Talk:Deaths directly attributed to the liberal media

(Difference between revisions)My point is that the Church itself has been known to be not exactly innocent in the slaying of the innocent. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:09, 23 June 2013 (EDT)My point is that the Church itself has been known to be not exactly innocent in the slaying of the innocent. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:09, 23 June 2013 (EDT):Surely some blame must be placed on the people whose actions were reported on by the media. If they had not done these things there would have been nothing to report. And I am quite sure all media, not just liberal, reported at least some of these actions, certainly Rodney King--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 03:17, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

The WWF is liberal media? I'd actually be willing to bet money that the majority of professional wrestling fans vote Republican...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:gtbob12 (talk)

I'll take your money. WWE is close enough, see the link [1] --Jpatt 15:49, 29 June 2011 (EDT) That's one interesting graph. BobSherman 19:21, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

While you did source your graph, I do find it very difficult to believe that WWE wrestling fans are almost as liberal as NBA fans. While I do concede that a large percentage of Independent wrestling fans are liberals, mainstream wrestling draws a decidedly conservative audience, even in the north. As a lifelong wrestling fan who is very active in the Internet Wrestling community, in my experience, as well as that of others, mainstream wrestling fans are overwhelmingly conservative. The WWE has run angles in support of the war on terror, has long relied on Patriotic faces (good guys), and rarely has to faces be members of racial groups outside of White, protestants. Wrestling still does it's biggest business in the overwhelmingly conservative south, and is based Connecticut, among the wealthy, fiscal conservatives in New England. Furthermore, it appears that all of the other deaths are related to reports of mainstream news outlets, not entertainment outlets. I could go on an argue that it was not the responsibility of the media to supervise, and teach those kids, rather it is the parents, as well as the fact that the WWE often sprinkles "don't try this at home" messages throughout their programming, but that is a whole different can of worms. I feel I would be remiss to go on an anti-Jack Thompson/Joe Lieberman rant here, plus, I believe it would divert attention from my original point. - Ckennedy 13:48, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

I think I can agree with your statement and it's more a play than a sport. Though the liberal media is the broadcaster of such events. They have a responsibility to show these matches past primetime and a TV ratings warning, which wasn't the case at the time. Ultimately, the parents lack of supervision is to blame.--Jpatt 13:59, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

How many children died at Beziers, JPatt? AlanE 23:06, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

I don't see mention of that in the content entry or this talk page. Please explain your point.--Andy Schlafly 23:29, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

My point is that the Church itself has been known to be not exactly innocent in the slaying of the innocent. AlanE 00:09, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Surely some blame must be placed on the people whose actions were reported on by the media. If they had not done these things there would have been nothing to report. And I am quite sure all media, not just liberal, reported at least some of these actions, certainly Rodney King--Tomqua 03:17, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Mainstream media

(Difference between revisions)The  '''mainstream media''' ('''MSM'''), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the '''lamestream media''', are the increasingly [[liberal]] media organs that censor the dissemination of news.   The  '''mainstream media''' ('''MSM'''), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the '''lamestream media''', are the increasingly [[liberal]] media organs that censor the dissemination of news.   The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their [[censorship|censoring]] or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to [[conservative]] conclusions, and their use of [[photo bias]], [[placement bias]] and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect [[liberal]] conclusions.  The term '''mainstream media''' usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of [[liberal media | liberal bias]], while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.  The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their [[censorship|censoring]] or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to [[conservative]] conclusions, and their use of [[photo bias]], [[placement bias]] and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect [[Truth|liberal]] conclusions.  The term '''mainstream media''' usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of [[Truth | liberal bias]], while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.  {{cquote|''They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.''|||[[Andrew Breitbart]][http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75274 Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010]}}  {{cquote|''They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.''|||[[Andrew Breitbart]][http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75274 Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010]}}  

The mainstream media (MSM), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the lamestream media, are the increasingly liberal media organs that censor the dissemination of news.

The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their censoring or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to conservative conclusions, and their use of photo bias, placement bias and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect liberal conclusions. The term mainstream media usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.

They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.

Examples include:

Without any evidence of church attendance or Bible-reading by the defendant accused of murdering 92 people in Norway, the headline of the leading Australian newspaper declared, "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian.'"[2] The headline appears to be based in part on a Facebook page that was likely not even authentic. if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give equal time to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about interpretations of current events that might be disputable, or even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, radio and television stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On August 1, 1988, a new radio commentator named Rush Limbaugh began broadcasting in national syndication.

Significant mainstream media outlets include:

Newspapers

News Syndication Agencies

Television

Some media consumers do not consider Fox News to be part of the "mainstream media" as Fox News frequently presents viewpoints that do not fall in line with other mainstream outlets. For example, in 2007, the Democratic presidential candidates declared that they would not appear in debates hosted by Fox News, but they did appear on other MSM news outlets.

