Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Saturday, March 28, 2009
British Official Chastises British PM Brown's Economic Agenda
'Viral Video' Eviscerating PM Gordon Brown Economic Policies Largely Ignored by MSM
By P.J. Gladnick
March 26, 2009 - 08:24 ET
Most of you have probably seen or heard the "viral video" of the British MEP, Daniel Hannan, eviscerating the socialist economic polices of Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the European Parliament. If you did, you probably became aware of the video on either the Web, talk radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh, or on a very few cable TV programs. The reason is that the MSM mostly ignored this scintillating attack upon the disastrous economic effects of socialism as represented by Brown which could well be extended to our own president, Barack Obama.
Your humble correspondent did a Google News search on "Daniel Hannan" this morning and was astonished by the dearth of coverage. In fact, I thought that perhaps Google News might have simply missed some news sources by error so I checked individual news sites of several of the major MSM sources. The result: New York Times...no coverage. Washington Post...zip. Boston Globe...zilch. Miami Herald...nope. Chicago Tribune...nyet. And the Los Angeles Times only had a small blurb linking to a National Review Online story about the video. And if you think CNN, being a cable news outlet, would have had the video or at least a mention of it on its site, you would be wrong. Daniel Hannan himself made a blog post in the UK Telegraph about how his video went viral on the Web despite being ignored by much of the MSM:
"The internet has changed politics - changed it utterly and forever. Twenty-four hours ago, I made a three-minute speech in the European Parliament, aimed at Gordon Brown. I tipped off the BBC and some of the newspaper correspondents but, unsurprisingly, they ignored me: I am, after all, simply a backbench MEP.
"When I woke up this morning, my phone was clogged with texts, my email inbox with messages. Overnight, the YouTube clip of my remarks had attracted over 36,000 hits. By today, it was the most watched video in Britain."
And on this side of the pond as well, Daniel.
"How did it happen, in the absence of any media coverage? The answer is that political reporters no longer get to decide what's news. The days when a minister gave briefings to a dozen lobby correspondents, and thereby dictated the next day's headlines, are over. Now, a thousand bloggers decide for themselves what is interesting. If enough of them are tickled then, bingo, you're news... And jumbo thanks to all the American bloggers: you chaps are way ahead of us in this regard."
Blush! And a jumbo you're welcome for your incredible speech on behalf of the bloggers here in the colonies.
"Breaking the press monopoly is one thing. But the internet has also broken the political monopoly. Ten or even five years ago, when the Minister for Widgets put out a press release, the mere fact of his position guaranteed a measure of coverage. Nowadays, a politician must compel attention by virtue of what he is saying, not his position.
"It's all a bit unsettling for professional journalists and politicians. But it's good news for libertarians of every stripe. Lefties have always relied on control, as much of information as of physical resources. Such control is no longer technically feasible."
Well stated! However, the left will still try to desperately regain its control of information as we have seen in attempts to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine" whether by that name or in another form. So what was the reaction to Hannan's article about how the MSM has lost its monopoly? Fortunately, the Web now allows us to read the reaction in the comments posted by readers of Hannan's blog:
"At 80,000 hits, it is the most watched video on youtube, not only in britain, but everywhere in the world."
That was yesterday. Today that YouTube video has over 680,000 hits and is still rapidly growing.
"I'm proud to say that I played my part in spreading this video to firstly my friends and a student forum of 270,000.
"Mr. Hannan! I first heard the audio from this speech on the Rush Limbaugh Show here in the States... I couldn't help but applaud!!(While driving I might add ;) Rush commands an audience of 20 Million people a week and 5 million at any given time during his 3 hour show. Your speech has gone beyond viral, my friend... I have no doubt this speech will find its way into America's Conservative Movement, and this should be the clarion call for Republicans here start sounding off like they have a pair! President Teleprompter needs a dressing down just like this!"
Hannan's blog had over 270 such comments posted to it but what is really outstanding is that his YouTube video currently has over 4700 comments. Meanwhile the MSM, including many of the dying newspapers that are soon to fold, continues to snore.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/03/26/viral-video-eviscerating-pm-gordon-brown-economic-policies-largely-ign
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
It does seem to fit perfectly with the situation that is going on here. It might have as well been Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann going off on Obama.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Failing Newspapers Next to Receive Bailouts?
U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers
03:05 PM EDT By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.
"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.
A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.
Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.
Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.
