White House Holds NBC to the Fire for Bias Views

NBC News, also known as the Obama Election Headquarters, is being called to task after a recent edited and disparaging interview with President Bush by the network. First this from Fox News:

The network rattled the White House in November 2006 when it called
the conflict in Iraq a “civil war.” On Monday, White House Counselor Ed
Gillespie wrote a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, looking in part for
an explanation of how NBC News now views the war.
White House press secretary
Dana Perino said Tuesday the administration is “fed up” with the way NBC News is
treating the Iraq war.
"I remember very distinctly, how there was a quite the
pomp and circumstance when NBC, on The Today Show, decided to declare that they
were declaring Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things
certainly have improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to
say that Iraq is not in a civil war. We're just curious to find out what they
believe," she said.

And concerning the recent interview:

As it appeared on “Nightly News” Sunday and "Today" Monday, Bush’s
response was: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the
political calendar has … And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they
want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously.”
The White
House said NBC edited out the following words that Bush said between those two
sentences:
“People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right,
either. What I said was that we need to take the words of people
seriously.”

This all started with Bush's speech before the Israeli Knesset warning the Free World of the danger of appeasement, much as other politicians in the past when the West had become complacent, including Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. Sadly, most of these great men received their share of scorn from the elite establishment, only to be justified later on.

(Not interested in) Fixing the Military

This New York Times editorial with the above title minus that in parenthesis, falls flat on offering any solutions of what our post-Iraq military should look like. It mainly repeats extreme liberal talking points that suggest there is little hope of ever fixing the myriad challenges our great armed forces face.

For instance, there is the usual complaint about the Iraq War from the Left:

"the war of necessity in Afghanistan and President Bush’s
disastrous war of choice in Iraq "

As well as the repetative comment that the military is too worn out from the war to fight:

"So alarming is the deterioration that many military commanders say
the country is unable to sustain the current operation in Iraq let alone face
down future threats. "

Though most experts concede the military is strained, no one, including our Defense Secretary has any doubts we couldn't protect ourselves if need be, since the bulk of the Air Force and Navy isn't engaged in the Middle East fight.

There is the tired lament that the Wars since 9/11 "have made the world more dangerous", which has little basis in fact unless the Times can point to a specific incident outside the Middle east on the scale of the 2001 attacks on US soil. They never can, since facts are out of place in their criticism of our commander in chief.

The Grey Lady does concede, as this blog often argues, what "the country does not need is a military ready to refight the cold war", but doesn't offer any basics. When it says the country should cancel "expensive programs that do not meet today’s threats or tomorrow’s", which pet project does it suggest we cut out of which liberal or conservative politician's district?

The paper then goes into an extended list of the military's woes, without conceding the recent good news of progress on the ground, as Democrat and Republicans have all noticed, including most recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi having seenthe change for herself.

As a helpful discussion on the Future Force, this article is not. As a partisan attack showing the liberal media's continued bias against our military and President Bush, with no interest in seeing Democracy in the Middle East or preventing a second terrorist attack on the nation, this fits in perfectly.

Breaking the Tyranny of the Netroots

Democratic leaders are rushing to appear on conservative leaning Fox News, and their liberal base are feeling cheated. From Politico:

The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the
Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis
of liberal bloggers. The détente with Fox has provoked a backlash from
progressive bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on
the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love
to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes. In a span of eight days, Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY.) and Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean are all taking their seats with the
network that calls itself “fair and balanced” but is widely viewed as skewing
conservative.

I always felt the Netroots' boycott of Fox amounted to an assault on our liberties. From the Left you often get "agree-with-me-speech" rather than freedom of speech.

The O'Reilly and Clinton Show

Bill O'Reilly conducted a surprisingly good interview with Hillary Clinton on Fox last night. She more than held her on against the insufferable O'Reilly who hit her pretty good on some tough questions, my favorite being "you're going to bankrupt America with Hillarycare".

Thought they also made an excellent team. The nation would likely be better served with a new "Hill and Bill" show on the network, less so if she siphons off the nation's prosperity with her Health Care proposals.

Not certain why the Left candidates are afraid of appearing on the Right leaning network, preferring rather to get the soft-ball questions from the Old Mainstream Media. What we saw last night was a real interview, real journalism. How can we know what a candidate really believes in until they get an opportunity to defend those beliefs, something that won't happen from a sit down with Bill Moyers?

