www.editedforbias.com » media bias

Why the Left fears the Tea Party

Ed F Bias — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:41:18 +0000

Many have looked at the Left’s reaction to the Tea Party movement and question this visceral reaction. The Left labels the movement as astro-turf, fringe and most recently racist. It is obvious that the movement bothers the left in this country, but why? The left (including Hillary Clinton) oft state that decent is our right as Americans. As Media Research Center points out; and documents in images; the signs at the tea party are at least equal (maybe even more tame) then those against Bush for the last eight years. Pretty much every video of every G20 protest shows violence. Yet, no video or audio evidence of racist slurs has appeared from any of over 100 Tea Party rallies. The most recent rally in DC, even with dozens of cameras walking along with the line-jumpers, still has not created documented evidence. Yet, proof is not needed to create the outrage? Are they really ideologues, blind to their own fears and hypocrisy, is it feigned outrage, or is their something deeper?

It is important to remember that many of these folks were fighting “the man” in the sixties and seventies as young adults and teens. They called for and attended sit-ins, protests and some fringe elements even resorted to violence (i.e. Bill Ayers). I am not saying their current innate fear is rooted in the fact that they have lived through this kind of escalating protest against the establishment. That is too superficial and would only serve to increase the hypocrisy of the left. No, I think it goes even deeper and more fearful.

Eventually, the war ended, these radicals aged and the fever died down. Throughout the 80s and 90s, these radicals on the left turned their fight against “the man” to more traditional means. They joined political organizations, universities and worked for companies. From these positions they eventually infiltrated and now dominate the Democratic Party. Most honest people will not deny that today’s Democratic Party is not the same as it’s union core and very far removed from that of JFK.

In this is where the real fear lies. Those that have lived through the period from fringe radicals protesting against the man — to the leaders of the party in all three seats of power, fear they are seeing it being again. This time it is on the other side and ideologically apposed to their form of government. A group of radicals driven by a new ideology and a desire to fundamentally shift the direction of the U.S. government has again emerged. If this fire continues to burn, it will spread and likely move into all facets of government and solidify itself into society. I sincerely hope that it does not take 30 years to build this movement into the controlling philosophy of a major political party. I believe this movement is genuine (as theirs was). In today’s communication and Internet age it is spreading far faster.

Based on the reaction from the left they know it is growing as well. The power that took them 30 years to build could be at an end in a single election cycle. This is what they fear and see crystallized in the Tea Party movement.

Many have looked at the Left’s reaction to the Tea Party movement and question this visceral reaction. The Left labels the movement as astro-turf, fringe and most recently racist. It is obvious that the movement bothers the left in this country, but why? The left (including Hillary Clinton) oft state that decent is our right as Americans. As Media Research Center points out and documents in images the signs at the tea party are at least equal (maybe even more tame) then those against Bush for the last eight years. Pretty much every video of every G20 protest shows violence. Yet, no video or audio evidence of racist slurs has appeared from any of over 100 Tea Party rallies. The most recent rally in DC, even with dozens of cameras walking along with the line-jumper, still has not created documented evidence. Yet, proof is not needed to create the outrage? Are they really ideologues, blind to their own fears and hypocrisy, or is there something deeper?

Remember that many of these folks were fighting “the man” in the sixties and seventies. They called sit-ins, protests and some fringe elements resorted to violence (i.e. Bill Ayers). I am not saying their current fear is rooted in the fact that they have lived through this kind of escalating protest against the establishment. That is too superficial and would only serve to increase the hypocrisy of the left. No, I think it is even deeper and more fearful.

Eventually, the war ended, these radicals aged and the fever died down. Throughout the 80s and 90s, these radicals on the left turned their fight against “the man” to more traditional means. They joined political organizations, universities and worked for companies. From these positions they eventually infiltrated and took over the Democratic Party. Most honest people will not deny that today’s Democratic Party is not the same as its core and far removed from that of JFK.

In this is where the real fear lies. Those that have lived through the period from fringe radicals protesting against the man — to the leaders of the party in all three seats of power, fear they are seeing it being again. This time it is on the other side. A group of radicals driven by ideology and a desire to fundamentally shift the direction of the US government has again emerged. If this fire continues to burn, it will spread and likely move into all facets of government and solidify itself. I sincerely hope that it does not take 30 years to build this movement into the controlling philosophy of a major political party. I believe this movement is genuine (as theirs was) but in today’s communication age it is spreading far faster.

