header picture

Media Bias


Media BiasJeff Soyer on 23 Apr 2014 06:14 am

Uh, yeah, if she says so:

JILL ABRAMSON, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, NEW YORK TIMES: …[W]hat I do to guard against opinion creeping too far into our news coverage is just watch it, and make sure that on certain stories, like – guns would be one – that – that a hundred percent of our stories aren’t told from the perspective of, how could Americans be – you know, so connected to their guns? That this is – to recognize that this is a deep part of American society, and that we cover it – you know, from every angle.

Before coming to the NY Times, Jill Abramson sold bridges in Brooklyn.

Gun Control Crowd and Media BiasJeff Soyer on 13 Apr 2014 04:45 am

It must be a slow news day because the Washington Post has reprinted ex-justice Paul Steven’s recommendation that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repaired.

I already dealt with this last February.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 05 Apr 2014 03:36 am

Here’s the headline from the Dallas Morning News:

Eyes turn to shop that sold guns used in 2 Fort Hood attacks

Really? Why? Both gun sales were perfectly legal, with NICS (FBI) background checks. The article finally admits to that after first focusing on the “three thousand guns in stock” claims by the store and the posters on the wall. Yet, the gun store is getting threatening emails and phone calls by the angry left that need someone to blame, other than the shooter. I’m sure that when a drunk plows his F-150 into a car, the angry left pickets the Ford dealership where it was purchased.

Meanwhile, from the AP, we’re getting this brilliant headline:

Fort Hood gunman had ‘unstable’ mental condition

Gee, I wonder what tipped them off, you know, other than his gunning down a bunch of people?

If it was known that the shooter had a mental condition prior to the tragic event, that should have been reported and dealt with. That must not have been the case, since he wasn’t confined to a hospital, and the NICS background check allowed the purchase of a firearm to go through. The gun store is blameless. Incidentally, since it’s the only gun store in the area, is it really surprising that both Fort Hood shooters would have bought their weapons there?

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 03 Apr 2014 03:39 am

He tweeted this last night:

‘If only there’d been a good guy with a gun…’ - such crap. This #FortHood soldier/shooter WAS a good guy. Until he turned bad, with a gun.

More at the Twitchy link.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 31 Mar 2014 02:09 am

In a literal nutshell, if your parents were wealthy, you should pay higher taxes. This is pathetic:

We need a tax policy that accounts for how economic benefits and disparities are passed down from generation to generation. To do that, we could calculate tax rates based not just on what people earn now — as traditional progressive taxation does — but also on the income their families brought in during their critical childhood years. We shouldn’t tax the first-generation college graduate who makes a half-million dollars at the same 39.6 percent marginal tax rate as we do the heir who had his job handed to him.

Let’s introduce the Great Gatsby tax rebate for upward mobility: Tax the millionaire who comes from great wealth at 42 percent, and allow the entrepreneur who grew up in a lower-middle-class family to pay 37.2 percent. That would be an extra 2.4 percentage points for the lifelong millionaire and a 2.4 percentage point break for the one who grew up poor. At the same time, let’s not punish a child of privilege who gives back to society by, say, becoming a social worker who earns $25,000 a year; we could confine intergenerational adjustments to the top bracket.

Gee, because taxes aren’t complicated enough, and the inheritance tax doesn’t already do this?

Best comment of those I read:

Perhaps if a prisoner dies in prison without finishing his sentence, we can round up their kids and have them serve the rest of it for them.

That makes about as much sense as the foolish proposal we just read about.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 24 Mar 2014 05:54 am

Several weeks ago I mentioned the Upstate New York church that was raffling off an AR-15. I mentioned that the newspaper article was biased and showed a misleading photo. You can read that post here. In the meantime, yesterday was the day and there was a winner. Here’s the first paragraph of the NY Daily News report:

An upstate gun nut went to church Sunday and walked out the winner of a high-powered assault rifle similar to the one used to slaughter 26 innocent people at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Nothing biased there, huh? And liberals complain about Fox News….

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 13 Mar 2014 04:59 am

It’s in the Market Watch section and is titled, 10 Things the Gun Industry Won’t Tell You. It’s a slide show with headers such as, ““We sell guns to people you might not want us to,” and “Fear is good for our bottom line.”

Here’s a sample:

4. “We want your kids to play with guns.”

Under most circumstances, people under 18 can’t legally buy guns. But many hunters and target shooters first learned to shoot (and shoot safely) during childhood, and both gun advocacy groups and gun manufacturers craft their messages with young people in mind.