Because newspaper profits have been falling in recent years, "no substantial loss of federal revenue" was expected under the legislation, Cardin's office said in a statement.
Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.
"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.
Newspaper subscriptions and advertising have shrunk dramatically in the past few years as Americans have turned more and more to the Internet or television for information.
In recent months, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle have ceased daily publication or announced that they may have to stop publishing.
In December the Tribune Company, which owns a number of newspapers including The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy protection.
Two newspaper chains, Gannett Co Inc and Advance Publications, on Monday announced employee furloughs. It will be the second furlough this year at Gannett.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52N67F20090324
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Now, we're supposed to pay to be propagandized by the liberals in the old print media. If they're classified as non-profit organizations, some our tax dollars will go to the liberally biased print media that have been declared unwanted by the American consumers. People would've bought subscriptions, if they wanted the papers to survive. It has been known for a while that newspapers were in trouble, and they had plenty of warning before the papers started to go under.
Why do we have to keep bailing out these companies that has already been deemed unworthy by the masses? There is a reason that they are failing. We have become tired of being talked down to by elitist snobs that think that they know what is good for us and don't care whether we like it or not.
03:05 PM EDT By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.
"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.
A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.
Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.
Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.
Because newspaper profits have been falling in recent years, "no substantial loss of federal revenue" was expected under the legislation, Cardin's office said in a statement.
Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.
"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.
Newspaper subscriptions and advertising have shrunk dramatically in the past few years as Americans have turned more and more to the Internet or television for information.
In recent months, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle have ceased daily publication or announced that they may have to stop publishing.
In December the Tribune Company, which owns a number of newspapers including The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy protection.
Two newspaper chains, Gannett Co Inc and Advance Publications, on Monday announced employee furloughs. It will be the second furlough this year at Gannett.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52N67F20090324
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Now, we're supposed to pay to be propagandized by the liberals in the old print media. If they're classified as non-profit organizations, some our tax dollars will go to the liberally biased print media that have been declared unwanted by the American consumers. People would've bought subscriptions, if they wanted the papers to survive. It has been known for a while that newspapers were in trouble, and they had plenty of warning before the papers started to go under.
Why do we have to keep bailing out these companies that has already been deemed unworthy by the masses? There is a reason that they are failing. We have become tired of being talked down to by elitist snobs that think that they know what is good for us and don't care whether we like it or not.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Ari Fleischer Exposes Liberal Media Hypocrisy
Ari Fleischer Zings MSNBC: Should Dems Denounce Keith Olbermann?
By Scott Whitlock March 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer appeared on the Thursday edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and stopped the program cold when he challenged the hosts as to whether they were "going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?" Co-anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who had been discussing the battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh, were silent for a moment before Brzezinski admitted, "That was a good one. We're all thinking."
Fleischer pressed, "That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because, largely, the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush." The quip occurred after Brzezinski attempted to trap Fleischer into saying that he would be following the tactics of attacking the radio host, were he in the same situation as the Obama White House. After Fleischer's jibe, Scarborough started sipping from his coffee and attempted to toss the potential network hot potato over to the show's other guest, Mike Barnicle. Scarborough joked, "I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?" A few seconds later, however, the token MSNBC conservative did admit, "No, that was good."
A transcript of the March 5 segment, which aired at 8:04am, follows:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring in right now former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Ari, thank you so much for being with us.
ARI FLEISCHER: Good morning.
SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people don't realize Ari not only was the spokesman for the Bush White House, he also is running PR for Michael Steele, at least over the past two weeks.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Good. He can explain what's going on there.
SCARBOROUGH: You're doing a helluva job, Ari. What's going on there?
FLEISCHER: Good morning. It's great to be on your show where you make things up.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, we find it easier than reading newspapers. No, let's talk seriously about Michael Steele. What would you instruct the leader of the RNC to do at this point?
FLEISCHER: Frankly, I think the RNC, Michael Steele, should not have taken the bait on this whole issue. They fell into a silly political trap. But what I find most distressing though, Joe, is didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things and his Chief of Staff engages in one of the biggest childish things imaginable. This whole food fight over Rush Limbaugh is a distraction from the economy from health care and the things he should be working on. It just makes me think Barack Obama is like every other politician who just seeks political advantage.
SCARBOROUGH: While he was making that statement, you did have Carville and their teams doing polls on trying to find the most unpopular person –
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. They found Rush Limbaugh. They said, you should target him. If that's not political gamesmanship, if that's not politics the way Washington's run for the past generation, I don't know what is.