Haiti and Scott Brown

Ed F Bias — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:04:13 +0000

An odd combination but they have something remarkable in common… The American People.

Both have served to show, that when it comes down to it; Democrats, Republicans and Independents, there is a lot we share as Americans. The media, in pursuit of the every important rating point (dollars but the Liberals don’t like to admit it), will continue to accentuate the differences and polarize the American people. Politicians, in pursuit of reelection (let’s not kid ourselves that is money and power as well) try to convince us that crossing party lines and.or that “other guy” will destroy the country. Haiti and Scott Brown tell us otherwise. They tell us that we as Americans have far more in common.

A disaster in a foreign country, during a global recession, cannot stop the American people from donating millions of dollars or their ever-shrinking savings. Thousands give even more through their time and sweat. No political lines, no borders, just people helping people in need. It is what makes America (and the free world) special. It is what many fear is hampered by government control, mandates and heavy tax burdens. Haiti shows us that even with all that is against us; keeping us from buying a new car or a new TV; cannot kill our spirit and love of our fellow man. It took a disaster in a foreign country to break through the media and political spin and remind us of it.

That spirit lives on in all us, even in Massachusetts. Even there where a Republican public official is a rare as a Yankees fan, people came together. They came together to shatter the political spin and media love affair with all things Obama. They came together to tell Washington and the rest of the country that we are all Americans, we are still in charge and we are still free.

Those whose livelihood depends on their power in Washington will continue to fight. But I am heartened today. Today is a new day. We have taken two great steps in the direction of our founding and begun anew to walk the path destined to us. 2010 has indeed brought us a new beginning and Washington can definitely hear us now.

Fox News is not a legitmate news agency…Let’s compare

Ed F Bias — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:00:26 +0000

The Obama administration, including the president himself, have come out swinging a Fox News. They accuse Fox of pushing the Republican agenda and not being a legitimate news network.

Let’s be honest, they point to Beck and Hannity. You will hear them mention “Let’s watch together and 5:00 and 9:00 and see what we mean.” That is 2 hours out of a 24 hour news cycle (Hannity is repeated so 3 hours). Beck and Hannity have their points of view and are not news programs. They are commentary and investigative journalism. But that is not the whole of the network.

Let’s look at a few others the White House has insulted.

Neal Cavuto:

Prior to joining FNC, Cavuto anchored and hosted more than three hours of live programming daily for CNBC, including the network’s highest rated program, Market Wrap, as well as Power Lunch and Business Insiders. While at CNBC, he also served as a contributor to NBC’s Today Show as well as NBC News at Sunrise. His 20-plus years of financial reporting include a stint at PBS’ Nightly Business Report, where he was the New York bureau chief, as well as a stint at Investment Age Magazine.

Brian Wilson:

Prior to joining the FOX News Channel, Wilson was co-anchor of “FOX Morning News” on WTTG-TV, the FOX News affiliate in Washington, D.C. Wilson also served as the station’s Capitol Hill correspondent and covered the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings and the ethics investigations into then Speaker of the House Jim Wright. Additionally, he was the WTTG-TV Pentagon correspondent during the Persian Gulf War.

Wilson was elected in 2005 and in 1991 to serve as Vice Chairman of the 2500-member Capitol Hill Radio/TV Correspondent’s Association. In 1997, Wilson earned a Master’s degree with honors in print journalism from American University, where he also served as an adjunct professor in the School of Communications.

Brit Hume:

Before joining FOX News in 1996, Hume was with ABC News for 23 years, serving as chief White House correspondent from 1989 through 1996. During his tenure, he contributed to “World News Tonight With Peter Jennings,” “Nightline” and “This Week” as well as various specials for the news division. Hume joined ABC in 1973 as a consultant for the network’s documentary division and was named a Washington correspondent in 1976. He was later promoted to Capitol Hill correspondent and reported on Congress until 1988.

Earlier, Hume reported for United Press International, beginning his career as a newspaper reporter with The Hartford Times and the Baltimore Evening Sun.

He has received numerous honors and awards, including the 2003 Sol Taishoff Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism from the National Press Foundation, and a 1991 Emmy Award for his coverage of the Gulf War. The author of two books, “Inside Story” and “Death and the Mines,” Hume was named “The Best in the Business” by the American Journalism Review for his extensive news coverage of the White House.