However, ratings indicate that because of its massive popularity, Fox News could be considered to be part of the mainstream media by definition. According to ratings organization Nielsen:

Fox News has the 10 most viewed cable TV news shows (as of Dec 2009). Fox News mean prime-time viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN, and exceed the total ratings of CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [4]

In 2006 CNN.com ran an article by columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" [5] Examining the relationship between the alternative press and the MSM, Tyrell writes:

So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the Internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumescence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction.

Differing opinions also exist over the definition of a similar term - Alternative Media. Although some consider, for example, Rush Limbaugh's launch to be the birth of 'alternative media', so too do the left consider publications like The Nation to be 'alternative media.'[6] In fact, many would view the Village Voice group to be the most widely published 'alternative media' outlet in the United States.

By whatever definition, most media watchers would classify as "alternative media" any media organ that is primarily hosted on the Internet rather than printed and delivered or mailed to subscribers. The alternative media is not exclusively conservative. It includes liberal organs as well. Some writers on these organs have suggested that the mainstream media has a conservative bias--by which they actually mean that mainstream-media organs are not as revolutionary, or as radical, in their thinking as are the writers themselves.[7][8][9]

At least one MSM organ, CBS News, attempted in 2006[10] to describe what a particular alternative-media segment (i.e., blogs) thinks of the MSM:

They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media..that would be [you].

It is worth noting that liberal blog activity on the internet declined after the election of Barack Hussein Obama [11], and continued to decline after his reelection. This shows that the distaste for bias in the liberal MSM is spreading to the alternative media.

? Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010? http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/norway-suspect-fundamentalist-christian-20110724-1huqg.html? The inclusion of The Wall Street Journal might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is conservative on most issues (except for immigration), its city room is definitely liberal in orientation and coverage of the news.? Authors unknown. "The State of the News Media 2007." Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Tyrell, R. Emmet. "Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" Creators' Syndicate, 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2007, from CNN.? Albert, Michael. "Alternative Media: What Makes Alternative Media Alternative?" Z Magazine. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Dreier, Peter. "For a Brief Moment, The Media Rediscover Poverty." AlterNet.org, July 26, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? O'Connor, Rory. "The Future of Citizen Journalism. AlterNet.org, July 3, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Rampton, Sheldon. "Has the Internet Changed the Propaganda Model?" AlterNet.org, June 22, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Pogue, David. "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World: David Pogue Ventures Into The Blogosphere]." CBSNews.com, July 9, 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? http://bloggasm.com/blog-traffic-for-liberal-blogs-down-58-in-three-months-following-election-conservative-blogs-down-36

View the original article here

Mainstream media

(Difference between revisions)The  '''mainstream media''' ('''MSM'''), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the '''lamestream media''', are the increasingly [[liberal]] media organs that censor the dissemination of news.   The  '''mainstream media''' ('''MSM'''), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the '''lamestream media''', are the increasingly [[liberal]] media organs that censor the dissemination of news.   The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their [[censorship|censoring]] or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to [[conservative]] conclusions, and their use of [[photo bias]], [[placement bias]] and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect [[liberal]] conclusions.  The term '''mainstream media''' usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of [[liberal media | liberal bias]], while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.  The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their [[censorship|censoring]] or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to [[conservative]] conclusions, and their use of [[photo bias]], [[placement bias]] and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect [[Truth|liberal]] conclusions.  The term '''mainstream media''' usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of [[Truth | liberal bias]], while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.  {{cquote|''They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.''|||[[Andrew Breitbart]][http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75274 Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010]}}  {{cquote|''They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.''|||[[Andrew Breitbart]][http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75274 Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010]}}  

The mainstream media (MSM), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the lamestream media, are the increasingly liberal media organs that censor the dissemination of news.

The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their censoring or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to conservative conclusions, and their use of photo bias, placement bias and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect liberal conclusions. The term mainstream media usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.

They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.

Examples include:

Without any evidence of church attendance or Bible-reading by the defendant accused of murdering 92 people in Norway, the headline of the leading Australian newspaper declared, "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian.'"[2] The headline appears to be based in part on a Facebook page that was likely not even authentic. if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give equal time to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about interpretations of current events that might be disputable, or even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, radio and television stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On August 1, 1988, a new radio commentator named Rush Limbaugh began broadcasting in national syndication.

Significant mainstream media outlets include:

Newspapers

News Syndication Agencies

Television

Some media consumers do not consider Fox News to be part of the "mainstream media" as Fox News frequently presents viewpoints that do not fall in line with other mainstream outlets. For example, in 2007, the Democratic presidential candidates declared that they would not appear in debates hosted by Fox News, but they did appear on other MSM news outlets.

