Archive for the ‘bias’ Category

Color me not suprised

May 17, 2008

The Volokh Conspiracy points out the double standard at Human Rights Watch.

Not Gonna Happen…

June 29, 2007

MRC President Brent Bozell makes a damn good point:

But Ann Coulter is owed an apology from those outlets, including NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ The Washington Post and CNN’s ‘American Morning,’ which have misreported her comments. And conservatives, take note: Today it’s Coulter, tomorrow it may be you. The left has demonstrated that it will stop at nothing, including flat-out dishonesty, to undermine our leaders.”

In the words of Dana Carvey, that apology “ain’t gonna happen.”

Here the detail from the Washington Times:

MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:

“When I first heard the sound-bite of Ann Coulter’s remarks calling for the assassination of John Edwards, I was appalled. Then I read the entire quote, and was doubly appalled — at the media themselves. I have never seen a person’s words so blatantly, and dishonestly distorted. When one reads, or listens to Ann’s entire statement, it is immediately apparent that she was wishing for no such thing.”

Here is the quote being run by some of the top media:

Miss Coulter: “If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” (ABC, Good Morning America, Monday.)

Here is the entire quote:

Miss Coulter: “But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Said Mr. Bozell: “Ann Coulter was making the point that (a) a leftist like Bill Maher made the serious statement that it might be a positive thing to have Vice President Dick Cheney killed by terrorists, and (b) it received no condemnation from the national press; and therefore (c) she would escape negative media scrutiny in the future were she to take that line against John Edwards.

“It is an inescapable truth that Ann Coulter was dripping with sarcasm when she made her remark. It is also an inescapable truth that every TV, radio and print outlet that has run the shortened version of her remarks is distorting her words — deliberately. Some have run the full quote, such as the morning shows on CBS, ABC and NBC. Good for them.”

Update: Tammy Bruce points out who the real slime balls are.

During the past few days it’s amazing how the Edwards’ suddenly decided to go after Ann Coulter. One has to ask, Why? Considering Ann isn’t running for president, why are Edwardses so obsessed with her. The answer, of course, is money. Once an ambulance chaser, always an ambulance chaser.

Here’s the deal: the 2nd quarter fund-raiser date is here. This is the point where candidates have to reveal how much money they’ve raised. This announcement can make or break a campaign. As a matter of fact, days before the Edwards attack on Ann, it was revealed that Edwards’ fundraising for the 2nd quarter has plunged. Other people will draw conclusions, good or bad, on therelevancy of your campaign based on the money you have. Complaining about Coulter has been Edwards best fundraising vehicle, so they needed her again.

As a matter of fact, the night Elizabeth Edwards called into Hardball to sandbag Ann, the Edwards campaign dropped a fundraising email about the confrontation. It included a note from Elizabeth urging donations.

And they accuse Ann of ‘lowering the debate’ and cynicism. The Edwards, IMHO, are the sleaziest people in this campaign. Sleazier than even Hillary. We don’t like Hillary’s ideas, but at least she has some. Edwards is a homophobe who is now apparently using his cancer-striken wife with the hope that people will be less inclined to question her motives or confront her. Remember, cancer doesn’t elevate or transform the moral foundation of a person, especially when they’re as opportunist as the Edwardses.

Update 2: Varmit nails the Elizabeth Edwards lame ass strategy:

Chris Mathews tried to blindside Ann Coulter. didn’t really work out that well. All Mrs. Edwards could do was demand she stop being so mean and talk about real issues. So coulter brought up a few of the real ethical deficiencies of Mr. Edwards. It soon became clear that any fact Elizabeth Edwards would rather not talk about was “mean.”

This is why I don’t often let myself be drawn into arguments with liberals. It’s more productive to just make fun of them.

Do we need a "Fairness Doctorine" at PBS?

June 25, 2007

Surf over to the Gateway Pundit and hear how PBS wants to hire and fire based on leftist political ideology.

This clip was captured during the special presentation on FOX News of Muslims Against Jihad , a program that was banned by PBS.

According to Frank Gaffney, a producer, PBS didn’t even deign to screen tonight’s program before rejecting it. Worse yet… is the blatant bias of PBS that was caught on tape. Producer Martyn Burke said this during the airing of the special on the liberal agenda at PBS:

The first thing they (PBS) told me- “Fire your partners… Because they are conservatives.”

…and then MSM just gets it wrong

April 19, 2007

No suprise there. Confederate Yankee has been pointed out factual errors made by ABC.
The best part, ABC’s Blotter is even deleting his comments pointing out the factual inaccuracies in their reporting.
At this point, I think it is fair to say the ABC is deliberately lying to press their agenda.
CY writes:

has the video of Olbermann parroting of Ross’ falsehoods.

At least one of the weapons used by the shooter is believed, as we said, to be in nine millimeter semi-automatic pistol, which would be like this one, with a clip designed to hold more than 10 shots. Clips like those were banned under the Assault Weapons Law of 1994, but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago.

I’ll try this once more, making it so easy that even journalists can understand it.

High-capacity magazines were never outlawed. They were never illegal to own, buy or sell, person-to-person, in retail stores, catalogs, or online.

Part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was the so-called Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was a ban on certain cosmetic features found on some firearms. It was, in fact, nothing more than “scary-looking gun” law.

Banned “assault rifles” were easily made legal again by manufacturers who merely had to remove the offensive accessories, such as flash hiders, pistol grip-style stocks, or bayonets lugs, none of which affected the rate of fire, accuracy or velocity of the firearms in question. Older firearms arbitrarily (and inaccurately) deemed assault weapons by the ban that were already in the market were grandfathered in, and the new “post-ban” assault weapons sold quite well during the length of the so-called ban.

Another provision of the ban was a ban on the manufacture of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” which the law defined, again arbitrarily, as those rifle and pistol magazines that hold in excess of then rounds of ammunition.

Where Ross, ABC New, Olbermann and others are dead wrong is when they attempt to imply that the ban on the manufacture of new magazines of more than ten rounds was a ban on all high-capacity magazines. This is patently false.

I’m growing increasingly tired of journalists such as Brain Ross, ABC News, and Keith Olbermann spouting falsehoods, when they have obviously been too lazy–or perhaps just to agenda-driven–to simply read the law itself, or even point a web browser in the direction of Google.

These so-called journalists have forfeited their credibility by refusing to address the truth, and instead, decided to foist upon an unsuspecting public, blatant falsehoods to further a political agenda.

We’ve come to expect our media to be biased. We shouldn’t have to deal with them blatantly, recklessly, and repeatedly lying to further their private policy beliefs.