Biased Media
Faux Racist ~ Media Distorts
It is worse than a liberal-progressive radical lying… the Media knew that she was separated from the Zimmerman portion of the protest and clearly on the New Black Panther side of the line… yet, they still painted her as with the Zimmerman crowd. Here is the early reporting from the blogs about it, via Gateway Pundit:
That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side. The NY Daily News, based on reporting from The Houston Chronicle, identified her as Renee Vaughan:
One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”
Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.
The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.
Scanning the internet we found that a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin worked for a far left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment.
Renee even has her photo linked to a far left environmental website.
Faux Racist Democrat Plant
- Breitbart News: What does your sign mean?
- Woman: This sign means that there are people here who are racist and apparently think that’s OK. I’m not one of them. I’m being sarcastic.
- Breitbart News: OK.
- Fellow anti-Zimmerman Protestor: Yo. What she said.
Breitbart points out all the places where this person was touted as a genuine Zimmerman protestor:
…The Houston Chronicle’s Jayme Fraser wrote of the woman pictured above: “At one point, Renee Vaughan of Austin mocked protesters by chanting, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better ’cause we’re white.” The language of the article was somewhat clumsy, allowing other media outlets to jump to the wrong conclusion.
The New York Daily News’ Philip Caulfield used the following caption for the above photo, from the Associated Press: “A George Zimmerman supporter holds a sign during a counter-demonstration of activist Quanell X’s group march in the River Oaks community in Houston on Sunday.” He also wrote: “One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, ‘We’re racist & proud,'” distorting the Chronicle story significantly.
The UK Daily Mail repeated the error, reporting that the sign was held by members of the pro-Zimmerman group in Houston, portraying it as a form of racist backlash against the New Black Panther Party march.
Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell then took to Fox News’ Hannity to repeat the false accusation, using the “racist and proud” sign story to push back against video evidence of intolerance at pro-Trayvon Martin rallies.
Well, Sean, do some people show up at protests with their own agenda? Absolutely. That happens all the time. There was a pro-Zimmerman rally in Texas where a woman showed up with a sign that said “Racist and Proud.” And that was in the newspaper today. So certainly there are people who show up who behave badly at protests, and that’s not something you can really control for.
[….]
Gateway Pundit concludes she was a “leftist plant” who intended to trick or otherwise deceive the media. As the interview reveals, however, she was quite honest and open about her intentions and what her sign meant. She also located herself quite clearly on the Trayvon Martin/New Black Panther Party-supporting side of the demonstration (this video shows the two sides were clearly separated and distinguished from each other).
[
WHICH THE MEDIA SHOULD HAVE PICKE-UP!]
The reason the media simply picked this up as true is that it has a narrative it believes to be true — that is, the Zimmerman case was over race… and Republicans are racist. Ergo, ad hoc — and all that jazz — the sign must be true… PLUS, it is in Texas! Double-Jeopardy, it must be true. Renee Vaughan has since apologized:
Larry Elder Works Through Obama`s Re-Inserting Racism Into Trayvon Martin Affair (22-minutes)
The “Sage from South Central” dismantles myth of the “angelic kid” other wise known as Trayvon Martin. Couple this with Bill Whittle’s destruction of the media myth (http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls)… and you have a recipe for truth to come out. See also my blog post on the matter: http://tinyurl.com/knp3sxd
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/
Only Black Juror Nixed By Prosecution Because He Watched Fox News
Fox Business News` Stuart Varney and MRC`s Brent Bozell Discuss the Unraveling of ObamaCare and Media Bias
Media Bias on Fracking
American Media Should Be Taking Notes (Al Jazeera`s Bias Exposed)
Via The Blaze:
…Twenty-two of the network’s Cairo staff resigned on Monday. According to Gulf News, anchor Karem Mahmoud of Al Jazeera’s Mubasher Misr channel announced that the resignations were motivated by what he called “biased coverage” of the events leading up to the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned former President Morsi.
The news anchor revealed that Al Jazeera management would instruct each staff member to favor the Muslim Brotherhood in their broadcasts. According to Gulf News, Mahmoud said that “there are instructions to us to telecast certain news”.
[….]
Sultan al-Qassemi, a widely-followed media commentator from the United Arab Emirates tells the Daily Star, “Al-Jazeera Arabic in 2011 was squarely on the side of the anti-government [anti-Mubarak] protesters, today the channel is notorious for being the mouthpiece of the Brotherhood party.”
