Gay Patriot Header Image

The MGM: “Mean Girl Media”

Posted by V the K at 10:32 am - December 3, 2014.
Filed under: Big Journalism

[Disclaimer: I have never seen the movie 'Mean Girls,' but I got the gist of it from Wikipedia.]

Over Thanksgiving, a minor Republican staffer criticized the Royal Daughters (Princess Malia and Princess Sasha) for what she felt was a lack of appropriate decorum at the White House Turkey pardoning. (FWIW, I think eye-rolling and smirking is a completely appropriate way to respond to that idiotic annual ritual.) The MFM went completely bonkers at the criticism of the Royal Daughters. NBC’s Today Show made the ‘scandal’ their top news story. The Washington Post assigned a foreign affairs correspondent to dig through the Republican staffer’s old college newspaper columns in hopes of finding more “dirt.” And this was after the staffer apologized and resigned.

In short, a minor Republican staffer’s criticism of the behavior of the daughter’s of the president received more media attention and resources than the US National Debt surpassing $18 Billion or any of Obama’s abuses of executive power. Also, attacking George W Bush or Sarah Palin’s daughters… fair game. Criticism of the Emperor’s Daughters… Don’t you dare!

The journalistic media establishment operates as a middle school clique, with a mission to protect those inside the clique and belittle, bully, and ostracize those outside of it. They won’t cover the debt because that’s like doing math… BO-RING. But destroying one of the unpopular girls… that’s fun and cool.

(more…)

The Perspective Gap and Fox News

My long absence from GayPatriot, has been brought on by a few factors, chief among them that I’ve been taking some classes in the evenings and haven’t had much time for blogging, and what little time I have had to spare has been consumed by more going on socially than in the recent past.  But beyond that, there has been my general sense of what I wrote about in this post, and called either Obamalaise or Obamanomie, that feeling of depression and listlessness that comes when I consider the sad state of a country that elected Obama not once, but twice and seems more interested in bread and circuses than in seeking actual, workable solutions to the difficult problems that face our country.

Naturally the online leftist rag Salon can’t understand why anyone would feel upset or bothered by the direction of the country in the era of the glorious Obama, and so one of its contributors, Edwin Lyngar, has written a laughable piece about “elderly white rage” which places the blame on that favorite bogeyman of the contemporary left, Fox News.   I learned of the article when various liberals and leftists I know–including one I’ve taken to calling a MINO (a moderate in name only)–linked to it on social media.  I just glanced past it until one of them approvingly quoted one of the more ridiculous passages from the article.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not elderly, nor am I viewer of Fox News.   I mostly avoid the whole TV news genre, preferring to get my information from other sources.  The full title of the article reads: “I lost my dad to Fox News: How a generation was captured by thrashing hysteria.”  The author, who describes himself as “overeducated in the humanities” with both an MFA in Creative Writing from Antioch University (not exactly a bastion of conservative thinkers) and an MA in Writing from the University of Nevada, Reno unwittingly demonstrates the way shallow generalizations count as somehow being deep thought by those who advocate a politically correct perspective.

As I don’t care to be guilty of the same intellectual offense, I’d like to highlight and  unpack a few of the article’s more ridiculous claims and observations.  Let’s start with the opening paragraph:

Old, white, wrinkled and angry, they are slipping from polite society in alarming numbers. We’re losing much of a generation.  They often sport hats or other clothing, some marking their status as veterans, Tea Partyers or “patriots” of some kind or another. They have yellow flags, bumper stickers and an unquenchable rage. They used to be the brave men and women who took on America’s challenges, tackling the ’60s, the Cold War and the Reagan years — but now many are terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.

Of course GayPatriot readers can see what he’s doing there, but just for the sake of argument, let’s illustrate that he opens by offering a caricature and a generalization about elderly Fox News viewers, conflates Fox News viewers with the Tea Party, accuses them of being filled with “rage,” and then ends by trying to ridicule them as being “terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.”  Say what?  That last clause is contains so many misrepresentations and non-sequiturs that it is really rather stunning.  Barack Obama is only a moderate Democrat if you are so far to the left already that you can’t see how far his administration has shifted the political status quo towards statist goals.  And just because Obamacare was given the Orwellian title “the Affordable Care Act,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with making healthcare more affordable.  Far from it, just ask the many people dropped from insurance who find that their health insurance costs have gone up and their deductibles are now much higher than they were previously.  Even those who haven’t had to change insurance are getting less for more costs.