However, ratings indicate that because of its massive popularity, Fox News could be considered to be part of the mainstream media by definition. According to ratings organization Nielsen:

Fox News has the 10 most viewed cable TV news shows (as of Dec 2009). Fox News mean prime-time viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN, and exceed the total ratings of CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [4]

In 2006 CNN.com ran an article by columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" [5] Examining the relationship between the alternative press and the MSM, Tyrell writes:

So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the Internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumescence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction.

Differing opinions also exist over the definition of a similar term - Alternative Media. Although some consider, for example, Rush Limbaugh's launch to be the birth of 'alternative media', so too do the left consider publications like The Nation to be 'alternative media.'[6] In fact, many would view the Village Voice group to be the most widely published 'alternative media' outlet in the United States.

By whatever definition, most media watchers would classify as "alternative media" any media organ that is primarily hosted on the Internet rather than printed and delivered or mailed to subscribers. The alternative media is not exclusively conservative. It includes liberal organs as well. Some writers on these organs have suggested that the mainstream media has a conservative bias--by which they actually mean that mainstream-media organs are not as revolutionary, or as radical, in their thinking as are the writers themselves.[7][8][9]

At least one MSM organ, CBS News, attempted in 2006[10] to describe what a particular alternative-media segment (i.e., blogs) thinks of the MSM:

They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media..that would be [you].

It is worth noting that liberal blog activity on the internet declined after the election of Barack Hussein Obama [11], and continued to decline after his reelection. This shows that the distaste for bias in the liberal MSM is spreading to the alternative media.

? Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010? http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/norway-suspect-fundamentalist-christian-20110724-1huqg.html? The inclusion of The Wall Street Journal might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is conservative on most issues (except for immigration), its city room is definitely liberal in orientation and coverage of the news.? Authors unknown. "The State of the News Media 2007." Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Tyrell, R. Emmet. "Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" Creators' Syndicate, 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2007, from CNN.? Albert, Michael. "Alternative Media: What Makes Alternative Media Alternative?" Z Magazine. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Dreier, Peter. "For a Brief Moment, The Media Rediscover Poverty." AlterNet.org, July 26, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? O'Connor, Rory. "The Future of Citizen Journalism. AlterNet.org, July 3, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Rampton, Sheldon. "Has the Internet Changed the Propaganda Model?" AlterNet.org, June 22, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? Pogue, David. "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World: David Pogue Ventures Into The Blogosphere]." CBSNews.com, July 9, 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2007.? http://bloggasm.com/blog-traffic-for-liberal-blogs-down-58-in-three-months-following-election-conservative-blogs-down-36

View the original article here

Video: Bozell Bashes Liberal Media Censorship of Bad News on ObamaCare

The liberal media "are deliberately censoring news and information from the American people" on ObamaCare that would cast the Obama administration in a negative light, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell charged on the April 11 edition of Varney & Co.

The Media Research Center president rattled off a few such developments that the liberal media completely ignored (watch the full segment below):

BRENT BOZELL, NewsBusters publisher: March 22nd, you have a situation where 33 Senate Democrats join with 40-some Republicans to vote against the 2.3 percent sales tax on medical devices. That is a huge setback for ObamaCare. Total network news stories: zero.

March 26. Another report comes out that says the health claims in the states are going to rise between 32 and 80 percent and that health care spending is going to double. A dramatic reversal for ObamaCare. Network news stories: zero.

March 26. You get a new report that comes out that says the Secretary of HHS, Sebelius herself, admits that premiums for new policies are going to go up. That is a complete contradiction to what the president told the American people when he sold it [ObamaCare] to them. Network news stories: zero.

April 3rd. You have another report that comes out that the system of exchanges in this country that were supposed to help small businesses are being put off for a year because it's a complete train wreck of a system. How many news reports on that? None.

April 4th, you have a poll -- this was a good one -- that says that two out of three Democrats now believe that ObamaCare will hurt them or not help them. Overall, 78 percent of the American people now believe that ObamaCare is going to hurt them, not help them. Only 15 percent of the American public believes that ObamaCare is going to help them.

Put them all together: No single network news story on any of that. Now, I rest my case, they're censoring information.

STUART VARNEY, host, Varney & Co.: No question, Brent. You've laid out the case and I'm buying it. There is deliberate censorship of information about ObamaCare.

View the original article here

World Famous Neurosurgeon Calls for Market-Oriented Health Care Reform In Front of Obama; Will Media Report?

