The Power Of One/Media Bias Example #1million

From Mike McCarville at TMRcom.

John Leo: The Power Of One

Liberal media transforms a single bigot at a Sarah Palin rally into a racist mob.

By John Leo ~ Dana Milbank of The Washington Post often writes with a good deal of attitude, and his Tuesday column was no exception.
In his report on Sarah Palin’s campaign speech in Clearwater, Florida, laced with mocking Palinisms (“darn right,” “betcha”), he wrote that “the self-identified pit bull has been unleashed, if not unhinged.”
The “unhinging,” in Milbank’s assessment, came when Palin charged that Obama still has some explaining to do about his relationship with 1960s Weatherman bomber William Ayers.
Milbank also wrote that Palin blamed Katie Couric for her “less-than-successful” CBS interview.

Other newspapers reported a more light-hearted Palin response to the dismal interview. The Tampa Tribune, for example, reported that she said: “I shoulda told them I was just trying to keep Tina Fey in business.”

But Milbank’s report triggered Democratic rage across the Internet with his charge that “Palin’s routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness.”
Some in the Clearwater crowd, he wrote, shouted abuse at reporters.
Someone yelled “Kill him,” apparently a reference to Ayers; and one person shouted an epithet at a network sound man (apparently the N-word, though Milbank didn’t say) and told him, “Sit down, boy.”

Two shouting extremists in a crowd of 4,500 are two too many, of course.

The question is whether these outliers offer sufficient evidence for a clearly hostile reporter to demonstrate that Palin’s rallies have gotten ugly.

Florida reporters did not see the event that way. The St. Petersburg Times ran a benign story on the Palin speech.
William March of the Tampa Tribune told me, “They booed Obama and the press, but that just makes it a normal Republican rally.”
March admitted that he was standing further from the speaker’s stand than national press reporters, and therefore heard less, but he maintains that the rally was no hate-fest.

An early web version of Milbank’s column was headlined, “In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience Boos Obama.”
Rough stuff? There’s no evidence that Palin did anything more than challenge Obama on Ayers.

In the short TV clip available at the Huffington Post, the crowd booed in response to Palin’s litany of Obama’s liberal votes in the Senate. This is pretty standard campaign behavior.

Milbank’s lone racist at the rally soon became a group (or a mob) of people shouting racial epithets.
A New York Times editorial Tuesday (“The Politics of Attack”) misquoted Milbank’s Post column, claiming that one person shouted “Kill him” and “others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.”

Many blogs followed suit: “Crowd at Palin Rally Hurled Racial Epithets at African American on News Crew,” read the headline at Pensito Review.

This was too much for Bob Somerby, the left-leaning blogger at the Daily Howler.
Calling Milbank “a highly unreliable chronicler,”
Somerby taunted the Times for multiplying racists at the rally: “It’s the power of pluralization!...One example becomes much more powerful when we stick an ‘s’ on the end.

In this case, one epithet-shouter turns into a group.
How many people were shouting those epithets?
The editors let you imagine.”

At the Huffington Post, the “Kill him” shout directed at Ayers was interpreted as an assassination threat against Obama.

Another Huffington piece asked, “Is Palin Trying to Incite Violence Against Obama?”

As the misreporting gathered steam on the Internet, writers became ever angrier.

“The event sounds like the precursor to a lynching,” wrote a Daily Kos blogger.

Another opined: “There is a time to start feeling fear.”

Former New York Times reporter Adam Clymer compared Palin events with George Wallace speeches, though he gracefully conceded that “lots of journalists have worked in situations more menacing than covering Sarah Palin.”

This was a disastrous outing for the Post, the Times, and bloggers determined to view Palin appearances as brownshirt rallies.

If the atmosphere is so hate-filled and racist at these events, why does the evidence come down to one shouter at one rally?

John Leo edits the Manhattan Institute website Minding the Campus.

Pre-Remedial Lesson For Democrats On "The War"

Okay... after listening to Obama stumble through the Democrat revisionist history of the war on terror for the hundredth time... as a public service, here is a summary of the war on terror and how the liberal Democrats who claim Republicans took our eye off the ball, have never actually even had their eye on "the ball." (Unless you define "the ball" as power and control of the congress and the white house)

Try to follow along... I'll make it as simple as possible.

