Clay Waters of MRC’s Times Watch project noticed this week that the The New York Times was just as guilty as The Washington Post of jumping on the unsubstantiated adultery charges against female GOP gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley in South Carolina:
[Reporter Shaila] Dewan used the sex scandal of former South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford as an excuse to suggest, without substance like emails or phone messages, that the claims by blogger Will Folks fit a pattern of sexual bad behavior in the Palmetto State: “Scandal Rattles Politics In South Carolina, Again.” The text box to Wednesday’s print story worked in the party identification: “A blogger says he had an affair with a G.O.P. candidate for governor.”
The treatment of a fairly obscure Republican politician stands in sharp contrast to the paper’s blackout of the amply documented affair of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. The Times totally ignored the Edwards affair until the candidate himself confessed on ABC News, then, when its own public editor criticized the paper’s lack of coverage, editors made hypocritical excuses.
Read the entire story at NewsBusters:
Sam Donaldson compared Calderon’s speech against Arizona to Reagan’s speech against the wall separating East and West Germany! As well as comparing it to Clinton speaking out against Tienanmen Square! These progressive Democrats are all about making disproportionate actions and moral stances on freedom and protection all equal on the world stage. Reagan speaking truth to the tyranny of communism and Gorbachev is equal to Arizona trying to protect its citizens. CRAZY!
This transcript is from NewsBusters (I will recommend a book that I still think is fitting even after all these years):
JAKE TAPPER: There was one other item in the news that I want to touch on before we have to go to a break and that is the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, came to the White House and he came to Congress. And in both places he criticized the Arizona immigration law. Here’s President Calderon:
FELIPE CALDERON, HOUSE CHAMBER, ON THURSDAY: I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores the reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as the basis for law enforcement.
TAPPER: Now I’m the spring chicken at the table, but I cannot remember a head of state from another country coming to the Congress and criticizing American laws.
GEORGE WILL: While he was lecturing America on moral governance, he was doing so against the backdrop of an Amnesty International report saying that migrants, illegals crossing through Mexico “are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses, of persistent failures by the authorities,” that would be Mr. Calderon’s government, I believe, “to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants who’ve made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.”
So he gets up and lectures us on moral governance and gets a standing ovation from Donna’s party. The fact is, Mexico has two big exports: Oil, and their second biggest export is poverty to the United States – from which, in remittances sent back to Mexico, they get $21 billion a year. Mr. Calderon has a stake in illegal immigration to our country.
SAM DONALDSON: President Bill Clinton went to the Great Hall of the People and when Jiang Zemin was President of China. I heard President Clinton say, “what you did in Tiananmen Square was wrong.” He lectured. We all said, that’s terrific because it was the ox being gored on the other side. President Calderon represents Mexico. And he said what a lot of Americans are also saying, that that Arizona law is discriminatory and it ought not to have been on the books.
TAPPER: That law is actually supported by a majority of Americans, according to polling. And I can’t believe that you’re actually comparing it to Tiananmen Square, right? I mean, you’re not?
DONALDSON: Well, I’m not comparing a massacre in Tiananmen Square to what’s happening in Arizona. But you raised the subject of having someone come to another country and lecture them.
TAPPER: And you think it’s okay?
COKIE ROBERTS: Our Presidents certainly do it. Israel about settlements. You know, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” you know.
GEORGE WILL: He didn’t say that in Russia.
TAPPER: A final word Donna.
DONNA BRAZILE: The Democrats basically were, they applauded the fact that we have to fix this problem. Our borders is broken. George, we have a broken, we have a disfunctional-
WILL: They applauded the President of Mexico.
Here is a great example of some media bias from the AP with an example from Charles Babington, one their of their political writers. Liberal Whoppers and NewsBusters talk about this obvious position on politics that permeates the “mainstream media.” Here is NewsBusters analysis of the incidebt at hand:
With the loss of party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter Tuesday night, AP political writer Charles Babington was assigned the obligatory story “Obama endorsements don’t seem to help Democrats.” It’s a fairly routine analysis until Babington had an Andrea Mitchell moment when he called Scott Brown’s Senate win “excruciating.” (In 1990, Mitchell told NBC viewers after a Jesse Helms victory that “This has been a really heartbreaking race.”)
In previous months, Obama’s endorsements and campaign appearances weren’t enough to save then-Gov. Jon Corzine’s re-election bid in New Jersey, Creigh Deeds’ run for governor in Virginia or Martha Coakley’s campaign in Massachusetts to keep the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat in Democratic hands.
In fairness, Deeds was an underdog from the start, and Corzine brought many problems on himself. But the Coakley loss to Republican Scott Brown was excruciating. She once was considered a shoo-in, and her defeat restored the Republicans’ ability to block Democratic bills with Senate filibusters.
If Babington had said it was “excruciating for Democrats,” it would have been unremarkable. Instead it sounded like “it was excruciating for me.”
Just a reminder of the thinking we are up against.
This is the typical bias we fight and argue against daily, which is why the conservative who cares can argue better than a liberal… the liberal doesn’t have to argue. He or she feels they have won by numbers and so they feel like they do not have to hone their arguments.
