Larry Elder leads off with small talk about Hollywood’s silence on censorship, he plays SNL’s skit about undecided voters (video included), and even addresses Robert Gibbs tough questioning by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday (video included). (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) Then “The Sage” settles into his forte… stats. Quoting liberal sources he dissects Jonathan Karl’s ABC report (video included) and the general lunacy of the legacy media in stacking the deck against Romney. Long, but worth listening to.
For stories related to this report from Jonathan, see NewsBusters:
…If the president were a conservative Republican rather than a liberal Democrat, I have little doubt that much of the legacy press would be focused more on what is wrong with America. There would be more negative reporting about the economy, more criticism of policy failures and many more withering comparisons between promise and performance. The contrast between a rising stock market and poor jobs performance that the press now doesn’t think of blaming on President Obama would be reported as demonstrating a systemic bias in favor of the rich and the powerful if George W. Bush were in the White House. The catastrophic decline in African-American net worth during the last four years would, if we had a Republican president, be presented in the press as illustrating the racial indifference or even the racism of the administration. As it is, it is just an unfortunate reality, not worth much publicity and telling us nothing about the intentions or competence of the people in charge.
The current state of the Middle East would be reported as illustrating the complete collapse of American foreign policy—if Bush were in the White House. The criticism of drone strikes and Guantanamo that is now mostly confined to the far left would be mainstream conventional wisdom, and the current unrest in the Middle East would be depicted as a response to American militarism. The in and out surge in Afghanistan would be mercilessly exposed as a strategic flop, reflecting the naive incompetence of an inexperienced president out of his depth. The SEALS rather than the White House would be getting the credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, and there would be more questions about whether killing him and then bragging endlessly and tastelessly about it was a contributing factor to the current unrest. Political cartoons of Cheney spiking the football would be everywhere. It’s also likely we would have heard much more about how killing Osama was strategically unimportant as he had become an increasingly symbolic figure and there would have been a lot of detailed and focused analysis of how the foolish concentration on bin Laden led the clueless Bush administration to neglect the rise of new and potentially much more dangerous Islamist groups in places like Mali. The Libyan war would be widely denounced as an unconstitutional act of neocon militarism, with much more attention paid to the civilian casualties during the war, the chaos that followed, and the destabilizing effects on the neighborhood. The White House fumbling around the Benghazi murders would be treated like a major scandal and dominate the news for at least a couple of weeks.
If Bush were in the White House, the Middle East would be a horrible disaster, and it would all be America’s fault.
Many people on the right look at this and other examples and conclude that the major press outlets are deliberately distorting the news in the hope of shifting public opinion to the left and supporting the President’s re-election. This is not, in my view, the main reason for press bias, but it is a real phenomenon. There clearly are people in the press who think they are called to this work to support and further a political and moral vision of what kind of place America should be. They have come to the media because they want to “change the world” as so many idealistic young people put it. As human beings who try to incorporate their ideals and their passions into their professional lives, they believe in many cases that conservative governance would be a disaster for the country, and they are sure that an “informed” public opinion would reject conservative nostrums. Given that, they want to make sure that their own work contributes to an enlightened, informed public opinion and so they consciously approach their work by looking for stories or angles that reinforce liberal narratives and undermine conservative ones. Environmental reporting in the MSM is largely dominated in my reading by this kind of activist journalism; there are a lot of reporters out there who yearn to Save the Planet…
Just some headlines to exemplify the neutrality of the mainstream media:
★ Ex-Newsweek’s Alter Slams Paul Ryan Budget As ‘Cruel’ (MSNBC)
★ Ex-Newsweek’s Fineman Slams Chris Christie Speech as ‘Nasty’ and ‘Mean’ (MSNBC)
★ CNN Analyst Ridicu
les ‘Sledgehammer’ GOP Platform on Abortion
★ Joy Behar (CNN): People Like Romney and Ryan Are ‘Trying to Kill Us’
★ Artur Davis Schools CNN: ‘Easy’ ‘to Do What You Guys Are Doing’
★ ABC Hammers at Romney’s ‘Likability Problem’
★ MSNBC’s O’Donnell [an self-proclaimed socialist] Rips Ann Romney For Ignoring ‘Struggling’ Women Who Rely on Government
★ NBC’s Brian Williams Obnoxiously Presses Rubio About GOP’s ‘Rape Debate’
★ MSNBCers Upset at ‘Bar Bouncing’ Boehner’s ‘Ugly Imagery’
★ CNN Asks If GOP Holding Convention Tuesday Is ‘Appropriate’
★ CNN’s Acosta Tries to Put Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ In Context
★ Pelley Pushes Ann Romney on ‘Whether Republicans Have Women’s Best Interests at Heart?’