The article continues with an anecdote about the author’s father and an exchange where the writer tells him he shouldn’t watch Fox News:

enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.

When I finally pulled the handle for Obama in 2012, my father could not believe how far I’d fallen. I have avoided talking politics with him as much as possible ever since. Last week, I invited him to my house for dinner with the express purpose of talking about po

(more…)

Freedom of the Press Has Dropped Precipitously in the Last Few Years

Posted by V the K at 9:54 am - February 13, 2014.
Filed under: Big Journalism,Post 9-11 America

The USA now ranks 46th in press freedom … below Namibia, Slovenia, Romania and a whole bunch of other countries people educated in public schools can’t find on a map. And it isn’t Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, or Glenn Beck making this statement; it’s the left-leaning “Reporters Without Borders.”

According to Christophe Deloire, the Reporters Without Borders Secretary General, the World Freedom Index is based on seven criteria: the level of abuses, the extent of pluralism, media independence, the environment and self-censorship, the legislative framework, transparency and infrastructure.

Investigative journalist James Risen believes the Index rightly shows the drop in American journalists’ freedoms due to crackdowns on reporters and whistleblowers and the efforts of the Obama administration and the National Security Agency to limit the amount of information America has concerning the “War on Terror” and other subjects.

“I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States modern history,” James Risen said.

On a related note, Mr. Obama’s FCC has launched an investigation into “bias” in the newsroom, and will be interrogating broadcasters about their editorial choices. Just ;like Mr. Obama’s IRS asked Tea Party groups about their membership lists, Facebook posts, and church activities.

Also, Rachel Maddow got so mad when a Republican called her a “cheerleader for Obama” she almost threw her pom-poms right in his face.  I don’t think MSDNC has to worry about the FCC investigating their “editorial choices.”

Walters and Goldberg: It’s Okay to say “retarded”

In GP comments, we’ve seen the occasional mini-kerfuffle over someone’s references to the mentally handicapped: whether they were hurtful, or whether the critics (those claiming hurt) were just playing mind games, etc.

In that light, it’s interesting to note that beloved lefties Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters all agree that it’s perfectly OK for a comedian to mock Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”:

Maher mocked Palin’s special needs son by referring to him as “retarded” during a June 8 Las Vegas show…

Walters, who grew up with a special needs sister, said on June 17 on The View that she did not think Maher was “mean-spirited” when he referred to Palin’s son as “retarded.” Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word could be hurtful…even Walters’s in-studio audience was not buying this defense and was left silent…

Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…” Video here.

I regret that I couldn’t find the exact original quote of Maher’s, but Walters and Goldberg clearly wanted to speak out in Maher’s favor: the camera flashed to an old family photo of Walters’ as she spoke, which means that Walters’ remarks were planned.

So, what’s the official standard? Is it still baaaaad to refer to anybody (whether mentally challenged or not) as “retarded” – with an exception for Republicans perhaps, or Sarah Palin’s children? On what grounds?

Lefties, please don’t try to say “Oh who cares, it’s only Bill Maher” – because it isn’t, now: it’s also Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters.

Capricious Enforcement: A sign of the times

Back in October 2010, blogger Tigerhawk recalled what one of his Princeton classmates, who was originally from Romania, said about the nature of life under socialism:

One recurring tool of socialist tyranny is the capricious enforcement of unworkable laws.

He quoted the passage in making a point about the “capricious enforcement” which was an inevitable feature of the unworkable mess better known as Obamacare.

But two and a half years later, it’s evident that observation could just as easily have been applied to our byzantine tax code, our environmental regulations, and even laws pertaining to press freedoms under the Obama administration.  As Dan wrote earlier today, the only folks who are surprised by any of these scandals are the ones who haven’t been paying attention to what has been going with our government since January 20, 2009.