1- Al Qaeda declared war (Jihad) on the US and launched attacks repeatedly against the US for more than a decade before 2001, including under the Clinton administation. The first world trade center and the USS cole bombings just to name a couple.

2- Saddam Hussein (one of the most brutal dictators on the planet) increased his efforts to aquire nuclear weapons, defied weapons inspectors and the UN, violated the no fly zones and payed suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians in Israel. President Clinton defined Iraq as a serious threat to the US and world peace saying the regime must be removed by any means required. (Iraqi Liberation Act)

3- September 11, 2001: Al Qaeda carries out plan to fly Airliners into the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. Osama Bin Laden claims credit for Al Qaeda for the attack. The world changed. The war changed. We changed.

4- U.S. launched attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in a matter of weeks had virtually destroyed most of Taliban control in that country driving them into the remote regions perhaps even out of the country.

5- Meanwhile, dictator terrorist Saddam Hussein continued to defy the UN, the weapons inspectors and the US in his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons yet was still given one last chance to disarm and open up to inspections. He declined. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Saddam was seeking WMD and it was only a matter of time till he aquired them.

6- Considering the consequenses of a nuclear Iraq, (with full congressional support from the majority of Democrats) the US and it's allies launch an all-out attack on Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard Army in Iraq easily defeating them in a matter of weeks causing Hussein to have to run and hide in a small hole in the ground until captured by US forces and later hanged to death following a fair trial by Iraqi's.

7- In the meantime, seeing what they believed to be an opportunity to take control of Iraq and drive the US out, Al Qaeda (Sunni) as well as Shiite Armies from Iran began to flood into Iraq from neighboring countries (like Syria). Bin Laden himself declared on many occasions that Iraq was the central battle against America, sending every available resourse into Iraq with the plan to cause a civil war and drive US forces out of Iraq. The war changed from a war against Iraq... to a war on terror, a war against Shiite radicals and Sunni radicals (Al Qaeda).
Yes, the same people who perpetrated the 9/11 attack on the US. The connection democrats have never made and refuse to admit exists.

8- Al Qaeda launced attacks on Shiite Mosques and civilians and in return Shiite radicals like the Hojjatieh attacked innocent Sunni's in the effort to creat the impression of a genuine civil war. It almost worked.

9- Democrats and the US media fell for the "hidden ball trick" and perpetuated the efforts to create that civil war by playing along here in the US.
Democrats turned against the effort and claimed we could never win, that this was Vietnam, that there was a civil war in Iraq and that we should pull out of Iraq immediately leaving it to Al Qaeda. (Exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do) Violence increased, Al Qaeda and the Sadre Army battled each other via innocent civilians on each side... with suicide bombings, car bombings and IED's. The media ate it up. Many Democrats to this day refuse to admit Al Qaeda was even in Iraq, showing their complete lack of understanding and their losing track of "the ball'.

10- General David Petraeus took over command of forces in Iraq with a new strategy. The surge was born. US forces got the Al Sadre Army to draw down it's attacks against Al Qaeda and Sunni's relieving one side of the so called "civil war". The attacks by US forces were focused on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was crippled, then ultimately virtually defeated in their efforts and wiped out in Iraq. Al Qaeda forces then began to flee back to Afghanistan and other areas.

11- Iraq is becoming a free, stable, democratic friend to the US in the region... their economy is booming and they are currently building a large theme park in Bagdhad with the worlds largest ferris wheel... much to the dismay of Democrats, Obama, the liberal media and those who were cheering for a US defeat in Iraq who were certain they would get that defeat.

12- US forces in Afghanistan have been increased (and will continue to increase) as troops have been pulled out of Iraq, focusing on renewed activities by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that country as a result of their (Al Qaeda's) failure in Iraq.

2- a We did not take our eye off the ball... what democrats failed to see is that the ball moved and we kicked the hell out of it... and still are.

UPDATE: 11/18/08- Iraq violence at lowest level since before the war, Iraq army taking over most provinces, Iraq economy growing strong, US military coming out and going to Afghanistan and home. Iraq has a chance for success.
God Bless America

NEWS MEDIA "IN THE TANK" FOR OBAMA

Even the Washington Post admits it... FULL STORY.