FLEISCHER: Joe, listen to this. Here's what Barack Obama said in his inaugural address. We've come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics. He cited scripture, and then he said, the time has come to set aside childish things and then his staff engages in those very things that his inaugural address talked about. You know, Barack Obama has huge popularity, but I think he is planting the seeds which could hurt him down the road if he really is no different from anybody else. And that's what I think this episode shows.
SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mike Barnicle, that makes me sad, I'm like the Indian that has the tear coming out the corner of his eye.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, god.
SCARBOROUGH: I believed he would be different.
BRZEZINSKI: It was Ari. It was Ari.
MIKE BARNICLE: Ari, you can't seriously believe – do you seriously believe that Obama and his staff, including Rahm Emanuel, what do you figure they're spending, two, three, four minutes a day on Rush Limbaugh? I mean, come on.
FLEISCHER: You know, Mike, how it works, you plant the bomb and you see where it goes off. But isn't that what he said he would stop in Washington? 2004 he said there's not a red America, there's not a blue America, there's a United States of America. My point is, what he is doing and what people on the cable shows have all picked up on, is exactly what people get weary of Washington for. And it's what every politician does. He wanted to be different, and I think he's squandering that chance to truly be different, especially to Republicans who question his policies, but really thought he might be a different type of leader. That's the big problem I have with all of this. This is – this reminds me a lot of the lipstick on a pig issue during the campaign raised against Barack Obama. It's foolish, who needs to get into that?
BRZEZINSKI: Ari, if you were standing at that podium, would you have not taken the opportunity to do what they are doing with Rush Limbaugh?
SCARBOROUGH: Let's say Michael Moore.
FLEISCHER: You have to be careful when you stand at that podium, you don't realize until you're in that unique job how much weight your words have. When you previously as a Senator's press secretary or a party secretary, press secretary, could dismiss or take a slap at a political opponent, when you do it from the White House, you're bringing the weight of the government onto that private person. So, you really have to be careful about it and do it with some grace. Going after Rush Limbaugh, it's just -- to me it's the usual nonsense.
BRZEZINSKI: They're not going after him, they were just labeling him as the leader of the Republican Party and saying --
SCARBOROUGH: They targeted him, Mika.
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm saying you wouldn't have pointed that out?
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?
BRZEZINSKI: That was a good one. We're all thinking.
FLEISCHER: That's my point. That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because largely the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?
BRZEZINSKI: Mike Barnicle?
BARNICLE: I have to ask you, Ari, because you were really good when you were standing at the podium.
SCARBOROUGH: No, that was good.
BARNICLE: But did you have to soak your face in cement this morning to come out and say all of this with a straight face. I mean, come on!
FLEISCHER: You are so part of how Washington's always worked and this is why people give up.
BARNICLE: [Laughing] Me? What?
BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle?
FLEISCHER: You guys love this story. You love what Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are doing because it gives the left an excuse – not you, Joe – to go after people like Rush and conservatives and like they did to Newt. But don't you realize, this is why so many people in America tune out Washington? Especially at a time when we got so many bigger issues. Yeah, Mike, it's two or three minutes a day, that's all it took for them to plant the seeds of destruction they wanted to plant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/03/05/ari-fleischer-zings-msnbc-should-dems-denounce-keith-olbermann
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Ha! I love to see liberals squirm when their caught in their own hypocrisy.
If Republicans have to denounce Limbaugh as a far right extremist, then I fully expect the Democrats to do the same for not just Olbermann but also Michael Moore, Bill Maher, DL Hughley, or anyone in the MSM that wanted America to fail in the Iraq War.
I'll be here holding my breath. Someone call 911, if I start looking like a Smurf..
Their attack on Limbaugh is a thinly veiled diversionary tactic to distract people from the Democratic spending orgy, free fall in the market, and the administration's tax and cabinet scandals. So they bring up the Limbaugh boogieman that they used in the 90's.
It's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to chastise the Republicans to hold Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc against Obama as guilt by association. Then, they turn around and do the same to Republicans. They want to convict the GOP in court of public opinion of their guilt by association with Rush.
By Scott Whitlock March 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer appeared on the Thursday edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and stopped the program cold when he challenged the hosts as to whether they were "going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?" Co-anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who had been discussing the battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh, were silent for a moment before Brzezinski admitted, "That was a good one. We're all thinking."