On the product side, Keystone Sporting Arms’ Crickett rifle is marketed as “my first rifle,” using a cartoon cricket as its logo; on its website, the company says its goal is to “instill gun safety in the minds of youth shooters.” Other manufacturers use cartoon imagery that may make it particularly appealing to children (think Joe Camel, but for guns). For example, ammunition manufacturer Hornady makes the Zombie Max bullet (marketing materials read: “supply yourself for the Zombie Apocalypse”), which has cartoon zombies on the box. Hornady did not respond to a request for comment. Crickett’s attorney John Renzulli says that Crickett’s guns are not marketed to children; they are marketed to the parents, who “make the decision based upon the maturity level of their children whether or not to buy the rifle so the child can participate in the shooting sports.”

And so on.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 07 Mar 2014 10:43 am

A church in upstate NY is planning an AR-15 Raffle. Here’s how the local paper covers it:

An upstate New York church pastor who supports gun ownership rights says he plans to raffle a legal AR-15 rifle during an upcoming Sunday service.

The Rev. John Koletas of the Grace Baptist Church in Troy tells local media that he’s showing support for owners and hunters by giving away the modified weapon, the same type that was used to kill 20 children and six staff members at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

Well of course they have to mention Sandy Hook (although, wasn’t the AR-15 left in the car? Didn’t the mutant use handguns instead?) to impact their liberal readers.

BTW, since the article states that this is a “legal” AR-15 that complies with current NY gun laws, that means the gun being given away doesn’t even resemble the one from Sandy Hook. In fact, a NY Safe Act compliant AR-15 is like putting a bull with one ball out to stud.

Of course, this newspaper is so dishonestly trying to “scare” its low information readers that it also shows the following “file” photo of a clearly non-NY compliant AR-15:





Note that some of the ammo shown isn’t even for an AR-15. I suppose that if a church was raffling off a .38 special, they’d remind the readership that such a revolver was used in such-and-such a crime at one time and then show a picture of Dirty Harry with a .44.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 07 Mar 2014 08:46 am

Isn’t that the same slime-ball newspaper that published maps to pistol permit holders’ homes in Rockland and Westchester Counties? Why yes it is. From the Troy Record:

Putnam County says it’ll likely appeal a judge’s order to turn over information about pistol permit holders to the Journal News.

According to the Journal News, Putnam says it’ll keep the paper from getting its” hands on individual’s personal information.”

Putnam’s statement came a day after a judge ruled pistol permit records sought by the Journal were subject to disclosure. The judge ruled that eligible gun owners were permitted under state law to exempt their names from a public database. Any names remaining on the list the judge said were public record.

Someone ought to publish the names and addresses (with maps) to the Journal News editors’ homes. I’ll say no more.

Gun Control Crowd and Media BiasJeff Soyer on 15 Feb 2014 10:11 am

It’s all about how you manipulate the numbers:

Like Mark Twain, attributing it to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, said, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Especially those told by gun control supporters.

Read the whole thing (it’s short) and view the graphics.

The numbers might be down from where they were at this time last year — when Obama was urging firearm restrictions following the Sandyhook shooting — but they are still way up over a few years ago.

Further, January (for most of the country, as this February is turning out to be) has been brutal — weather wise — which depresses any sort of shopping. Heck, I don’t even want to leave my house when I look at the several feet of snow outside.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 23 Jan 2014 04:12 pm

Granted, it’s more symbolic than anything else, but the Kansas State GOP is holding their convention this weekend and at their request, the hosting hotel is waiving its “no guns allowed” rule. Hotel to Ease Gun Ban For Kansas GOP Convention:

When Kansas Republicans converge on Wichita for their state convention starting Friday, they can bring along their guns if the

The Hyatt Regency Hotel has agreed to relax its gun ban for the sold-out convention, according to an e-mail sent by Debbie Luper, chair of the Republican Party in Butler County.

“NOTE: for our convention, the Hyatt has agreed to drop its no guns on premises policy! That was a point Chair Kelly Arnold negotiated hard for in the contract,” Luper wrote in the e-mail.

That’s (the link) the quote, as well as the first few paragraphs from the Kansas City Star.

That article is . . . okay. But, the same day, same edition, an editorial offers this lede:

Look Out for Gun-Toting Kansas Republicans at Weekend Convention

Kansas Republicans aren’t afraid of looking ignorant when it comes to guns.

Going to the GOP state convention starting this Friday in Wichita just got more dangerous for all those staying at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

That’s because GOP officials fought for and won the right to carry weapons into the hotel during the convention.