★ NYTimes Fills News Gap With Overblown Stories on Discord Among ‘Straight-Laced’ GOP ‘Squares’
★ Former NBC Reporter Tells Maddow: All Romney Has Going For Him Is His Whiteness
★ Actual Washington Post Headline: ‘Did God Plan Isaac to Punish Republicans?’
★ NBC Panel Slams Christie As ‘Bully’ Who ‘Will Never Be Accepted Across This Country’
★ Charlie Rose to Marco Rubio: ‘Many People Worry’ GOP Is Anti-Hispanic
★ Yahoo’s David Chalian (ABC/Yahoo Live-feed): Romneys ‘Happy to Have a Party With Black People Drowning’
★ Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital;Mitt Romney Gets Rolling Stoned: Former Music Mag Dedicates Latest Edition to Bashing Romney [The former music magazine known as Rolling Stone published three hit pieces on Mitt Romney this week.]
Just a couple of examples of the “straight” “down-the-line” reporting of the non existent media bias.
Taliban Beheads 17 Civilians For Attending Dance Party
Barack Obama’s peace partners, the Taliban, beheaded 17 civilians for dancing and singing including two women. AFP reported:
Insurgents beheaded 17 civilians in a Taliban-controlled area of southern Afghanistan, apparently because they attended a dance party that flouted the extreme brand of Islam embraced by the militants, officials said Monday.
The killings, in a district where U.S. Marines have battled the Taliban for years, were a reminder of how much power the insurgent group still wields in the south — particularly as international forces draw down and hand areas over to Afghan forces.
The victims were part of a large group that had gathered late Sunday in Helmand province’s Musa Qala district for a celebration involving music and dancing, said district government chief Neyamatullah Khan. He said the Taliban slaughtered them to show their disapproval of the event.
All of the bodies were decapitated but it was not clear if they had been shot first, said provincial government spokesman Daoud Ahmadi.
Under Taliban laws all music is banned except certain types of religious songs and pro-Taliban ‘chants’.
Madonna, Rihanna or Youssou Ndour, all non-Muslim lyrics have been declared Satanic.
“We, the mujahideen of Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal from now on refuse the broadcasting of all western music on radios on Islamic land,” said Oussama Ould Abdel Kader, a spokesman for the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO)
“We have already spoken to people who own the radio stations. We no longer want Satan’s music. Instead there must be verses of the Qur’an. Western music is Satanic music.”
Editor’s comment – Remember growing up in the 1980s? Kurt Loder and MTV News and Rolling Stone magazine blasted the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), and rightly so, for wanting to ban explicity rock music. The PMRC called some of the heavy metal music “Satanic.” Of course, the PMRC were Christian Right Americans. But its been decades since Christians pushed for rock music bans. Now, it’s Muslims. And lo and behold, there’s no coverage at any music or entertainment media. Must not fit the template.
What does Islam say about music and musical instruments… I bet you never knew, via Jihad Watch:
Hadith Qudsi 19:5: “The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance.” (The Hadith Qudsi, or holy Hadith, are those in which Muhammad transmits the words of Allah, although those words are not in the Qur’an.)
Muhammad also said:
(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”
(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….” — ‘Umdat al-Salik r40.0
Music and instruments are key to church worship and glorifying God. God, in fact, loves instruments, and this is why Islam hates it… hint:a false God:
Vocal Praise to God
The primary purpose of this analysis is to separate references to vocal praise from those mentioning musical accompaniment. This first category contains all the references of worship to God, which contained only vocals. If instruments of music were actually used in the following passages, there is no reference to it in the context:
Although many of the Psalms note accompaniment of musical instruments, many reference singing with no mention of instruments. These references are provided below:
It cannot be denied that instruments of music have been rightfully used to praise the Creator, neither should it be. If God saw fit to authorize mechanical instruments of music, then His wisdom should not be questioned. Likewise, His judgment must not be questioned if He later changed His mind, “for we walk by faith, not by sight” (II Corinthians 5:7).