Chris Wallace:

Before joining FOX News, Wallace worked at ABC News for 15 years where he served as the senior correspondent for “Primetime Thursday” and as a substitute host for “Nightline.” During his tenure with ABC News, Wallace hosted multiple groundbreaking investigations and received numerous awards for his work, including the Dupont-Columbia Award-winning probe of the Associates, Ford Motor Company’s finance department that allegedly practiced predatory lending.

Prior to joining ABC News, Wallace was with NBC News where he served as the chief White House correspondent from 1982-1989. While at NBC, Wallace covered the 1980, 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns as well as the Democratic and Republican conventions in those years. Wallace also anchored “Meet The Press” from 1987-1988 and anchored the Sunday edition of “NBC Nightly News” from 1982-1984 and 1986-1987. Wallace joined NBC as a reporter with WNBC-TV in New York City in 1975.

Wallace has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton and the Peabody Award.

Juan Williams:

Before coming to FOX, Williams spent 23 years at The Washington Post, where he served as an editorial writer, op-ed columnist and White House correspondent. From 2000-2001, Williams hosted National Public Radio’s (NPR) national call-in show “Talk of the Nation.” In that role, he traveled to cities across America for monthly radio town hall meetings before live audiences. Williams is currently a senior national correspondent for NPR.

The recipient of an Emmy Award for television documentary writing, Williams also won widespread critical acclaim for a series of documentaries including, “Politics:The New Black Power” and “A. Philip Randolph: For Jobs and Freedom.” He is the author of the non-fiction bestseller, “Eyes on The Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965″ and “Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary.” Williams has also written numerous articles for national magazines including Fortune, The Atlantic Monthly, Ebony, GQ and The New Republic, in addition to appearing on numerous television programs including ABC’s “Nightline,” PBS’ “Washington Week in Review” and “Oprah.”

Sounds like some pretty strong journalistic credentials. I guess they all became Republican lackeys when the joined Fox. Very similar, but the opposite effect,

for George Stephanopoulos :

Prior to joining ABC News, Stephanopoulos served in the Clinton administration as the senior adviser to the president for policy and strategy. He is the author of “All Too Human,” a No. 1 New York Times best-seller on President Clinton’s first term and the 1992 and 1996 Clinton/Gore campaigns.

Stephanopoulos received his Master’s degree in theology from Balliol College, Oxford University, England, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude in political science.

maybe Paul Begala

Begala first entered the national political scene after the consulting firm he and fellow Democratic strategist James Carville started, Carville & Begala, helped President Bill Clinton get elected in 1992. Serving in the Clinton administration as counselor to the president, he was a close adviser to Clinton and helped define and defend the administration’s agenda, serving as a principal public spokesman.

Carville?

James Carville is a Democratic strategist who serves as a political contributor for CNN, appearing frequently on CNN’s The Situation Room as well as other programs on all CNN networks. Carville remains active in Democratic politics and is a party fundraiser.

no not quite… let’s go to the big show…Katie Couric

Couric completed a 15-year run as co-anchor of NBC News’ “Today” on May 31, 2006. While at NBC, Couric was also contributing anchor for “Dateline NBC.” She was a “Today” substitute co-anchor from February 1991 before taking over the job permanently two months later. Couric joined NBC News in 1989 as deputy Pentagon reporter before serving its first national correspondent in June 1990, which included two stints covering the Gulf War.

Couric has covered most of the major breaking news events over the past 15 years, including the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center; the Columbine tragedy in Colorado; six Olympic Games, including the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing; the funeral of Princess Diana; the Oklahoma City bombing; the Timothy McVeigh execution; the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings; and the end of millennium coverage, which she co-anchored with Tom Brokaw.

Couric received the George Foster Peabody Award for her March 2000 series on colon cancer, which also led to NBC News receiving the 2001 RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence. She also has won six Emmy Awards, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Sigma Delta Chi Award, a National Headliner Award, an Associated Press Award, a Matrix Award, two American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Awards, the Harvard University School of Public Health’s Julius B. Richmond Award and UNICEF’s Danny Kaye Humanitarian Award.

That is pretty close.. Today Show?…At least it was in the ball park.

The fact is Fox is asking the hard questions, the questions that we are all asking (or should be). The rest of the media is still suffering from the Obama election and after-party hangover.

In either case, freedom of the press is protected speech and Obama is walking a line that even a well protected Liberal should not dare touch.

