Archive for the ‘Bias’ Category
The Last Refuge Of A Miserable Democrat: Call The Voters Stupid
Monday, January 25th, 2010Joe Klein illustrates the anger coming from the left. The Democrats are imploding. The voters are frustrated. The horizon doesn’t look better for the libs.
Who’s to blame? Not the Democrats. Never them. It’s YOUR fault, says Joe Klein in his post titled Too Dumb To Thrive:
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.
Oh, and it’s Fox News’ fault, too.
Why can’t voters just get how awesome the President, the Democrats, their policies and the cheerleaders in the press really are? Why oh why oh why?
Idiots./sarcasm off
Christiane Amanpour Gets Tortured With Enhanced Truth From Marc Theissen
Thursday, January 21st, 2010One of the more interesting parts of the Scott Brown campaign was his defense of enhanced interrogation techniques. The Massachusetts voters approve of them, and him. Says Andy McCarthy:
It was health care that nationalized the special election for what we now know is the people’s Senate seat. But it was national security that put real distance between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. “People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.” There is a powerful lesson here for Republicans, and here’s hoping they learn it.
One of the great frustrations of the Bush years was the fact that the administration had strong national-defense and counterterrorism policies that it shied away from defending. On enhanced-interrogation tactics, for example, President Bush’s position resonates with most Americans: When the nation is under siege, nothing is more important than getting life-saving intelligence. And, particularly when we are dealing with terrorists who are trained to resist interrogation and exploit our legal system, we must aggressively interrogate them and keep them out of our legal system. The opposing position, espoused most prominently by Sen. John McCain, was counterfactual and incoherent. Senator McCain pronounced both that enhanced interrogation (which he called “torture”) never works (which is patently untrue) and that an interrogator might at most use it in a ticking-bomb situation (the last situation in which you’d want to use it if, in fact, it never works).
It seems that the American people are getting an opportunity to compare and contrast the “keep America safe” techniques of President Bush and President Obama. President Obama is found wanting. And hypocritical. And ineffectual.
The press, though, continue to pound this “torture” meme. For once, Christiane Amanpour is stopped by Marc Theissen, author of the book Courting Disaster: How The CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting The Next Attack. Here’s the clip:
The American people are very sensible. They don’t want people randomly waterboarded. They also know that the government has water boarded precisely three (3) terrorists and none have been water boarded at Guantanemo Bay.
It is atrocious that the Crotchbomber in Michigan never got questioned. I watched the testimony on the hill from America’s leading defenders–Janet Napolitano, and the DHS and the rest of the defense guys and was appalled. I thought Jeff Sessions was going to have a heart attack, he was so angry. And rightly so.
The American people don’t need a news anchor telling them that the Khemer Rouge is the same as the CIA with three confirmed terrorists. The moral equivalence is appalling.
Well, What Do You Know, Al Franken’s Vote Getter Marc Elias Has Set Up Shop In Massachusetts
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010Just great. Dan Riehl reports:
Coakley attorney Marc Elias speaking now, claiming spoiled ballots … Elias is Al Franken’s former campaign attorney. Yep.
Meanwhile, Mary Katherine Hamm has this screen grab from Coakley’s campaign yesterday, claiming fraud yesterday:
OUTRAGE: Boston Globe Calls The Election For Coakley Hours Ahead Of Time, OOPS!
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010My friend Eric at Funhouseus catches the Boston Globe reporting results in Massachusetts before they’re counted.
It’s all a big mistake.
[Associated Press] was testing an election data feed to its Massachusetts clients. During corresponding tests at our end, the feed of AP’s hypothetical test data was inadvertently posted for a few minutes on a single subsection page within ur site. As soon as the error was discovered, it was removed. We regret the mishap.”
Liberal Professors: A Type-Casted Profession?
Monday, January 18th, 2010Right out of central casting: Pony-tailed hair, elbow pads, Birkenstocks and nubby socks, spectacles and a general dislike for people, especially, ironically, young people. Seems that there’s a reason:
Nursing is what sociologists call “gender typed.” Mr. Gross said that “professors and a number of other fields are politically typed.” Journalism, art, fashion, social work and therapy are dominated by liberals; while law enforcement, farming, dentistry, medicine and the military attract more conservatives.
“These types of occupational reputations affect people’s career aspirations,” he added in a telephone interview from his office at the University of British Columbia. Mr. Fosse, his co-author, is a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard.
The academic profession “has acquired such a strong reputation for liberalism and secularism that over the last 35 years few politically or religiously conservative students, but many liberal and secular ones, have formed the aspiration to become professors,” they write in the paper, “Why Are Professors Liberal?” That is especially true of their own field, sociology, which has become associated with “the study of race, class and gender inequality — a set of concerns especially important to liberals.”