At his keynote speech at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, world-renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson laid out some ideas he had for improving health care in the United States of America. Seated to his right was the president of the United States, who appeared to not care much for the good doctor's market-oriented idea of tax-free Health Savings Accounts. [h/t email tipster Brian Plunkett for bringing this to my attention]

The Insurance & Financial Advisor website has more details (emphases mine; video embedded below):

During his remarks, Carson came up with several solutions to some of America’s most pressing problems, including focusing on the importance of education.

Carson also touched on the economy, saying that he thinks about the issue frequently. “We don’t want to go down the path of many failed nations,” he said, pointing out what he says is “fiscal irresponsibility” in our government.

He seemed to offer the idea of a flat 10% income tax, which would prevent many successful people from taxing their money oversees [sic]. He cited “602 banks in the Cayman Islands” created as havens for those seeking to escape high taxes.

“That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs,” he said.

Carson’s remarks regarding what appeared to be his alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) appeared to make the president uncomfortable at times, with Obama looking down and away as Carson began to describe specific suggestions.

ACA is President Obama’s landmark health reform legislation that was passed in 2010. Carson has spoken openly in the past about alternatives to the law.

“We spend a lot of money on health care, twice as much per capita as anyone else in the world, and yet not very efficient. What can we do?” Carson asked rhetorically. “Here’s my solution. When a person is born, give them a birth certificate, an electronic medical record and a health savings account [HSA] to which money can be contributed pre-tax from the time you’re born to the time you die.”

Carson went on to say that accounts should be passed on to family members, so “there’s nobody talking about death panels,” in an obvious reference to the much debated “panels” discussed during negotiations and after passage of ACA.

Regarding those who cannot afford health insurance, Carson suggested, “We can make contributions to their HSA each month,” he said, adding, “we already have this huge pot of money; instead of sending it to some bureaucracy let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.”

Although Dr. Carson is a devout Christian, it appears there were no remarks made by Dr. Carson that were critical of the president's contraception mandate. That being said, it is gutsy to offer comments in a public forum which don't square with the president's left-wing agenda on health care, even though Carson did so respectfully and without any partisan invective.

All the same, don't expect the media to note Carson's ideas, which are fundamentally about empowering the individual and not the government.

View the original article here

Hilarious Conan Video Skewers Media Reporting On Gasoline Price Rise

I guess you don’t need anyone to tell you gas prices are back on the rise:

But then what do we need local media for?

So maybe those folks who said there’s just one person writing all the news were right….

Add your punchline in the comments.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Big Oil Mocks Climate Action With Help From Big Media

So I go to read a Washington Post story online, “Climate change could burn a hole in the government’s finances, GAO says.” And there is this banner ad mocking humanity’s primary hope of avoiding climate catastrophe:

“Energy Tomorrow is brought to you by the American Petroleum Institute (API),” in case you were wondering.

We all need to “imagine life without fossil fuels,” since that is where we will are going to end up this century one way or another:

Either we will make the decision by choice fast enough to stabilize near  2°C (3.6°F) warming to avoid the very worst impacts — and that means the rich countries in particular will be essentially off fossil fuels by mid-century (see “Study Confirms Optimal Climate Strategy: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, Research and Develop, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy.”Or we will be forced off fossil fuels soon after that by the ever-worsening reality of climate change — when we realize that we are headed toward 10+°F warming and a planet with a carrying capacity far below 9 billion (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts“).

[Carbon capture and storage might enable the continued use of some fossil fuels until they run out, though it probably won't be a decisive player in the solution and in any case wouldn't save Big Oil.]

As the WashPost article explains:

As climate change leads to more frequent and destructive natural disasters and threatens crop yields, bridges and other infrastructure, the federal government faces big financial risks that it is poorly positioned to address, auditors said Thursday.

Try imagining life with more frequent and destructive natural disasters and threatened crop yields. It isn’t hard to do (see “We’re Already Topping Dust Bowl Temperatures — Imagine What’ll Happen If We Fail To Stop 10°F Warming.”

Now it appears the API ad is just appearing in rotation, but I did come across it again for another climate article:

The story on Tom Steyer (who is also on the CAP board) explains:

Steyer is convinced that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to begin to fall within the next few years or the world will suffer catastrophic consequences. But when he talks to many in his circle — including business leaders and prominent politicians — he finds them oblivious to what he sees as a monumental threat.

So yes this is a story about a billionaire investor who can imagine life without fossil fuels — and the business leaders who are oblivious to climate reality.

In short, the Washington Post is explaining that influential people are oblivious to a threat that the Washington Post runs ads regularly mocking.  You can’t make this stuff up (unless you are a fossil-fuel-funded denier, of course).