Fleischer pressed, "That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because, largely, the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush." The quip occurred after Brzezinski attempted to trap Fleischer into saying that he would be following the tactics of attacking the radio host, were he in the same situation as the Obama White House. After Fleischer's jibe, Scarborough started sipping from his coffee and attempted to toss the potential network hot potato over to the show's other guest, Mike Barnicle. Scarborough joked, "I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?" A few seconds later, however, the token MSNBC conservative did admit, "No, that was good."
A transcript of the March 5 segment, which aired at 8:04am, follows:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring in right now former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Ari, thank you so much for being with us.
ARI FLEISCHER: Good morning.
SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people don't realize Ari not only was the spokesman for the Bush White House, he also is running PR for Michael Steele, at least over the past two weeks.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Good. He can explain what's going on there.
SCARBOROUGH: You're doing a helluva job, Ari. What's going on there?
FLEISCHER: Good morning. It's great to be on your show where you make things up.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, we find it easier than reading newspapers. No, let's talk seriously about Michael Steele. What would you instruct the leader of the RNC to do at this point?
FLEISCHER: Frankly, I think the RNC, Michael Steele, should not have taken the bait on this whole issue. They fell into a silly political trap. But what I find most distressing though, Joe, is didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things and his Chief of Staff engages in one of the biggest childish things imaginable. This whole food fight over Rush Limbaugh is a distraction from the economy from health care and the things he should be working on. It just makes me think Barack Obama is like every other politician who just seeks political advantage.
SCARBOROUGH: While he was making that statement, you did have Carville and their teams doing polls on trying to find the most unpopular person –
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. They found Rush Limbaugh. They said, you should target him. If that's not political gamesmanship, if that's not politics the way Washington's run for the past generation, I don't know what is.
FLEISCHER: Joe, listen to this. Here's what Barack Obama said in his inaugural address. We've come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics. He cited scripture, and then he said, the time has come to set aside childish things and then his staff engages in those very things that his inaugural address talked about. You know, Barack Obama has huge popularity, but I think he is planting the seeds which could hurt him down the road if he really is no different from anybody else. And that's what I think this episode shows.
SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mike Barnicle, that makes me sad, I'm like the Indian that has the tear coming out the corner of his eye.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, god.
SCARBOROUGH: I believed he would be different.
BRZEZINSKI: It was Ari. It was Ari.
MIKE BARNICLE: Ari, you can't seriously believe – do you seriously believe that Obama and his staff, including Rahm Emanuel, what do you figure they're spending, two, three, four minutes a day on Rush Limbaugh? I mean, come on.
FLEISCHER: You know, Mike, how it works, you plant the bomb and you see where it goes off. But isn't that what he said he would stop in Washington? 2004 he said there's not a red America, there's not a blue America, there's a United States of America. My point is, what he is doing and what people on the cable shows have all picked up on, is exactly what people get weary of Washington for. And it's what every politician does. He wanted to be different, and I think he's squandering that chance to truly be different, especially to Republicans who question his policies, but really thought he might be a different type of leader. That's the big problem I have with all of this. This is – this reminds me a lot of the lipstick on a pig issue during the campaign raised against Barack Obama. It's foolish, who needs to get into that?
BRZEZINSKI: Ari, if you were standing at that podium, would you have not taken the opportunity to do what they are doing with Rush Limbaugh?
SCARBOROUGH: Let's say Michael Moore.
FLEISCHER: You have to be careful when you stand at that podium, you don't realize until you're in that unique job how much weight your words have. When you previously as a Senator's press secretary or a party secretary, press secretary, could dismiss or take a slap at a political opponent, when you do it from the White House, you're bringing the weight of the government onto that private person. So, you really have to be careful about it and do it with some grace. Going after Rush Limbaugh, it's just -- to me it's the usual nonsense.
BRZEZINSKI: They're not going after him, they were just labeling him as the leader of the Republican Party and saying --
SCARBOROUGH: They targeted him, Mika.
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm saying you wouldn't have pointed that out?
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?
BRZEZINSKI: That was a good one. We're all thinking.
FLEISCHER: That's my point. That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because largely the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?
BRZEZINSKI: Mike Barnicle?
BARNICLE: I have to ask you, Ari, because you were really good when you were standing at the podium.
SCARBOROUGH: No, that was good.
BARNICLE: But did you have to soak your face in cement this morning to come out and say all of this with a straight face. I mean, come on!
FLEISCHER: You are so part of how Washington's always worked and this is why people give up.