Now that the Democrats are getting over their fear of Fox, this come as a warning to John McCain. Just as Clinton increasingly becomes the anti-elitist, anti-Obama, she could very well become the anti-McCain. He should consider this next time the Maverick decides to throw his base conservative support under the bus, as happened recently in North Carolina.

Should the Press Pick the President?

Concerning the recent Obama/Wright controversy, the Mainsteam Media's knee-jerk reaction in defense of their chosen candidate for the 2008 White House is another sign the Press has already made up the public's mind on the nominee.

To this worry we can add a recent poll that reveals only 6% of nationwide journalists consider themselves conservative, while 36% of the public contend themselves so. What his all means is a huge proportion of America's populace is grossly unrepresented by a liberal worldview on television, radio, motion pictures, and the printed news. How then can freedom and the diversity of ideas survive in such an unbalanced environment of Media tyranny?

I am against any type of government imposed "Fairness Doctrine", whose effect seems to enforce even more Left-wind dogma on an unwilling public. It may be essential however, for Congress to enforce a breakup of these Media conglomerates, much as they so often do with such glee to past business corporations, like AT&T and Microsoft.

A "balkanization" of the news , much like what is ongoing on the Internet, would go beyond the Fairness Doctrine, allowing a greater understanding of the world, and perhaps enforce a more helpful debate to the problems our nation faces. While it appears the Market may be taking care of this anyway, as ratings for the old MSM seems to be steadily tanking, there is the possibility that a grateful President Obama might come to their rescue with speech stifling legislation, if the Press' goal is attained.

Libertas on the New Media

The Liberty Film Festival Blog praises the democratization of the Press:

...it’s only now that we have a multitude of news sources of
every political stripe that liberals complain about “corporate ownership,”
“monopolies,” and “fairness.” Fifteen years-ago the media was wholly owned by
just a few networks, newspapers, and wire services — fifteen years-ago liberal
opinion and worldview dominated these news sources — and liberals said nothing.
Today, the media’s finally been democratized by blogs, cable news, and talk
radio — and listen to the left howl.

Well, I just do it for the fun and to have my views served. After the State newspaper skewered an oped I wrote until it sounded something totally different than what I intended, I was constantly searching for something better to express myself beyond the tyranny of the Old Media. Thank you Google and Blogspot!

Zero Credibility Vs. Mr. Credibility

Updates below!

The New York Times hitjob article on John McCain might be helping the GOP frontrunner. From Politico:

Few commentators on the right — including some who regularly
denounce ethical lapses or weaknesses of the flesh among Democrats — paused to
assess seriously whether the Times’ suggestions of conflict of interest were
well-founded.
Instead, many swallowed past misgivings about McCain to rally
to his defense, on the apparent theory that anyone under assault by the most
powerful institution in the mainstream media could not be all bad...

It
was a vivid illustration of the power of the longstanding anti-media grievance
among conservatives. In the past, McCain’s cozy relationships with establishment
journalists (“My base,” as he sometimes jokes) has been a major reason the
Arizona senator is viewed with such jaundiced eyes by many on the right. McCain
was able to leverage these feelings to turn a potentially devastating story into
something that arguably lifts his political standing.

Even Rush Limbaugh jumped in the fray to defend the Maverick:

At noon, the McCain campaign got perhaps its most important break.
Rush Limbaugh, who has been the senator’s worst tormentor since he effectively
seized the GOP nomination, came on the air and immediately denounced the Times.
Limbaugh warned McCain, who has close relations with the press, that such a
story was typical of what he calls the “drive-by media.” But he mostly shredded
the paper and the story, calling it “Page Six-type gossip.”

Looks like the Times article might have helped more than it hurt. A Republican being slammed by a liberal rag like the Grey Lady is a badge of honor. She'd have done better to endorse McCain a second time! The Old media continues its long, slow death spiral.

Update-Interesting headline from the NY Times "McCain Gathers Support and Donations in Aftermath of Article in The Times" Any regrets, editors? Maybe like Rush Limbaugh they were just trying to help the Senator by criticizing him! Riiiight....

More contrition from the Times, and editor Bill Keller-"I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."

Another Shoddy Hit Job by the NY Times

Update below.
In their drastic quest to be counted as a tabloid, the Grey Lady launched insinuations against Senator John McCain with zero facts to back them up. From John Hinderaker at Powerline:

The New York Times smears John McCain in tomorrow's
paper, accusing him of ethics violations and insinuating that he had an affair
with a lobbyist. What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story,
is how thin it is. It's mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to
the late 1980s. The "news" that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain's
friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for
the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence...