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Bozell, Varney Discuss Media Ignoring Pro-Free Market Speech by Dr. Carson at Prayer Breakfast

Dr. Ben Carson has received little coverage in traditional media outlets for a speech he gave last Thursday at a prayer breakfast in which he advocated a flat tax and health savings accounts to improve the American economy and the health care system, respectively. The little attention he has gotten has been negative, with the media indignant that the world renowned neurosurgeon dared to "disrespect" the president by offering policy proposals that deviated from the government-centered ones of Mr. Obama's liking.

Even so, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell noted on the Tuesday edition of Varney & Co., because of talk radio, and the Internet, "the toothpaste is out of the tube" and while it may take longer for more people to become aware of it, "This story will not stop growing." "This proves why the networks are becoming increasingly irrelevant," the Media Research Center founder told the Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney. [MP3 audio here; video of segment follows page break]

View the original article here

World Famous Neurosurgeon Calls for Market-Oriented Health Care Reform In Front of Obama; Will Media Report?

At his keynote speech at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, world-renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson laid out some ideas he had for improving health care in the United States of America. Seated to his right was the president of the United States, who appeared to not care much for the good doctor's market-oriented idea of tax-free Health Savings Accounts. [h/t email tipster Brian Plunkett for bringing this to my attention]

The Insurance & Financial Advisor website has more details (emphases mine; video embedded below):

During his remarks, Carson came up with several solutions to some of America’s most pressing problems, including focusing on the importance of education.

Carson also touched on the economy, saying that he thinks about the issue frequently. “We don’t want to go down the path of many failed nations,” he said, pointing out what he says is “fiscal irresponsibility” in our government.

He seemed to offer the idea of a flat 10% income tax, which would prevent many successful people from taxing their money oversees [sic]. He cited “602 banks in the Cayman Islands” created as havens for those seeking to escape high taxes.

“That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs,” he said.

Carson’s remarks regarding what appeared to be his alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) appeared to make the president uncomfortable at times, with Obama looking down and away as Carson began to describe specific suggestions.

ACA is President Obama’s landmark health reform legislation that was passed in 2010. Carson has spoken openly in the past about alternatives to the law.

“We spend a lot of money on health care, twice as much per capita as anyone else in the world, and yet not very efficient. What can we do?” Carson asked rhetorically. “Here’s my solution. When a person is born, give them a birth certificate, an electronic medical record and a health savings account [HSA] to which money can be contributed pre-tax from the time you’re born to the time you die.”

Carson went on to say that accounts should be passed on to family members, so “there’s nobody talking about death panels,” in an obvious reference to the much debated “panels” discussed during negotiations and after passage of ACA.

Regarding those who cannot afford health insurance, Carson suggested, “We can make contributions to their HSA each month,” he said, adding, “we already have this huge pot of money; instead of sending it to some bureaucracy let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.”

Although Dr. Carson is a devout Christian, it appears there were no remarks made by Dr. Carson that were critical of the president's contraception mandate. That being said, it is gutsy to offer comments in a public forum which don't square with the president's left-wing agenda on health care, even though Carson did so respectfully and without any partisan invective.

All the same, don't expect the media to note Carson's ideas, which are fundamentally about empowering the individual and not the government.

View the original article here

How To Convince The NRA That Assault Weapons, Not The Media, Are Responsible For Gun Massacres

Stephen King — best selling author of the very kind of violent books that gun advocates say contribute to gun violence — has penned Guns, a 25-page essay dismissing their criticism, while calling for universal background checks for gun purchases, and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

A self-described “blue-state American” who also owns guns, King is no stranger to how individuals can and do turn to art as inspiration for violence. During the 1990s, no fewer than four shooters read Rage — an early work King wrote in high school years and published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman years later — entered their high schools with guns, held students and teachers hostage, and in some cases killed them. The book chronicles how Charlie Decker, a troubled high school student with a “domineering father,” brought a gun to school, killed his algebra teacher, and held his class hostage — only to see his classmates experience a “psychological inversion” and come to his defense.

After copies of Rage were discovered in the possession of multiple high school shooters, King voluntarily pulled the book from publication. He did so not because the thin tome inspired would-be killers to commit unspeakable carnage; rather it acted “as a possible accelerant” for boys who spent time in psych wards pondering suicide or endured the kind of bullying that results in severe medical paranoia. These boys found a “soul brother” in Decker. He gave them “blueprints to express their hate and rage” and for that, King decided, he “had to go.” “You don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it,” the author writes in Guns.

But while art that taps into the heart of a troubled soul can “accelerate” violence, there is little evidence that it causes it. Those arguments, often advanced by conservative lawmakers with A ratings from the National Rifle Association — and the NRA itself — “throw popular culture into the debate in the hopes that it’ll be distracting chum to piranhas hungry for scapegoats but reluctant to fight difficult battles to make America safer.” They also avoid any examination of the “state of our own popular culture and the profound fears about justice, disempowerment, and the state of civil society that are reflected in it.”