So it’s not that a conservative would have to keep his politics to himself lest he be denied tenure or tormented on his path to professorship, it’s that conservatives just don’t want to be a professor because professors are so politically typecast?
I don’t know. You can read the whole article and see for yourself.
It’s true that some professions are more female dominated: teaching, nursing, flight attendant, etc.
Political type-casting? Maybe conservatives want to be involved with something where they actually contribute something concrete to society rather than some airy-fairy intellectual exercise lost in the theoretical.
The problem with conservatives shunning academia, of course, is that there is a complete lack of diverse thought in education from bottom to top. Kids hear Marxist drivel and the ideas are never challenged. And heaven forbid a student challenge them. They’ll pay for their uppity-ness for sure.
It’s a chicken-egg thing, I think. One problem feeds into another. The solution has been for colleges to spring up that support more conservative ideology across the board. The problem is that there are just too few conservative schools.
Frank Rich Did It First, But More Would Follow: Trying To Destroy Sarah Palin And The Tea Party Movement
Monday, January 18th, 2010Here is one Mainstream Media Narrative: Tea Partiers (Baggers) are racist, mobs, hate-filled, unruly, people.
Here is another Mainstream Media Narrative: Sarah Palin is a stupid hick, a gender traitor, and a quitter.
And the Mainstream Media Narrative that underlies all narratives: Anyone who believes something other than the liberal agenda is selfish, mean, and evil. So, there goes the majority of the country too stupid to see greatness when it’s right in front of their eyes. /sarcasm
Now, the Judson Phillips’ Tea Party Nation, Inc. gathering at Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee [background here] had the potential to fulfill every single one of those narratives and give the MSM a story that wrapped everything up in a bow. In fact, the MSM was hoping to undermine the Tea Party movement, discredit Sarah Palin and vilify “rich” conservatives all in one fell swoop–hopefully the day of the convention.
Unfortunately for the MSM and fortunately for those who are concerned about the country, the shady actions of a few were exposed so as to not tarnish the vast majority of good people in the Tea Party movement. Some changes could be made to correct errors by the Tea Party Nation, Inc. founder. Sarah Palin could make a decision with all the facts and not be blind-sided.
Still, guys like Frank Rich tried to jump from this one bad actor and tarnish the whole movement. His piece was utterly predictable. He tried to say that Sarah Palin was attempting to hijack the Tea Party movement. Erick Erickson writes of Rich’s leaps in logic:
As for Palin? Rich is trying to build up activists to tear down Palin, but in fact Palin and the activists are one together. Sarah Palin is the epitome of the tea party activist — a mom who got involved in politics because the political establishment in Wasilla, Alaska was misspending sales tax revenue. Just as wasteful spending in Wasilla got her involved in politics, the federal waste and spending is getting lots of moms, dads, and kids involved in politics today.
The Left hates Sarah Palin with a vehemence that is impossible to quantify. They loathe the Tea Party folks because it is everything they’re not–true grassroots, not astroturf; common citizens coming together (not paid stooges); and people who are united by a desire to take power away from D.C. and give it to the American people.
So, if Frank Rich and others like him can tie the actions of one man to the average Tea Party person concerned for his country, he’ll do it. If Frank Rich can portray Sarah Palin as a hypocritical pol, he can defeat the most effective voice in opposition to Barack Obama and the left in general.
The Tea Party groups around the country are doing much good. They will be an effective foundation for bringing accountability to both parties.
Witness what is happening in Massachusetts. Even in a liberal state given to supporting Democrats almost exclusively, the people are rising up to send a message to elitists in Washington.
This is terrifying for the liberals. They’d like to knock down any symbols that will threaten their power.
So, the people do well to police their own. The Left accuses the Right side because they’re the Soros-funded, ACORN-defiled and SEIU astroturf kings. They are utterly corrupt and they want to dishearten Americans by painting the opposition with their own cynical brush.
The best defense against scurrilous attack by people intent on destruction is the truth. Keeping our own side clean deprives the Left of ammunition.
Meanwhile, it’s too late. The Left is losing. And they know it. That’s why they’re desperate.
Constrasting Mark Knoller’s Tweet Coverage Of Obama’s Church Speech With Mine (Unpaid Twitterer Citizen Journalist)
Sunday, January 17th, 2010Today, President Obama spoke at a D.C. area church to honor Martin Luther King Day. Gateway Pundit has the video. You can see my Twitter feed for the notable quotes, etc.