Out of the first 21 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows after Justice Alito’s selection, correspondents conveyed ten explicit “conservative” labels during the first 36 hours of coverage. In contrast, Graham documented just one “liberal” label in 14 Kagan stories during the equivalent time period after her selection.
# ABC World News Tonight, October 31: Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: “He is said to be brilliant and A STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE.”
Reporter Terry Moran: “He quickly established a reputation on the bench as brilliant and deeply CONSERVATIVE.”
# CBS Evening News, October 31: Anchor Bob Schieffer: “Conservatives wanted a CONSERVATIVE on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.”
Correspondent John Roberts: “If confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O’Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE direction for years to come.”
# NBC Nightly News, October 31: Correspondent Pete Williams: “Alito is considered dependably CONSERVATIVE, though with an independent streak.”
Williams, later in the same story: “Perhaps because he and Justice Scalia are both Italian American, Catholic and CONSERVATIVE, he’s been nicknamed ‘Scalito.’”
# CBS’s The Early Show, November 1: Co-host Harry Smith: “A bitter partisan confirmation battle is brewing over President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. We’ll speak with members of the Judiciary Committee and take a closer look at the CONSERVATIVE judge.”
Reporter Thalia Assuras: “Alito’s CONSERVATIVE stance would eliminate the swing vote of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor….”
# NBC’s Today, November 1: Co-host Katie Couric: “President Bush’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, is known for his solid CONSERVATIVE record and a well-developed sense of humor….”
Remember the “Crash the Tea Party” guy? He is Jason Levin, seen in the photo at right with his “disguise” with which he hoped to crash a Tea Party in order to discredit it. Levin, an Oregon schoolteacher, was placed on administrative leave before being allowed back in the classroom. However, it now appears that he is vying for another job: news writer. His blog analysis about who was behind the Times Square bomb plot fits almost perfectly into the mainstream media pattern in reporting on the plot. First Levin, like many in the MSM (and NY mayor Bloomberg) who at least made that charge by implication, blamed the Tea Party people (emphasis added):
UPDATE MAY 03 Suspect currently being questioned by law enforcement.
Anonymous sources have reported that a suspect is currently being questioned in the Bridgeport / New Haven CT area. The suspect is a middle age white male, has a history of strong political views, and considers himself a Sarah Palin Tea Party express activist. An arrest is expected within days.
…Anonymous sources at the scene have reported that the terrorist attack is likely related to theSarah Palin Tea Party movement. “Much like the 911 attackers, Sarah Palin’s Tea Party movement also has shown a strong dislike of the United States government.” one source reported.
May 4th. A message from Jason Levin concerning this article:The tea bagging terrorists have been filling my PM box with there usual rantings….NO, I will not retract my story.
I stick by my story as written. The Tea Party is responsible for the Times Square bombing. Perhaps not physically, but there hatred for the current administration gives fuel to the fire. Since they are on the same page as foreign terrorists concerning there hatred of America, they should be treated the same.
I am sure the Tea Party movement is secretly funded by Al Queda and that it is only a matter of time before there Timothy McVay clones attack OUR country.
Naturalized citizen and Islamic Terrorist Bomber Faisal Shahzad opposed the War in Iraq. New reports suggest he held views much in line with leftwing AntiWar activists who fiercely opposed the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are even indications he may have been aligned with the so-called “Truther movement.” A witness told the Associated Press, that Shahzad believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. In truth, Hussein harbored top Al Qaeda Terrorist Abu Massad al Zarcawi and hosted two Al Qaeda-linked Terrorist training camps: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam….
….Yes, indeed. Around that time many Americans did not like Bush either: Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, NetRoots, the Greens, the entire Progressive wing of the Democrat Party, and a host of other AntiWar advocates.
Is it safe now to begin referring to Shahzad as a “Liberal Progressive”?
Gateway Pundit has an amazing story of violence:
HotAir points out the hypocritical nature of the media and those opposed to the tea parties. There is even video of the “rioters” as they pass by one person who films them. If Tea Party members did what these people did… all hell would break loose on the news networks… instead, silence. Which is yet more proof of media bias
After months of warning that Tea Party protests would erupt into violence, a wave of vandalism and violence crested in Santa Cruz this weekend. Masked protesters wielding torches swarmed through the business district, smashing windows and chanting “the streets are on fire!” and “Revolution!” It’s exactly the kind of armed uprising that Tea Party critics predicted … except that it didn’t erupt at a Tea Party:
A group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker’s and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said.
Windows were left shattered and graffiti including anarchy signs were tagged onto buildings. The Rittenhouse Building, Urban Outfitters, Jamba Juice and Velvet Underground all had windows broken, according to Capt. Steve Clark.
Santa Cruz police asked for help from all agencies in the county to break up the riot of about 200 people. At one point, protesters lit a fire on the porch of Caffe Pergolesi and blocked access to firefighters, officers said. Police were able to clear out the demonstrators before more damage was caused.
A large rock sat outside Verizon Wireless on the 100 block of Cooper Street, where vandals tried to break the window twice, according to Clark.