<\body> Stories in America: Liberal Media Strikes Again

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Liberal Media Strikes Again

The latest from Media Matters:

Media repeated Gonzales's false claim that Gore speech was "inconsistent" with Clinton administration policies
Numerous media outlets echoed Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's criticisms of former Vice President Al Gore's January 16 speech, which was highly critical of President Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic espionage in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Gonzales argued that Gore was being "inconsistent" because the Clinton administration did the same thing; in fact, Clinton's use of warrantless physical searches, which Gonzales cited, did not violate FISA because at the time FISA did not address physical searches.

Post's Kurtz on ombudsman Howell's false Abramoff claims: "inartfully worded," could "have been more accurate"
In an online chat, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz acknowledged that Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's false claims that Democrats received campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff were "inartfully worded" and could "have been more accurate."

Time's Allen and Bacon wrongly stated that funding for "Bridge to Nowhere" was eliminated
A Time magazine article wrongly stated that Congress eliminated funding once earmarked for a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, to a sparsely populated island and regional airport. In fact, while the earmark was removed from the budget, the money remained, now available for use by the state of Alaska for any reason state officials deem fit -- including for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere."

CNN photojournalist declares, "That's a nice feeling" to get a wink from Bush
CNN's Mark Walz declared, "That's a nice feeling" when President Bush "gives you a wink."

Following ABC's Stephanopoulos, NBC's Williams used partial Alito response to suggest Alito rejected strong executive power
Covering the nomination hearing of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., NBC News correspondent Pete Williams asserted that "Alito himself told the senators this week that a president does not have the power to disregard a law." But Williams based this on only a part of a response Alito gave on the issue of presidential power. In fact, Alito's entire response on the issue constitutes a legal truism that tells senators nothing about his views on presidential power versus congressional power -- that the president cannot disregard a law that is constitutional. Simply put, Alito told the committee that the president has to follow the law except when he doesn't have to.

Hewitt accused CNN of ignoring criticism of Dems in Alito coverage -- but CNN guest lineup and coverage say otherwise
On CNN's On the Story, conservative blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt accused CNN of ignoring conservative criticism of Democratic senators' performance during the nomination hearing for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. In fact, CNN featured six solo appearances by non-senators who criticized Senate Democrats over their questioning of Alito, and no solo appearances by non-elected progressive critics of Alito. Moreover, CNN offered no opposing viewpoint to counter Hewitt's baseless accusation.

8 Comments:

At 1/18/2006 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah the politics

mynewsbot.com

 
At 1/18/2006 3:28 PM, Anonymous George Clooney said...

Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President.

The Bush administration said Tuesday that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had a "few staff-level meetings" at the White House but refused to disclose who met with Abramoff or what they talked about.

"We don't get into discussing staff-level meetings," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showForPrint_new.asp?ArticleID=13

 
At 1/18/2006 3:30 PM, Anonymous george Clooney said...

November Rick "I'm a Christian" Santorum: "The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town. From my perspective, it's a good government thing."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05319/606571.stm

January Rick "I'm a Christian" Santorum: "Well, I don't know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, 'K Street Project.' I'm not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007461.php

 
At 1/18/2006 4:16 PM, Anonymous timmy said...

....Media Matters....

The organization that called Chris Matthews a "Conservative Tool"

Riiiiiight.

 
At 1/18/2006 8:00 PM, Anonymous George Clooney said...

Sure, discount their work because they call Matthews a conservative tool. Pathetic.

 
At 1/18/2006 8:15 PM, Anonymous timmy said...

I'm not disconting they're work, george. But if you're looking for a political point of reference, don't be under the illusion that Media Matters is in any way objective.

Sorry, but only the truest of True Believers would regard Chris Matthews as a "conservative tool."

 
At 1/18/2006 8:19 PM, Anonymous george Clooney said...

No one is objective these days, but facts are facts.

Unfortunately, facts don't seem to matter these days:

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
- Dresden James

 
At 1/18/2006 10:07 PM, Anonymous timmy said...

I take your point, george. But the real problem with Media Matters is not just the fact that they are non-objective, but more importantly, they are not fair.

Chris Matthews isn't a conservative tool. At least not anymore than William F. Buckley is a liberal tool -- as he was identified by the far right John Birch Society. Of course, they had "facts" to back up their claim as well.

You don't have to be objective to conclude that Chris Matthews leans left and William F. Buckley leans right as long as you are willing to interpret the evidence fairly. Media Matters, like their counterparts on the far-right, marginalize themselves by their refusal to be intellectually honest...sorta the political equivalent of the O.J. jury.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home