smear tactic was employed when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, killing 168, among them 19 children. Right-wing radio and its anti-government rhetoric, it was said, created the atmosphere that made it easier for McVeigh to feel justified in blowing up a federal building.

Saturday, even before Jared Loughner had been charged with murdering six people in Tucson, including a 9-year-old girl and a U.S. judge, and wounding 13 in an assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the old smear machine had been wheeled out.

Giffords, it was said, had been “targeted” by Sarah Palin for defeat in ads depicting her district in cross hairs. And had not Palin used the expression, “Don’t retreat, reload!”? Had not Sharron Angle in Nevada talked of “Second Amendment remedies”?

Had not talk-show hosts on Fox News used incendiary language that can drive weak and deranged minds over the line?

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat and friend of Giffords, kicked off the campaign Saturday with this excoriation.

“I’d just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are – how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”

Dupnik later narrowed it to some “people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell narrowed it further to Fox News, the home of Glenn Beck.

Elements on the left are now connecting the dots – the words of Palin and Fox News – to the deeds of accused mass murderer Jared Loughner.

This is not political hardball. This is political dirt ball.

Do any such dots exist in reality? Or only in the embittered minds and malevolent motives of those unreconciled to the defeat they suffered Nov. 2?

Undeniably, political rhetoric is hotter than it has been since the 1960s and ought to be dialed down. But Barack Obama, talking tough in 2008 about how he would deal with Republican attacks, himself said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. … Folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

In 2010, Obama called on Hispanics to join him and “punish our enemies.” Harry Reid in 2009 called tea-party critics “evil-mongers” who disrupt town-hall meetings with “lies, innuendo and rumors.”

It is easy for journalists to imply or impute a causal connection between hot words and horrible acts. Simply twin the two in a story, or ask an interviewee if he thinks these words and those deeds are not connected. And then let the public imagination do the rest.

As of today, there is not a shred of evidence of any connection between what Sarah Palin or Fox News said and what Jared Loughner did. From the evidence, Loughner had his first and perhaps his only encounter with Giffords in 2007, a year before Palin ever came to national attention as the running mate of John McCain.

The man charged with this awful atrocity is Jared Loughner.

Our country would be better served if, instead of accusing each other of moral culpability for these crimes, politicians and media joined to demand that Loughner be denied the fame (or infamy) he sought, and that he receive the same swift justice as Giuseppe Zangara.

Pot calls the Kettle Black…

Comments Off

From the Media Research Center, News Busters…
By Nathan Burchfiel

If you thought media coverage of the Aug. 28 “Restoring Honor” rally hosted in Washington D.C. by Fox News host Glenn Beck seemed like just another attack on conservatives, you’re not alone. As noted by the Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher, much of the coverage had a common thread: describing the crowd as “overwhelmingly white.”

While the term was certainly used in coverage of Beck’s rally, it’s not a new label. “Overwhelmingly white” is a prime example of the media’s groupthink on Beck, Tea Parties, and the conservative movement in general. Virtually every major “mainstream” media outlet has used the phrase in just the past year to describe conservative events.

But even as the media criticize Tea Party and other conservative rallies for an apparent lack of diversity, they struggle to bring minority voices into their own operations.

All three broadcast networks have described the Tea Parties as “overwhelmingly white.” So have CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the Agence France Presse, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Journal and US News & World Report. Many of those organizations are the very ones the news industry discusses as having failed to make diversity goals for staff.

Here are a few examples.

  • “The crowds turning out for the Tea Party Express rallies are overwhelmingly white.” – Ed Lavandera, CNN “American Morning” March 31, 2010.
  • “The crowd is still overwhelmingly white.” – Jessica Yellin, CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360″ April 15, 2010.
  • “The crowd that greeted Palin did nothing to contradict the common description of Tea Party supporters as overwhelmingly white and mostly older.” – Ina Jaffe, NPR “Weekend Edition Sunday” March 28, 2010.
  • “They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo …” – USA Today July 2, 2010.