BARNICLE: [Laughing] Me? What?
BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle?
FLEISCHER: You guys love this story. You love what Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are doing because it gives the left an excuse – not you, Joe – to go after people like Rush and conservatives and like they did to Newt. But don't you realize, this is why so many people in America tune out Washington? Especially at a time when we got so many bigger issues. Yeah, Mike, it's two or three minutes a day, that's all it took for them to plant the seeds of destruction they wanted to plant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/03/05/ari-fleischer-zings-msnbc-should-dems-denounce-keith-olbermann
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Ha! I love to see liberals squirm when their caught in their own hypocrisy.
If Republicans have to denounce Limbaugh as a far right extremist, then I fully expect the Democrats to do the same for not just Olbermann but also Michael Moore, Bill Maher, DL Hughley, or anyone in the MSM that wanted America to fail in the Iraq War.
I'll be here holding my breath. Someone call 911, if I start looking like a Smurf..
Their attack on Limbaugh is a thinly veiled diversionary tactic to distract people from the Democratic spending orgy, free fall in the market, and the administration's tax and cabinet scandals. So they bring up the Limbaugh boogieman that they used in the 90's.
It's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to chastise the Republicans to hold Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc against Obama as guilt by association. Then, they turn around and do the same to Republicans. They want to convict the GOP in court of public opinion of their guilt by association with Rush.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Thou Shall Not Mock the Chosen One
Gibbs Takes Off Gloves to Challenge Reporters, Hosts Who Cross Obama
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has singled out media personalities Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli in the course of less than two weeks.
FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Jim Cramer. Rush Limbaugh. Rick Santelli.
What do they all have in common? Most likely, none of them is getting invited to the White House Christmas party.
All three media personalities have been singled out by President Obama's press shop in the course of less than two weeks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in doing so, has shown an unusual willingness to spar with cable and radio hosts who take shots at his boss.
The rebuttals have ranged from playful ribbing to disdainful scolding.
Talk show host Limbaugh has drawn the most ire from the White House. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called him out on Sunday for saying he wants Obama to fail, after Obama told Republican lawmakers not to listen to people like Limbaugh several weeks ago.
Gibbs followed up Monday, calling on conservative pundits to challenge Limbaugh on air.
"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether -- whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend," Gibbs said. But then he took a shot at those who applauded Limbaugh during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington over the weekend.
"You know, I'd like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We'll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh's speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke," he said.
Gibbs repeated his call for Republicans to speak up on whether they agree with Limbaugh Tuesday. Limbaugh has said that while he wants Obama to fail, he doesn't want the economy to fail.
Donald Rieck, executive director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said the Obama team, which studies have shown received far more favorable press treatment during the campaign than its rivals, is apparently having trouble acclimating to a more critical press post-Inauguration Day.
"If they're going to do this, to jump like that every time someone says something provocative about them, it's going to be an awfully long tenure for Gibbs, because there's a way to let this roll off your shoulders," he said.
Gibbs didn't stop at Limbaugh, who Democrats eagerly claim speaks for the Republican Party in the absence of a clear leader. (House Republican Leader John Boehner asserted Wednesday that the White House was intentionally elevating Limbaugh to distract from their budget.)
On Tuesday, Gibbs also responded to a question about CNBC host Jim Cramer's claim that Obama's economic policies represent the "greatest wealth destruction" by a president.
"If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience, no offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC," Gibbs said.
Gibbs tried to hedge at first, saying, "this is where I have to probably be careful," and "I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to," and "I'm going to get in a lot of trouble."
That was almost certainly a reference to the last time he went after a CNBC reporter -- Rick Santelli.
In late February, Gibbs responded at length to Santelli's on-air rant at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, in which he stirred up traders by shouting that the government was promoting "bad behavior" with its mortgage rescue plan. "This is America," he said. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"
Asked about the segment, Gibbs said: "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives. But the America people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage."
He said Santelli argued "quite wrongly" that the plan was ineffective and concluded by inviting him to the White House for a cup of "decaf" coffee.
"I would encourage him to read the president's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf."
The press in the room laughed at the quip, but Santelli later said he felt personally threatened by the White House.
Still, Gibbs said Tuesday he did not actually get in a "lot of trouble" for singling out Santelli.
"There are very few days that I've had more fun," Gibbs said.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/04/gibbs-takes-gloves-challenge-reporters-hosts-cross-obama/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
How dare any go against "the chosen one". Limbaugh isn't the leader of the GOP. He isn't in government anywhere. He has not run at any time for office. He's just an easy target for the left. Rush is their own personal boogeyman.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has singled out media personalities Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli in the course of less than two weeks.
FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Jim Cramer. Rush Limbaugh. Rick Santelli.
What do they all have in common? Most likely, none of them is getting invited to the White House Christmas party.
All three media personalities have been singled out by President Obama's press shop in the course of less than two weeks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in doing so, has shown an unusual willingness to spar with cable and radio hosts who take shots at his boss.
The rebuttals have ranged from playful ribbing to disdainful scolding.
Talk show host Limbaugh has drawn the most ire from the White House. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called him out on Sunday for saying he wants Obama to fail, after Obama told Republican lawmakers not to listen to people like Limbaugh several weeks ago.
Gibbs followed up Monday, calling on conservative pundits to challenge Limbaugh on air.
"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether -- whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend," Gibbs said. But then he took a shot at those who applauded Limbaugh during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington over the weekend.
"You know, I'd like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We'll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh's speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke," he said.
Gibbs repeated his call for Republicans to speak up on whether they agree with Limbaugh Tuesday. Limbaugh has said that while he wants Obama to fail, he doesn't want the economy to fail.
Donald Rieck, executive director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said the Obama team, which studies have shown received far more favorable press treatment during the campaign than its rivals, is apparently having trouble acclimating to a more critical press post-Inauguration Day.
"If they're going to do this, to jump like that every time someone says something provocative about them, it's going to be an awfully long tenure for Gibbs, because there's a way to let this roll off your shoulders," he said.
Gibbs didn't stop at Limbaugh, who Democrats eagerly claim speaks for the Republican Party in the absence of a clear leader. (House Republican Leader John Boehner asserted Wednesday that the White House was intentionally elevating Limbaugh to distract from their budget.)
On Tuesday, Gibbs also responded to a question about CNBC host Jim Cramer's claim that Obama's economic policies represent the "greatest wealth destruction" by a president.
"If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience, no offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC," Gibbs said.
Gibbs tried to hedge at first, saying, "this is where I have to probably be careful," and "I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to," and "I'm going to get in a lot of trouble."
That was almost certainly a reference to the last time he went after a CNBC reporter -- Rick Santelli.
In late February, Gibbs responded at length to Santelli's on-air rant at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, in which he stirred up traders by shouting that the government was promoting "bad behavior" with its mortgage rescue plan. "This is America," he said. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"
Asked about the segment, Gibbs said: "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives. But the America people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage."
He said Santelli argued "quite wrongly" that the plan was ineffective and concluded by inviting him to the White House for a cup of "decaf" coffee.
"I would encourage him to read the president's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf."
The press in the room laughed at the quip, but Santelli later said he felt personally threatened by the White House.
Still, Gibbs said Tuesday he did not actually get in a "lot of trouble" for singling out Santelli.
"There are very few days that I've had more fun," Gibbs said.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/04/gibbs-takes-gloves-challenge-reporters-hosts-cross-obama/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
How dare any go against "the chosen one". Limbaugh isn't the leader of the GOP. He isn't in government anywhere. He has not run at any time for office. He's just an easy target for the left. Rush is their own personal boogeyman.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
MSM Media Reporter Fired After Fabricating Racism Story About FNC Host
Baltimore Reporter Out of a Job After Posting Doctored Video Clip
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller
A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed by the station, FOXNews.com has learned.
The offensive video clip was doctored so that the viewer heard Gibson using the words "bright blue scrotum" in reference to Attorney General Eric Holder, rather than to a defining characteristic of a monkey on the loose in Seattle.
The video circulated rapidly on blogs and news Web sites Thursday and was not corrected for hours.
John Sanders, the technology reporter for WBAL-TV, admitted in a Breitbart.tv report that he was the person responsible for the clip. The station confirmed Sanders' actions on Tuesday and, in a statement, referred to him as a "former" employee.
"WBAL-TV management has learned that a former WBAL-TV employee posted a video regarding Fox News' John Gibson and Attorney General Eric Holder on his personal YouTube page without the prior knowledge or consent of anyone at WBAL-TV or Hearst-Argyle Television," the station said in its statement.
"This video was not approved by, used, or sanctioned in any way by WBAL-TV or Hearst-Argyle Television and we do not condone such behavior."
The station refused to say in the statement if Sanders was fired or had resigned. Sanders' profile was removed from WBAL's Web site.