Some other news Corps around town SHOULD be taking notes:
(Via Breitbart) Jeff Cohen has been all over cable news as a contributor, but for a time he worked as a senior producer for MSNBC. Monday, in the wake of the NSA spying scandal, Cohen lashed out at his former employer as the “official network of the Obama White House.”
When it comes to issues of U.S. militarism and spying, the allegedly “progressive” MSNBC often seems closer to the “official network of the Obama White House” than anything resembling an independent channel. With a few exceptions (especially Chris Hayes [10]), MSNBC has usually reacted to expanded militarism and surveillance by downplaying the abuses or defending them.
Had McCain or Romney defeated Obama and implemented the exact same policies, treating whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden as foreign espionage agents, one would expect MSNBC hosts to be loudly denouncing the Republican abuses of authority.
Cohen continues:
The World War I vintage Espionage Act, originally used to imprison socialists for making antiwar speeches, has been used by the administration against whistleblowers with a vengeance unprecedented in history: eight leakers have been charged with Espionage under Obama, compared to three under all previous presidents.
More than all other presidents! Let that sink in… that’s MSNBC, how bout NPR? Bernie Goldberg helps us with this question:
$$$ QUOTE
Maybe Nina wished Tony Snow would get cancer as retribution from “the Good Lord.”
…consider this statement made by the co-host of NPR’s On the Media:
“If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd.”
In the “overwhelmingly” liberal bubble that is NPR, executives were appalled at Juan Williams comment to Bill O’Reilly that ““When I get on a plane … if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.
This was so bigoted, in their view, that they had to fire Mr. Williams. In a statement explaining why they did it, NPR said: Williams’ words “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
But these same sensitive liberal souls let Nina Totenberg, NPR’s Legal Affairs correspondent, go on a Sunday talk show each week and spout all sorts of liberal nonsense. Who could forget her shot at then Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a comment for which she later apologized. If there was “retributive justice,” in the world, Ms. Totenberg said, Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
Inside the liberal bubble Juan Williams is a bigot. Nina Totenberg isn’t.
That’s one of the many reasons it matters if a newsroom is “overwhelmingly” liberal – or conservative.
Here are some other examples that Glenn Beck so astutely explains in 10-minutes:
Here are some examples — out of the many — from people like Dennis Prager, MRC’s montage of yearly examples, and Larry Elder’s example of Hollywood bias.
Bob Schieffer Clueless To Persecution for Being for Traditional Marriage
`There Are Plenty of Gays, There Are Very Few People of Faith`
`Elizabeth Palmer Puts the B.S. in CBS` ~ Palin
CBS reporter Elizabeth Palmer compares the Tea Party to the killer Iranian regime.
State Media for Sure, Treated Bush Much Differently
Spying, controlling the media, phone records of media and citezins, war cover-ups… this is all the stuff the left complained about during Bush. But are mum on Obama.
Via Breitbart:
Well, if it is Thursday there must be a new Obama scandal. But one thing is for damn sure, whatever that scandal is, you can bet the American mainstream media will be playing catch up and not carrying the glory of breaking a story about a major White House scandal.
Fact: Over the past few weeks, four major scandals have broken over the Obama administration, and it is a very sad (and frightening) truth that our pathetic, American, lapdog mainstream media is not responsible for breaking even a single one.
- Verizon? Nope, not our guys. That was the Brits over at The Guardian.
- IRS? Nope, not our guys. The IRS broke their own scandal with a planted question.
- The Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records? Nope, not our guys. Believe it or not, the Associated Press didn’t even break that story. Like the IRS, we only found out because the Justice Department outted itself in a letter notifying the AP of what it had done.
- Benghazi? Are you kidding. With a couple of rare exceptions (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Attkisson) the media has spent the last 8 months attacking those seeking the truth (Congress, Fox News) not seeking the truth. It was the GOP congress that demanded the email exchanges around the shaping of the talking points, not the media.
Left up to the media, we wouldn’t know anything about Libya. All of the media’s energy was collectively poured into ensuring the truth was never discovered.
Let’s not forget Gosnell:
If Dan Savage`s Attack on Jesus is `Healing,` I (as a Christian) Would Hate To See Salvation!