That doesn’t take into account other ways to say the same thing. In coverage of Beck’s rally, some outlets opted for the less aggressive “predominantly white” label, while others described the crowd as “nearly all-white.”

As Brad Wilmouth reported on NewsBusters, ABC’s Tahman Bradley called the crowd “almost all white,” and suggested that presence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, as a speaker was “an obvious effort to try to show inclusion.”

The charge leveled at conservative demonstrators is especially ironic given the accusers. The media are notoriously “overwhelmingly white.” The American Society of Newspaper Editors reported in April 2010 that minorities total only 13.26 percent of newsroom staff, a decline from the previous year. The report found 465 newspapers have no minorities on their full-time staffs, a number that “has been growing since 2006.”

The organization launched a program in 1978 that “challenged the newspaper industry to achieve racial parity by 2000 or sooner.” It failed. That goal has since been moved to 2025 because, “Over three decades, the annual survey has shown that while there has been progress, the racial diversity of newsrooms does not come close to the fast-growing diversity in the U.S. population as a whole.”

Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander in March reported on internal criticism of the newspaper’s diversity. “All told, journalists of color comprise about 24 percent of the newsroom, comfortably above the ASNE census average of roughly 13 percent in recent years.” However, he added, “Minorities are 43 percent of The Post’s circulation area, and a large part of the region is edging toward ‘majority minority’ status.” So how has the diversity-challenge Post handled the Tea Party?

  • “But, [Tea Party rally attendee Jeff Link] says, looking at the crowd, which is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged, ‘it saddens me not to see this gathering more diverse.'” – Feb. 6, 2010.
  • “The new poll offers a portrait of tea party supporters as overwhelmingly white, mostly conservative and generally disapproving of Obama.” – Feb. 11, 2010
  • “They are overwhelming white (94 percent) and conservative (73 percent).”- April 2, 2010
  • “Tea Party activists, like Perot voters, are overwhelmingly white.” – April 18, 2010

The New York Times reported in January that minority journalists appear to be suffering the most from newsroom cutbacks. But the report on journalism’s diversity issues wasn’t nearly as smug as a Feb. 16 report about Tea Parties:

  • “Gazing out at his overwhelmingly white audience, Mr. Mack felt the need to say, ‘This meeting is not racist.'”

Newspapers aren’t alone. The third annual Television Newsroom Management Diversity Census found that “persons of color” only make up 12.6 percent of staff in TV newsrooms. A 2007 survey by the Radio Television Digital News Association found that minorities make up 21.5 percent of the television news workforce – higher than print but still short of the 34.5 percent of the population. Only 10.2 percent of broadcast news directors are minorities.

But that didn’t stop broadcast outlets from pointing the finger at conservatives.

  • “Do you have any concerns when you look out at the crowds and they’re mostly, well, overwhelmingly white people?” – Terry Moran, ABC “Nightline” Nov. 2, 2009.
  • “You know, one thing to keep in mind about the Tea Party is that it is an overwhelmingly white movement.” – Ron Brownstein, NBC “Meet the Press” April 18, 2010.

The long-running discussion over how to include more minorities in the news media, from introspective articles to industry-insider analysis and advice, seems to have produced less-than-impressive results. Maybe members of the media should recall the old adage about glass houses.

Read more:

Bi-partisan – Obama Style

Comments Off

Another piece of journalistic treasure…thanks again Carl!


Bipartisanship is the word of the hour in Washington, and Obama’s
teleprompter seems to be stuck on it. This is nothing new for him. The
president came to town promising a new bipartisanship, along with openness,
transparency, responsibility and a number of other hopes and changes he
immediately dumped overboard.

At his impromptu press conference on Tuesday, Obama said, “Bipartisanship
can’t be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want and
they agree to none of the things I believe in or want.” That, however, has
been his working definition of bipartisanship since his first day in office.
This was evident a year ago when the White House labeled the stimulus bill a
“bipartisan victory” after it had passed with support from just three
Republicans in the Senate and none in the House of Representatives.
Opposition to the bill, which included 11 Democratic House dissenters, was
more bipartisan than the support. All told, the primary feature of Obama’s
definition of bipartisanship is that he gets his way.