Dateline DC: Somewhere between 70,000 and 2 Million

Ed F Bias — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:41:53 +0000

Sounds like the accuracy of a government program? But no, it is the estimates for the crowd that gathered in DC this week 9/12 in protest to expanding Federal government and an unsustainable slope curve on deficit spending.

I do not pretend to be an expert on counting crowds. But I think a little common sense would seem to show that 70,000 is a low-ball number by the media and the left to downplay the obvious opposition that exists. Of course borrowing pictures and/or quotes from other events it not helpful either. HotAir has a few interesting links.

As way of comparison let’s compare to the “million man march.” This event, also huge and important, had approximately 670,000 according to Boston University numbers. Very controversial at the time to undercut the desired Million Man march. So much so that it was made illegal for the Park Service to issue estimates of crowds.

More recently the Presidents’ own inuguration estimates of crowd density.

So here are the most recent pictures of the crowds. Hard to accept the 70,000 number if any of the comparisons are deemed valid. You make the call.

Proof of Media Bias on display for CA Vote?

Ed F Bias — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:58:32 +0000

The CA voters (those same voters that voted for Obama 61%/37%) have voted down tax increases by about the same margin. Good news (sorry Mr. Powell, Americans do not want more taxes).

So with such a resounding defeat where did the voters get that opinion? Unlikley from their local newpapers.

Proposition:	1A	1B	1C	1D	1E	1F
San Francisco Chronicle	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Santa Rosa Press Democrat	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Los Angeles Times	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sacramento Bee	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
San Francisco Bay Guardian	No	No	No	No	No	No
San Diego Union-Tribune	No	No	No	No	No	No
Riverside Press-Enterprise	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Los Angeles Daily News	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
San Jose Mercury News	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Orange County Register	No	No	No	No	No	No

The fact that most of them referred to these tax increases and questionable budgeting maneuvers as “budget-balancing measures” might add a bit of insight into their bias.

In Summary:
60% of the CA electorate… an strong Obama electorate…voted against tax increases to balance the budget. The media in California overwhelmingly supported the measures. So it would not be a stretch to say that the newspapers in California are more liberal then population as a whole; more liberal then the population of one of the most liberal states in the union.

Huffington Post reused edited image as a different city to dig Tea-Parties

Ed F Bias — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:19:00 +0000

As you would expect the Huffington Post has a bit of an issue covering these tea-parties but this was priceless coverage.

I found this picture with the heading “Barack Hussein Obama The New face Of Hitler”– T. Romao, Chicago.”

And then further down the page in another section I found this with the heading “Obama pictured as Hitler in Philadelphia, PA–photo by Toni Romao”
Man that guy gets around, fast!

Now I could try to give them the benefit of the doubt on a typo. That this was inceidental and not intentional. But they changed the image and the caption, as well as, the city. Now they did a really bad job so maybe they are just incompitent. Is it an AMAZING coincidence that is the same guy CNN interviewed!?!?! Or are they trying to portray more of the attendees as nut-jobs? Couldn’t even find enough signs, so they had to repeat the same guy.

Though they may be a bit more subtle, the message is the same. All tea party attendees are radical right-wing fanatics. Do not trust them. Trust only government to save you. If they really wanted to get their combined act together, this is what they might have given us…Sorry for the delayed intro…

The sublety of bias… Senator Gregg edition

Ed F Bias — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:47:00 +0000

It is sometimes tough to recognize bias. Especially, when it is the terms of “exclusion”. Simply, leaving out information that might change your view on the situation. The recent situation of Senator Gregg’s removing himself from cabinet consideration is a key example.

The media is trying to spin the message as a “partisan Republican, unwilling to work with the ever-flexible and conciliatory Obama.” It fits well into their overall massage that Republicans are trying to kill the “bipartisan” stimulus bill. Which is funny since they were not part of writing it in the house or part of the negotiations on the rewrite. Only in the Senate, could this bill itself even be categorized as bipartisan.

But what did they leave out of almost all of their newscasts? The 2010 US census and the shift of power from the Commerce Department to the White House. This purely political move was one of the reasons (labelled “slight catalyzing reason” by Gregg) for his withdrawal. Yet, in the LA Times/AP story, ABC, NBC and CBS the soundbite was trimmed or skipped. But the CBS Evening News story from Chip Reid did find time to give us this, “a top Democratic source on Capitol Hill was more blunt, saying Gregg actively campaigned for the job, then’ erratically dropped out without warning.’ CNN picked it up (yeah CNN) and had this to say, “sources close to Senator Gregg say the bigger issue for him was the White House’s effort to take control of the census.”

