As Economy Struggles, Confidence In Obama Wanes - Jay Levine, cbs2chicago.com:
You wrote, "[People] understand President Obama didn't create the crisis; he inherited it..." Nothing like unbiased journalism!
This article acknowledges the Chicago public's decreasing confidence in our president's policies, but seems desperate to conceal just how pervasive and deep is the discontent. You claim he enjoys a 51 percent approval rating in Chicago, yet quote only Obama supporters and reluctant critics, and say, "it's hard to get people here to criticize him". That's ridiculous! With only 51% approval in the Chicago area there are no critics to be found? You’d be more truthful to write, "it's hard to get the media here to criticize him." Your article is a case in point.
This article isn’t serious journalism. It's apologetic fluff, the sort of softball propaganda that merits little but ridicule, and a search elsewhere for some real news coverage.
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
ABC happy to insult Jesus and His followers
All Hail? Apple Expected to Unveil 'Jesus' Tablet Today - ABC News
The casual use of the name of Jesus is scandalous to many Christians, who love Jesus and worship Him as God.
It's one thing to acknowledge within the article that some have referred to the new Apple device as the "Jesus tablet". But to make that the focus of the article's title is unnecessary and truly in bad taste.
ABC is displaying a crass insensitivity toward the religious sensibilities of many individuals. Would ABC insult Islam in this way?
All Hail? Apple Expected to Unveil 'Jesus' Tablet Today
...Though Apple has been characteristically quiet on details, industry watchers say all signs seem to point to the announcement of a device so hyped it has been dubbed the "Jesus" tablet...
The casual use of the name of Jesus is scandalous to many Christians, who love Jesus and worship Him as God.
It's one thing to acknowledge within the article that some have referred to the new Apple device as the "Jesus tablet". But to make that the focus of the article's title is unnecessary and truly in bad taste.
ABC is displaying a crass insensitivity toward the religious sensibilities of many individuals. Would ABC insult Islam in this way?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Media supports administration's interference in auto industry
Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News
The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:
-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.
"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?
And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?
The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:
"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."
-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.
"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."
"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?
And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
ABCnews: where propaganda is called news
"Troubled Times for Republican Party -GOP Divide
We're going to take a closer look at an intense debate within the Republican Party: whether it can attract new voters by becoming more conservative or more moderate..."
-Charles Gibson, World News Report, 5/13/2009
ABC proposes a political spectrum whose endpoints are "conservative" and "moderate".
The adjective "moderate" can be defined as "kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous..." -Dictionary.net
For ABC, the reasonable, not-extreme "moderates" are opposed by "conservatives", who, obviously, are not "observing reasonable limits", and by contrast are "excessive, extreme,..." perhaps even "violent".
What happened to the familiar "conservative / moderate / liberal" model, or "right / centrist / left"?
Many liberals -including those largely dominating the media- don't want to view themselves as living near the extreme of any political spectrum. They prefer to view themselves as inhabiting the reasonable, high ground above and in opposition to one extreme: conservatism, that radical fringe. Appropriating to themselves the term "moderate" redefines political discourse, obviously in their favor.
Liberals are the new "moderates". They can't be criticized for being "too liberal", because "liberal" no longer defines a political extreme. And of course, nobody can be "too moderate".
For them, today's "moderates" embrace all that was once considered "leftist", "liberal", or "progressive". Those who don't, can't be "moderate", and belong to an immoderate and even extreme fringe.
Clearly this is the premise of the entire ABCnews report: that the Republican Party is too conservative, and needs to become more moderate in order to attract voters.
Could the Republican Party be floundering because it has failed to be clearly and enthusiastically conservative? That it has become too liberal and too much like the Democratic Party? That it has compromised its conservative principles and become nearly indistinguishable from its opponents, and consequently has alienated large numbers of conservative voters? ABCnews may have considered this possibility, but didn't find it worth addressing in their report.
Monday, February 02, 2009
NBC trashes pro-life ad featuring Obama
NBC trashes pro-life ad featuring Obama -World Net Daily
To: Victoria Morgan, vice president of advertising standards at NBC Universal
Dear Ms. Morgan,
NBC's decision to reject the CatholicVote.org ad, "Life -imagine the potential", is most disappointing and reflects badly on NBC.
I've seen this ad and was impressed by its positive message.
NBC's explanation that it would "not allow advocacy ads" rings duplicitous in light of its position toward PETA's ad. It invites people to conclude that NBC's advertising policies are really subject to a political agenda.
Shame on NBC. Two thumbs down.
To: Victoria Morgan, vice president of advertising standards at NBC Universal
Dear Ms. Morgan,
NBC's decision to reject the CatholicVote.org ad, "Life -imagine the potential", is most disappointing and reflects badly on NBC.
I've seen this ad and was impressed by its positive message.
