Posts Tagged ‘media bias’

Is that not too long ago, this would have happened behind the scenes and we would never know about it.

How many times has AP & Reuters decided to “manage” the news in such a way to steer a story without our knowledge?

If you never understood why the internet is so important, and so HATED by those in power or who want power, this is exactly why.

BTW AP if your guidelines are the lead story on memeorandum, you are doing something wrong

Update: Doug Powers wants suggestions.

Update 2: Orwellian yes, also likely business as usual.

Their interview/article on Pam Geller was tough but fair.

I think it is an excellent example of how to do a “hostile” interview, dealing with someone you disagree with fundamentally.

I hit the left side of the ‘sphere a bit so when they do it right they deserve a pat.

Good show.

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: Jim Hoff mentions the Washington post bloggers are also giving credit to Pam, but he teases them for putting a clip of her in a bikini.

Let’s cut to the chase: Pam is an extraordinarily beautiful woman who looks even better in person. Any picture is going to get hits because of that, so you might has well go whole hog in the Stacy McCain vein.

Update 2: Stacy updates on Pam and the Bikini and exploding heads at LGF

We knew the Mosque issue was going to be all over the news.

Morning Joe has been a shield in front of the president all Morning vocally defending the president without hesitation on the NY Mosque issue.

But defense is not enough so they decided to counterattack, however Who they choose to attack says a lot about what they think.

This weekend on on Facebook Sarah Palin said this:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

A clear, lucid statement from one of the leading contenders if not THE leading contender for the Republican Nomination in 2012. A person who was on a National Ticket just 2 years ago.

Normally Sarah Palin means views and hits so naturally they would be injecting her whenever possible…

…but this statement would win votes, so we can’t have that.

Instead they are going after Newt Gingrich for saying it is like “putting a Swastika next to the Holocaust museum” (they don’t manage to quote him saying: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” too many people would get that), and are touting him both as a voice of intolerance and as the republican front runner.

Let’s cut to the chase. Newt Gingrich is no more going to be the Republican nominee in 2012 that I am. These people know this, but pretend otherwise.

This is simply political cover, cover for Obama’s statements and covering up Sarah Palin’s statements so a weak White House doesn’t have to respond.

One of the first principles of when you have something to hide is that sunlight tends to cause annoyance.

Nick Green is seriously annoyed:

Some believe you have a particular bias or agenda if you refuse to cover a story. Some people believe the fact that you decide to cover a story means you have some sort of bias.

In short, you can’t win either way.

So imagine my surprise today to find I’m the victim of an Andrew Beitbart wannabe, a blogger with a clear agenda of his own who has decided in his hypocrisy I have one of my own.

I had intended to leave comment there but as the page keeps erroring out I will post here something here instead.

Nick, you are a reporter who is paid to do this for a living, so perhaps you might be unaware of a few things, so allow me a mere blogger to educate you on a few things:

Robert Stacy McCain is a reporter who also blogs, he has been a reporter for a very long time. If you were familiar with his work you would know this. I on the other hand am a blogger who writes a few articles on occasion. If you want to call anyone an “Andrew Breitbart wannabe” it would be me not him. Oh an although he is a big boy Robert Stacy is a personal friend of mine so I take it ill if you wish to disparage him for telling the truth.

Oh and BTW “Andrew Breitbart Wanabee” is not a pejorative outside of your circle. He is successful, runs several sites with many writers working under him and manages to do that in the teeth of a media that hates him. Yeah I’d be Andrew Breitbart like a shot.

“Blogger” is not a pejorative term either, no matter how much you want it to be. Bloggers have been breaking stories that the Mainstream Media (that would be you) have ignored for the last decade. One prominent Example, John Edwards Story by Mickey Kaus, he was on it for a year when the rest of the media couldn’t care less. Bloggers with video camera have been covering stories that the MainStream media have ignored or spun for years. Another story that you guys never bothered to cover. The interesting procedures for verifying credit card donations by the Obama camp during the 2008 election.

What? You never heard of it? Neither did your readers because the MSM (that would be you) choose not to cover the story. The lawyers/bloggers did instead.

Yes Robert Stacy McCain is a conservative, I am a conservative, in fact I am a registered (gasp) republican! There is a long tradition of “partisian” journalism that has existed since day one of newspapers. Perhaps you missed that day in school or attended public schools. Either way I don’t keep my biases secret. People can choose to talk to me or not on that basis, and can judge my coverage of events such as the MayDay march in Boston accordingly, vs reporters who hold off the record lunches with the White house they are supposed to cover.

Now as to the e-mails, as Robert Stacy said there are occasions when people e-mail in anger but you must get a whole lot more e-mail than me. If I get an e-mail I don’t want I delete it. It’s real simple. I don’t have your experience but people you burn tend to no longer talk to you. When your primary job is to get people to talk to you, even if they don’t want to that would be “bad”.

Finally I actually should be grateful to you, thanks to your e-mail and torrid schedule I was not only able to get an excellent and popular post. But was able to score an interview with the candidate that you had no time for from 3000 miles away, get a second post and a column in the examiner out of it. Now I don’t know you as a person, you might be a nice guy and a hard worker, but if you want to keep dropping the ball on the Mattie Fein campaign, I’ll do what I can by phone to pick it up from the bay state.