President Obam Changed Speech To Schoolkids And The Press Helped Him
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009Ace is talking about the buried lede from the Washington Post:
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
So, what is more troublesome? The scrubbing? No, that’s good. The speech was rife with b.s. as it was…it could have been worse. No, it’s the cozy relationship the White House has with the press–like the Washington Post.
Please. Using Huffington Post and bloggers and pundits as a shield. Really, now. Why doesn’t the Washington Post just come out with it and explain why they were so helpful to the President during the Education talk debate?
Press: Give Up The Pretense, Wait You Kinda Have…
Monday, September 14th, 2009I’m waiting for the public announcement by CNN saying that they want to clarify their editorial perspective and that they’re biased to the left. Wouldn’t that be freeing for everyone? Stop the pretending to be objective and just clearly state a bias. It’s not like they’re even attempting to report unfavorable Obama news.
Imagine biased press conferences. On the one side, the conservative press people. On the other side, the liberal. The President could go back and forth between the sides and people could see the difference between the questions. They could decide who to listen to. They could decide who is fair.
They would also see 80% of the press line up on one side which is why the press has numbers like what Don Surber reports: Only 19% of people believe the press is fair.
So, they’re already considered biased. Why not make the covert overt and be done with it?
Levi Johnson Living The American Dream: Sleeping His Way To Fame
Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009As a way into liberal prominence goes, nothing quite beats screwing literally, or metaphorically, a conservative to achieve fame. Levi Johnson has done both. He is, literally, a fame whore.
Vanity Fair will be giving him valuable pages in the next edition. I have not given him any space because he is a complete knob.
However, because he now has been given the national stage, his statements from the national stage need to be examined. I am not going to do it, but I suggest you go over to Conservatives4Palin.com to see Levi’s lies debunked. Here’s one such debunking:
For example, here’s some of the things Levi was saying about the Palins earlier this year:
“They’re good people,” he said. “They don’t push me, you know. They kind of — they don’t really tell us what to do, they don’t tell us, you know, they’re good people. So I like ‘em.”
And:
“They always treated me like a son. I mean they were — they were real nice to me. And I thought of her as like my second mother. You know, Todd was always, you know, a great guy and helped me out with a lot of things. So I mean they welcomed me.”
Quite a difference from what he’s saying now. After Rex and Tank convinced Levi that the truth doesn’t sell, they’ve resorted to complete fabrications intending to create scandals that they can profit from. The more outrageous the stories they come up with are, the more publicity opportunities they all get. In the latest example, they’ve concocted a story that is so laughable, it’s difficult to imagine anyone reading it can keep a straight face:
” Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him. That way, she said, Bristol and I didn’t have to worry about anything. Sarah kept mentioning this plan. She was nagging—she wouldn’t give up. She would say, “So, are you gonna let me adopt him?” We both kept telling her we were definitely not going to let her adopt the baby. I think Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good, and she didn’t want people to know that her 17-year-old daughter was going to have a kid.”
Go read the whole thing. At first, I kinda felt sorry for this kid being dragged into the limelight. Now, it’s patently obvious that he knows that making money will only come by milking his five minutes of fame. As long as he provides Palin-damaging fodder for the press, he’ll have a platform.
Levi Johnson should just go away, but he won’t. He has too much to gain by staying in the spotlight. But more than that, the press so hates Sarah Palin that they’ll use this boy up in service to their political desires.
Sarah Palin remains the biggest threat to liberals which is why guys like Levi Johnson remain in the press.
White House Pentagon Profiling Reporters
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Well, it doesn’t look like the Pentagon was telling journalists what to write, they just did ops research on the journalists to chart and graph what they write and predict future favorable/unfavorable behavior.
I’ve had mixed feelings about embedding reporters. However, with Al Qaeda and the Taliban as enemies, getting reporting would be nigh to impossible because they like killing reporters [Daniel Pearl]. So, it seemed like a possible necessity.
Anyway, the White House has “profiled reporters” too, I’d guess. No one more masterfully manipulates them individually and collectively than Barack Obama. So, he’s either got an internal computer deciding who to call on when, or he’s got an Axelrod with a bulging file filled with research on individual reporters–who to use for which story, when to allow a certain person to ask a question, etc. Nothing is left to chance with these people.
Only Helen Thomas has had the sense thus far to see how she’s been managed and manipulated, but she has a very long history to draw upon.