So, if you are booking a hotel to hold your convention, and you want the hotel to honor the state right to self-defense for your attendees, you’re “ignorant” and “dangerous” and . . . not a liberal Democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself), I guess.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 20 Jan 2014 01:42 am

From Breitbart:

Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator whose filibuster for abortion rights made her a Democratic superstar and launched her campaign for governor, has admitted to the Dallas Morning News that she lied about key events in her life, including her first divorce. Davis may even have lied under oath, testifying in a federal lawsuit over redistricting that “I got divorced by the time I was 19 years old,” when in fact she was divorced at age 21.

Other missing details have included: her second husband paid her way through law school and she divorced him the day after the last payment was made; her ex-husband accused her in initial court filings of adultery, and was awarded custody of their two daughters; and she first ran for city council in Fort Worth as a Republican.

What I want to know is: Will NBC News, NPR, and other mouthpieces for Democrats report on this at all? They spent over a week plugging her as a hero to the pro-abortion crowd and the Next Big Thing in Texas (and national) politics. Obviously that’s a rhetorical question since we know that they won’t.

Update 1/21: Now, both she and her supporters are blaming her opponent for the lies that SHE told! Instead, she attacks the Republican candidate with a series of tweets; here are two of them:

These attacks show that Greg Abbott’s completely out of touch with the struggles that I faced and so many Texans face. (3/4)

Like so many Texans, I’m proud of where I came from and proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. (4/4)

What the Breitbart story should have pointed out, but didn’t, is the ultimate irony of Wendy Davis’ hypocrisy: Abbott is paralyzed from the waist down and has been confined to a wheel chair for the last 30-years. Yeah, Wendy, he certainly wouldn’t know anything about the struggles of life and what sort of hard work it takes to persevere and rise to the position of Texas Attorney General. You stupid, lying, hypocritical bitch.

Abbott has been in a wheel chair since he was 26-years-old after a tree fell on him while running and paralyzed him from the waist down.

Media Bias and Media HypocrisyJeff Soyer on 07 Jan 2014 03:11 am

How intellectually bankrupt are “Progressives?” Read this.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 01 Jan 2014 11:41 am

Forget Rush, now Sandra has to deal with liberal SCOTUS judge Sonia Sotomayor and her 11th-hour stay:

The Obama administration was temporarily blocked by a U.S. Supreme Court justice from forcing an order of Catholic nuns to comply with a federal requirement to provide free contraceptive coverage for employees.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s two-sentence order will last at least until Jan. 3, the deadline she gave the administration to respond to a bid by the Denver and Baltimore chapters of the Little Sisters of the Poor for an exemption to the mandate. The Supreme Court released the order last night, a half hour before the mandate took effect.

I’m surprised, but pleased. While not religious myself, I believe firmly in freedom of religion. Must be some sort of Bill of Rights thing; I kinda’ like it.

Media Bias and Media HypocrisyJeff Soyer on 27 Dec 2013 06:10 am

Glenn Greenwald was on MSNBC yesterday and . . . From the transcript:

KRISTEN WELKER, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Well Glenn, some people have looked at journalists who Snowden has chosen to give information, to speak with. It’s a select group of journalists. What do you say to your critics who say that you’ve become more of a spokesman for Edward Snowden?

GLENN GREENWALD: I think that’s ludicrous is what I say to that. Every journalist has an agenda. We’re on MSNBC now where close to 24 hours a day the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party are promoted, defended, glorified. The agenda of the Republican Party is undermined. That doesn’t mean that the people who appear on MSNBC aren’t journalists. They are. I think every journalist has a viewpoint. My viewpoint is very clear, I don’t hide it. It’s that I think what Edward Snowden did is very admirable and heroic. But at the same time the ultimate test of a journalist is is what you publish accurate and reliable. And I think with regard to every story that we published over the last six months, there hasn’t been a single correction made to any of them. Very few have been called into question. And I think that’s the ultimate question when it comes to is this journalism.

WELKER: Well, I think the point is not so much about MSNBC and what happens here, but more that sometimes when you talk about Edward Snowden you do defend him, and some people wonder if that crosses a line.

GREENWALD: Sure. I do defend him just like people on MSNBC defend President Obama and his officials and Democratic Party leaders 24 hours a day.

WELKER: Not everyone on MSNBC does that 24 hours a day.

GREENWALD: I don’t make any bones about - no, not everybody, but, but a lot, a lot of people on MSNBC do.