As King puts it, “To claim that America’s ‘culture of violence’ is responsible for school shootings is tantamount to cigarette company executives declaring that environmental pollution is the chief cause of lung cancer.” Americans consume relatively high levels of gun violence, but we’re not acting out in response to it. Nor are we completely saturating ourselves in it. For instance, King observes that only two of the 10 most popular works of fiction in 2012 featured violence. Just one of the top-grossing movies of 2012 (Skyfall) showed gun killings. Sports, dance, and Mario Brothers are the nation’s most popular video games, and football and detective shows consistently score the highest television ratings.

In the coming days and weeks, gun manufacturers and lobbyists will spend millions convincing American gun owners who actually support sensible regulations that they are “under siege” from President Obama’s government. They’ll argue that the administration’s proposed universal background checks for all gun purchasers and waiting periods are tantamount to big brother keeping tabs on Americans who own firearms, and say that limiting the availability of military-style assault weapons that can fire off tens of bullets in rapid succession without reloading would leave Americans defenseless from home intruders or a government takeover.

They’ll deflect attention from guns and propose expanding access to mental health services, stationing guards in schools, and of course clamping down on the media’s glorification of violence. “One only wishes [NRA Executive VIce President and CEO] Wayne LaPierre and his NRA board of directors could be drafted to some of these [school shooting] scenes, where they would be required to put on booties and rubber gloves and help clean up the blood, the brains, and the chunks of intestine still containing the poor wads of half-digested food that were some innocent bystander’s last meal,” King writes. Maybe then they’ll focus less on the make-believe death in media and the very real destruction that open access to military-style weapons can cause.

View the original article here

Huffington: Three Big Media Trends of 2013

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoThu 17 Jan 13 | 07:44 AM ET "Stress is one of the main reasons for why health care costs have been rising," said Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post founder, discussing how business are beginning to realize that stress reduction is actually a performance enhancement tool. Also, a look at how new technology is changing the face of media.

View the original article here

Don’t Believe The Media Hype: Obamacare Is Not Responsible For Double Digit Premium Hikes

Small businesses and individual health policy holders could face dramatic premium spikes this year, as some insurers file double digit increases and attribute the changes to the Affordable Care Act. The sticker shock is mostly the result of rising health care costs — and the prevalence of sicker beneficiaries in health insurance risk pools. The media, however, is blaming health care reform.

For instance, Friday’s Politico reported that premiums are increasing across the country as “All those new consumer benefits packed into the health reform law — birth control without a co-pay, free preventive care and limits on when insurers can turn down a customer — had to be paid for somehow.” Policy holders may experience 10 to 20 percent rate hikes, it warns, as insurers are “working the health reform law’s 2014 fees into their 2013 bills.”

So how much is Obamacare responsible for? Five, maybe eight percent? The answer is less than two.

Insurers are arguing that the costs of Obamacare’s annual fee on the industry, its requirement that companies contribute to a reinsurance program, and new benefits and regulations have to be passed down to consumers. “There’s a massive new health insurance tax that starts in 2014,” Robert Zirkelbach, the spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans told Politico. “For policies that are sold in 2013 and extend into next year, there’s going to be taxes imposed. … As a result, like all taxes, they will be reflected in premiums charged.”

There are new costs in 2014, but they have little to do with reform. Consider the insurers’ own rate justification filings, in which companies have to substantiate the raises. Aetna in Pennsylvania, for instance, seeks to increase rates by an average of 16.49 percent, but as it explains in its filing, 63.18 percent of the increase is attributed to the “cost of providing healthcare services to policyholders.” The Affordable Care Act is responsible for a tiny portion of the increase:

Impact of New Taxes and Fees

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes several new taxes and fees payable in 2014, including two that specifically apply to insured products — the health insurer fee and the reinsurance contribution. These new fees result in additional costs and are reflected in our updated rates for policies that extend into 2014. The overall impact of these costs on this filing is as follows:
* Health Insurer Fee: 1.0%
* Reinsurance Contribution: 0.5%

Washington & Lee Law School professor Timothy Jost predicted that “insurers in the individual market will benefit substantially from reinsurance payments” and will be “spared some administrative costs-notably the cost of underwriting which should be quite substantial.” ” The cost of new benefits should not be a big deal,” he continued, since “most of the costs of health insurance are for inpatient, outpatient, physician, lab, radiology, and pharmaceuticals, which virtually all insurers now cover.”

“I suspect that what is going on is a combination of legitimate concern about new costs, overestimation of what those costs will be and underestimation of offsetting savings, taking a chance to attack the ACA, and grabbing the opportunity to make some profit,” Jost added.