The Times is a mouthpiece
for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of
McCain--not the last, to be sure--is entirely consistent with the editorial
policies it has maintained for many years. Tomorrow's story is just one more
reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news
source.

First the paper endorses McCain, then trashes the likely GOP nominee? I guess now that they're sure there will no no die-hard conservative in the running, they feel no need to lend the Senator their support. If you lie down with dogs...

Update From the New Republic-Behind the Bombshell in 'The New York Times.'

Rush Tries to Have it Both Ways

I'm still incredulous that my favorite talk radio host Rush Limbaugh continues to suffer from McCain Derangement Syndrome. Now he's saying he's helping John McCain by criticizing him:

"If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him,"
Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and
liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than
anything."
"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest
favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I
endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and
moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."

All this sounds familiar, like when Hillary Clinton took credit for the improved situation in Iraq by saying it was because her Party threatened to pull out the troops. Forget the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform and how their mission was made that much harder when the terrorists had hopes we would cut and run prematurely.

Rush is trying to have it both ways as well, but he's only making the Right's chances tougher in the Fall, by giving the Leftist Media ammunition to use against our candidate, which ever day appears to be McCain. And instead of attacking the Dems' frontrunner, which now looks like Barak Obama, on his ties to Muslims, inexperience, and lack of substance, we are fighting one another.

Come off it, Rush! Admit you were wrong and stop going after the wrong side. Don't be like the Left and dig in your heels, no matter what the cost to our future security.

Talk Radio Joins the Defeatocrats

Its now called McCain Derangement Syndrome. Here's Rush Limbaugh's comment on the Democrat Presidential candidates, via the Weekly Standard:

"They (Hillary and Obama) are not going to surrender the country to
Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq. They are not going to do that to
themselves, despite what their base says. The idea that we've only got one
person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, who is willing to take
on the war on terror is frankly, absurd".

And the WS Editor Michael Goldfarb's comments:

Has Rush been paying attention to what the Democratic Congress
tried to do to the war effort this year--and the role McCain played in stopping
it? Is he unaware that right now Clinton and Obama are one-upping each other in
a game of who could surrender first? That both would withdraw American troops
regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of whether we
are winning or losing, regardless--in short--of reality? Or is he willing to
take the risk that either Clinton and Obama, upon assuming the office, will
suddenly settle on a responsible approach to Iraq when they've each been so
breathtakingly irresponsible in the past?

It is scary that the Far Right has become disenchanted with the war effort. You could see it in the 2006 elections when too much spending by the Republican Congress and Immigration suddenly became an issue, (all valid complaints, but what awful timing!) with the Talk Show hosts unconsciously campaigning for the Democrats. And guess what? It worked! We now have Peolisi and company with the worse poll numbers of any Congress in history.

It is also heart-breaking, because Rush and many others on the AM Dial have been a source of encouragement to me for some of the darkest days of the ongoing war against Al Qaeda. Now I can no longer bear to listen to their anti-McCain rants.

Heath Ledger's Death No Joke

I've suddenly lost any interest in seeing the new Dark Knight flick, though I'm a Batman freak from way back.Thanks for nothing Frank Miller. Makes me pine for the camp days of the 60's and Caesar Romero, or even the silly but fun Mark Hamill cartoon Joker of the 1990's. Comics sure aren't for kids anymore. Fredric Wertham, how we miss you.

Soros Group Funds Iraq War Study

The usual suspects are attempting once again to disparge our troops' efforts in Iraq, and deny America's right of self defense against the terrorists. Here's the Conservative Voice:

The "Center for Public Integrity," a front group for
billionaire George Soros, has published another "study" intended to distract
attention from recent progress in Iraq. The study rehashes the old canard that
President Bush led the country to war under false pretenses...

The study claims that the Bush Administration issued false
statements about the security threat posed by Iraq. The study is absurdly
misleading, as are news reports discussing it.As noted at HotAir.com, "by
stopping the research at 2001, the story is set-up to misreport the facts. The
Clinton administration spent years warning the public of the threat of Saddam
and his WMD. They even bombed a pharmaceuticals factor in Sudan on the suspicion
that it was making WMD for both al Qaeda and Iraq. So the story either
unintentionally or by design left out years of context."

