Who trusts the Fourth Estate?

I don't have cable TV so I don't watch much television that isn't off Netflix or the internet so I don't see much CNN.  I heard a report however, that CNN's coverage of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks contained this tidbit.

While they were showing the video of the terrorist attacks, in which you could clearly hear the terrorists shouting "Allahu ackbar" and "Mohammed is avenged" there was a ticker scrolling across the bottom of the screen that said "the gunmen's motive is unknown at this time".

This might be an incorrect report, but it fits, doesn't it.  This is par for the course.  Add this to "Three Israelis, two Palestinians dead in shooting" headline, failing to mention that the two Palestinians were the shooters and they were dead because the police killed them; or the Marysville High School shooting in Washington state, where the media constantly reports a "death toll of five" which includes the shooter who killed himself.  The media has also in the past counted the deaths of criminals who are killed by the police when listing gun violence statistics.  Anything to blur the lines, to cause confusion, to keep us from knowing what is really going on in the world.

If Obama were a Republican episode 8,647

Remember when Dan Quayle corrected a student at a spelling bee, prompting her to add the "silent e" to the word potato?  Well, you probably never read the part where the cue card that was provided to the vice president had the word misspelled.  Apparently the third grade teacher who made the cards did the original misspelling.

Well, Obama had his own "Dan Quayle" moment the other night, but you won't hear about it on the front page of the news.  Only Republicans get that treatment.  Obama apparently thinks that R-E-S-P-E-C-T is spelled without the first E.  R-S-P-E-C-T.

Of course we all know that things like this happen and most of us would just let it go with a chuckle and maybe a joke on late night TV, but that's the difference between the treatment the media gives conservatives versus progressives.

Back in time

Senator Biden warns President, bombing Iran without Congressional approval would be an impeachable offense.

Unfortunately that was in 2007 and the President in question was George W. Bush and the country was Iran.

Apparently bombing Syria in 2013 under President Obama is a completely different issue.  After all, Time magazine says so.

H/T Ace of Spades via SDA

Cop killer is a leftist? Who knew?

Who knew? Dorner, apparent cop killer, was a leftist.

From PJ Media's Andrew Klaven

The American left is always waxing hysterical about right-wing violence and the true violence always comes from the American left.

Every time some nut job with even the most tenuous ties to a conservative ideology (think Aurora, Colorado where the shooter had the same name as a tea party member, and so was immediately labeled a tea party member by the local media) we are subjected to their diatribes on the violent tendencies of conservatives.  Yet here is a self admitted leftist and I have never heard one comment about his politics on any news report.

Real bias

I have had arguments with numerous friends and family about the reliability of Fox News.  They claim that it is a propaganda machine for the political right.  I acknowledge that fact but point out that the rest of the mainstream media is a propaganda machine for the political left and that Fox is, in fact, more balanced than the rest.  At this point the discussion generally ends with claims that fall somewhere along the lines of "you really are paranoid, don't be ridiculous, the networks are the model of unbiased journalism".

Well, PEW, not known as a conservative outfit, recently did some analysis of the recent election and found that MSNBC (NBC's political news channel) ran stories on Romney at a ratio of about 24:1 negative to positive.  Fox News, on the other hand, ran stories on Obama at a ratio of about 6:1 negative to positive.

So who's more biased?

Note: I haven't been able to find similar information on CNN for this election but I did stumble across a similar analysis for the last election.  Quick results (McCain 61:13 and Obama 39:36).  Slightly more balanced than Fox (at least when we compare two different elections) but definitely tilted to the left.

The silence is deafening

Yup.  It's the age old story.  Guy meets girl, guy gets dumped by girl, guy goes on shooting spree, wait... What?  No, he doesn't because someone in the audience has a gun and shoots him before he can do more than wound two people.

Where's the national coverage on the benefit of having armed people around to respond when the police can't get there in time? 

Yeah, exactly, it doesn't exist. Maybe fewer people would make the attempt if the media would publicize these cases as well as the successful mass killings.  I'd think that knowing you could get shot before you accomplished anything might be a decent deterrence to at least some of these idiots.

The Consistency of the Gray Lady

In 1995, with a Democratic President and a Republican Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that it was time to eliminate the filibuster.  They referred to Republican use of the filibuster as a "relentless abuse of a time honored tradition".

In 2005, with a Republican President and a Democratic Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that the filibuster was an important safeguard in protecting "unrestrained majority rule".  They referred to Republican's plan to eliminate the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations as a "dangerous game".

In 2012, just three days ago, with a Democratic President and a Republican Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that it is time to end the filibuster against judicial nominess.  They referred to Republican use of the filibuster as "cynical partisanship and cheap tricks".

Speaking of cynical partisanship...

Oh well, at least the Times is consistent.  Consistently in favor of anything that will allow the Democratic party to get whatever they want.