Gingrich and the Fourth Estate

Friday, February 24, AD 2012

No one is better than Gingrich in pointing out the wretched double standard of the Mainstream Media:

 

I want to make two quick points, John. The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That’s legitimate. But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Gingrich and the Fourth Estate

  • “If you don’t read the papers you are uninformed. If you read the papers you are misinformed.” Mark Twain

    Truth.

    I go into my “wife-listening” mode until the sports and weather come on.

  • The Academy Awards could add a few new categories for re-election candidates.

  • Unfortunately, there has been little evidence of non-partisan journalism ever in that mean estate. From the days when you knew which paper in your city supported which candidates, through the yellow journalism of a century ago all the way up until today, that concept is tough to conjure and tougher still to maintain.

    The culprit is the consumer, of course, who wants to be titillated and shocked. Straightforward, unbiased reporting has a favorable demographic that’s way too far at the high end of the bell curve to be profitable.

    I submit that the closest example we’ll see is CSPAN.

  • The thing is I have no problem with partisan journalism. All I ask is that you fly your flag. Please don’t tell me you (the media) are objective. I am not stupid.

  • I like the comment of flying your flag, but that just polarizes the nation. The pundit reporting is almost like hate/rumor-mongering. It serves little purpose, except to brainwash stupid people (the majority of the US). Instead, we need un-biased reporting and we’re simply not getting it. Everyone is biased….maybe CSPAN, maybe NPR (at least they provide two perspectives).

  • Don

    The incident that resulted in the “Born Alive” bill was not a botched abortion. The pregnancy was carried to normal term then the baby was shelved to die of lack of nourishment and care. .

    What I don’t understand is why needed the law, it seems to be homicide carried out with intent and malice, which I thought was already illegal with a hefty punishment. But I’m not a lawyer, what do I know.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS II | ThePulp.it
  • The MSM is mostly unaware of their bias.

  • Hey folks, could someone running this blog please email me? I wandered over to a progressive web site and found myself literally in a den of vipers. I was curious and I learned a few things. I thought things would go more or less like they do here but boy, was I mistaken. I wanted to share them in more detail through email and get your thoughts if you don’t mind.

    Thanks,

    Big Gar, aka TemplarofTruth…

  • Progressive Web Site = Den Of Vipers. This is a fair and open blog, but please try to limit the redundancy.

    ;^D

    Thanks.

  • It seems like many years ago that journalists were more objective in reporting the facts than they are today. They may have leaned either to the Left or Right but it wasn’t as so blatantly obvious as it is today with reporters playing partisan politics.

  • Prior to the Sixties Teresa reporters were often of blue collar origin, many without college degrees. As a group they tilted to the Dems, but they often had varied experiences, including military service and working at a variety of jobs that made them a fairly eclectic bunch. Today, most journalists come out of college with similar life experiences and a standard pattern of ideological beliefs.

  • Also, as I’m fond of pointing out, reporters at the LOCAL level (weekly or small daily newspapers) do not tend to skew to the left as much as the NATIONAL or large city media do. Covering the police or city council beat in a town of, say, 10,000 or fewer people — especially when you and your spouse and children (if any) live in the town you are covering — is a far different animal from covering Congress or the White House. Plus, most journalists at the local level make very little money, sometimes barely above minimum wage (that was my situation for several years). They are nothing like the pampered talking heads you see on TV.

  • True Elaine. I think that as more and more local reporters get into blogging they will begin to have a regional and national impact.

  • I have noticed that as well, Elaine. Even when the local reporter covers politics its for a brief minute or two so they don’t have time to spin the story like the national media reporters do.

Nat Hentoff takes President Obama to task

Friday, May 29, AD 2009

Nat Hentoff’s characteristically blunt and ‘no b.s.’ columns used to be one of chief attractions of the Village Voice, before they made the foolish mistake of letting him go. Politically he’s not one you can apply a label to — in 2003 he supported the removal of Saddam Hussein’s murderous dictatorship on humanitarian grounds, but as a supporter of the First Amendment and civil liberties, harshly criticized the more excessive measures taken by the Bush administration.

Unapologetically pro-life, he is a staunch opponent of the death penalty and abortion (the latter apparently causing some tension with his liberal colleagues at the Voice) and vigorously opposed the court-ordered murder of Terry Schiavo.

Not surprisingly, he established a rapport with the feisty John Cardinal O’Connor, about whom he wrote an appreciative biography.

A self-described “member of the Proud and Ancient Order of Stiff-Necked Jewish Atheists,” he is also one who might merit the attribution: “on the side of the angels.”

Now, he takes aim at President Obama’s faux-support for “dialogue” at Notre Dame:

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Nat Hentoff takes President Obama to task

  • “No matter how much we want to fudge it … the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable”

    – I have to agree with that.

  • We rejoice in seeing that the esteemed Mr. Hentoff has found a place to hang his polemical hat- the Cato Institute, no less. His former employer, the usually Marxist Village Voice, recently terminated his 50-year relationship. So gratifying to see he is not mellowing in his golden years. Also gratifying to see that this Support Pregnant Women Bill is sponsored in the Senate by our own PA Senator Bob Casey Jr. No doubt communing with the ghost of Pop who is saying remember the family tradition and support the women and babies. Not surprising that no record exists of Dear Leader’s support for the bill- tends to shy away from those messier intramural skirmishes, like supporting La Pelosi from the Intelligence Community’s wrath. So bravo to Prof. Dr. Hentoff and ad multos annos and many more years of comforting afflicted and afflicting comfortable. In a word, embarrassing the young sellout whippersnappers holding sway in the MSM these days.

  • Oh might I add that fewer Americano writers have been more insightful on the topic of American Jazz- AKA A Legit Americano Art Form. Also worth examining from the esteemed Dr. Hentoff.

  • Nat Hentoff, my favorite liberal atheist! If one had to give an award for an unending dedication to the pro-life cause in a hostile environment, I would unhesitatingly give it to Mr. Hentoff.

  • The word “Dialogue” seems to be the latest sacrificial victim on the altar of ideological codespeak.

    Dia-logos, opening-words, seems to take for granted a hope in the existence of objective truth buried in the words of another and a sincere desire to find it.

    Doesn’t really apply to what happened at Notre Dame’s commencement, but it sounds really good.

Final Debate: Obama Lied (Once Again) On BAIPA

Wednesday, October 15, AD 2008

As Weekly Standard notes, Obama lied regarding his motivation for voting against the Illinois born alive infant protection act:

Questioned about his vote against the born-alive infants protection act, Obama said: “There was already a law on the books that required lifesaving treatment, which is why … I voted against it.” Obama and his colleagues never cited this law as a reason for opposing the bill in the Illinois Senate. More importantly, that 1975 law only protected “viable” infants–and left the determination of viability up to the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in utero.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Final Debate: Obama Lied (Once Again) On BAIPA

  • The debate starkly showed the difference between the candidates on abortion. If you think that abortion on demand is good social policy, and you wish to remove any restrictions on abortion and have abortions paid for the poor out of public coffers, Obama is your man. If you believe that abortion is an unmitigated evil and that abortion on demand must be fought against, McCain is your candidate.

  • Senator McCain: I will pick judges based on their competency. Roe v. Wade will not be a litmus test.

  • “Senator McCain: I will pick judges based on their competency. Roe v. Wade will not be a litmus test.”

    Yep and Obama does have a litmus test for justices.

  • But I guess in both cases we will not get judge #5.

  • No, if McCain is elected I think he would nominate someone in the mold of Scalia and Roberts, who he supported in the Senate. Obama voted against both of them, largely because he feared that they may vote to reverse Roe.

  • Could McCain even get the judges necessary to overturn Roe past an oppositional congress?

  • Mark,

    You can justify all your want about your decision for Obama; but you know that you are being disingenious with your comment… he said he would support a justice that goes against Roe v. Wade in the dabate.

  • He said….just like Reagan said… with Kennedy and O’Connor as the result , and Bush 41 said, with Souter as a result.

  • Mark,

    Perhaps you missed the line right afterwards when McCain said, “But a judge with a proper understanding of the constitution would not support Roe.”

    It was during the overtalk after McCain’s litmus test comment. Anyone have the exact quote on that for did they skip the overtalk in the transcript?

  • He noted for Breyer (sic?).

  • Mark,

    He said, “I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications…”

    Look at 1:45 – 2:03 on the video….

    Besides why did we get Kennedy? Was it Reagan’s fault or the Democratic Congress’ fault? We would should have gotten Justice Bork if wasn’t for the Congress.

  • Reagan buckled.

  • Though I will agree thus far: I honestly don’t know if we’d get Justice #5 from McCain. I don’t think he has a terribly coherant judicial philosophy.

    But we know that Obama’s justices would be absolutely terrible. In every respect.

    (And it doesn’t help that Obama would doubless manage to prolong the recession with his tax policies.)

    Overall, I thought McCain brought up a lot of the right stuff in this debate. But Obama was simply teflon — even when he had no principled answer he just smiled and said something glib and for a moment even I would find myself forgetting the guy is a hard leftist with virtually no experience.

    I suspect that with many who haven’t already made up their minds, Obama seemed like the winner.

  • Mark,

    He put two justices up there… and both were shot down by a Democratic Congress…. but you want a Democratic Congress with Abortionist President.

    Who is buckling?

  • Bret, thank you for pointing out the details! McCain did miss one opportunity, for all Obama’s talk on supporting abortion restrictions with the “health exception”, he did pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would effectively eliminate all restrictions. Clearly this guy is not in the mainstream on abortion.

  • That is why we need Sarah Palin debating this stuff 🙂

    Because Sarah Palin Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Alan,

    I did watch the interview with Margaret Sanger on your blog… pretty interesting stuff… really scarry stuff…

    especially about Philip Morris 🙂

Obama: Reason To Be Afraid.

Sunday, October 12, AD 2008

The [“Born Alive controversy”] does show him to be a down-the-line pro-choice legislator. In fact, the charge that Obama is the most pro-choice candidate in years may well be true (though the other Democrats were pretty pro-choice too). When I read through the legislative history, I came to believe that Obama’s general impulse was: when it doubt, side with NARAL. If you’re ardently pro-life, you are absolutely justified in being scared of Obama for that reason alone, without having cast him as a serial killer.

Beliefnet’s Stephen Waldman
by way of Marc Stricherz: “Obama’s Moral Fortitude is Questionable “
by way of Matthew Fish: “disingenuous”

Good posts, worth reading.

Continue reading...