"Center for Public Integrity" sounds like "Honest John's Used Cars", and Honest George is once against selling the country a bill of goods. This so called "study" doesn't bear serious consideration.

More-Ed Morrissey writes:

Nowhere in these articles do either news organization bother to inform their
reader of the partisan nature of the CPI. Besides Soros, it gets financing from
the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times
Foundation.

Streisand eh? There's non-partisan for you. Sure.

Grey Lady Vet-Bashing Debunked

The floundering "war on the war" avails the New York Times little, as the Weekly Standard reveals:

On Sunday, the New York Times printed a massive front-page story about a supposedly alarming homicide rate among Iraq and Afghanistan vets. The Times reported 121 cases of homicide or homicide charges and attributed them to post-traumatic stress disorder--presumably an attempt at making another case for ending the war, if we know anything about the Times's editors.

Unfortunately, the paper misreported the facts they had and left out key statistics--most importantly, a comparison of the vets' homicide rate to that of the general population--and they were quickly caught.

Yesterday, WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John J. DiIulio Jr. proved the Times's "wacko-vet myth" to be just that--a myth. Read it at the DAILY STANDARD. With a little investigation and some high-school math, he found that the homicide rate among vets is exceedingly lower than the general population--a detail the Times reporters missed.

Just throw out a few unverified facts and let the "blame America first" crowd, as well as the radicals overseas gather their talking points. Yet, in this Internet Age the truth is easily discovered as the aging MSM finds out with lagging subscriptions and falling credibility.

Chelsea Clinton Vs. the MSM

Here's a funny tale that has a useful message, on the former "First Daughter", via USA Today:

...on Sunday the "kid reporter" from Scholastic News approached former (and perhaps future?) first daughter Chelsea Clinton at a campaign event in Vinton, Iowa.

According to the AP, Sydney asked:

"Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?"

"I'm sorry," Chelsea Clinton, 27, replied. "I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute."

Kudos to the Miss Clinton for having standards. Too bad its not she who's running for office, rather than her parents. This is a lesson which I hope some on the right will learn. Though I'm not certain her reasons for not speaking to the Press, it could be for the hit jobs constantly made on her family which she has witnessed throughout her life?

My question is, why do our elected officials constantly put up with the badgering and scandal mongering Media, as if they were speaking for the American Public. The Elite Media hasn't represented our views for a long while, and should be put in their places by the poiliticians, as Chelsea did, no matter how "cute they are!

Media Mostly Silent on Iraq Progress

Rich Noyes at Newsbusters has the facts & figures:

Back in September, as reporters voiced skepticism of General Petraeus' progress report, the networks aired a total of 178 Iraq stories, or just under two per network per night. About one-fourth of those stories (42) were filed from Iraq itself, with most of the rest originating in Washington.

In October, TV's war news fell by about 40 percent, to 108 stories, with the number of reports filed from Iraq itself falling to just 20, or less than one-fifth of all Iraq stories. By November, the networks aired a mere 68 stories, with only eleven (16%) actually from the war zone itself.

Goes hand in hand with the MSM fall in the ratings in recent years. Coincidence? But thankfully, news of success due to the Surge is leaking out, thanks to the New Media of Talk Radio and the Internet, effectively countering the Leftist broadcast tyranny.

Old Chinese Sub Story Takes on New Life

I'm seeing this report from about a year ago crop up all over the internet, concerning a Chinese sub that stalked the carrier Kitty Hawk in the Pacific. But the story is from 2006, as we reported here:

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned. The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military. The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon...

The Hot Air Blog also mentions Admiral Fallon as Pacific Fleet commander, except he was appointed as Commander to Central Command early this year! UPI is also reporting the story as "new", as is the Daily Mail, which is where I first read it yesterday. (Is this UK paper the source of the gaffe?)

Update-Information Dissemination has extensive commentary and wonders "the Daily Mail article is a hit job on the current US strategy with China?"

Update 2-I can't believe Defense Tech fell for this!

Voices From the Front

I get ALL my Iraq War news from the Internet, which has helped sustain my hopes in even the darkest days of the conflict. Here's Matt Sanchez, recently back from the frontlines:

It's hard to explain the shock I got when I finally got into Iraq. Unlike what I had read in the newspapers, I didn't find demoralized troops complaining about a dangerous quagmire in Iraq, and believe me, I asked.