There was little need for Obama to include Republicans in his legislative
calculus. The Democrats enjoyed supermajorities in both houses and, armed
with what they thought was a political blank check, went on a spending and
regulating rampage. They exhibited the worst aspects of old-style politics:
favoritism, cronyism, unrestrained spending, backroom deals, arrogance,
conceit and extreme partisanship. Obama’s freshman year left the country
with astronomical deficits and not much else.

When the public objected to this irresponsible and reckless behavior -
exhibited at town-hall protests and Tea Party demonstrations – Obama
responded, “I don’t want folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking.
I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.” Shut
up, sit down and take your medicine – that’s bipartisanship Obama-style.

Now Obama is talking up bipartisanship again, but nothing has really
changed. His proposed bipartisan fiscal commission will have no authority
and will serve only as a political fig leaf. The planned Feb. 25 televised
bipartisan gathering on health care obviously is intended as a made-for-TV
spectacle. Obama claims he wants to use the event to hear the best ideas for
pushing forward the stalled health care legislation, but those ideas have
been available since the beginning of the process. It’s not the Republicans’
fault the Democrats ignored them.

Republicans are right to smell a rat. Serious matters of public policy are
not hashed out during one-time televised extravaganzas. Obama said, “The
people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends
petty politics,” but there is nothing serious about his proposed meeting. It
will be rigged to make the Republicans look like obstructionists and cast
Obama as the conciliator trying to rise above politics. As the president
demonstrated at the Republican retreat in Baltimore last month, he will not
feel restrained by facts when making his case.

It is evidence of Obama’s political weakness that he seeks to blame his
legislative failures on obstructionist Republicans. The reasons for his
failure are more rooted in his hard-left orientation, his lack of executive
experience, his inadequate understanding of the legislative process and his
apparent belief that no one rightly should disagree with him on anything,
ever. This combination of ideology, ignorance and arrogance is the root
cause of the collapse of his legislative agenda and the public’s growing
discontent with his presidency.

A truly bipartisan approach means treating the opposition as partners in a
spirit of inclusion, cooperation and respect. That is not Obama’s style.

Obama more American than Sarah Palin?

Comments Off

From News Busters…Time magazine disses Palin and Tea Party.  OK, you got your opinion and I’ve got mine…we’ll see. By the way, take a look at the latest approval ratings after the story…and it ain’t even from a right-leaning pollster!

By Brent Baker
Sun, 02/07/2010 – 21:23 ET

Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement “both have far less support in the country at large than a gullible Old Media seems to understand or suggest,” Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin asserted on “The Page” while colleague Joe Klein, on Time’s “Swampland” blog, showed fear of the supposedly impotent coalition as he denigrated her Saturday night convention speech as “anti-intellectual drivel,” scolding as “anti-American” those dumb enough to like her:

Those who celebrate Sarah Palin’s lack of knowledge as a form of “authenticity” superior to Barack Obama’s gloriously American mongrel ethnicity and self-made intellectuality are representatives of a long-standing American theme – the celebration of sameness, and mediocrity, in a country that has succeeded brilliantly because of its diversity and restlessly eccentric genius. Happily, it has almost always been a losing theme. And, indeed, in the truest sense, it can be called anti-American.

Halperin, political director for ABC News until 2007, appeared on the Sunday edition of ABC’s World News where he insisted Palin and tea partiers are “still not big enough or specific enough to do anything but criticize Obama, criticize the government” and while “that creates excitement,” it’s “not a national governing movement.”