Gibson, who is considering legal action, said he was "outraged" by the clip.
"I've had to endure people misinterpreting things I have actually said and mischaracterizing things I've actually said," Gibson told FOXNews.com. "But this was going the extra step ..."
"I feel like I've been harmed, but I don't know if it meets the legal standard. But we'll see."
The fake video produced hundreds of angry comments directed at Gibson, many demanding disciplinary action. Gibson said he is also concerned that some blogs and other news aggregating sites may not have posted corrections or his actual video.
"I worry about these things because they go viral, and all of a sudden, you're getting buried in e-mails and there's no way of backing out of it," Gibson said. "The volume gets to be so incredible and it's hard to scrub this out of people's memories."
Media critic Howard Kurtz, a columnist for the Washington Post and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," likened the clip's doctoring to a "journalistic felony" and said it wasn't funny under any circumstances.
"Well, I'm outraged," Kurtz said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "I think the reaction has been muted because most people don't know about it. If someone doctored a video and put it on the air or online, that's a journalistic felony. If it was a private joke picked up by others — well, it's still a pretty bad and hurtful joke."
Attempts to reach Sanders were unsuccessful Tuesday. During an interview with Breitbart.tv's Scott Baker last week, Sanders said: "I heard the very end of it and thought, 'Wow, that little bit could go there and it would sound funny as long I disclosed that he had not actually said it that way.'"
Baker told FOXNews.com on Tuesday he thought the video clip wasn't maliciously trying to harm Gibson's reputation.
"I think he was just trying to do something funny and wasn't thinking through the consequences of it," Baker said. "It's a great question of ethics in the new digital age."
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499525,00.html----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
I still can’t believe the audacity of many in the liberal MSM. Like Dan Rather, many don’t care if it is actually the truth or not as long as it embarrasses, minimizing, and takes down conservatives.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller
A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed by the station, FOXNews.com has learned.
The offensive video clip was doctored so that the viewer heard Gibson using the words "bright blue scrotum" in reference to Attorney General Eric Holder, rather than to a defining characteristic of a monkey on the loose in Seattle.
The video circulated rapidly on blogs and news Web sites Thursday and was not corrected for hours.
John Sanders, the technology reporter for WBAL-TV, admitted in a Breitbart.tv report that he was the person responsible for the clip. The station confirmed Sanders' actions on Tuesday and, in a statement, referred to him as a "former" employee.
"WBAL-TV management has learned that a former WBAL-TV employee posted a video regarding Fox News' John Gibson and Attorney General Eric Holder on his personal YouTube page without the prior knowledge or consent of anyone at WBAL-TV or Hearst-Argyle Television," the station said in its statement.
"This video was not approved by, used, or sanctioned in any way by WBAL-TV or Hearst-Argyle Television and we do not condone such behavior."
The station refused to say in the statement if Sanders was fired or had resigned. Sanders' profile was removed from WBAL's Web site.
Gibson, who is considering legal action, said he was "outraged" by the clip.
"I've had to endure people misinterpreting things I have actually said and mischaracterizing things I've actually said," Gibson told FOXNews.com. "But this was going the extra step ..."
"I feel like I've been harmed, but I don't know if it meets the legal standard. But we'll see."
The fake video produced hundreds of angry comments directed at Gibson, many demanding disciplinary action. Gibson said he is also concerned that some blogs and other news aggregating sites may not have posted corrections or his actual video.
"I worry about these things because they go viral, and all of a sudden, you're getting buried in e-mails and there's no way of backing out of it," Gibson said. "The volume gets to be so incredible and it's hard to scrub this out of people's memories."
Media critic Howard Kurtz, a columnist for the Washington Post and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," likened the clip's doctoring to a "journalistic felony" and said it wasn't funny under any circumstances.
"Well, I'm outraged," Kurtz said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "I think the reaction has been muted because most people don't know about it. If someone doctored a video and put it on the air or online, that's a journalistic felony. If it was a private joke picked up by others — well, it's still a pretty bad and hurtful joke."
Attempts to reach Sanders were unsuccessful Tuesday. During an interview with Breitbart.tv's Scott Baker last week, Sanders said: "I heard the very end of it and thought, 'Wow, that little bit could go there and it would sound funny as long I disclosed that he had not actually said it that way.'"
Baker told FOXNews.com on Tuesday he thought the video clip wasn't maliciously trying to harm Gibson's reputation.