Many of the Psalms have ancient subscripts, mentioning how they were to be sung, or played. Many of these titles include references to instruments, such as “string instruments”, “flutes”, and “harps”. Others mention mechanical instruments specifically in the Psalm itself. Psalms with references to musical accompaniment include:
Whether it be a marriage feast (Jeremiah 7:34) or a funeral (II Samuel 1:17-27; Matthew 9:23), music is often referenced as an expression of intense joy or sorrow. In each of these passages, the context is not religious. Often the context is social, like a marriage feast. These passages were separated from others, because they do not directly relate to the form of musical praise to God, although they provide intriguing knowledge to the place of music in the culture of the ancients.
Trumpets and horns were used in musical praise; however, they were often used in relation to sounding a battle communication. The blast of a trumpet was used to signal everything from the anointing of a new king (II Samuel 15:10) to the call to battle (Judges 3:27), and from welcoming a holy feast day (Leviticus 23:24) to instructing the host of Israel to begin marching (Numbers 10:2-10). In the absence of megaphones, the sound of trumpets could travel long distances, conveying important messages to large numbers of people. These references are separated, because they deal with the sounds of communication – not the melody of worship.
Trumpets and horns are often associated with God’s royal presence and power. Like the horns of war, these trumpets also convey a message – they signify the entrance of the King. However, sometime they are associated with the King’s work in judgment. Although these might be considered in the above category, because of the association with battle, references that associate trumpets with God’s judgment are grouped in their own special category.
Closely related with the blowing horns of victory, which would have been heard bellowing across the battlefield, horns were associated with victory and exaltation. Additionally, since they were often used to carry anointing oils, they are also associated with the glory of election. Although not directly related to music, these references to horns are significant, and are therefore worthy of their own category:
Including mention of the father of stringed instruments (Genesis 4:21), miscellaneous references to music and its instruments are sprinkled throughout the Scriptures. Although these may be important to another topic, they are not relevant to understanding the nature, purpose, or form of God’s desired musical praise. These references include:
Arthur Brisbane is stepping down from his job as public editor of the New York Times. In his final column, Brisbane addresses the issue of political and cultural bias at the Times (the emphasis is mine):
I. . .noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
NewsBusters rightly points out the left leaning bias of major news outlets with this — one of many — examples:
The Washington Postfilm review of the new conservative documentary 2016 mocked the movie as a “fear-mongering” “infomercial” that is too opinionated. The same paper, however, gushed over the “emotional power” of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, praising it as a “cultural juggernaut.”
2016 reviewer Michael O’Sullivan knocked the “slick infomercial,” deriding, “As these things go, the movie seems destined to irritate the president’s supporters while mobilizing his detractors, even as it is doomed to win precious few converts. It’s a textbook example of preaching to the choir.” In contrast, Fahrenheit 9/11 critic Desson Thomson defended, “Documentaries aren’t news articles; they’re subjective points of view, which is why Moore has almost endless fun at the president’s expense.”
Thomson explained away the hard-left tilt of Moore’s movie this way:
What counts is the emotional power of Moore’s persuasion. With a combination of events and facts that we have already learned, and some that we haven’t, Moore puts it all together. You can understand the thread of his argument, even if you disagree.
In comparison, O’Sullivan huffed that 2016 is “anything but crude. The best infomercials rarely are.”
It doesn’t matter whether the nominee is a conservative like Ronald Reagan, or a moderate like John McCain — network reporters always seem to scold Republican delegates and the party platform as too conservative, hostile to women, anathema to blacks, and an all-around turn-off to voters.
Going back to the 1988 convention, the MRC has documented how reporters act like Democratic surrogates, lecturing Republican officials and delegates about how they are too far to the right and intolerant.