And what happens class when a newspaper actually does present a view different from the Democrat party line?
All opposing views are to be discredited as right wing propaganda, but leftwing propaganda is promoted as legitimate news by bloggers like OKIE FUNK and others like him.

Isn't it about time we put the media back in it's (their) place?

New Study Confirms Severe Media Bias

Below is another excellent piece from Engram at Back Talk blog. If you are a liberal and don't think there is a liberal media bias... this piece explains exactly why you feel that way with the hard facts and data not the opinions of a neocon.
Here it is in it's entirety.
NEW STUDY ON THE MEDIA we have...confirms it's not the media we wish we had.
Lately, I've documented a few instances of reporters in the mainstream media covering the situation in Iraq in an accurate way. It's odd to think that accurate news coverage would warrant any discussion at all, but it does because reporters lean so far to the left that they have trouble filtering out their personal views, especially when reporting news about Iraq (it would be the same way with conservative reporters, if there were any). A reader sent me this story that demonstrates how to put a negative (i.e., liberal) spin on recent events in Iraq:

2007 Toll Nears Highest for US in Iraq

By LAUREN FRAYER

BAGHDAD (AP) — With just under two months left in the year, 2007 is on course to be the deadliest year on record for American forces in Iraq, despite a recent sharp drop in U.S. deaths.

At least 847 American military personnel have died in Iraq so far this year — the second-highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003, according to Associated Press figures.

Technically true, but you'd think a chart like this one would help to place the story in context:



As you can see, military casualties in Iraq have come way down. Isn't that a relevant fact to mention is a story like this? And here is a table showing U.S. military casualties per year that also helps to provide a bit of context:


The years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 are all very similar, and if casualties remain low for the next two months, 2007 will be much like the prior years but will also set a record. If I had written this story, I'd have included all of this for context. To be fair, at the very end of the article, it mentions the recent dramatic drop in U.S. military casualties. But by then, most readers will have formed an impression and moved on.

When it comes to evaluating the political inclinations of the mainstream media, it doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Either way, you can't possibly believe that the MSM is neutral or that it leans to the right. Obviously, it leans to the left. As obvious as it is, people sometimes argue about this, so, every once in a while, I like to collect all of the evidence in one place. I'm doing that again today because more evidence just came to light in the form of yet another study of the subject.

Before getting to the new evidence, let me just take a quick tour through the old evidence. The thing to note is that, no matter how you slice it, the evidence points in the same direction: the MSM leans left, and that affects how the news is covered. If you disagree, please cite all of the evidence that suggests otherwise. As hard as you try, you'll find that there is no such evidence (though I'd love to be proven wrong about that).

If you just take a poll ask people if news coverage is too liberal, too conservative or just about right, you results like these:


As you can see, if you are a Democrat, news coverage feels just about right. To everyone else, it seems to lean left (which is precisely why it feels right to Democrats).

The Pew Research Center conducted another poll that asked reporters to just say whether they are liberal, moderate or conservative. Here are the results:


Reporters mostly call themselves "moderate," but many more reporters admit to being liberal than conservative (by a ratio of almost 5 to 1).

MSNBC identified 144 journalists who made political contributions between 2004 and 2007 according to public records of the Federal Election Commission. The question of interest was this: Which party received the most donations from these journalists? The results are shown in this chart:


In summary, consumers of the news think that news coverage leans pretty far to the left, the reporters themselves acknowledge that they lean left, and reporters donate to Democratic candidates far more than they donate to Republican candidates.

As you might expect, reporters who lean left report news that is biased in the leftward direction. A careful analysis of the news conducted by political scientists at UCLA shows that this is, indeed, the case. Their report, called "A Measure of Media Bias," is available here. They started with the observation that U.S. senators have been ranked on a scale of 0 to 100 according to how conservative or liberal they are (with 50 being about the midpoint). Very liberal senators with a score close to 100 might cite liberal think tanks 10 times as often as conservative think tanks. If a news outlet like the New York Times did the same thing, it would get a score close to 100. Very conservative senators with a score close to 0 might cite conservative think tanks 10 times as often as liberal think tanks. If a news outlet like Fox News did the same thing, it would get a score close to 0. Here are their results for different news outlets (with scores greater than 50 showing a liberal slant and less than 50 showing a conservative slant):


As you can see, only Fox News and the Washington Times are more conservative than the average American. All other news outlets tilt in the liberal direction to varying degrees. The Wall Street Journal is the most liberal news outlet, which is surprising because everyone knows that it is a conservative newspaper. Actually, though, it is the journal's editorial pages that are very conservative (and that's why you think of it as a conservative publication). Its newsroom is left wing, even more so than the New York Times.