As to the Pentagon. It would seem to me, that doing background checks on reporters would seem wise. And then, one thing leads to another. As long as reporters weren’t told, at gunpoint, what to write, it seems like no big deal. Besides, reporters are independent-minded and above these sorts of head games, right? These are the people, who with straight faces, claim to be objective. So any sort of influence by the military would be negligible, right?
I mean, they’re not influenced by President Obama.
Podcast 33: Media Bias & Malpractice With Dan Gainor
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, Townhall, and Newsbusters joined me to discuss the media’s bias–both covert and overt–and how it shapes public opinion. It does work. The media does shape opinion, even though most news organizations have moved to a British model of journalism. The difference is that a Brit journalist will admit his bias, whereas an American journalist likes to view himself as objective. His delusion makes him more dangerous.
Below, you’ll see some links to some other podcasts. I’d like to draw your attention to Steve Schippert of National Review Online Threat’s Watch. His show is a must for anyone wanting to stay informed about world events. He lays out what is happening strategically with North Korea. I highly recommend listening to his show.
Melissa’s show can also be found on RFC Radio every Monday and Wednesday night at 10:00 pm Eastern.
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
– Also, don’t forget to check out our other shows on Take That! –
*** click here to grab the latest Steve Schippert Show ***
*** click here to grab the latest Brass Balls Radio Episode ***
*** click here to grab the latest Raisin’ Hale show ***
Axelrod: Latest In Obama’s Culture of Corruption
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009Have you read Michelle Malkin’s book yet? If not, you should. And, in case you missed it, listen to my podcast interview with Michelle about her #1 New York Times best-selling book.
David Axelrod has long history, intertwined with Michelle Obama, of corrupt dealings through his consulting. Now, he’s handling those dirty dealings from the White House. Michelle says:
Hey, Bobby Gibbs: Tell us again. Who’s funded by the evil health care industry? And who’s motives should you be questioning now? According to Bloomberg, AKPD continues to work with Axelrod “on ’strategy and research’ for the Democratic National Committee.” Why no full disclosure until now? Why didn’t Axelrod recuse himself from his Obamcare lobbying TV appearances given the strong, interest-conflicted odor emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania?
There will be more of this and the press will continue to demonstrate a breath-taking lack of curiosity. Curiosity and questioning motives only works on Republicans, it seems.
#Righton Interview: Ed Morrissey of Hotair Interviewed Me At Right Online
Monday, August 17th, 2009Here’s the link. Ed Morrissey and I have a great time together. I look forward to when he comes on my show.
Camille Paglia Reveals More Than Flaws In President Obama’s Handling Of Healthcare
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009Is there such thing as a skeptical liberal? It seems not. Or they’re as rare as white tigers which is why the get displayed like exotic zoo animals.
That Camille Paglia is always so noteworthy simply reveals how the Left marches in ideological lock-step. There should be lots of thinking people on the Left pointing out shortcomings here and there, but no. So the always interesting Ms. Paglia says:
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
Pardon me, but that’s rather obvious criticism and the only place we’re hearing it is on the Right. Why?
Do thinkers on the left have no intellectual integrity? Are they incapable of criticizing their own ideas? Have they no compunction to question?
That’s what is really interesting about Camille Paglia. She seems to be a rare breed of cat. That’s too bad.
Americans For Prosperity Answers Rachel Maddow
Thursday, August 6th, 2009The Left possesses stunning hypocrisy when it comes to being funded by policy groups. Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity explains it all. Please watch. You won’t look at NBC in the same way again:
Network Executives Get No Pity
Monday, August 3rd, 2009Losing $40 million to host the Obama gab-fests? Turning into a big propaganda arm for the Leftist government? Selling your soul and your credibility to be pals with your ideological hero? Poor, poor television networks.
If the major networks go over the economic edge because their lips are forever locked on the President’s butt, may they all go down in a ball of flames together. That network executives said yes for fear of being out of favor with this administration speaks volumes about not only the President’s tactics but about their own ideological bent.
Like I said way back, he conducts press conferences like he’s daring any reporter to ask a tough question. They will comply or they will be cut off. He holds the power and the reporters better acknowledge it by obsequious behavior….or else. There is always a threat inferred or implied when dealing with Barack Obama.
In short, spare me the crocodile tears. The networks essentially told President Bush to Eff Off for eight years and coverage was anything but fair–it was nearly always hostile. Ironically, President Bush respected the networks’ profit needs. And now, Obama acts, surprise!, entitled to network time whenever he wants it. And the networks do not deny him. They dare not–as if they want deny him anyway. They desire to please the master, so they comply, willingly.