The Affordable Care Act reforms the individual health care market and allows businesses and individuals to take advantage of large risk pools by purchasing coverage through state-based health care exchanges. Over time, insurers will see an influx of new customers, many of whom will benefit from the law’s tax credits and will see their health care bills decrease.

In the short term, however, regulators must remain vigilant. As Sarah Lueck, of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), told ThinkProgress, “The question of whether these increases are justified is something that regulators should closely scrutinize.”

View the original article here

The MRC@25: The Worst Media Bias of 2009

NewsBusters is showcasing the most egregious bias the Media Research Center has uncovered over the years — four quotes for each of the 25 years of the MRC, 100 quotes total — all leading up to our big 25th Anniversary Gala on Thursday night.

Click here for posts recounting the worst of 1988 through 2008. Today, the worst bias of 2009: Journalists are thrilled by Barack Obama’s arrival in the Oval Office, with ABC’s Terry Moran suggesting he’s the “first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office,” and Newsweek’s Evan Thomas seeing Obama’s approach to foreign policy as being “above the world. He’s sort of God.” [Quotes and video below the jump.]

“We know that wind can make a cold day feel colder, but can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer? It seems to be the case because regardless of the final crowd number estimates, never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity.”
— ABC’s Bill Weir on World News, January 20, 2009.

"I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office. I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he’s got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way.”
— ABC Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran to Media Bistro’s Steve Krakauer in a February 20, 2009 “Morning Media Menu” podcast. (MP3 audio.)

“Reagan [at the 1984 D-Day commemoration] was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something.’ I mean, in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, June 5, 2009.

“The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”
— Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, September 23, 2009.

Check back each morning for more classic bias quotes, or visit our “25th Anniversary” section for the entire collection.

Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Rich Noyes on Twitter.

View the original article here

Media Trackers Uncovers Massive Ballot Irregularities in Montana

From the diaries by Erick . . .

In at least two counties in Montana, the home of a competitive U.S. Senate race that could tip the balance of power in the upper chamber, massive mail-in absentee ballot irregularities have been uncovered by Media Trackers Montana, a non-partisan investigative research organization with operations in five states across the country.  In Broadwater county alone, where Sen. Jon Tester received only 35 percent of the vote in the 2006 general election, up to 600 erroneous mail-in ballots have been reported. Over a dozen Billings-area voters have complained that they received incorrect ballots.  Yellowstone county officials have also reported numerous complaints from voters receiving the wrong ballot.

And to top it all off, even a sample ballot available to individual voters on the Montana Secretary of State’s website is incorrect (this particular ballot allows the voter to select a state representative in two separate districts — districts 68 and 83).  A majority of Montana voters are expected to vote by mail this November.

The Media Trackers investigation found state political officials in total disarray.  One county elections supervisor gave Media Trackers Montana several conflicting reasons for the ballot snafu.  Broadwater County elections officer Rhonda Nelson, a Democrat, told Media Trackers that the county experienced a “computer glitch with the software vendor” which resulted in numerous ballot anomalies. But when pressed for more specificity, Nelson seemed to contradict herself, stating, “This happened because I was in the hospital the day the ballots were approved and while my deputy was watching things, it was one less set of eyes on the process.”  Despite the widespread and significant ballot problems, Nelson told Media Trackers that she was confident in the integrity of the mail-in ballot system and that she planned to “personally call everyone who received a bad ballot and let them know they will be getting correct ballots.”

Scott Aspenlieder, a Republican seeking to unseat current Secretary of State Linda McCulloch, a Democrat, issued a scathing press release after Media Trackers first reported the ballot irregularities.  “I call on our Secretary of State to begin a comprehensive audit of all of the 2012 absentee ballots to identify every single error, and immediately take steps to fix this process so a Montanan’s right to vote is never threatened again,” he wrote.  “This failure of leadership is simply unacceptable, and Montanans deserve better.”

Montana’s primary is scheduled for Tuesday, June 5.  Follow Media Trackers Montana on Facebook and Twitter to receive breaking updates on this developing story.

View the original article here

What the Mainstream Media Isn’t Reporting About Solyndra

Promoted from the diaries.

After just a short time in Congress, I find myself more keenly aware of the research and reporting failures of the modern mainstream media.  If a story gets more depth and attention than the typical 10 second sound bite, I admit, I’m surprised.  Solyndra is no different.

There are a number of facts surrounding the Solyndra story that don’t seem to be getting any attention.  A significant part of the public outrage regarding the bankrupt company isn’t centered on their failed business model or external factors; it’s the millions of taxpayer dollars that the Obama Administration lost on Solyndra after the business was doomed.