Now a new study from Harvard University has just come out that examines how the media covers the various presidential campaigns. The results are about what you'd expect (unless, that is, you deny that the media leans left). For example, who gets more coverage, Democratic candidates or Republican candidates? Need I even ask?


Who gets more positive coverage, the top Democratic candidates or the top Republican candidates? Need I even ask?


Let's look at the network evening news in particular:


In the positive category, it is 2-to-1 in favor of the Democrats. In the negative category, well, it's obvious.

The report describing these new findings goes out of its way to explain how these results might not reflect a liberal bias (e.g., Barack Obama is a new face, Hillary Clinton started to campaign earlier than the others, etc.). You can, if you work hard enough, explain away any one piece of evidence concerning the political inclinations of the mainstream media. But my point is this: when every single way of addressing this issue leads to the same conclusion -- namely, that a left wing media reports the news from a left wing point of view -- then that conclusion becomes inescapable. I know this isn't even a debatable issue any more, but I still think it is valuable to review the evidence every once in a while. Collecting the evidence as I do does not make me a conservative. Whether you are liberal or conservative, you can't really dispute the fact that the evidence consistently points to a liberal bias on the part of the mainstream media. It is the evidence that makes that case, not me. If you know of evidence that points in the other direction, do tell.

UPDATE: Coincidentally, Glenn Reynolds links to a post by Don Surber on this very topic:

The lies began before the war with CNN fronting for Saddam Hussein for 10 years just to keep its bureau open in Baghdad so it could brag about its foreign reporting. Instead of shuttering the bureau and then reporting the horrors from Atlanta, CNN stayed and kept its mouth shut.

That was just the start. Adnan Hajj staged and Photoshopped photos for AP and later Reuters that were sent around the world.

There is Captain Jamil Hussein, a police officer whom AP relied on repeatedly in 2006 for horror stories about Iraq. The military and the Iraqi government often denied the incidents. When Michelle Malkin and others questioned his existence, AP furiously defended him and insisted he was real — and stopped quoting him.

There is “Scott Thomas,” a pseudonym for a very real soldier, who sold outlandish lies to the editors of TNR. Apparently The New Republic learned nothing from Stephen Glass.

An unchecked conservative media would be as bad in a different way, but the media we have is liberal (and is bad in this particular way). END-

Great work Engram as usual... fair and balanced analysis.

Journalist Karl Rove?

If Karl Rove followed the Democrat template for life after politics, he would become the next host of a major CNN or MSNBC, PBS or HBO news program where he is featured as an unbiased, objective "journalist" like Stephanopoulos, Carville, Begala and so many others.

How about the CBS evening news with anchor Karl Rove?
That is what conservatives deal with every day with the Democrat controlled left-wing media ramming former Clinton aides down our throat under the disguise of "journalism" on virtually every single media outlet.

From Bill Moyers to Christiane Amanpour (and her former Clintonista hubby) to Keith Olberman to Chris Mathews, Dan Rather, Andy Rooney... and on and on, Democrat liberals to the core, dedicated to "journalism" (without the "fair and balanced" unbiased part).

Perhaps FOX NEWS will give Rove a show where he rips the Democrat party daily under the protective umbrella of pure unbiased journalism... NOW that would be fun.
Unfortunately, FOX NEWS is far more ethical than CNN, MSNBC and the rest so it won't happen, but if Rove were a Democrat, he would be celebrated as a national hero and the darling of Hollywood and the media with appearances on every tv talk show and classes for school kids to learn from the master himself.

All one has to do to really appreciate Karl Rove is to realize that without him beside W, we would be dealing with a President alGore or President John F Kerry right now. Saddam would still be running his rape rooms and child prisons and we would have NYPD looking to arrest Bin Laden instead of delta forces looking to kill him.

God Bless Karl Rove.

-red