NBC's explanation that it would "not allow advocacy ads" rings duplicitous in light of its position toward PETA's ad. It invites people to conclude that NBC's advertising policies are really subject to a political agenda.
Shame on NBC. Two thumbs down.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Joe the Plumber reports... You decide
Joe the Plumber is now a war reporter in Israel | csmonitor.com
The contemptuous attitude of the CSM article about Joe The Plumber's new gig as a correspondent in Israel is an example of why people, starved for objective, factual news, increasingly are abandoning newspapers for other sources.
Perhaps it's no wonder that so many papers are failing or cutting back, just as the Christian Science Monitor recently cut back from daily to weekly publication. And it's no wonder that the Monitor lost $19 million in 2008.
Drop the sneering agendas, check the facts, report the news. Maybe people will want to read your paper again some day if it still exists.
The contemptuous attitude of the CSM article about Joe The Plumber's new gig as a correspondent in Israel is an example of why people, starved for objective, factual news, increasingly are abandoning newspapers for other sources.
Perhaps it's no wonder that so many papers are failing or cutting back, just as the Christian Science Monitor recently cut back from daily to weekly publication. And it's no wonder that the Monitor lost $19 million in 2008.
Drop the sneering agendas, check the facts, report the news. Maybe people will want to read your paper again some day if it still exists.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The media's continuing saga of victimization
Bloomberg.com: California Gay Couples `Suffering' as Foes Exult in Wedding Ban.
2008.11.06
To: Joseph Galante, Reporter for Bloomberg
Joseph,
The title of Your article, "California Gay Couples `Suffering' as Foes Exult in Wedding Ban" betrays the article's bias, presenting homosexual couples as victims gleefully oppressed by a tyrannical majority.
A more objective and balanced headline would read simply, "California voters reject legal redefinition of marriage". The reality is that a faction of homosexual activists have repeatedly attempted to impose on the public an unpopular redefinition of marriage and family, and this effort has been rejected by a majority through the democratic process. That this has happened in California, widely perceived as a socially liberal state, is extremely significant.
I would have been very interested to read a factual account of this development and the factors leading to this outcome. Instead, what I found in the Bloomberg article was more of the saga of victimization so prevalent in the "mainstream media".
There is an intense and growing public contempt toward the mainstream media, and people are turning increasingly to other sources in search of real news and objective analysis. I submit to You that primarily this is because people are sick of leftist political activism being dressed up and sold as news coverage. Unfortunately Your article is an example of the sort of activism that is driving away readers.
I wish You all the best in Your efforts to get editorial approval on more fair and objective articles in the future.
Cheers,
John Robin.
2008.11.06
To: Joseph Galante, Reporter for Bloomberg
Joseph,
The title of Your article, "California Gay Couples `Suffering' as Foes Exult in Wedding Ban" betrays the article's bias, presenting homosexual couples as victims gleefully oppressed by a tyrannical majority.
A more objective and balanced headline would read simply, "California voters reject legal redefinition of marriage". The reality is that a faction of homosexual activists have repeatedly attempted to impose on the public an unpopular redefinition of marriage and family, and this effort has been rejected by a majority through the democratic process. That this has happened in California, widely perceived as a socially liberal state, is extremely significant.
I would have been very interested to read a factual account of this development and the factors leading to this outcome. Instead, what I found in the Bloomberg article was more of the saga of victimization so prevalent in the "mainstream media".
There is an intense and growing public contempt toward the mainstream media, and people are turning increasingly to other sources in search of real news and objective analysis. I submit to You that primarily this is because people are sick of leftist political activism being dressed up and sold as news coverage. Unfortunately Your article is an example of the sort of activism that is driving away readers.
I wish You all the best in Your efforts to get editorial approval on more fair and objective articles in the future.
Cheers,
John Robin.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Breitbart caught misrepresenting the facts
Archbishop criticizes Obama, Catholic allies
Where is the factual, impartial coverage?? This statement suggests that Archbishop Chaput's position excludes consideration of any issue other than abortion, which is a misrepresentation of Chaput's (and the Church's) position. The Church teaches that all these issues are important, but they are NOT all equally important. There is a hierarchy of issues and rights, and some are more foundational that others. Some are so important -such as those regarding the deliberate taking of human life- that they take precedence over secondary issues.
Is protection of the spotted owl really as important as protecting human beings from being deliberately exterminated? Both are important, but they are not equally important.
For example, it is because of this hierarchy of rights that our right to own private property does not include the right to make other persons our property as slaves. Individuals have an absolute right not to be treated as property. Such foundational rights set limits to secondary rights. These foundational rights deserve primary attention when we elect individuals to public office. Do they recognize and respect these certain, inalienable rights? If not, how can they be trusted to respect or defend any rights at all, and on what basis?
Breitbart... misrepresenting facts -whether through carelessness or premeditation- is not journalism, it's manipulation.