No Different Than Westborough Baptist
Just what Savage feels he is accomplishing by using obscenity about the Bible at a journalism conference for high school students is beyond me. But what I do know is that the answers to homosexuality and faith do not lie either with religious haters like Fred Phelps who insult God by hating gays, nor with secular fanatics like Dan Savage who insult homosexuals by falsely portraying them as angry bigots. ~ RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH
I wasn’t going to post on this, but, since the refutation of WaPo spread to the very leftist magazine, the New Republic, I will post NewsBusters pices on the topic.
One wonders — before posting the stories below — the outrage level WaPo would show if in the fictitious conversation taken from Savage’s book, were Jesus cussing about gays and the gay lifestyle WHILE putting Peter in his place, how “healing” the book would be considered. Will they ever use the term of books like What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, or, Clash Of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis? Somehow I doubt it. It is only “healing” when you expressly attack Christianity, I guess “salvation” in WaPo terms would be the gas chambers? But of course the Obama Admin supports this stuff with tax-payer funds.
First is the original post by by Tim Graham, followed by his follow up article noting the editorial from the left:
Preposterous: WashPost Claims Dan Savage Is All About ‘Healing’ and ‘Reconciliation’
The Washington Post occasionally must enjoy sounding completely preposterous. In a Tuesday book review, we’re told in the headlines that gay activist and sex columnist Dan Savage is “on a healing mission” and underneath his “wit,” he only “wants reconciliation.”
[….]
The Post doesn’t apparently require its book reviewers to read the book in question — or at least acknowledge what’s in it. You don’t have to go too far in the publisher’s online excerpt to find him condemning the Family Research Council as an “anti-gay hate group” and its leader Tony Perkins as “full of shit.” He laments the religious right this way:
Whenever someone asks me why the United States is such a mess about sex and everything that touches on sex—why the United States, out of all Western industrialized nations, will never stop fighting about abortion, sex education, birth control, the sex lives of politicians, the existence of gay people—I shrug and say, “Canada got the French, Australia got the convicts, the United States got the Puritans.” [Thank God!]
Can’t you feel the healing and reconciliation?
Here is the updated story:
The New Republic has easily demonstrated just how ridiculous The Washington Post’s book review of the new Dan Savage is to claim that “reconciliation is at the heart of everything Savage writes and says.”
In “The Waning Power of Dan Savage,” Daniel D’Addario dismisses the new book as “a very public act of self-love.” Later, he explained “The nadir of American Savage comes when Savage prints a one-act play called ‘Jesus and the Huge A–hole,’ about religious objectors to Obamacare.”
[….]
This sounds like a rerun of last October’s column attacking conservative Christian blogger and activist Peter LaBarbera, who had tweeted about the founder of Jimmy John’s sandwich shops saying Obamacare would cost him 50 cents a sandwich:
JESUS: “You are an asshole.”
PETER: “Excuse me, Jesus?”
JESUS: “Are you deaf? I said, ‘YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.’ You’re seriously standing there bitching about having to pay a little bit more for a sandwich?”
PETER: “You don’t understand, Jesus, why should I have to pay for—”
JESUS: “Shut the fuck up. I was crucified for your sins and all I asked in return was for you people to be nice to each other—”
PETER: “But—”
JESUS: “Shut the fuck up, Peter. All I asked was for your people to be nice to each other. And you’re telling me that you’re not willing to pay fifty cents more for a fucking sandwich so that the guy who made it for you—and his kids—can go see a doctor? You’re not a Christian.”
PETER: “But I go to church, Jesus, and I hate gay people so hard!”
JESUS: “Not good enough, Peter, not nearly good enough. Stop bothering me and go worship Thor or Mars or Zeus instead, okay? I don’t want you calling yourself a Christian. You’re a dick.”
PETER: “I can’t believe Jesus just called me a dick.”
JESUS: “Yeah, well, you are a dick. I sacrificed my life for you and you can’t sacrifice a bag of chips for the sandwich guy? Or scrounge up the extra fifty fucking cents? Dick.”
PETER: “But Jesus!”
JESUS: “Love one another as I have loved you, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, take care of the poor, take care of the sick, give away all that you have and follow me—does any of this shit ring a bell, you stupid asshole?”
PETER: “Okay! Okay! I’m sorry! I’ll go worship Thor!”
In fact, the above shows that it is sooo “politically-correct” in the rooms at the Washington Post that one couldn’t even mention in the review that this (the above) was not healing. Freedom of press? Yeah right!
Here is more “Dan Savage ‘healing'”