Breitbart has this great story on the BBC lying, cheating, and stealing emotions:
A BBC reporter helped spread a photo of a child supposedly injured by an Israeli attack on Gaza. In reality, the photo is three weeks old and was taken in Syria.
The photo of a wounded Syrian child was posted here on October 28th. Early Monday morning, a Palestinian journalist named Hazem Balousha tweeted the photo with the misleading description “Pain in #Gaza.” It was retweeted more than 90 times, including by BBC Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison. Donnison added the word “Heartbreaking” and sent it to his 8,000 followers.
After the error was pointed out, Donnison apologized, saying, “A photo I retweeted from another journo yesterday showing children injured was NOT in Gaza as I said but apparently from Syria. Apologies.” The original tweet by Mr. Balousha appears to have been deleted.
BBC has already been caught once in the past week running fake footage of supposedly injured Gazans. In an incident noted last Thursday, a man is shown being carried by a group of men. He appears to be wounded. But moments later, the same man can be seen walking around — apparently nothing wrong with him.
CNN and the AP also ran an image of a 4-year-old killed in the conflict, strongly implying he died in an Israeli airstrike. However, Israel carried out no strikes the day the child died. According to the those who examined the site, the blast that killed the little boy was the result of a “Palestinian rocket,” not an Israeli bomb.
HotAir talks about the recent question GQ Magazine asks Marco Rubio a question I have never heard asked of a Democrat:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
What would you do if in the middle of a job interview someone asked you, “How old do you think the Earth is?” Not wanting to look a fool, chances are that you’d give an answer as banal and evasive as this, “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.” That’s what Marco Rubio offered when asked the age of the Earth in a recent GQ interview – and it’s a clever person’s way of saying, “I don’t have a clue, dude. Can we move on?”
But you can bet your last Obamadollar that the dreaded rationalists in the liberal press won’t move on. They’ll interpret Rubio’s innocuous answer to translate as “I think the Earth probably began in 1922 – but Jesus put fossils in the ground to keep us guessing.” They’ll take this as further evidence that all conservative Christians are Creationists and Young Earthers – and they’ll try to embarrass ordinary Americans out of voting for them by playing an intellectual snobbery card that is as cruel as it is inaccurate. The inference is this: every time you vote for a religious conservative, a witch gets burned.
A few questions. First, why did GQ ask this question, and would they ask a Democrat the same thing? It always seems to be Republicans that the mainstream media fires these curious, pointless salvos at. Sarah Palin calls them “gotcha” questions – and she’s more than familiar with ’em.
Second, does not knowing an answer to a science question bar someone from running for office? If that’s the case, pick up the phone to your local Democratic Senator and ask them the chemical symbol for sulphuric acid. If they get it wrong, demand a recall.
More importantly, if it’s okay for Barack Obama to say that abortion is “above my paygrade” and refuse to offer a guess as to when life begins, why is it not okay for Rubio to dodge a bullet when asked a question about the origins of the Earth? Considering that the question posed to Obama back in the 2008 election had serious moral consequences and Rubio’s does not, I can’t understand why Obama’s evasion is heralded as a victory for common sense but Rubio’s is treated like a declaration of war on science. The hysteria and hypocrisy are tiring at best….
Again, this question is never asked of Democrats even though a large percentage believes in creation ex nihilo:
Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.
Today, BBC News tweeted that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel. Jerusalem, of course, is the capital of Israel. But, mirroring the Obama administration’s hesitance to declare Israel’s capital Jerusalem, the BBC instead tweeted:
Breitbart continues:
The BBC, which is massively anti-Israel in its coverage, has repeatedly refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. During the Olympics, the BBC refused to list Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, drawing a caustic response from the Israeli government.
CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama’s behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.
That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss–and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election–perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
Fox News’ Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:
These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?
Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?
Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.
The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. ~ Weekly Standard
“Romney currently leads Obama 52 percent to 45 percent among voters who say they have already cast their ballots,” Gallup reported. “However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51 percent to 46 percent lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling.” ~ Gallup
Very early on, before this campaign started in earnest, live or die, I publicly cast my lot with Gallup and Rasmussen. As a poll addict going back to 2000, these are the outlets that have always played it straight. It’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with credibility and not wanting to kid myself. So when an outlet like Gallup tells me Romney is up seven-points, 52-45%, among those who have already voted, that’s very big news.
Just as Gallup did with their bombshell survey showing that 2012 is looking like a year where Republicans will enjoy a record three-point turnout advantage over Democrats (a ten-point shift from 2008), for whatever reason, they buried the lede with this latest bombshell, as well. When you consider the fact that the CorruptMedia’s been talking for weeks about how Obama’s crushing Romney in early voting, you would think Gallup proving that Narrative a big fat phony lie would be news. Instead, though, they bury this explosive news at the bottom of a piece headlined: “In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots“.
Sounds like a nothing story, right?
Except waaaaay at the bottom we learn this:
Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
When Gallup says early voters don’t seem to be swaying the election, presumably what they means is that because Romney is ahead by five points nationally, an early voting advantage of seven-points isn’t going to “sway the election.”
Romney’s early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney’s early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President’s advantage in the others. For example, here’s what we know about Ohio’s early voting numbers, thus far:
But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
At the Accuracy in Media conference, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth,” former congressman and Federal prosecutor Artur Davis had high praise for former President Ronald Reagan, saying that “Reagan took liberty and freedom, which are very imaginative concepts, and he gave them a power they had never had before.”
Davis is a four-term member of the House of Representatives from Alabama, where he represented the 7th District as a Democrat from 2003-2010. He was viewed as a rising star in the House, and named in 2008 by Esquire magazine as one of the “Ten Best Congressmen in America.” He was the first congressman to endorse Barack Obama for president, and even seconded his nomination in 2008. But he has since switched to the Republican Party, and even spoke at their convention in August. Davis is now a columnist and commentator across a wide media spectrum: He contributes to Politico and National Review, among others. He is a Current Fellow at Harvard’s prestigious Institute of Politics, and is an attorney in Washington, D.C.
In recent remarks to an AIM conference, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth,” former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, “I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy.” Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from “organized governmental power,” they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.
Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was lied about for nine days, because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack.
“We’ve had nine days of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this,” said Caddell. “Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers.”
Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but “It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know.”
At the AIM conference in September, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth, Richard Benedetto gave a speech titled “How the Media are Impacting the Election”.
Benedetto is a former White House correspondent, USA TODAY, political columnist, and adjunct professor at American University.
“If you’ve got a cause, go to work for the cause; don’t go to work in the newspaper business.”
At this point in the campaign, most liberal journalists are panicked, but MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, well, he’s just “delusional,” NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell noted on the Thursday edition of Fox News Channel’s Hannity. The Media Research Center founder was reacting to a montage that a) showed the Hardball host bullying a college student, insisting that the “Innocents of Muslims” video was the real spark of the deadly Benghazi attack and b) showed Matthews complaining that conservatives are more interested in turning Obama out of office than destroying al Qaeda, and that that was out of racial animus.
Matthews was being “clearly, clearly dishonest” since he most certainly “knows [the Benghazi attack was] not about a video.” As to Matthews’s charge about conservatives hating Obama more than al Qaeda
Joe Scarborough and New Yorker editor David Remnick clash over the New Yorker’s endorsement of Barack Obama, in which the magazine writes of Obama helping to relieve the “national shame inflicted by the Bush administration.”