In the case of the Obama administration, though, it’s not strictly capricious enforcement, but selective enforcement, always with a partisan goal in mind.  The IRS targeting of the Tea Party and conservative organizations is appalling, but one would have to be naive not to believe, as ABC’s Trey Hardin noted today, that it wasn’t authorized by someone in the West Wing.  Hardin observed (audio at the link):

I will tell you this on the IRS front. I’ve worked in this town for over 20 years in the White House and on Capitol Hill and I can say with a very strong sense of certainty that there are people very close to this president that not only knew what the IRS were doing but authorized it. It simply just does not happen at an agency level like that without political advisers likely in the West Wing certainly connected to the president’s ongoing campaign organization.

And it’s not just the IRS.  Earlier today it came out that the EPA waived fees for leftist organizations and leftist journalists who requested information, but not for conservative ones:   “Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.”  Yes, this would be the same EPA that has classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, making the mere act of exhaling potentially troublesome.

A coincidence?  I think not.  This is the same administration committed to picking winners and losers on most matters.  Hence, it should surprise no one that while oil companies are prosecuted for the deaths of eagles and other protected species, the bird-killing wind farms are naturally given a pass.   Clearly, some energy companies are more equal than others.

It’s the same with journalists.  Just a day after the AP snooping scandal broke, the administration is playing favorites again.  Jake Tapper has gained a reputation as one who can be counted on to ask tough questions of the White House with greater frequency than the reporters at most of the other lamestream news organizations.  Well, today Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is reporting that the White House played Jake Tapper by selectively leaking one e-mail with the apparent aim of creating a diversion in the reporting about the Benghazi cover-up.  Jacobson writes: “Like I said, this entire diversion of leaking a single email out of a chain of emails to Tapper was simply meant to put critics of the administration back on their heels and to provide an excuse for White House defenders to throw around words like ‘doctored.’”

And so what else do we see today?  Well, all of a sudden the administration’s lackeys in the press such as Hilary Rosen are now out expressing their sympathy for poor Jay Carney.  I guess they’re afraid of ending up as the subject of a DOJ snooping scandal or an IRS investigation or a selective leak.

 

Friday Night Thoughts

Although I first saw an online news posting about the explosion in West, Texas on Wednesday night, I had no idea of the severity of the incident, and I didn’t research the matter in much depth.  When I first heard news reports about the story on Thursday morning, though, I was struck by the fact that the reporters and the news networks almost resented having to take time away from covering this week’s events in Boston to report on the disastrous accident in Texas.

I wasn’t the only one to notice.    Yesterday Ace and Mary Katherine Ham noted a New York Times piece faulting Fox News for focusing on the events in West, Texas rather than reporting on the failure of the gun legislation in the Senate on Wednesday.  Writing in the New York Times,  Brian Stelter lamented: “While most of [MSNBC's] ‘Joe’ was dedicated to guns on Thursday, Fox’s morning show, ‘Fox & Friends,’ didn’t mention the word once. It focused instead on news about a Texas fertilizer plant explosion.”

Ace’s characterization of the complaint gets at it perfectly:

The media here documents its own sick-making bias and arrogance but instead of understanding their own words — we ignored the destruction of an entire town to focus only on the minor heartburn suffered by our Liberal Messiah — they use it as a bludgeon for criticizing Fox.

See, Fox did wrong by thinking the lives in West, Texas mattered.

And as Thursday moved into Friday, that has only continued to be the case.  Granted, the story of a manhunt for a suspected terrorist is more dramatic, particularly when most of a major urban area is ordered to go on lockdown and to stay indoors.

But when it comes to the magnitude of what happened in West, Texas Wednesday night compared with what happened in Boston on Monday, what happened in Texas is many times worse, not only in terms of deaths, but also in terms of destruction and lives uprooted.  At this time, the death toll in Texas stands at 14 (including five volunteer firefighters and four emergency service workers) with 60 people still unaccounted for.  Three fire trucks were destroyed, at least 50 homes were damaged or destroyed, and at least 200 other people were injured.

An act of evil which terrorizes and disrupts a major city is certainly important.  What happened in Texas, though, is just as important, as the consequences will likely be much more devastating for the lives of those involved and for the entire community, and yet the media is doing its best to bury the story, just as the media and the Obama administration did its best to deny that a terrorist incident in Texas 4 1/2 years ago was actually a terrorist incident.  How many people even knew that three weeks ago, the Army formally declined to give Purple Hearts to Fort Hood shooting victims?

