Kevin K. at SoCalPundit has a great post about the ongoing MSM bias:
Without a shred of proof and despite historical precedent (and here and here) to the contrary, the liberal media is now claiming that President Bush is far from the kind and generous person that people have come to know.
It began a few days ago with some discredited, left-wing magazine that I can no longer recall the name of. Oh yeah, it was Newsweek. In it Evan Thomas gave legitimacy (haha) to claims that the President is ?cold and snappish in private? especially now that his poll numbers are in the dumps. Furthermore Thomas claims that aides are afraid to bring him bad news for fear he will lash out at them. Of course the only sources for these claims were by the guy who shows up as a source for most of the MSM?s outlandish articles today, some guy named, Unnamed Source. As of press time, The White House was still unable to confirm that any such person worked there.
A Washington Post article today by Dan Froomkin pretends to take the MSM to task for not hitting us to Newsweek?s unproven allegations sooner, presumably so they could have used them against the President during the 2004 election. The WaPo article simply repeats the same accusations made by Thomas that the calm, cool and confident Bush we see before the cameras is all an act. So I ask the question, other than the non-source they claim to have for this wild lie, what antidotal evidence does the MSM offer to prove what they say might be true?
…Then WaPo trudges out more of the polls they themselves created without any oversight from non-partisan organizations.
Wholly uncaring about the facts, WaPo also forwards the lie that FEMA and the Fed and not state and local government are the First Response to a disaster. Missing from anywhere in the article was mention of the disaster plan that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did not implement before or after the flooding or the fact that more than 200 busses that could have been used in the mandatory (but way late) evacuation sat idle and flooded.
But the humdinger of obvious ignorance to the truth is when the article continues to further the inaccurate claim that corporations linked to The Bush Administration are unfairly benefiting from reconstruction contracts. In truth a lead contractor for the reconstruction is run by the Chairman of the Louisiana Democrat Party, J.M. Bernhard, Jr.
So is it an admission of guilt that the MSM seeks? We hope we?re wrong but we don?t think so. Now that the President has taken responsibility for what he describes as a ?poor response? to the disaster, we?ll see if the Democrats and their minions in the media to step up and take responsibility for being obsessed with assigning blame to George Bush & FEMA while local and state officials stood around like deer in headlights as the disaster plans they had planned and practiced were ignored.
I think I speak for the majority of the right side of the Blogosphere when I reiterate my call for a complete, bi-partisan investigation into who did what right and wrong and when. I am confident then when all the facts are revealed, the President?s gracious apology to the American people today will prove unwarranted.
I have been saying for a week now that when this Commission is done, Nagin and Blanco will be done.
Bush taking responsibility for the Federal response today shows me the type of man he is, and I couldn’t be prouder.
None of this MSM bias is surprising of course. It has been this way for many many years and will continue until they realize the reason they lose readers and viewers is BECAUSE of this bias. Maybe then they will hire responsible reporters, and dare I say, responsible editors….gasp.
Bookworm has some great thoughts about this also:
…Having said that, given Press animus to the President, and the MSM’s overriding need to blame Bush at all costs, Bush could have had the entire U.S. Army there the minute the levy broke, and could have ridden at the head of the column blowing a bugle, and the Press still would have found something to carp about. Right now, in that imaginary scenario, I’m thinking about charges of self-aggrandizement and over-reaching federal powers, but I’m sure the MSM could do better.
I’ve mentioned before how effective the MSM is at its secondary job of bringing down the White House, even though miserably inept at its first job of conveying accurate information to the American public. Indeed, it uses its failures in the first job as ammunition fr the second.
I get daily evidence of the MSM’s negative power through a friend who considers herself extremely well-informed, because she reads the San Francisco Chronicle, and watches ABC and CNN. When she says, as she does every day, that it’s Bush’s fault, but scarcely surprising because he’s such a disgusting human being (with that “smirk”), I invariably recite one of the facts Mr. Murdock so gracefully distills in his article. She is unimpressed.
Mention that the Governor of Louisiana refused to allow the federal government entry, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army, and you will get the non sequitur that the federal government knew a Hurricane was coming and should have done something. The fact that the federal government could not at law have done anything without state permission is irrelevant, mostly because of that smirk.
Even though my relative is not a New York Times reader, I’m thinking of calling this “New York Times Derangement Syndrome” after another liberal friend of mine who rejected all legitimate information hostile to Cindy Sheehan on the grounds that this information had not appeared in the pages of the NY Times.
And I’ll ask again as I’ve asked before — with the example of Pravda before us, how can you have a legitimately functioning democracy (small “d”), when you have a corrupt or deliberately ill-informed press? And it’s no answer to say that the Press is free here, because it’s free of government constraint. That is true, but our Press has become in thrall to a single party. Take that bias and add to it the market dominance of these damaged purveyors of information, a dominance shaped by years in power (before they were so corrupt or before their corruption became so blatant), and you have a serious problem in a democracy whose viability the Founders predicated in part on the open flow of information from a free press, and from healthy verbak argument between combatants who honestly state their political affiliation.
Previous:
Nope, No Bias In The MSM
The Hypocrisy In The MSM
The Bias In The Media, Update
MSM At It Again – Part VII
MSM At It Again – Part VI
The MSM Bias
Calling The MSM Out!
The Bias In The Media
MSM At It Again – Part V
MSM At It Again – Part IV
Traitors In The MSM
The Bias In The MSM
MSM At It Again – Part III
MSM At It Again – Part II
The MSM At It Again
The MSM Traitors
The Media & The War
See author page