Here are some differences:
1. I admit my bias. Mark Knoller does not.
Anyone reading my coverage knows that I’m an out and proud conservative-libertarian. People read my stuff with that in mind.
That is not to say that Mark Knoller is unbiased. He just doesn’t admit it. For example, if you followed his coverage, you’d get a sweeping overview that would lead one to believe that the President’s speech was exclusively honoring Martin Luther King. You wouldn’t get the quotes about progress for gays and lesbians or the politicized comments about health care reform.
It was a political speech in a church, not a soaring ideals speech. You wouldn’t know that from Mark Knoller’s coverage. It’s what Knoller left out that demonstrates bias. This is a much more insidious form of bias because people don’t know what they’re missing.
2. I link to competing news sources. Mark Knoller does not.
For example, Knoller’s network was not covering the speech live. MSNBC online did cover the speech live.
So I linked to the coverage so people could watch, and discern, for themselves.
Those following Knoller’s feed would have to take his word for it. That’s too bad. On Twitter, a person can follow all network feed while watching another network video live coverage in another window. It’s not really competition at all. It is also incomplete news.
3. I link to “competing” Tweeters. Mark Knoller does not.
Well, I don’t view them as competition. I view them as different points of view. Period. People can take what they want from them.
So, I Retweet Knoller or Matt Lewis or Philip Klein or Jake Tapper or Mary Katherine Hamm or Matt Drache or Steve Green or any other news source who is offering information about the subject. That includes lots of people you haven’t heard of, but who I follow on Twitter. I retweet regular people and give their opinion the same weight as Mark Knoller. If he or she says something worthwhile, why does it matter WHO says it?
Mark Knoller’s feed is all Knoller all the time. It’s just limited, is all.
It is great that Mark Knoller is on Twitter. I like his Twitter feed. I have, however, noted more than once what he’s omitted salient information.
Following Major Garrett and Jake Tapper often fills in the blanks and leaves me wondering about subtle bias. On Twitter, bias is revealed rather easily. When multiple sources live-report an event an observer can see them.
Twitter is the great equalizer.
What does this mean for the future of news aggregation and assimilation? I don’t know.
I have linked to local people with webcams and big orgs like MSNBC. I have linked to heavily compensated pundits and average citizens like me who are especially insightful (or stupid–and I don’t mean just the citizens).
The media world is flattening. Between YouTube and U-Stream, Blogging, Twitter and other outlets, news and entertainment are becoming more merit-based.
There will always be room for a guy like Jake Tapper or Andrew Malcolm who are adapting to the new media forms. People will pay them for their content either under a big brand or on their own. They are safe.
Well, they’re as safe as anyone is in this morphing economy and accelerating technology.
The Tea Party Spirit Of Scott Brown’s Supporters
Sunday, January 17th, 2010I have heard twice now that Scott Brown’s supporters aren’t Tea Partiers, they’re Democrats and Independents. Who says that Democrats and Independents can’t believe in the spirit of the Tea Party? Nearly all Americans are disaffected with out-of-touch government leadership.
From Time:
“Given the often contrived and polarizing
conflict that dominates the cable-TV landscape, it would be easy, on
the outside looking in, to slap a Tea Party label on Brown’s
supporters. But most of those lunging for his hand were not lunatics
from the fringe, merely Democrats and Independents feeling bruised,
ignored and taken for granted by people in power.”
First, the Tea Party folks are not the fringe. They enjoy more approval than either the Republican or Democrat party. Second, on what planet do the media live? All Americans, of all political persuasions, are sick of the government. One only has to look at Nancy Pelosi’s approval ratings to know that she’s pretty universally reviled. Ditto Harry Reid. Do the delusional press think that only Tea Partiers are fed up and skewing these approval numbers?
Gottta love the disconnect. And THAT’S why I say that all incumbents, Democrat and Republican, should worry. The American people are disgusted. If I were a Republican Senator or Congressman, I wouldn’t be too smug. They’re likely to get primaried and ousted. This is happening everywhere.
The American People have had it. It’s not just fringy nut-bags like the media, and really, those in power, would like to imagine. It’s a “throw the bums out” year. There are a lot of bums.
Media Willfully Missing Story Again: Doesn’t Fit The Narrative
Thursday, January 14th, 2010Erick Erickson continues his week-long tear. He’s going for it and now going after the press for missing the obvious about the Scott Brown race and the conservative support he is overwhelmingly receiving from across the country:
The narrative, of course, is that conservatives want a totalitarian pure party with a purity test for the GOP. You want gay marriage? No way. Pro-choice? No support. For government assisted health care options? We don’t recognize you. At least that is what the media claims.