You see the politicalization of the US census doesn’t fit the “Obama the bipartisan” or “Republicans are partisan” spin. If you mention that the shift of power by the President had an impact you could defeat your own argument and views on the subject. Of course, Gregg refusing to vote for the porkulus bill also had impact. I like Gregg’s words as they speak volumes, “Obviously the president requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.” That does not sound bipartisan. sounds like “my way or the highway”. What did the Obama team say about this, “very clear throughout the interviewing process” that Gregg could “support, embrace and move forward” with Obama’s agenda [Fox reports].

Truth is that they are all partisan. Obama is building on his left wing agenda and there is no room for a fiscal conservative. Gregg was elected because of his views by the people he represents and should not change those views to get a cabinet post or pass a bad bill. [I am happy my Senators and congressmen voted against this bill. They are performing their duty as I would expect.] Just cover the facts, put out the quotes and do not tell me what to think or hide valuable details.

The subtleties of media bias AP style

Ed F Bias — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:12:00 +0000

In a “news” story the AP shows the subtleties of bias.

So let me highlight for the purposes of education.
The first line begins the trail… “In a bold move brimming with confidence, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign … by placing a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee’s home state of Arizona.” First the article starts with Obama…ok he is “ahead” but look at the adjectives, “bold”, “brimming”, “confident”. What is this sentence would have been “In a move showcasing his over-confidence and huge sums of campaign donations, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign … by dropping a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee’s home state of Arizona.” Different spin? Says the same thing does it not?

What about the first paragraph about McCain…”McCain was spending a second straight day touring economically ailing Ohio, a swing state with 20 electoral votes that McCain aides acknowledge is central to a victory on Tuesday. McCain was behind Obama in polls in the state.” Again few changes in words and we get “McCain was spending a second straight day crisscrossing the swing state of Ohio, with 20 electoral votes the state is central to a McCain victory on Tuesday. In recent pools, McCain has closed to within 2 points in the state.”

It does not take much to set the tone and still communicate the facts. And they know it.
Based on a read of the full article you can figure out the opinion the author wants you to leave with. I could sum up this authors view in a few words. “McCain is a total loser and does not have a chance. Even his own state may vote against him.”

Next we move down to something a little less obvious then the adjectives (purposefully) used. Later in the article about McCain we have this… “McCain said. “He [Obama] wants to raise people’s taxes — that’s clear.” Obama is proposing tax increases on families making over $250,000 and individuals making over $200,000 and tax cuts for the 95 percent of workers making less than $200,000. McCain also was to campaign Friday in Columbus, Ohio, with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “

What was that… A Obama counter immediately after a McCain quote. Note that the Obama counter was not a quotation or stated as “The Obama campaign states”. It was stated as fact. A fact that is disputed and refuted by every fact check source… except AP I guess. The fact of the matter is that it is not true. If it were to say “…and income tax cuts for the 95″ then it would have been closer.

Subtle but effective.

I am sure you have all heard Republications are violent racists at rallies.

Ed F Bias — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:00:00 +0000

Have any of you heard the Secret service has interviewed their own agents, police and attendees and noone actually heard what Singleton claims he heard. But you see it must be true because the media is always truthful and there is no way he misheard it or had any bias. I am sure all of the news outlets that ran with the stories for days, spent at least some time (a blink of an eyelash) to follow-up on the Secret Service agents investigation.

Do you think Singleton will be investigated as deeply as Joe the Plumber? I would like to know how he is registered? What his religious affiliations are. I forgot that is only important to exposes the “crazies on the right wing” and not for these high minded press-folk.

Media bias is so obvious at times… but since that is “Right Wing fear mongering”, no sense in basing an opinion on the facts at hand. Have you seen the “outrage” over the verbal abuse of McCain supported in New York or the beating of a female McCain supporter with the stick of her own sign?

Pending breaking story, might be too sensational… Or the robber that scratched a B into the face of his victim because she had a McCain sticker on her car?

Update 10/24: I know what the B stands for “B…h”. She lied. Stupid people on both sides. This does not help…. This is going to allow the media to concentrate on her as the “represnative” of McCain supporters and ignore the truth about the nuts on both sides. This may change the dynamic away from Joe the Plumber and over to the Vast Right Wing ConspiracyKooks.. Let me say that I think “SB” fits better.