To listen to most of the media this week, it should be abundantly clear that some lives and some places are clearly more equal than others.  And the lives and livelihoods of a bunch of folks in a tiny town in rural Texas aren’t viewed as amounting to much.

UPDATE:  Assistant Village Idiot has some related thoughts (about Boston’s importance to the media, that is, not about their lack of interest in Texas) here.  This paragraph stands out as a key reflection of the media’s insularity about its focus on the Northeast:

I admit, a few dead and almost 200 injured is a big deal.  But the shared mentality is of the news, the politicians, and the teams combining to make it look more universal than it actually is.  OMG, the kid was from Dorchester!  Why, I go past Dorchester a lot!  A BU grad student! Oh no!  I knew some BU grad students once!

Unclear on the Concept: the Pew Media Study

Monday morning, I woke up to an NPR summary of the latest Pew “State of the Media Study.”  Even in my half-awake state, what I heard seemed like the musings of leftists trying to explain why their favorite program is failing to accomplish anything worthwhile.  So when I got a chance, I decided to look into the matter further, and then I came across this article at the Huffington Post.    The headline there tells us all we need to know about the insularity of the folks who worked on the Pew media study.  It reads, “Pew State Of The Media Study: Journalism Cutbacks Are Driving Consumers Away.”

Let’s examine the opening paragraphs of the Huffington Post article in more detail.  The story begins:

Years of newsroom cutbacks have had a demonstrable impact on the quality of digital, newspaper and television news and in how consumers view that work, a study released Monday found.

Nearly one-third of consumers surveyed by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism said they have abandoned a news outlet because it no longer gave them what they had counted on, either with fewer or less complete stories.

Pew’s annual State of the News Media report delivered what has become a common litany of grim business statistics. Television news viewership is down. Newsroom employment at newspapers is down 30 percent since a peak in 2000 and has gone below 40,000 people for the first time since 1978. Newsweek shut its print edition and Time magazine is cutting staff.

“These cutbacks are real,” said Amy Mitchell, the project’s acting director. “And based on the data that we’ve collected, they are having an effect.”

Government coverage on local television news has been cut in half since 2005, the study said. Sports, weather and traffic now account for 40 percent of the content on these broadcasts; yet that’s just the sort of information readily available elsewhere. That’s a recipe for future erosion, Mitchell said.

So if we believe Pew, the media are failing primarily because of “newsroom cutbacks,” and that has put the media into a vicious cycle of shortages and decline.  Evidently, none of the folks at Pew thought to ask what caused the “newsroom cutbacks” in the first place.

Here’s a hint:  it wasn’t simply the economy.   Decades of biased coverage, selective reporting, agenda-driven campaigns, and the refusal to hold corrupt and cynical politicians accountable have taken their toll.  People aren’t buying what the press is trying to sell.  When was the last time anyone in the lamestream press asked an entrenched politician questions like these?

Lest you think I’m being too harsh on the insularity of the folks who worked on the Pew study, consider these additional facts.  It came as news to them that MSNBC is “almost entirely dominated by opinion.”  One wonders where they have been hiding during the last eight years.

But wait, it gets better.  Pew was also surprised to learn that “It’s getting harder to distinguish CNN from its more ideological cable news rivals,” according to another report about the study.   Newsflash to Pew:  CNN has been highly ideological for at least a decade now. And while the folks at Pew were busy putting the finishing touches on the study, Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow went off the rails in their sympathy for the high school football players convicted of rape in an Ohio courtroom.

Yet somehow, the folks at Pew somehow still want us to believe that viewers and readers are tuning out the media because cutbacks are placing limits on the ability of the press to cover stories adequately.

Our Agenda-Driven Press Corps

In his post yesterday about the Los Angeles shooter, Jeff pointed out the noteworthy lamestream media silence on certain key elements of the shooter’s manifesto.  Indeed, as Noah Rothman notes today at Mediaite: When crazed shooters can’t be linked to the Tea Party, the media displays admirable restraint.  The story of the shooter in Los Angeles, in fact, is–like several other recent shooters–only of interest to the press corps to the extent that it helps feed the narrative about “gun violence” and the need for more gun-control.  Elements of the story that don’t fit with the narrative are omitted, and especially those elements that contradict the narrative or help to fuel competing narratives.  Because the Los Angeles shooter’s manifesto complains about perceived “racism,” this could theoretically turn into a story about how the racial grievance industry has created a monster, but of course it never will because that is not an agenda the media has any interest in promoting.