After Solyndra defaulted and they knew Solyndra was in real financial trouble, Secretary Steven Chu’s Department of Energy (DOE) staff made a decision by December 10, 2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private capital could be injected into Solyndra.  Subordination means that outside private investors are given superiority over taxpayers in the event of bankruptcy.  At that point, $440 million of the $535 million loan guarantee already had been pumped into the company.

By law Secretary Chu wasn’t allowed to subordinate the taxpayers’ money.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically states that the loan guarantee “shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.”  It was the clear intention of Congress that taxpayers should be reimbursed first.

For a company that had already been declared in default and had a collapsed business model because the Chinese were selling their solar panels for less, one might question the sanity of private investors who gambled on Solyndra in December of 2010.  Were they after Solyndra’s intellectual property (IP) rights?  As a private investor and the dominant financier, could Argonaut’s support of President Obama have helped them secure Solyndra’s IP assets?

By December of 2010, these private investors were placed in first position to get the choice parts of the business – intellectual property, including proprietary information, processes, and patents – when Solyndra went under.  To be fair, I’d guess that these assets likely aren’t worth billions, but one could certainly speculate they’re at least worth $75 million, which legally belonged to the taxpayers.

Without question, $170 million – at the very least – was wasted.  If DOE had simply let Solyndra fail in December 2010, taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for $95 million of the loan guarantee that had yet to be dispersed in addition to the $75 million that was subordinated.

Why isn’t the mainstream media asking questions like these?  What other questions aren’t being asked?  To me, the Solyndra scandal is worthy of some good, old-fashioned investigative reporting.  Where are Bernstein and Woodward?  Is there no budding Mike Wallace?  I will continue to try to get to the bottom of this scandal.  Will the media join me?

Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, Virginia Republican, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

View the original article here

Testing the Media testicular fortitude

According to America's top constitutional law Professor turned President of the United States, the Supreme Court overturning "a law that by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress was adopted."

What about the people, acting through the democratic process, to change their own Constitution?

I ask because in California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional for the people of California to ban of gay marriage to their Constitution. Most damning, the Ninth Circuit opinion pretty clear says that when judges Act and the people choose to change their Constitution in response, such an amendment is unconstitutional.

Will someone in the media ask the President if, based on its logic on the Supreme Court, he supports the voters in California who wanted to pass Proposition 8?

"No, no," he would try to pull back. "I'm talking about when the Supreme Court is trying to curb rights."

Wherefore, believes President Government-funded health care is a right?

It also supports President the legislatures of the several States voter ID laws by a democratically elected legislature enacting?

But wait ... There are more questions the media must keep if we go the President everyone responsible for their words and not just the Republicans.

Believes the President should overturn Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court when the law a law adopted by a large majority in a democratically elected state legislature declared unconstitutional?

Hey, what about the immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama?

"I said ' Congress '," could the President answer.

Okay. Well in the United States the partial birth abortion ban 2003 Congress law of 2003 by a greater margin that the previous Congress Obamacare and that the majority was bipartisan.

Does the President now that the Supreme Court was right to maintain the constitutionality of "a law which has been adopted by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress"? If so, the President withdraw his statement of 2007 now where he attacked the Supreme Court for enforcement of "a law that was passed by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

Some Member States of the media certainly has the testicular fortitude to ask only the latter.

But then again, what of Proposition 8? The President believes that the courts must listen to the will of the people?

View the original article here

Destroys last of the Media credibility Trayvon Martin story

I don't really know what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. What I do know is that this story led at least one manslaughter – the murder of self-inflicted media the last shreds of credibility has to. And it's not just conservative blogs that brands-even straight news sources have started noticing the shame with which the media has showered during this whole sad saga. The Washington Post reported Friday that NBC's blatant editing Zimmerman the 911 call will be "reviewed internally," which is as close as you ever screw up an admission of a very serious of a major news organization will get.

The most stunning admission still came from something called a Touré, which apparently is a contributor MSNBC. Touré apparently got tired of being on a TV channel nobody watches so he went on to take last week Piers Morgan to task for the journalistic crime of getting both sides of the story Piers:

You know, at NBC, in the corridors, we were laughing at you today, "Touré told Morgan. "We wouldn't take [Robert Zimmerman]. Standards and practices on NBC wouldn't let him get through the door. And you had him on the air and the hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands thousands or regardless of number of people watching your show listen to what he had to say allowed.

This is the first time I can remember an alleged news figure which it is expressly stated that his network has a policy against allowing one of the major players in a national news story to give his side had. My favorite part of Touré of hysterical rant was his outrage over the fact that people would hear what Zimmerman had to say. One thing is clear – the way the media has been about this story really told the truth far validates that Touré. Journalistic standards and practices apparently not possible for a cover story that would suggest that the race Trayvon Martin pimps who currently are hustling it doesn't correct this story.

View the original article here