"While Chaput has won praise from traditionalist Catholics for stressing opposition to abortion as a foundational voting issue, voices on the Catholic left have sought to apply church teachings to war, poverty, the environment and other issues."
Where is the factual, impartial coverage?? This statement suggests that Archbishop Chaput's position excludes consideration of any issue other than abortion, which is a misrepresentation of Chaput's (and the Church's) position. The Church teaches that all these issues are important, but they are NOT all equally important. There is a hierarchy of issues and rights, and some are more foundational that others. Some are so important -such as those regarding the deliberate taking of human life- that they take precedence over secondary issues.
Is protection of the spotted owl really as important as protecting human beings from being deliberately exterminated? Both are important, but they are not equally important.
For example, it is because of this hierarchy of rights that our right to own private property does not include the right to make other persons our property as slaves. Individuals have an absolute right not to be treated as property. Such foundational rights set limits to secondary rights. These foundational rights deserve primary attention when we elect individuals to public office. Do they recognize and respect these certain, inalienable rights? If not, how can they be trusted to respect or defend any rights at all, and on what basis?
Breitbart... misrepresenting facts -whether through carelessness or premeditation- is not journalism, it's manipulation.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Sunday, September 17, 2006
WFMT Folk Festival 2006 -a political event?
WFMT - Show Detail
Words can hardly express my great appreciation and decades-long affection for WFMT and the superb work You do. Thank You! But I do have to express a little disappointment today. Perhaps my listening was simply ill-timed, but on at least two occasions recently (including today) I've tuned in just in time to hear some angry Canadian folk music performer (or another) denigrating the Bush administration, evidently with the hearty approval of the audience. I don’t know very much about folk music, but suspect that its diversity precludes its being monolithically leftist, pacifist, or contemptuous of our democratic government.
WFMT offers a valuable service in promoting and preserving a wide range of classical and folk music, and this helps to humanize and strengthen our own culture. Not having listened to “WFMT Folk Festival 2006” in its entirety today, I’m left wondering how many songs in the program were supportive of those in military and public service who are likewise engaged in promoting the humanity and security of our culture.
Public dissent and serious criticism of public officials should be a positive force in steering the national rudder, but without balance and fairness even musical programs can become divisive, destructive… and not much fun.
Words can hardly express my great appreciation and decades-long affection for WFMT and the superb work You do. Thank You! But I do have to express a little disappointment today. Perhaps my listening was simply ill-timed, but on at least two occasions recently (including today) I've tuned in just in time to hear some angry Canadian folk music performer (or another) denigrating the Bush administration, evidently with the hearty approval of the audience. I don’t know very much about folk music, but suspect that its diversity precludes its being monolithically leftist, pacifist, or contemptuous of our democratic government.
WFMT offers a valuable service in promoting and preserving a wide range of classical and folk music, and this helps to humanize and strengthen our own culture. Not having listened to “WFMT Folk Festival 2006” in its entirety today, I’m left wondering how many songs in the program were supportive of those in military and public service who are likewise engaged in promoting the humanity and security of our culture.
Public dissent and serious criticism of public officials should be a positive force in steering the national rudder, but without balance and fairness even musical programs can become divisive, destructive… and not much fun.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Here come the population nazis
Not to judge, but 16 kids? Stop already.
-San Francisco Chronicle columnist bludgeons large family
"Freedom of Choice", the supreme godhead of the left, serenely showers her liberties upon those who wish to kill the children they have already conceived, but evidently is not so absolute and universal a deity as to bestow her freedoms upon large families...
-San Francisco Chronicle columnist bludgeons large family
"Freedom of Choice", the supreme godhead of the left, serenely showers her liberties upon those who wish to kill the children they have already conceived, but evidently is not so absolute and universal a deity as to bestow her freedoms upon large families...
2005.10.21
Re: "Not to judge, but 16 kids? Stop already."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/DDGJSF9UDD1.DTL
Mr. Morford,
So, Your point is...
"Pro-choice" implies a right to kill children You’ve already conceived, but not a right to raise them without the approval of at least one liberal columnist.
People essentially are not problem solvers, they are problems: a blight on the planet. Solution? Fewer people.
Viewing children as a great gift from God is "pious sanctimony", but instructing a distant family that God disapproves of their children is acceptable.
Those who view children as tomorrow’s inventors, artists, geniuses, and leaders are morons.
Nobody named "Jim Bob" can be any good, especially if he wants to be a Republican senator.
Married Christians who are particularly fertile and raise large families belong to the "asexual Christian right". One must be a "funky" non-Christian to be "pro-sex".
Lots of great fertile sex between mutually consenting spouses is to be publicly ridiculed by cynical tattooed gasbags, some of whom, one might guess, have little personal experience of having a spouse, great fertile sex, or children. But infertile, casual sex with numerous promiscuous partners is to be promoted as a great way to accelerate the depopulation of western nations and protect endangered caribou.
Regards,
John Robin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