Most of the times these days it seems that the press corps is pushing several different agenda items at one time, and news stories are only of interest or worth covering to the extent that they help advance one of those agenda items.  Rather than report the facts and let things fall where they may, the press tries to shoehorn as many stories as possible into the service of one agenda item or another.   The other day, for instance, I woke up to this story on NPR explaining that:  “The gun violence that scars some Chicago neighborhoods has been a plague for one woman. Shirley Chambers first lost a child to gunfire in the mid 1990s. In 2000, a daughter and a son were shot to death just months apart. On Monday, Chambers buried her last child.”  The story could have focused on the horrible failure of gun-control in Chicago, it could have talked about the problems with gangs in the city or crime related to drugs, it could have talked about the plight of inner-city blacks caught up in a dysfunctional culture, but it didn’t do anything like that.  No, the story had to be forced to fit the current narrative about the evils of “gun violence.”

But it’s not just “gun violence.”  As I write, a huge winter storm is bearing down on the Northeast.  When I spent a few years in New England in the 1980s, this sort of thing was to be expected and was known simply as “winter.”  These days, every storm of any magnitude is a big story, people are encouraged to panic and to scurry about, and inevitably, the articles begin to appear linking the storm to “climate change.”

Other common themes of note these days include the repeated focus on “bullying” as a way of pushing “anti-bullying programs” and “anti-bullying” legislation.  Hence, this horrible story is of interest to the media because it is seen as a way of advancing the “anti-bullying” agenda.  In years past, it may have been reported simply as a brutal fight in a school yard, but not any more.   I’m curious to know more about the attacker, but the story doesn’t tell us, nor does the journalist who wrote the story have any interest in reporting what the actual issues in this case are, because doing so would only undermine the “anti-bullying” agenda.  Even NFL cheerleaders are of interest largely to the extent that they can help advance the cause.

And of course, gay issues are another big agenda item for the press corps, but only insofar as gays and lesbians can be portrayed as either victims (of hate or discrimination or abuse) or as inspiring and selfless humanitarians.  Hence, this story about a supposedly “gay” dog in Tennessee was picked up by the national press because it helped advance the narrative that people in “red states” are stupid bigots who hate gays;  in truth, it is really a story about how there are people in all states who shouldn’t own dogs either because they are irresponsible and self-centered or because they have no knowledge or understanding of normal canine behavior.  Had the dog been euthanized after having been abandoned by a gangster or a meth addict in the inner city, you can be certain it wouldn’t have made the news.

Random Wednesday Thought

Okay I’ll admit: I don’t get it.

ESPN feels the need to apologize because Brent Musburger says some girl is pretty. And yet, CNN feels no compunction whatsoever to apologize when their #1 rated program goes on a rant about killing a previous guest?

Just sayin’, it’s a pretty crazy world. And Nick doesn’t really get it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

P.S., speaking of apologizing, sorry you had to watch through that Alex Jones guy for almost a whole minute just to get to the good stuff.

Media Elites Have No Shame…Nor Sense of Irony

Pity poor David Gregory of NBC News. His real crime is against intellectual honesty and integrity.

I agree with The Wall Street Journal this morning in their unsigned editorial (behind firewall, sorry), calling the notional indictment of the old-school media journo “nonsensical”. (For background on the issue, see here, and here.)
But allow me to expand on their thoughts…

The real authorities who should be after Gregory, if they existed, are the irony cops. Set aside the lost irony of an inside-the-beltway elitist self-righteously mocking Wayne LaPierre’s idea of sending armed guards to America’s schools while sending his kids to a school with…um, eleven armed guards. That sort of subtlety can easily be missed even by someone whose job it is to communicate and use the English language.

But imagine if Mr. LaPierre had been a little more astute last week when confronted with the illegal 30-round magazine Mr. Gregory was flaunting on national TV. I imagine his elevator wit has him saying something like this:

You know, David, I see you blatantly brandishing that 30-round magazine here in the District of Columbia and I know—as I’m sure you do yourself—that possession of such is a criminal offense. Now, I disagree with the law, so I’m surely not going to be a hypocrite and suggest you be hauled away to jail in the way you suggest others should be for having that. I at least do have the courage of my convictions…a courage I only wish you shared.

