Tag Archives: Media Bias

News

Washington Post blogger is an advisor for the Obama administration

Leave a comment

Story from Big Journalism. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Ron Brynaert has a story over at his The Raw Story blog that reveals yet another denizen of the Old Media trying to be both a “journalist” and an operative of Barack Obama’s administration. She is Patricia McGinnis, an unpaid advisor at the White House and also one of the contributors to the Post’s “On Leadership” blog.

Once again we see the Old Media working hand-in-hand with the Obama administration and putting the lie to the idea of the “independent journalist” in traditional media outlets, this time with the Washington Post. Even worse than this collusion, though, is the fact that the Post somehow forgot to inform its readers of this little detail.

[…]While the position is unpaid, her work for Obama certainly would seem to be a pertinent fact that readers might want to know in order to assess the veracity of her work in the pages of the newspaper. Mysteriously, though, her work with Obama is not mentioned in her official bio on the Washington Post’s website.

[…]Just last month the Post’s supposed conservative blogger, Dave Weigel, had to quit when it was revealed his personal politics were extremely leftist, although he had presented himself as a conservative to both the readers and the editorial board of the paper.

That’s why newspapers are dying – they can’t be relied on to be objective. It’s just propaganda. If you don’t have two people on opposite sides talking, then it’s not objective.

News

Mark Steyn asks whether Fox News is more biased than CBC or BBC

1 Comment

Story from Maclean’s magazine.

You all remember that I had written about how a Quebec news media billionaire was contemplating the launch of a center-right news network in Canada, modeled off of Fox News? Well, guess what? The government-run CBC and the government-run university leftist professors are not pleased.

Mark Steyn explains:

Meanwhile, back at the CBC, Don Newman explains it for us: “Fox News has been hugely polarizing. It specializes in drive-by attacks and misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian at times, claiming to be ‘fair and balanced’ while implying that its competitors aren’t.
“The reality is that it mainly spews out propaganda that is dangerously misleading and often factually wrong.”

Again: example? Just one?

Now I’m not a responsible, objective, neutral journalist like Mr. Newman. But even we hyperventilating schoolyard bullies spewing to the converted and debasing all others know enough about passing ourselves off as journalists to be aware that you can’t just declare things to be so without producing some evidence thereof. And yet Messrs. Dornan and Newman spend, between them, 2,000 words doing just that. Surely with so many “drive-by attacks” and so much Orwellian bombast to choose from, it would be the work of moments to produce some devastating sound bite by this or that right-wing blowhard. Otherwise, it risks looking a bit like—how would one put it?—a “positively Orwellian” “drive-by attack” by someone “claiming to be fair and balanced” while insisting his competitors aren’t.

And what about the BBC?

A couple of weeks ago, the BBC’s so-called “Ethical Man” Justin Rowlatt presented an analysis of professor James Lovelock’s assertion that “climate change” is so serious a crisis that it “may be necessary to put democracy on hold.” As a BBC host, Mr. Rowlatt is scrupulous not to have any views of his own; he merely presents those of others—and, as he put it, “there is a growing view that mitigating climate change means we have to change our view of democracy.”

Really? That view is “growing”? Certainly in the BBC green room. Six of the seven experts interviewed by Justin Rowlatt were in favour of suspending democracy—i.e., fascism. But don’t worry: it’s to save the environment, so it’s eco-fascism, which has a nicer ring, doesn’t it? The show concluded with Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute insisting that “the condition of the planet for future generations is more important than the retention of democratic principles.” The BBC, paid for by the citizenry, has just broadcast a lavishly produced advertorial for totalitarianism.

It’s worth a read. Fox News dominates the cable news ratings race – no other network comes close.

News

Support plummeting for Obama and his mainstream media supporters

Leave a comment

Obama support plummeting among people who work for a living.

Excerpt:

During the week of June 7-13, only 46 percent of Americans overall told Gallup they approved of the job Obama is doing as president, tying for the worst week of Obama’s presidency. Two weeks ago, forty-six percent also said they approved of the job Obama is doing, and last week 47 percent said they approved.

But when the president’s approval is separated by incomes groups, it is only the lowest income bracket recorded by Gallup—those who earn less than $2,000 per month—that gives Obama a majority approval rating, with 52 percent saying they approved of the job he is doing as president.

Obama support plummeting with married couples and church-goers.

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama’s weekly approval rating is at an all-time low for his presidency, according to the Gallup Poll, and it is especially low among those 65 or older, those who are married, and those who attend church every week.

During the week of June 7-13, 46 percent of those surveyed told Gallup they approved of the job Obama was doing as president, while 46 percent said they disapproved. In its analysis of the poll results, Gallup points out that equals the lowest weekly approval rating Obama has received since his inauguration. Two weeks ago, in the period from May 24 to May 30, Obama’s approval and disapproval ratings were also at 46 percent, but a week ago (May 31-June 6) his approval increased to 47 percent, before dipping back to 46 percent again last week.

Obama’s highest weekly approval rating—67 percent—came in the week he was inaugurated (Jan. 19-25, 2009).

Support for the mainstream news media is also way down.

Excerpt:

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports shows that a majority of Americans are angry at the media.

The survey of 1,000 likely voters found that 66 percent of voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33 percent who are very angry. The poll did not differentiate, however, between news outlets such as CNN and Fox News Channel.

Voters have said consistently in surveys that they believe the media has a liberal bias and most reporters try to help the candidates they want to win. Prior to Election Day in 2008, 51 percent of voters said that most reporters were trying to help Barack Obama win the presidency.

“Americans have spoken and they are livid with the media,” L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, said in a statement. CNSNews.com is a part of the Media Research Center.

“A new Rasmussen poll found an astonishing two thirds of American voters are at least somewhat angry at the media, including an entire one third who said they are ‘very angry.’ That’s disturbing but unfortunately, not surprising,” Bozell said.

If they excluded Fox News from the “media”, the disapproval numbers would be a lot higher.