So the media has and is ignoring the alliance between left and right among the GOP in Massachusetts.
Scott Brown is not a conservative. He makes no pretension of being a conservative. He defends Romneycare, which most conservative have rejected. He is pro-choice. But he is for less government interference in the free market and less spending. Like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, he is the perfect sort of Republican candidate for New England.
Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund is supporting Scott Brown. Marco Rubio is supporting Scott Brown. RedState is supporting Scott Brown. We, well . . . I, suspect he’ll give conservatives heart burn as New England Republicans do. But all of us know he is a good, pragmatic fit for Massachusetts. He’ll vote against Obamacare and he’d vote against a second stimulus. Conservatives do know, despite media and liberal Republican (called “moderate” by the media) claims to the contrary, that the GOP needs 51 seats in the Senate to have a majority.
Of course the press isn’t covering this. As I noted two days ago:
Conservatives don’t want to concede ground in places like Massachusetts and Maine. They just want the Republicans there to at least adhere to fiscal conservatism. The social issues don’t play as well there. People get it. Conservative people get it to the tune of $1.3 million dollars in 24 hours. That’s how much average citizens want health care reform to die. They are putting their time and treasure on the line to get Brown elected.
The Republican party still has a big tent. Big enough even for Ted Kennedy’s old seat.
Amazing. The press missing a story.
Americans, You’re On Your Own: Obama Golfs, Napolitano Duffs, The Press Carries Water
Sunday, December 27th, 2009
The Obama administration reacted to the terrorist attack on Christmas day with its usual aplomb: that is, they are tone deaf and in denial yet again.
President Obama has blithely continued his vacation, which even displeases liberals:
Some things are too important to delegate to a subordinate, or manage through a blackberry.
It’s December 27th, and people are getting ready to travel for New Years Day. They’re going to get patted down, sniffed and searched. They will not be able to get up for the last hour of their flight. And God knows what else.
They will be inconvenienced, in a way that I’m sure every sane human being on the face of the Earth hoped that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab had been.
And even if it were only for appearances – even if it were simply to make people know the Commander-In-Chief was in front of whatever buttons and levers are at his disposal to act and react to threats to this nation – the President should have been inconvenienced as well.
And the underlings are saying crazy, unbelievable baloney:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says investigators did not have enough information to keep a terror suspect from boarding a flight bound for Detroit and that the system worked as it should have.
The bomber was banned from Britain. I don’t think the security worked as it should.
Just in case you’re a little unnerved about the governments non-response response, the press is here to sooth you. Marc Ambimber does it best:
There is a reason why Obama hasn’t given a public statement. It’s strategy.
Here’s the theory: a two-bit mook is sent by Al Qaeda to do a dastardly deed. He winds up neutering himself. Literally.
Authorities respond appropriately; the President (as this president is want to to) presides over the federal response. His senior aides speak for him, letting reporters know that he’s videoconferencing regularly, that he’s ordering a review of terrorist watch lists, that he’s discoursing with his Secretary of Homeland Security.
But an in-person Obama statement isn’t needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN’T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation.
Ooooh, strategy…. Sounds so official and mysterious and important…or the President doesn’t think terrorism is a big deal and really, he preferred to go golfing. Or that.
This reaction demonstrates more weakness. Being a President is as much symbolism as it is substance. I would like to remind our political betters, the nuanced ones, on the left that all of America rallied behind President Bush for his handling of 9/11. They liked tough words. They liked tough action.
Americans are more terrorism-savvy now, but this sort of thing alarms everyone. This is another confirmation that we are, in fact, at war. Ignoring the war while on the fourth tee does not mean that it is not happening.
The President and his underlings look ineffectual or worse, uncaring. The American people won’t get the relentless pictures portraying an indifferent Bush after Katrina because the press still loves Obama. But the American people are wise to that too as the approval ratings show.
Worst of all, this weakness emboldens America’s enemies. They know President Obama doesn’t have the stomach for war. They know he’s trying to appease Muslims. But again, his condescension reins. This war was never with Muslims generally (America saved countless Muslims in Iraq and they know it), it was with terrorists (rich terrorists) and the states that support them specifically. But the left conflated this reality and fed the bile which fed the enemy propaganda machine.
So, is the President willing to back-pedal yet again? If his golfing is any indication, no. His administration has decided to pretend. The moment is already lost.
Americans are left with a fear greater than fear of terrorists: That America lacks leadership and experience. No suicidal jihadist provokes as much fear as a weak President.
Americans, you’re on your own.