However, your flagrant violation of the law offers all your viewers two very telling lessons: First, that when elites like yourself speak on your high horses about denying others their rights, it rarely ever affects you. After all, that magazine is illegal in DC, but possessing it would serve your purpose, so you seem to have come across one yourself, haven’t you? Secondly, just look at how useless such laws are anyway. I’m not going to try to goad you into revealing your source, David. But I imagine you didn’t just walk into the CVS and pick that up, did you? Seems someone along the line must have disregarded and broken the law, doesn’t it?

Perhaps if those who deem themselves the arbiters of the “dialog” we’re supposed to be having about gun violence in America today were in any way interested in actually having a “dialog”, we could get somewhere.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

Do the Mainstream News Reporters Have any Shame?

Real quick post here before I turn in tonight…

I haven’t had a chance to watch all that much of the president’s awkward-moment-filled appearance on Univision last night (here, here, and here, are a few snippets), but every clip I see makes me want for more.

Watching just the little I’ve seen, and the hard-hitting questions and follow-ups, though, I wonder: Do the reporters who cover the president and his other lickspittle trucklers in the MSM ever feel embarrassed by their sycophancy? I mean really, do they ever, at the end of the day, stop and feel ashamed that they do so poorly at what their job is actually supposed to be: Seeking truth from power?

Just a thought. Every once in a while I end the day not having done much (the military is a big place, and you can’t sleigh a dragon every day). It makes me feel uneasy when that happens. I wonder, seriously, how reporters feel at the end of their day, to see people like Univision’s moderators (and audience members, for that matter, too) doing their jobs so much more competently.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

P.S., Notice, too, by the way, that every answer the president gives is about how his problems are somebody else’s fault. I imagine this excuse-roladex he has would grow tiring to hear for the American electorate if he were actually—regularly—asked real questions…you know, the kind that the “Pimp with the Limp” doesn’t tend to ask…

UPDATE (from Dan):  Holy cow, Nick, did you read my mind?  (Or maybe just see my notes on the blog dashboard?)  I had intended to get at the same thing you address in your postscript, particularly about how the president blamed Republicans for his failure to pass an immigration bill.  Good post.

UP-UPDATE (also from Dan):  love how Drudge promotes the interview:

UP-UP-UPDATE (more…)

GAY PATRIOT’S AMERICA BROADCAST:
ANDREW BREITBART INTERVIEW

UPDATE:  Here’s the podcast!

Listen to internet radio with GayPatriot on Blog Talk Radio

Tonight on the Gay Patriot’s America BlogTalkRadio show, I’ll be joined by conservative news guru AndrewBreitbart.

The show will air live tonight at 9PM Eastern Time.

Join the show online at this link —>
GayPatriot’s America

I’m looking forward to the show!

On Media Matters’ FoxNews Obsession

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 am - May 12, 2010.
Filed under: Big Journalism,Media Bias

Perhaps, I might have a different view of Media Matters if I checked their site every day. And while they claim to be investigating conservative bias in the MSM, they do seem to have an obsession with FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, the former which “everyone knows” has a right-wing bias and the latter who proudly advertises his conservatism.

Finding conservative bias on Rush’s program is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, just discovered this Greg Gutfield’s wonderful spoof of MM’s obsession with FoxNews.

Yup, and they’re right about Janeane Garofalo in the The Truth About Cats & Dogs. Good performance.  Good movie.

Via BigJournalism via Instapundit.

BigJournalism: Media Kept At Bay While Gays Protest Obama

Check out my newest posting at BigJournalism.  Here’s a sample:

Now I don’t really get into the whole “shouting down the President” and “handcuffing to the White House gates” approach to things. But it is very disturbing that Obama’s people are using the District police to prevent reporters from doing their jobs and covering an act of peaceful civil disobedience. I can only imagine the breathless and shrill outrage by network news anchors tonight if Bush-Cheney had kept the press away from the White House during an anti-war protest in 2005? Surely the Bush Press Secretary would be “The Worst Person In The World” tonight on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. So why shouldn’t Robert Gibbs be tonight?