Just as an aside: When I first heard about what Snowden did, I was disturbed about it. I even — slightly — considered that he was a traitor. As more revelations have surfaced about what the NSA has been doing, I’ve come around to thinking that Snowden did the American public a favor. That is — and this might anger some of you — I view him now as a whistle-blower. Whether the NSA needs to monitor every single phone call, email, website visit or not in order to “protect us” is subject to debate. That the American people have a right to know that this is occurring is not. Yeah, it tips-off the enemy, too. But, in the final count, either we enjoy freedom, liberty, and yes — some modicum of privacy — or the enemy has already won.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 24 Dec 2013 03:55 am

NewsBusters has a round-up.

Media Bias and HollywoodJeff Soyer on 19 Dec 2013 11:40 am

From NewsBusters:

Robert Redford’s Sundance Channel is developing a new scripted series built around a fictional leader of the National Rifle Association called “Cold Dead Hands.” The lead character is Early “Trip” Thibodeaux, described as “the nation’s most powerful gun-rights advocate and the de facto CEO of the gun industry.”

The creator is Scott Gold, who’s spent the last 15 years as a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times. He’s a Hollywood newbie, with just a couple of writing credits for the CBS drama “Under the Dome.” He’s working with veteran TV producer Tony Krantz, who was looking for an “important and current issue” not explored on network TV. Gold told The Washington Post they won’t shy away from the controversial issues of gun violence and the NRA:

“This is a divisive issue, no question about it,” executive producer Scott Gold told us Wednesday.”We won’t be shy about that. It’s also an issue that speaks to what it means to be American - and there are a lot different versions of that.”

You can bet there will only be one version of it given in this movie — liberal Hollywood’s.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 15 Nov 2013 07:32 am

As if you needed any further proof that PBS and NPR are in the hip-pocket of the Obama administration, last night PBS anchor Judith Woodruff interviewed the new director of the ATF and besides not asking a single question about Fast & Furious, took repeated shots at ‘the gun lobby.’ Video and transcript at the link.

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 14 Nov 2013 07:41 am

The leftist rag, Mother Jones, writes about how former G&A columnist Dick Metcalf is blaming two gun manufacturers for getting him fired and getting the editor to resign. From the article:

While coverage of Metcalf’s firing focused on the outrage of Guns & Ammo readers, Metcalf’s account in Outdoor Wire suggested that another force ultimately was responsible for his ouster. Initially, Guns & Ammo and its parent company, IMO, asked Metcalf to lay low and “wait and see how the situation developed,” he wrote. But a few days later the magazine’s advertising revenues were in jeopardy: “IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated.” (It remains unclear which gun companies drew a bead on IMO.)

What isn’t mentioned is that if the allegation is true, then you can bet that pressure from advertisers was a result of the outrage from readers. So what! Mother Jones never advocated or supported a boycott or pressure from lefties, say, on advertisers to the Rush Limbaugh Show? Or Starbucks? Or Chic-fil-A? Why are lefties the only ones allowed to demand “purity” from media or businesses?

Media BiasJeff Soyer on 13 Nov 2013 07:21 am

That’s the theory of this Breitbart post. In a manner of speaking, they do, to some extent:

Bourdain focused on a segment titled “Gun Culture” from the New Mexico episode of the show. Regarding that segment, Bourdain said:

“Those people in the segment, as many people in red state America–in gun country America–these are nice people. They like guns. As a matter of fact, I’ve gotta admit, I like guns. I like holding guns. I like shooting guns.”

[ . . . ]

Lemon concurred: “Those people who you were out shooting with–those were law abiding citizens who were trained for guns and respect them. They’re not the people going into malls and shooting people.”

When another guest at the table brought up their belief that we need expanded background checks, Lemon said, “The people who own guns illegally on the streets–they’re not going to go for background checks.”

Watching the segment in question, though, I personally felt that Bourdain and another guy (to the left of him in) were really just calling for more civility while the pro-gun and anti-gun work out a “come together” compromise on such issues as background checks. As such, I don’t think it was all that “pro-gun” at all, this dinner conversation. I kept waiting for one of them to say the cliches, “common sense” or “reasonable” in relation to gun control.

You can decide for yourself by watching the video here. Sorry, I can’t embed it like I would a YouTube one.

Next Page »

Feeds


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Day by Day, by Chris Muir

Please Note:
Comments close on posts
after a week or so. . .




Dig Sci-Fi?
My group SF blog novel:
Colony: Alchibah

Writings by the participants:

Never So Few
The FutureVerse

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Go to:

AlpheccaHome Page



Go to:

AlpheccaHome Page



All uncredited content is (C) Copyright 2002-2014 by Jeff Soyer. All rights reserved.


free web stat