I found men and women who complained because they weren't allowed to leave the safety of big bases and meet Iraqis. I met Iraqis who trusted American troops more than they trusted their countrymen. I met Iraqi policemen who were risking their lives to fight religious fanatics.

Sure, there were problems, but I was shocked by how the reality of Iraq was so different from what I had read back home.

The Old Mainstream Media has failed the public in reporting current events. Basically there are just a propaganda wing that sustains modern liberalism, but until they start getting their facts straight, will become increasingly irrelevant in the Modern Information Age.

Give Musharraf a Chance

Though it seems like the President of Pakistan is shoring up his power by cracking down on democratic institutions, from what I'm reading in the Long War Journal, it looks like he may be saving his country once again from falling into radicalism:

In a move to limit criticism of the government, judiciary, and the military, Musharraf amended the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance. If followed to the letter of the law, the new amendments will have a chilling effect on the flow of information on the spread of Islamist extremism in the tribal areas, the greater Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and in the heart of Pakistan.

The new regulations prevent the airing of Taliban and al Qaeda propaganda and images of the victims of suicide attacks. The regulations also prevent "any programme inciting violence or hatred or any action prejudicial to maintenance of law and order." Discussions of current court cases are now prohibited.

We all understand how damaging loose talk is in wartime, and the constant negativity from our press has hurt America's own war effort. Musharraf seems to be conducting what any responsible leader would do during wartime or national emergency. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and the Media was stringently censured during both of our World Wars. Here's more:

Broadcasters cannot "broadcast anything which is known to be false or baseless or is malafide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or malafide.”

CBS News, The New Republic, Newsweek, and so on, guilty on all accounts. Can you say "Rathergate"? And finally:

Perhaps the most damaging of the regulations prevents the media from broadcasting "anything which defames or brings into ridicule the Head of State, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state."

Wonder why Bush's poll numbers are so low? Could it be the constant negativity emanating from a liberal dominated MSM, which sees its role as not supporting the commander in chief (even when it is their freedoms he is defending), but playing gotcha politics at any given opportunity?

Bill Roggio also states that "Musharraf's usurpation has weakened, not strengthened his ability to fight the dramatic rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and elsewhere." But later tells us the Pakistani "Soldiers have been captured by the hundreds and surrendered or deserted by the dozens. The Taliban has beheaded well over a dozen soldiers and policemen." This is a shocking revelation about one of the Middle East's most potent and skilled militaries, and it's seems obvious that drastic measures are called for.

Glenn Reynolds asks WHY IS THE WORLD MORE CONCERNED with Musharraf's coup than with Hugo Chavez's emerging dicatatorship? Because enemies of the United States, like Chavez, get a pass.

Your Bias is Showing

You know its bad when a liberal institution like Harvard is noticing. From Investor's Business Daily:

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

So, the major Media is practically a 527 organization for the Democrat Party? This is not a free press and there ought to be a law! It seems when the bulk of the country only hear one side of an issue, this becomes a threat to our freedom. Reporters like to say "We don't tell you what to think, just what to think about". That's only a single word difference from "tell you what to think" and it is too often left out.

Huffington Shoots Down "Fake But Accurate" Excuse

A common practice among liberal journalists of late has been to invent stories that support their preconceived biases. Hence we get stuff like Dan Rather's forged hitjob against President Bush's National Guard record, which led to the CBS newsman's eventual "early retirement", and the more recent and now discredited "Shock Troops" series by Scott Thomas Beauchamp at the New Republic. . Earlier this week I reported on a military article at the Huffington Post, titled The Military's Addiction to Oil by Barry Sanders, which was on the same line. The writer's preconceived notion was our armed forces uses too much oil, so he could bend the facts and still get his point across. But now the Liberal Huffington is distancing herself from this faulty logic:

Sanders offers a detailed explanation of how he arrived at his figures. We'll leave it to you to decide the persuasiveness of his explanation. For us, it confuses as much as it clarifies.

Mr. Sanders feels that the dispute over these details obscures the larger point of his argument. Maybe so, but we are committed to maintaining the highest possible standards of accuracy and transparency. Accordingly, we will not be running the remaining parts of his Green Zone series.

Kudos! I salute the editors for taking the high road and perhaps proving there's still hope for the MSM and a return to journalistic standards.

H/T to Michael Goldfarb at the Worldwide Standard.