<….>

Not surprisingly, the demonstrators [in Los Angeles on Monday night] have not received much national media attention despite the shocking rebuke to the President most favored by gay rights groups in recent years.   I do seem to remember that during the 2003-2008 time period, network news reporters and camera crews seemed to be just a phone call away for even the smallest chance that a Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan appearance might interrupt then-President Bush or then-VP Cheney.

It seems King Barack I doesn’t like protests, especially from his left flank.

Please read the whole thing so they keep me over at BigJournalism!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Obamacare: By Any Means Necessary

As the 2008 campaign got underway and we started learning about Barack Obama’s real record, not many people on the right believed the Democrat’s bromides that he was, as he claimed, some new kind of politician.  We saw his record; he was just a regular ol’ Chicago pol who cut a far more impressive figure in public than most.  He spoke well.  He looked good. But, he always toed the party line.

Despite his claims about changing the way things were done in Washington, he had no record of changing the way things were done in Chicago or Springfield, his state’s capital.

And remember, the transparency he promised on health care?   You know, deals negotiated in front of C-SPAN cameras.  Some thought maybe he had turned a new leaf when he convened his summit last month in front of such cameras, but well, House Democrats just released a passel of fixes to the Senate bill–and none of them were crafted in front of C-SPAN cameras.

It seems that with each passing day, each hour really, we learn some new nugget about the arm-twisting, job-offering and deal-making still going on to squeeze out those last few votes in the House.  Not just that, we keep hearing about the strategies that Obama campaign, er, team has been using to shift public opinion, strategies torn out of the playbook of old school Chicago politics, updated for the Internet era.

In a piece over at Big Journalism, Morgen Richmond and John Sexton detail how the president’s Organizing for America (OFA) is promoting an Astroturf letters-to-the-editor campaign, duping 72 local papers around the country “into publishing OFA talking points (some more than once).” They’ve even plagiarized their talking points.

Wondering at the lengths to which the Obami are going to deceive the American people, Richmond and Sexont ask “Is there any level to which the President and his supporters won’t stoop for a win?”

Indeed.

Now at BigJournalism.com:
If Muslims Gay-Bash in San Francisco, Do They Make A Sound?

My second post is up at Big Journalism!  I’ll give you a preview, but you have to go there to read the whole thing.

Imagine, if you will, that the BB gun attackers [in San Fran] had been white. Or from Utah. Or from Texas.  Or Laramie, Wyoming. What kind of wild adjectives would have been applied? We can only surmise. Editorializing against mainstream Americans who are now out-of-favor by the media (whites, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, conservatives) happens everyday on America’s front pages and network news programs. But when it comes to Arab/Muslim attackers — all silence is golden for the American media.

<…>

It is also important to note that the fundamental philosophies of a majority of the American gay activist community have been rooted with elements of anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, anti-war, and anti-Israeli sentiment for the past three decades. You could not have attended an anti-Iraq war rally in 2003-2007 without seeing many rainbow flags (the unofficial symbol of gays and lesbians) mixed in with pro-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush and anti-American signs, symbols and chants.

In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism. All those checked? Join the club!

Read the whole thing.  And please let me know your thoughts.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The HomoCon Tipping Point: CPAC 2010

I am thrilled to announce that as of today, I’m a new contributor at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site.  My first post summarizes the “homocon tipping point” that occurred this past weekend at the CPAC conference.

Here’s a taste:

The reaction from the mainstream media and Gay Left blog community was swift and predictable:   CPAC boos the gays. Most delivered their verdicts without being at the conference itself, talking to anyone there or even watching the earlier video where Alexander McCobin was applauded.  The idea that the conservative movement would actually rally behind GOProud at the CPAC conference was completely unimaginable to those on the Left as news of the event spread.

But there’s a LOT more.  I encourage you to read the whole thing.

And, while I’m at it, let me suck up a bit to my new partner — the conservative media bulldog Andrew Breitbart.

Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.com, BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, BigHollywood.com is big.   He is bigger than all his entities combined, he is big energy, big bravery, big wallet, and big-hearted to take on seemingly endless government corruption in the Obama administration.  He fills any room with his aura and his voice.  Everyone knows when Breitbart is in the house.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)