From the February 7 World News:

ANCHOR DAN HARRIS: Let me read to you something that you wrote on the Web. “Both the Tea Party and Sarah Palin,” you wrote, “have far less support in the country at large than a gullible old media seems to understand or suggest.” I assume that includes me. Elaborate on that.MARK HALPERIN: Well, look. This is one of the biggest, most energized movements in America today, but that is not a lot of people. 600 people in a ballroom, even tens of millions, let’s say she’s got tens of millions of followers as does the Tea Party movement, that does not make a national winning coalition. She’s got a lot of support. It creates a lot of energy. That’s a huge strength for both her and the Tea Party movement, but it’s still not big enough or specific enough to do anything but criticize Obama, criticize the government. That creates excitement, but again, it’s not a national governing movement.

“Earlier in the day Mr. Obama  paid the Tea Party movement the compliment of a specific mention at the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting in Washington. “The right-wing activists who derailed health reform efforts at hundreds of town hall meetings in August should not be allowed to distract the party again, he said.”

Soooo, how’s that hopey changey thing working for ya?

Independent voters see Pres. Obama in a negative light by a nearly 2-1 margin, according to a new Marist College survey, while almost half of voters say he has failed to meet their expectations.

The poll, conducted Feb. 1-3, showed just 44% of registered voters approving of Obama’s job as president. 47% disapprove. But among indie voters, Obama’s approval rating sits at a terrible 29%, while his disapproval rating is at 57%.

Obama’s 44% job approval rating is the lowest he has scored in any non-internet poll since moving into the WH, according to a review of data compiled by

And while GOPers strive to avoid attacking Obama personally, for fear of offending voters who see him in a favorable light personally, even that aura of invincibility is wearing off. Independent voters view Obama negatively, too, by a 39% favorable to 52% unfavorable margin. All registered voters still see Obama favorably by a 50%-44% margin, but that’s down 5 points in just 2 months.

Voters are disappointed in what they got with Obama’s first year. The poll shows 47% believe Obama has failed to meet their expectations — including a quarter of Dems, 65% of GOPers and 53% of indie voters — while just 42% say he has met their expectations. 38% say Obama’s policies are moving the country in the wrong direction, while 37% say they’re making the country better.

Meanwhile, members of Congress should brace for a difficult election year. 42% of registered voters said they would back their current member of Congress, while 44% said they would support someone else — a drop of 9 points in support of the incumbent in just 2 months.

The Marist College poll surveyed 910 registered voters for a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

Will Fox, WSJ accept tea party press selection?

Comments Off

This is funny. For more reasons than one.  It’s funny because The Tea Party turned the tables on the liberal media, it’s funny because now the liberal media thinks they’re viable now, and finally, it’s funny because Michael Calderone wrote it from the Politico.  Michael, why didn’t you ask why the media wasn’t covering the tea party when you felt it was irrevelant?

Originally, it didn’t look Tea Party Nation would allow media access for next month’s convention in Nashville, a gathering of activists that will feature big-name speakers like Sarah Palin.

But today, the organization announced that they will allow media access—to an extent.

The five outlets that made the cut: Fox News, The Wall Street Journal,, and World Net Daily.

Event organizer Judson Phillips told POLITICO that the first priority is to have a working convention, and that press is a secondary concern. Initially, he said, the “game plan was to deny media access.”

But with limited space, he said, the organizers “picked some groups that we had some contact with.”

When asked if ideology was part of the criteria in choosing, Phillips said “no.” Also, I specifically asked why the Journal was selected as opposed to other news outlets that applied, including POLITICO.

“They have covered the tea party movement,” Phillips said. “I would say we’ve gotten fair coverage from them.”

While organizers will claim ideology isn’t a part of the selection, the result is that out of hundreds of outlets from around the world, three right-leaning websites and two Rupert Murdoch-owned news organizations are the only ones being let in.

Fox News heavily promoted tea party rallies around the country last year, but it’s difficult to argue that the Journal’s news pages have covered the movement much more than many other news outlets that may have tried to get a pass.

And considering that both Fox News and the Journal regularly balk at claims that their news product—as opposed to commentary—is partisan, will they join three right-leaning outlets while other non-partisan outlets aren’t granted access?

A Journal spokesperson declined to comment at this time. Two Fox News spokespeople did not return a request for comment.

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers