Olympic Highlights?? Newsworthy?

Here are examples of what the MEDIA thinks is important to report on regarding the Olympics:

150,000 condoms were passed to athletes by the Olympics committee.

Michael Phelps is a cold creep because he wouldn't talk to a female Olympian

The Queen had the temerity to look down and pick at her fingernails during the long opening ceremonies

Michelle Obama appearance outshined The Duchess of Cambridge (REALLY? :-) Are you kidding?

There's more...all negative, all gossipy, all sickening.

Thanks, Media........"Happy Olympics, happy dignity, happy athletics, happy times to you, too."  REAL CLASS, huh?

Whatever happened to DECENCY?

Z

The Right is VIOLENT! MURDEROUS! ...oh, wait.......

Do NOT miss the Jon Stewart video below where he is SKEWERING of ABCs Brian Ross for his LIE.   Brooke has it at her wonderful blog and I swiped it because Mustang sent me this article and they complimented each other, BUT VIACOM HAS BLOCKED IT SINCE I PUBLISHED IT LAST NIGHT so you'll have to click on her link here and see it, it's SO well worth it.  Can't let their hero look bad!  BY THE WAY...VIACOM HASN'T BLOCKED MANY, MANY JON STEWART VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE...WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THIS ONE SKEWERING BRIAN ROSS GOT AXED?  ODD?

But please read this first.....we all need to know what's going on....

Media assumptions that violence is right wing are routine — and routinely wrong.

On Friday morning, Brian Ross of ABC News speculated on live TV that James Holmes, the accused killer in Aurora, Colo., was a member of the Tea Party.  A few hours later, Ross posted a short apology online; Holmes had no Tea Party connection.

Ross’ unfounded speculation wasn’t unusual (although the speed of his apology was).  This was merely the latest case of media commentators jumping to the conclusion that violent atrocities should be attributed to members of the political right.  Let’s look back at how often the media has falsely invoked Tea Partiers and other “right-wing nut jobs” in the past few years.

* September 2009: The discovery of hanged census-taker Bill Sparkman in rural Kentucky fueled media speculation that anti-government Tea Partiers had killed him.  In fact, he’d killed himself and staged his corpse to look like a homicide so his family could collect on life insurance.

* February 2010: Joe Stack flew his small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.  The media immediately suggested that the anti-tax rhetoric of the Tea Party led to the attack.  In fact, Stack’s suicide note quoted the Communist Manifesto.

* That same month, a professor at the University of Alabama, Amy Bishop, shot and killed three colleagues at a faculty meeting.  The gun-loving Tea Party came under immediate suspicion.  But Bishop was a lifelong Democrat and Obama donor.

* March 2010: John Patrick Bedell shot two Pentagon security officers at close range.  The media went wild with speculation that a right-wing extremist had reached the end of his rope.  Bedell turned out to be a registered Democrat and 9/11 Truther.

* May 2010: New York authorities disarmed a massive car bomb in Times Square.  Mayor Bloomberg immediately speculated that the bomber was someone upset about the president’s new health-care law.  The media trumpeted the idea that crazed conservatives had (again, they implied) turned to violence.  In fact, the perp was Faisal Shahzad, an Islamic extremist.

* August 2010: Amidst the debate over the Ground Zero Mosque, Michael Enright stabbed a Muslim cab driver in the neck.  It was immediately dubbed an “anti-Muslim stabbing,” with “rising Islamophobia” on the political right to blame.  In fact, Enright, a left-leaning art student, had worked with a firm that produced a pro-mosque statement.

* September 2010: James Lee, 43, took three hostages at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters in Maryland.  The media speculation was unstoppable: Lee was surely a “climate-change denier” who’d resorted to violence.  Oops: He was an environmentalist who viewed humans as parasites on the Earth.

* January 2011: Jared Lee Loughner went on a rampage in Tucson, Ariz.  Again, the media knew just who to blame: the Tea Party and its extremist rhetoric.  In fact, Loughner was mostly apolitical — a conspiracy theorist who, to date, has been judged too mentally incompetent to stand trial.

The media’s habitual blaming of the political right is endemic and incurable.  Media figures sincerely believe the right wing is violent, so naturally assume that violent people must be right wing.  This won’t be the last time they make that mistake.*** (see below)  (Z: by the way, the majority of that's only in one year, don't forget)

Gabriel Malor is a lawyer and blogger in Washington, DC.Twitter: @gabrielmalor\

Z:  *** particularly before the upcoming election.   Liberal Americans don't seek the truth;  they swallow the media's lies.

Trayvon and Tyrone......you draw your conclusions

So, we have another Black/White vicious murder, but this time the rape of an elderly White woman is involved.  HERE is the information.  A young Black man rapes and kills woman and badly beats her husband.  But does the media care? 

I'll just leave you here with the last two paragraphs from Doug Giles' article linked above:

I wonder if President Obama is going to lecture the nation on this despicable act and tell us something similar to what he said regarding Trayvon’s shooting, namely:
“It is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together—federal, state and local—to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to ask ourselves how does something like this happen? And that means that we examine the laws, the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.”
Will Spike Lee and the New Black Panther Party tweet Tyrone’s address and put out a bounty on the remaining pieces of crap who have yet to be arrested for killing Nancy and brutally beating Bob? Spike and his ilk are all about “justice,” correct? Or is it more about “just us”?

Z reader;  What do you think of this?

By the way.  HERE is the page that opens when I Googled the name TYRONE WOODFORK (the guy who did this crime).   Anything from the NY Times on this?  No, of course not.  But it's covered by plenty of Conservative Black and White blogs who think this is horrible and both the crime and the media and Obama hypocrisy should be addressed.
In comparison,  I Googled the name TRAYVON MARTIN and got THIS result.   Sure...NY Times, ABC.News, USATODAY, Washington Post...ALL the big ones, you know the drill.  OUTRAGE that a "White" Hispanic (remember how the NYTimes played it till they had to retract that description?) might have killed an innocent Black kid, but zip on a nice old couple like this:

-The Straits just celebrated their 65^th wedding anniversary.

-Bob served in the 101st Airborne Division in WWII.

-Bob loved woodworking, and Nancy loved quilting.

-The couple used to sit on their porch and play the guitar and sing together during the warm summer evenings.

Happy anniversary, Bob...we're so sorry you lost your beloved wife in such a brutal manner and we hope you live through your injuries.  Your family matters to most good Americans, too.  God bless you and your family, who is probably grieving at least as much as the Martins are.   Just sayin'. 

z

FOX NEWS, not Al Qaeda's preference

David Ignatius wrote an article about Al Qaeda and the plot to kill Obama....HERE is the link.
In this link, I found the following thoughts of Bin Laden's media guy, the American Al Qaeda creep, Adam Gadahn:

“It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News let her die in her anger,” Gadahn wrote. At another point, he said of the networks: “From a professional point of view, they are all on one level — except [Fox News] channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too.” 
Ignatius adds:

"What an unintended boost for Fox, which can now boast that it is al-Qaeda’s least favorite network."

One can only imagine what Al Qaeda would look on as 'objectivity' :-)  As one who's probably overly interested in how the media portrays the news, I thought this was fascinating.
GOOD FOR FOX.

z

Herman Cain..."...a racist birther?" :-)

It looks like Herman Cain's been writing a fairly regular column for a site called WorldNetDaily.  The amazing article linked HERE has the title HERMAN CAIN  HAS WRITTEN 113 COLUMN FOR "BIRTHER" SITE. 

Yahoo's homepage featured the article I linked above on their headlines page with the headline HERMAN CAIN WRITES COLUMN FOR BIRTHER SITE with the 'subheadline' "The GOP hopeful's link with a website that pushes conspiracy theories could be a liability".  Is Yahoo NUTS?  When I saw it was WorldNetDaily which is the paper he writes for, I knew it was a site that's dedicated to a lot more than the birther issue, a LOT more, so that made me curious.  Doesn't the Yahoo headline "HERMAN CAIN WRITES COLUMN FOR BIRTHER SITE sound like it's a BIRTHER ARTICLE he's written?  But, the article clearly admits "Not one of Cain's 113 columns BROACHES THE TOPIC of Obama's birth!"   WOW.

If that's the case, why is the headline news very, very obviously inferring otherwise?  Unless they're trying to put in peoples' minds that Cain is a birther?  And, really, wasn't it legitimate to question Obama's birth when so many facts looked very iffy?  And isn't the term 'birther' a pejorative the Lib media used to make the curious look like loons?  I suppose the purge has started, particularly when we see Morgan Freeman and Samuel L Jackson saying that stupid and laughable lie that Tea Partiers are racist because they want Obama out!   This is the kind of thing we'll have to expect leading up to the election, I suppose.  Don't forget, Americans like Freeman and Jackson and WILL hear what they say and not question it.  Thankfully, some Americans will hear what they say and, admire them or not (and who can't admire Freeman's acting?), they'll say "are they NUTS?  what's racist about them?"   But, I digress..........

I think most people understand that WorldNetDailyis a site where its owner believes Obama's not a legitimate American citizen and he has no problem pointing out fact after fact backing his beliefs, but does anybody think WorldNetDaily never carries anything but that subject?  Can nobody write for it without the leftwing media suggesting that writer shares all that paper's beliefs?  WND's been around for years, before Obama was a glint in his party's eye.  Cain's said it's a question which was worth looking into...is his curiosity wrong?

Can every writer for the New York Times be labeled FAR LEFT NUT because they write for them?  If a writer does a piece for PLAYBOY, does that make them a porn fan?   I found this treatment of Cain's writings unfair and even a little shocking, do you? 

z

Democrat Media COMPLEX? Fakery? (you bet)

HERE is an excellent article about the Democrat Media Complex........if you're as interested as I am in the lies and distortions and even faking the news by the Leftwing media, please read this really good piece by Joe Newby of the Spokane Conservative Examiner.

A note to my leftwing commenters:  Check the information out before dismissing this.   HERE is only one link proving that the points are correct.  I did the homework.  Enjoy. 
By the way...this post dovetails with the one below........take a look;  pretty amazing media fakery there, too.

(thanks, Imp)
z

The media is starting to actually SCARE ME now

A little history before I get to the scary part of this story:  I sent a link to our friend and fellow blogger Mustang Monday morning.   My commentary to Mustang on it was about how Yahoo had misleadingly featured a headline that read simply "Michelle Bachmann : Hurricane is God's message to politicians"  Obviously,  the headline made her look like a total nut.  When you clicked on that headline link, you found THIS ARTICLE with the text of what she said and a very different story.  In that article, there was embedded a video from CNN.  Believe it or not, the CNN news readers were actually (gasp) on Bachmann's side.  They admitted that "to read what she said came off very differently than how it sounded when you watched the video of her saying it, you can see she's joking!"...one CNN woman even added "...and, really, didn't some of us also jokingly think the same thing about God causing this stuff?"  I was pleasantly surprised at the fair handling of Bachmann by the CNN people.

Here is the unnerving part:.  Later in the afternoon, I saw the headline again..  I clicked on it again in the hopes of blogging this to show you all exactly how misleading that abbreviated headline was, that I thought it was done purposefully, and how pleased I was with the CNN video embedded in the article.  That's when I found out that  THE VIDEO HAD BEEN REPLACED BY ONE FROM MSNBC (click on underlined words) UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY MOCKING BACHMAN.  CNN's video, in that very SAME ARTICLE,  same site, etc., was GONE.  No more truthful, sane surmisal about Bachmann's words.........it was all back, basically, to "WHAT A NUT!"

The disappointing thing is I'd hoped YouTube might still have CNN's coverage of it, the good, honest coverage but it's not at YouTube.  I'd have loved to have shown you the difference.

Should anybody be truly 'scared' of the media these days?  We all know there's misinformation and insult to the Right in the mainstream media.....but to CHANGE A VIDEO from complimentary to terribly misleading and condemnatory?    The article is under THE TICKET, and I see it is a Yahoo imprint...so this was Yahoo's doing.   So, what do we do....sit around and hope this changes.......that we get a country back which doesn't have a dishonest media?

Media: TELL THE TRUTH.  STOP the misleading in the mainstream media........this is ridiculous.

z

THE ECONOMY.....first GOP Campaign ad?

I have nothing to add.  Except I wish EVERYBODY would borrow this from Opus and blog it...I'd hope it would be a GOP campaign ad but I doubt it will be.  Please give it a watch and please send it to your email list....... It's something people need to hear......

Unbelievable.

z

News Corp..........guiltier than........what?

So, the Wall St Journal's not too happy with how the rest of the media's covering the News Corp. scandal.  Here's a clip:

The News Corp.-owned Wall Street Journal blasted critics Monday for double standards and insisted that the phone-tapping scandal in Britain should not tarnish all of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

The powerful Journal, the flagship of Murdoch's US print operations, also warned that pressure to investigate News Corp. under US laws against bribing foreign officials could backfire on the entire media.

"Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?" the country's leading financial newspaper asked in an editorial.

I can't say that I blame them for their outrage; even though I find hacking into phone lines disgusting and insupportable other than to find information that could save lives, like in the case of known terrorists on phone lines.


My first thought, when I saw the heads begin to roll and FOX being dragged into this especially at CNN (over and over again....to the point where even CNN's reporter suggested they're doing this story more than they might), I couldn't help but think of the times the New York Times has published information that our government has asked to remain classified because they were against the public interest.  

Also, has any of you seen this much tumult and disgust on the part of the media over what Julian Assange at Wikileaks has done? 


No, I didn't think so.   Typical. 
I just saw THIS....News Corp "10 Most Wanted"...man, the media's reveling.

(Also.......I hope you enjoy the little respite provided by the lovely photos by my stepdaughter below)
z

Romney seeking employment....media on the alert

Mitt Romney to voters: ‘I’m also unemployed’

 by Holly Barry...for Yahoo!


It's a line that's sure to come back to haunt Mitt Romney.
At a campaign event in Florida today, the 2012 Republican frontrunner met with a group of unemployed workers who talked about their challenges looking for jobs in the struggling economy.
After they concluded, the former Massachusetts governor suggested he should tell his own "story," according to the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny.(another article's in that link)
"I'm also unemployed," Romney replied, with a smile.
The comment was clearly meant to hint jokingly at Romney's bid for the presidency, but it was also an odd statement coming from a candidate whose financial situation is so far removed from his audience's. A former head of Bain Capital, Romney is said to be worth at least $200 million—wealth that has enabled him to concentrate on running for president full time for the better part of the last five years.
But Romney's audience was in on the joke. According to Zeleny, the group "chuckled" along with Romney, with one man asking, "Are you on LinkedIn?"

Z: Are we really this sensitive now?  And do we allow leftwing columnists to set the mood and the tone?  Both Miss Barry or Mr Zeleny mentioned  how the crowd chuckled good naturedly with Romney at his comment about being unemployed but both imply this was problematic for him.    REALLY?  When the group there, in the context of the moment, didn't find it troublesome?  Isn't it a joke?  They know what employment he's seeking......they know he doesn't need a job.
We need to be careful when we read these things...........but, are most Americans?  I think not.   

z

Debate Musings........

I watched the debate tonight and did use Rich Galen's Debate Score Sheet.... it helped, in a way, to gather the thoughts.   Here's my take:  

First, CNN's John King became the Joy Behar of politics;  he was almost twitching to get them to be quiet and I was distracted by his constant "but...but............but...alright...but..." the second anybody went over a minute.  How can any substantive response happen in one minute?  It was like a Miss America contest.."What do you think the world needs!?"  they had about enough time for "World Peace!:-)"   The questions asked of presidential candidates deserve at least two minutes, don't you think?


CAIN:  As usual, he was pretty vague.  I'd like to hear a little more solutions and less his never-ending overview of "first we have to define the real problems".. SO, define them, already, we had little time for you to speak but we were listening.   (I also like thin crust pizza better :-)

BACHMANN:  As you must have heard, she announced she is running tonight.  She was calm, cool, confident, and knows her stuff.  She's also optimistic;  one of the most striking attributes of all the candidates tonight was optimism;  nice to hear, for a change.  I thought she scored big points tonight and that the audience liked her a lot.


ROMNEY: I thought he scored points pretty effectively when he responded about Obama basing his health care plan on Massachusetts ... Romney said "why didn't he ask me what Massachusetts did wrong?"  that hit the mark.  He got the fewest questions and seemed perturbed by that.


PAWLENTY:  Missed some really good opportunities in which to set him apart.  He wimped off the Obamney Health care thing, etc.  Not good.  But, I think he's very bright and very, very sincere and, sadly, that sincerity can sometimes come off as too eager, a little unconfident, and I don't think he's that.  I liked his Right To Work stance and how he explained it.... His cringe quotient is a tad too high still....but I liked him tonight. (I like Coke more than Pepsi, too!)


SANTORUM;  Confident, informed...great answer on illegals.  I'm first generation American, too, my mother is such a proud naturalized American citizen that I used to say that she made our house during the Bicentennial year make the White House look unpatriotic. I mean, she had Americana everywhere.  (even too much for ME ;-)  Santorum is well spoken and has good values and had some smart answers.

RAND:  Had a lot more fans than I'd have thought in the audience, especially regarding his foreign policy.  That surprised me.  I think a lot of Americans are just about done with the Afghanistan/Iran situation.   He said a very stupid thing, in my opinion, when he suggested marriage should be a church thing and not a government thing;  how the heck do you ignore the fact that so many legal situations arise from marriage; like ownership of real estate, taxes, inheritance.  I'm not a fan, but I didn't think he's utterly unthinking...and that seemed really dumb to me.


GINGRICH:  I thought he scored points on having questionable people in an administration at the White House.  I don't think he's very confident because he's constantly sneaking furtive looks at the audience; that surprises me.  He did well tonight, especially considering that he'd dug himself into quite a hole lately.  But, ...there's 'ick' factor there for me.   A high cringe quotient....trying to hard. (check out the image above)

THIS surprised me...Britain's TELEGRAPH calls the Palin email frenzy as  "enhancing her reputation" as “idealistic, conscientious, humorous, and humane,”   Interesting.   Score one for her.  Who knew?

Rich Galen just emailed his subscribers and disagrees with me on Bachmann;  hated her answers and thinks she ought to get her application for president back.  He thinks Romney won because he was softballed questions, etc.   He completely agrees with me on the John King style...and how they only had one minute for such heavy material.

What did YOU think? Have a favorite?  Least favorite?
z

Obsessing on Sarah.....Why?

UPDATE:  My commenter MAJOR reminds us all that this is the same liberal media which fought against the Patriot Act.  Having added this point this morning, NOW read this:!

As some of you know, I am no longer a fan of Sarah Palin, but this email story has interested me...She has not said she's running for the presidency, but, according to this source (all of which I've printed below), everybody wants to see her emails!   WHY?  They went through her garbage outside her home and office for months, they looked into every single personal family situation they could possibly come up with....why? They say she has no chance of winning, so WHY this?  The request for these records was in 2008, after she was tapped to run as VP candidate with McCain.  Did anybody on the Left have records like these demanded of them?
Here's the piece and, within it, in red, are my comments.......

After nearly three years of delay, the state of Alaska has released 24,199 pages of Sarah Palin's emails from her first two years as the state's governor later today. 
News organizations have been fighting for access to the emails since 2008, when reporters filed open-records requests to view the messages shortly after John McCain tapped the then-largely unknown governor to be his running mate.
State officials dragged their feet on the requests--in part because of the volume of the data and the complexity of retrieving all of the emails. The messages set for release at 1 p.m. EST include emails from Palin's official state account, as well as a private Yahoo account that she frequently used to communicate with her top aides and her husband, Todd.
According to the state, Palin gave Alaska officials a CD of relevant emails from her Yahoo account.
The messages date from Palin's first days in office in December 2006 through September 2008—a period that covers most of the presidential election, but not her time as McCain's running mate. This release of correspondence also does not include her final tumultuous 10 months in office—Palin resigned in July 2009—though there have been public records requests for those emails as well.  (Why?  She's out of the governorship and gave good reason for leaving, which everyone seemed to dismiss, why ask for the emails now?)
Palin insisted earlier this week that she doesn't believe there's any big news in the emails. "Every rock in the Palin household that could ever be kicked over and uncovered anything, it's already been kicked over," she told "Fox News Sunday."
And indeed, her lawyers were able to review the emails before they were released to the media. According to the state, many of the emails set for release today have been heavily redacted, while 2,275 pages are being withheld for reasons including executive privilege. Another 140 pages are being held back because they were deemed unrelated to state business.
It's unclear if anything in the emails could harm Palin's potential 2012 presidential bid--but the drip, drip, drip pace of the documents' release could potentially prove most damaging. (which, of course, is the point...at least this author was honest there.  Is the DNC paying for this?) The former governor's emails are being released in printed form, as opposed to electronically. Seventeen news organizations and individuals are in Juneau today to begin combing through the messages, which are spread out among 85 boxes that reportedly weigh 50 pounds each. That means Palin's messages are likely to be more than just a one-day story.  (SEVENTEEN NEWS ORGANIZATIONS?  WHY?  Did they request John Edwards' information? William Jeffers'?  Charlie Rangel's?  They did really questionable things...so why not?)
Some media organizations, including the Washington Post and New York Times are looking to "crowdsource" the documents in hopes of funding any nuggets about Palin's time as governor.  MSNBC, Mother Jones, and ProPublica are reportedly working on assembling a database of the emails. Meanwhile the Anchorage Daily News has partnered with ABC News to scan the documents and get them online.  (Are they KIDDING?  WHY?)
The episodes of most interest in the emails are likely to be Palin's messages during various ethics inquiries during her first term. That includes the scandal known as "Troopergate," in which Palin was accused of pressuring public safety officials to fire her estranged brother-in-law, an Alaska state trooper who was going through a bitter divorce from her sister.
But more than anything, the emails are likely to shed more light on Palin's day-to-day as governor—a time that, in spite of her rise on the national political scene, is still engulfed in plenty of mystery.  (Her days as governor is engulfed in mystery?  really?  Why do so many Alaskans admire her so much?)

Z:  Is the Left at all embarrassed about this?   Do they see what this looks like to anybody with a brain?  She inspires SO MUCH HATE that it's breathtaking.........and she's not even said she's running!  WHY THE HATE?  WHERE IS THE GREAT THREAT?  They're scared to death of her.  What is UP?   I don't admire her anymore....I don't like the grandstanding, the open family book, the exploiting of her brand, the "always there Palin" ...but WHY THE HATE?   Even if she was running, has ANY CANDIDATE INSPIRED ANYTHING LIKE THIS MEDIA FRENZY?   Maybe if we'd just asked for 1/100th of this information from Obama........but, alas.
 
By the way....a very important part of this story, one that supports my own feelings on this, is the COMMENTS PAGE of the article I liked above.......almost all asking the same questions I have.  One says :

the media OBSESSION with this women borders on some sort mental disorder that these people have and quite frankly it is starting to become a bit scary.

 
You can say that again. 

UPDATE:  I wrote that post Friday and found this Friday night....Oh, the media is so disappointed!  Read a few of her emails HERE.

z

O'Reilly and the News Wars

WASHINGTON WHISPERS
by Paul Bedard*
May 20, 2011

In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.
In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.
"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.
But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."  (Z:  Trust information from both sides?  Maybe people just aren't used to it?  This guy's assertion is as biased and dumb as people who think Wolf Blitzer's any less bias than their least favorite Fox journalist!)

The key finding in the telephone poll of 1,070 likely voters is that network news is dying. Some 28 percent say that they trust Fox News the most, followed by CNN at 18 percent. After that, the trust in TV news nose dives. NBC was third, at 10 percent, MSNBC fourth at 7 percent, CBS and ABC tied at fifth with just 6 percent.
"In short, American's TV news preferences have come a long way from the sainted Walter Cronkite telling us, 'That's the way it is,' or Huntley saying good night to Brinkley, or Dan Rather," says Stephen Hess, the presidency and media scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Suffolk offered 28 different TV news personalities for poll takers to decide from on the trust question. As a result, the results were in single digits.
But of the top 10 most trusted new sources, O'Reilly is king, at 9 percent. CNN's Anderson Cooper followed at 6 percent, Fox's Mike Huckabee at 4 percent, Fox's Sean Hannity at 4 percent, Wolf Blitzer was sixth at 3 percent, followed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews at 3 percent, NBC newsman Tom Brokaw at 3 percent, CBS anchor Katie Couric at 3 percent and ABC's Diane Sawyer at 3 percent.
Being in the middle of the Top 10 was good for Blitzer, host The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. He tells us, "Happy to be Number Six. It's a very nice number—always has been one of my favorites."
Media Matters' Rabin-Havt added that it was encouraging that at least Cooper was second behind O'Reilly. "That's a very good sign," he says. "That would give me hope."
There was tie for last on the list. CNN's Elliot Spitzer and NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory each were the pick of just two of the 1,070 poll takers.

"Most interesting are not the tiny percentages for individuals, but rather the contrast of Broadcast vs. Cable," he tells Whispers. "ABC-CBS-NBC together nets 22 percent on the most trusted compared to 53 percent for CNN-MSNBC-Fox. The three broadcast network anchors combined only get 10%, compare to O'Reilly alone who gets 9 percent and CNN's Wolf-Anderson 9 percent," he adds.

*Bedard, for US NEWS & WORLD REPORT is faaaairly, shall I say ..."fair"?   I think so.  Worth a look.  (I'd have used Blitzer's image but he's so much even more biased than Cooper I couldn't have him here)

z

Progress or Brick WALLS?..with two updates you'll want to see (sort of!)

Can real progress be made in this country on any subject?   How does one forward a conversation into an area of possible progress if, when a Conservative says "But, I don't agree with Al Gore on Climate Change" he's accused of being anti-clean air or water!?  How do we discuss health care and come up with viable when the Left says "Conservatives don't care about the elderly or the sick and simply have no plan!"    How do we talk about helping the poor when the Left says "We will pay for everything you need and the Right won't, so vote for us!"?  Or how about when the Left suggests that, because all of the Right does not support abortion and doesn't want to pay for abortions out of tax dollars, they don't support women? How nuts a conclusion is that?  And then, of course, the lie is that anyone against gay marriage hates all gays.

I don't know a Conservative who hates gays, hates clean water and air, hates and won't help the poor, hates women or wants the elderly ignored.....  I mean, how much sense does any of THAT make?   But, suddenly, when the implications of these things are constantly echoed in the mainstream media or in universities, we have millions of Americans who buy into that and vote thanks to insult, not education.

This leaves NO ROOM FOR BENEFICIAL CONVERSATION AND PROBLEM FIXING.  This just creates a big BRICK WALL.  Do you see that?   This is the perfect storm for liberals;   nobody has to think, nobody has to venture any solutions..."the Right is hateful, and that's that.........what can you expect?"

To have real solutions in America, misrepresenting, mocking and maliciousness by the media and the Democrat machine doesn't help.  Sure, Conservatives try to get their licks in at the Democrats, too, but there's something so insidious and wrong about the conclusions the Left falsely draws in, for example, those points in my first paragraph are something beyond normal Left/Right criticism that's expected in everyday politics. We need to break through that............or we'll continue to be in big trouble.  UPDATE:  Mustang has THIS VIDEO you might want to check out;  it exposes things any media would have CREAMED any Republican for, but NOT their OBAMA!  ANOTHER UPDATE from Born Again American...Check THIS VIDEO out!  AMAZING.  The bias and obfuscation and playing up to the Left by our media reaches levels of almost shock, even FOR ME!

But, what do we do?  Apparently, votes are more important than integrity and even more important than America..

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ

The World didn't END?

SO, the world DID NOT END, huh?  I barely gave this a notice, of course, but Dennis Prager on his morning show today said something like "what Christians predicted did not happen Saturday......"
Really?  "Christians?"   Christians know that Scripture tells us that if someone thinks they know the day of the Second Coming, that is the surest day ever that He won't come then! "Christians"?   Did YOU Christians here at geeeZ spend all your money advertising the "rapture"?  Did you spend all your savings on billboards advertising anything?  I didn't think so.  Neither did I.   My Pastor on Sunday gave a good sermon, beginning with how, on Friday, he kind of thought "What the heck, why bother if we're going to be departing tomorrow?"  He got a giggle and he followed with ".........so, I went with Plan B and wrote a sermon, anyway!"

But, be that as it may, here's the phrase from the article linked above which really got to me, another media 'twist' that's utterly misrepresentative and unfair:

Camping's PR aide, Tom Evans, told the L.A. Times that the group is "disappointed" that 200 million true believers weren't lifted up to heaven on Saturday while everyone else suffered and eventually died as a series of earthquakes and famine destroyed the Earth.

Really?  So the writer, Liz Goodwin, adds her version of the "End Times" and makes it sound like this Camping fellow is not only disappointed that millions weren't in heaven around cocktail time on Saturday but that he's disappointed "everyone else" didn't suffer and eventually die as a series of earthquakes and famine destroyed the Earth.  REALLY?  Is that what Christians WANT, for people to be left behind in nightmare scenarios?  :-)  Of course not.

Here's a guy who followed Camping but has the best statement of all:
But Bauer is not angry at Camping for his false prediction. "Worst-case scenario for me, I got to see the country," he told the paper. "If I should be angry at anybody, it should be me."

All he had to have done was read the Scripture.

There is also Mark 13:32, "Concerning that day of the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."    And yes, there are many verses which do tell us to be ready,  I know that........but, for the purposes of this post and my information, I'll leave you all with that.   Please, let's leave it there in comments.  My purpose here is to show yet more media bias but mostly to remind us all to be smart and vigilant and do our homework when we hear of "Christians" who forecast these types of things.  Anything more is a level of theological discussion we can't have here, unfortunately, and we all know what's happened in the past when we've tried. Thanks for honoring my request.

Amen.

z

Leftist hypocrisy at its worse.........

Please go to Mustang's blog HERE and watch the most amazing LIBERAL HYPOCRISY you can imagine.
Please send it to others, too.
Our fellow blogger friend CUBE left the comment I quote below at Mustang's, the sentiment of which I totally share and a sentiment which should utterly humiliate any decent, thinking, true American Democrat:

"What I find frustrating is how few are questioning the hyprocrisy of the left."

Where is the media?   Do decent Democrats find it acceptable that they've spawned a media uncaring about the truth, uncaring to at least question real hypocrisy because they like the talkers?....unreal.

thanks, Mustang...it's a public service.

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ

Birth Certificate.........FINALLY! ?? UPDATE: This post is MOVED UP because there is SO much more information to discuss....please see newer comments

This is a post from yesterday but the situation's not going away and I wanted to continue the discussions, so please check out the comments section and weigh in.

Original Blog:
Who's the dope?
Since I've discussed the birth certificate here from time to time (mostly from the angle of "why keep it private if it's there and can be proven?"), I figured Obama's supposed 'closure' should be my closure, too.  But, there's a lot of action on my sitemeter for THIS article I posted a while back about why Obama would spend nearly $2 million to keep the birth certificate hidden.  Perhaps others had the same thoughts I had this morning when he sauntered out to the microphones and basically called anybody who questioned his not having provided definite proof the minute the controversy arose a dope.   So, who's the dope? 

SO, I found THIS piece, from a blog that appears otherwise fairly neutral, and from which I copy/paste below in italics:

We should note that, since Obama was elected, a number of federal cases related to the birth certificate issue — including several filed by or with the assistance of California attorney Orly Taitz, a leader among Obama birth certificate questioners — have been handled by federal attorneys, including those with the U.S. Department of Justice.
We interpret the quotations by Trump and Palin to mean payments made by Obama in a personal capacity, not in cases where he’s represented in an official capacity by government lawyers. For one thing, both Trump and Palin used the term “legal fees,” which would be irrelevant in a case defended by government lawyers.  (Z: why would anybody necessarily interpret it that way?  I believe the point is that a lot of money was spent by ANYBODY (turns out it's yours and mine now!)...isn't that enough of a curiosity?)



But, while we don’t know exactly how much the Obama camp spent on their private lawyers, there were many, many non-birth-certificate duties that a law firm typically handles in the wake of a presidential campaign, which suggests that any birth certificate work was a small percentage of the overall fees paid to Perkins Coie.   :-)   (Z; does it suggest that, really?)

This comment from that blog sums it up for me:

Doug,
Thanks for clearing that up. I feel a lot better knowing that it wasn’t Obama’s millions fighting the release of the birth certificate. It was the taxpayers money.

And so, NOW WE ARE DONE!   He was BORN HERE and it just took him two years to show us the certificate because he's been 'distracted' with government business!   AND he got every network and all the local stations cutting into normal programming for his explanation about his birth certificate ...  as he even said (so cunningly), he doesn't get that for MUCH MUCH more important issus! So WHO made this an issue? :-)


Let's hope the sun's set over this one.  I, for one, am very happy this is over.......and I hope, if it's all true, it stays over.  Maybe even the "why two years?" question will disappear.   Should it?  By the way, he sure got a good slam in this talk this morning, didn't he?   "We've got enormous challenges here!"   "I've got other things to do"   And he spoke as if every Republican only talked about this issue......quite a campaign speech again.  And all the networks and every single local station.  about a birth certificate whose authenticity could have been put to rest two years ago.  unreal.  Come to think of it, maybe we ARE the dopes.

Aloha
z

Drones, dead soldiers and their dads..............

Do you think THIS INFORMATION is better released once all details are known?  There's been an apparent friendly fire tragedy in Afghanistan.

From the linked article:  Military officials in Afghanistan declined to provide any details, saying only that it was a friendly fire incident. "A formal investigation will determine the circumstances that led to the incident," the International Security Assistance Force said in a statement last week.   But reports from the field indicate that the Marines who were under attack mistook Smith and Rast for militants heading their way and called in a strike from a U.S. Air Force Predator, one official said.

Here is the most stunning part, this man deserves our utmost respect and sympathy:

Smith, 26, and Rast, 23, were with the 1st Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment, a reserve unit in Houston.
Smith's father, Jerry, said he didn't want to place blame for what happened.
"Whoever that young man or woman was, they didn't send that drone over there to kill my son or Doc Rast," Jerry Smith told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "If it was a royal screw up, it was a royal screw up. Make corrections because I don't want another family to have to go through this."
He said "trying to put a bigger burden on that person who fired the missile is not something I would do." "I guarantee you if he was standing in front of me, he'd be asking for forgiveness, and I would give it to him," Jerry Smith said.

That's the media's windup ("Drones kill our own kids") and here's the pitch ("they're getting more drones"  You do the math):

Under pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Air Force has dramatically increased the number of armed and unarmed drones in the war zones over the past three years..
The Pentagon plans to add another $2.6 billion in drone targeting and surveillance equipment for the Afghan campaign this year, according to a senior intelligence official in Afghanistan. The boost is an acknowledgment of the new focus on intelligence, for a mission that previously was last in line for assets and personnel after the war in Iraq, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.  

How much information given by anonymous officials needs to be told to the world?
I suppose the soldiers' parents know so it's not information that is classified...and so I suppose it can be printed for the world to see.........but I sure do wonder sometimes why we need to give so much information before all the information is in.....especially the kind of information given by anonymous officials........And what do you think of Mr. Jerry Smith?   THAT is grace, my friends........grace under REAL fire.   God bless him and his family and the family of Rast, too.

z

Newspapers and who reads them...............kind of cute

Maybe most of you've seen this before but I don't think I had and a friend just emailed it to me.........It's pretty clever...

An easy guide to keeping political news in perspective...
 
 
1.  The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
 
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run  the country.
 
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
 
3.  USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times.  They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
 
4.  The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
 
5. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
 
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care, as long as they can get a seat on the train.
 
8.  The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated. (probably on the Bar Car on Metro North)
 
9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
 
10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for.  There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are gay, handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy -- provided, of course, that they are not Republicans.
 
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
 
12. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.  Z: Or need something to hold over their heads because of the rain!

Got another one you'd like to post or a critique of any of the above?   Let us have it!

z

Couric and Lauer.........what a boost for Obama!!??

HERE is an article about Katie Couric leaving CBS and talking to NBC's Matt Lauer about doing a talk show host together starting in September 2012.  A glitch in their proceedings is that Lauer's TODAY SHOW contract is up only at the end of 2012 and she needs to get her show up by September. 
Lauer's pretty capable, but imagine that the experts in this field feel that  "....NBC can be counted on to make perhaps the biggest offer in television news history to keep him at “Today.”   Really? MATT LAUER is worth that much?  WHY?

 











What caught my attention is what a boon this could be for the Left.   Neither Couric nor Lauer have ever shied away from displaying their liberal politics in sly or overt ways so I'm guessing this could be, for the Democrats, a fantastic couple of months of free advertising/campaigning just in time for the 2012 November election.    

Check this out from the above link:
In 2006, Mr. Moonves looked to do the same thing for his news division, which was still battered by attacks on its former anchor, Dan Rather.  (odd that he's now considered 'battered', huh?  After the lying he did against Bush, remember? Don't look now, but I think Bush was battered, not Rather?)

Here's even a better paragraph you must read:
“I think she was really resurrected by the interview with Palin. It was a game changer in the campaign,” said Ms. Muller, who is on the committee that gave Ms. Couric a Walter Cronkite award for her impact on the 2008 election. “I think it really, really showed us what she is capable of. I play it for my journalism classes when I teach interviewing techniques.”    A journalism prof shows Couric's interview of Palin, who most think did so badly in that interview....imagine the 'lesson' that gives the sycophantic students!  I loved that one...oh, but there IS NO BIAS IN JOURNALISM THESE DAYS, right? :-)  (yes, a lot of sarcasm there!)

Here's my bigger point:  I wonder if the DNC would pay NBC enough to get Lauer out of his contract?  


ya think? 
z