"I think he was just trying to do something funny and wasn't thinking through the consequences of it," Baker said. "It's a great question of ethics in the new digital age."
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499525,00.html----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
I still can’t believe the audacity of many in the liberal MSM. Like Dan Rather, many don’t care if it is actually the truth or not as long as it embarrasses, minimizing, and takes down conservatives.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Obama Picks Favorites in Media
Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges.
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"
The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.
Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.
Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seating Chart
Some reporters were unhappy with their treatment at President Obama's news conference Monday. Many correspondents from major outlets — who normally have front row seats — did not. A reporter from the liberal Huffington Post and liberal radio host Ed Schultz were on the front row. Two reporters from African-American media were also seated up front, but neither was called on.
Hazel Edney of the National Newspaper Publishers Association says, "We were nothing more than window dressing."
Tiffany Cross of Black Entertainment Television said "I really don't know why I'm up here."
Former correspondent Helen Thomas (an admitted biased liberal) — who lost her front row perch when she became a columnist — was back in first class and was one of only 13 reporters allowed to ask a question.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490744,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
As if the media was easy enough on him. The left-leaning liberal mainstream media has been showering praise and adoration for two years. He received better coverage than anyone else in American history. There were very few hard questions for him. He has been given superstar (borderline Messianic) treatment by most of the press. Why does he feel the need to control the type of questions he gets? Why must he put his most adoring fans and worshippers in the front? This is sounds eerily like how the media is handled in China or N. Korea.
Membership shall have its privileges.
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"
The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.
Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.
Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seating Chart
Some reporters were unhappy with their treatment at President Obama's news conference Monday. Many correspondents from major outlets — who normally have front row seats — did not. A reporter from the liberal Huffington Post and liberal radio host Ed Schultz were on the front row. Two reporters from African-American media were also seated up front, but neither was called on.
Hazel Edney of the National Newspaper Publishers Association says, "We were nothing more than window dressing."
Tiffany Cross of Black Entertainment Television said "I really don't know why I'm up here."
Former correspondent Helen Thomas (an admitted biased liberal) — who lost her front row perch when she became a columnist — was back in first class and was one of only 13 reporters allowed to ask a question.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490744,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
As if the media was easy enough on him. The left-leaning liberal mainstream media has been showering praise and adoration for two years. He received better coverage than anyone else in American history. There were very few hard questions for him. He has been given superstar (borderline Messianic) treatment by most of the press. Why does he feel the need to control the type of questions he gets? Why must he put his most adoring fans and worshippers in the front? This is sounds eerily like how the media is handled in China or N. Korea.
Talk Radio Under Fire
Clinton wants 'more balance' on airwaves
Even though no member of Congress has scheduled hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, it remains on a hot topic on both liberal and conservative shows.
Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability."
"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."
Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.
In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Well, there's smoke. When are we going to see the fire?
How come the liberals always bring up talk radio as the one medium that needs "more balance" and "some type of enforced media accountability"? Why is there not any outrage over TV and print media? They are far from balanced, too. They are so in the tank for Obama and the Democrats that they are known swoon at the very sight of their dear leader.
It would be one thing if they wanted to apply the doctrine to all media, but no, they want to focus on most conservative of all of the media, talk radio. I say that MSNBC and CNN need some more conservative voices. Put Limbaugh next to Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman. The New York Times and Washington Post could use some conservative blood running through their pages as well.
It must be all or nothing. Anything else would just be censorship of viewpoints that are not favorable to the left. This is America, where freedom of the press reigns supreme. If you want censorship, move to China or Venezuela.
Even though no member of Congress has scheduled hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, it remains on a hot topic on both liberal and conservative shows.
Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability."
"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."
Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.
In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Well, there's smoke. When are we going to see the fire?
How come the liberals always bring up talk radio as the one medium that needs "more balance" and "some type of enforced media accountability"? Why is there not any outrage over TV and print media? They are far from balanced, too. They are so in the tank for Obama and the Democrats that they are known swoon at the very sight of their dear leader.
It would be one thing if they wanted to apply the doctrine to all media, but no, they want to focus on most conservative of all of the media, talk radio. I say that MSNBC and CNN need some more conservative voices. Put Limbaugh next to Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman. The New York Times and Washington Post could use some conservative blood running through their pages as well.
It must be all or nothing. Anything else would just be censorship of viewpoints that are not favorable to the left. This is America, where freedom of the press reigns supreme. If you want censorship, move to China or Venezuela.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)