Posted by Richard on March 14, 2019
Shot:
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/03/14/thats-gross-beto-orourkes-stunt-in-iowa-just-killed-our-appetites-pics-and-hopefully-his-chances/
Chaser:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/03/14/hacktastic-look-closely-this-other-fawning-magazine-profile-of-a-rising-democrat-pretty-boy/
Say what you will about John Edwards, but at least he didn’t campaign on coffee shop counters.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: beto, democrats, media bias, politics | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 8, 2019
I’m pretty pleased and impressed by Trump’s State of the Union address. I’m not quite as impressed as Newt Gingrich, who thinks it “changed history.” But he makes some good points, and I agree that watching it is better than just reading the transcript.
There were, of course, things that rubbed this libertarian the wrong way, chief among them being his embrace of “nationwide family leave.” I guess Ivanka finally got to him on that. The last thing this country needs is yet another entitlement, and forcing employers to pay for it instead of taxpayers doesn’t make it any less bad. It will just further reinforce the already far-too-prevalent belief that one person’s (perceived) need constitutes a morally legitimate claim on someone else’s property.
But there were also some truly moving moments (I’m thinking especially of his honoring of Judah Samet, Joshua Kaufman, and Herman Zeitchik). And some parts of the speech made me want to cheer. Here are two:
Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence –- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.
…
Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.
As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.
The polling numbers for the speech looked great for Trump, including the YouGov survey immediately afterward commissioned by CBS News. It showed approval/agreement numbers for Trump’s specific ideas ranging from 71% to 78%.
CNN also had a post-speech poll with similarly positive numbers. But both networks emphasized that the audience for SOTU broadcasts leans heavily to the President’s own party. CNN in particular, as NewsBusters noted (emphasis in original):
“So I just want to stress here, for a State of the Union address, the President’s partisans, his supporters tend to turn out to watch the speech. This is true of a president of either party,” he warned viewers after also noting the poll was only of people who actually watched the speech. “So tonight, we saw a heavily Republican skewed audience turn out to watch the President’s speech.”
As this author wondered last year: If you’re polling a skewed pool of respondents, then why take the poll in the first place? It’s because they like to hold up the results when it’s a Democratic president giving the State of the Union address.
Remember when CNN and CBS always discounted the favorable poll results after Obama’s SOTU speeches because viewers were mostly Democrats? And reminded us that the results weren’t representative of the country as a whole, only of those who watched? Me neither.
Both networks made a laughable attempt to find something negative in viewers’ reactions by focusing on their poll’s bipartisanship question. The CNN-commissioned SRSS poll asked, “Do you think President Trump will or will not succeed in increasing cooperation between Democrats and Republicans?” 53% said he will not succeed. The CBS YouGov poll asked, “Did what you heard tonight make you think that Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi will…” 33% thought they’d work together more, 4% thought they’d work together less, and 63% thought it won’t change things much. Both networks made this sound like a failing of Trump’s.
But who do you think this “skewed Republican” audience is more likely to blame for lack of bipartisan cooperation, Trump or Pelosi, Schumer, et al? Well, here’s a clue: YouGov also asked, “Looking ahead, do you think the President’s speech will do more to…?” 56% said unite the country, only 8% said divide the country, and 36% said it won’t change things much. So a lot of viewers think Trump’s speech had a positive effect on the country as a whole, but that it won’t help with Pelosi. Sounds about right to me.
UPDATE: I almost missed this bit of hilarity. NPR is not only partisan, but clumsily and stupidly partisan. And boy, did they get called on it.
Donald Trump Jr. joined the pile-on attacking NPR Wednesday morning over the organization’s “fact check” on President Trump’s State of the Union address that many criticized as partisan and unfair.
“FACT CHECK: President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR wrote late Tuesday.
The tweet was referring to a rare moment in bipartisan celebration Tuesday night when Mr. Trump acknowledged the record number of women serving in Congress.
“Exactly one century after Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before,” the president declared.
Fact check: You people are morons. He praised them and their success. He didn’t pick sides. He didn’t take credit. He genuinely was happy for it and yet you still knock him.
What the hell is wrong with you? https://t.co/I2R0IrPIYn
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 6, 2019
The Washington Times has several more great responses (including David Harsanyi’s), so go read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: media bias, politics, polls, state of the union, trump | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 17, 2018
Condemnation of Trump and the Helsinki summit has been near-universal. Media commentary has spanned the spectrum from “Trump should be removed from office by any means necessary” to “Trump should be summarily hanged for treason.” Democrats and Republicans (with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul) seem to be in bipartisan agreement that every word Trump uttered was reprehensible and deplorable, and that we must punish Russia with more sanctions at the very least, and possibly go further.
Which brings me to today’s quotes, a couple of reminders concerning bipartisanship:
We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.
— M. Stanton Evans
Universal, bipartisan agreement on anything is usually the first sign that something deeply unwise is about to happen, if only because there is nobody left to ask skeptical questions.
— Tucker Carlson
As for skeptical questions, a friend sent some of us a link to this Disobedient Media article about Mueller’s indictments of a dozen Russians for hacking the DNC et al. Confession: my eyes started to glaze over about a third of the way through this very dense and detailed dissection of the Russian hacking claims, and I only skimmed the rest. But if even a third of what I read is correct, Mueller’s claims regarding Guccifer 2.0 fall completely apart.
A more likely conclusion is that someone went to considerable trouble to make it look like Guccifer 2.0 was Russian government operatives. Pure speculation on my part, but I’m thinking that that someone might be CrowdStrike, hired by the DNC to look into its server breach(es) and the only organization that ever had access to the DNC servers (the FBI never did).
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bipartisanship, helsinki, media bias, putin, russia, trump | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 29, 2018
Last Thursday, in the most recent example of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy, the bad guy started shooting into a busy Oklahoma City bar and grill when two armed citizens independently confronted him and one of them shot him dead. Newsbusters noted that this event was barely mentioned by CNN and completely ignored by NBC and MSNBC. It will never be included in the list of “mass shootings” that the media and (other) gun control advocates compile because the bad guy only wounded two and didn’t kill anyone. As the NRA noted:
…Like a perverse Goldilocks, gun controllers will discount cases where a criminal was stopped before they were able to carry out sufficient carnage, and, as in the case of the shooting in Southerland Springs, dismiss a case where the killer was able to exact significant violence before an armed citizen could arrive.
According to a 2017 study by the excellent Crime Prevention Research Center, the number of concealed carry permit holders nationwide has grown to over 16 million, up 256% since 2007. But that’s still just 6.5% of the adult population, so it’s pure luck when a good guy (or gal; carry permits for women have been growing much faster than for men) with a gun and the willingness to act happens to be on hand when a bad guy starts shooting.
But per FBI data, that lucky happenstance is happening more and more often, and as David French noted, increasing the number of good guys and gals with guns has been shown to have no downside and is far more likely to provide a benefit than any proposed gun control laws (bold emphasis added):
Any sophisticated approach to a problem involves discussing potential solutions both left of boom (before the shooting) and right of boom (after the shooting starts). Gun control is a classic left-of-boom approach, designed to prevent attacks before they can happen. …
In fact, as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler found in a now-famous fact check, no recent mass shooting would have been prevented by any of the conventional gun restrictions progressives often propose.
But this isn’t a left-of-boom essay. Let’s talk about what happens when the shooting starts. Here, the FBI provides extremely helpful data. How do shootings end? The most common ways are exactly what you’d expect: The shooters kill themselves or flee, or the police exchange gunfire with the shooter and/or apprehend him. But a surprising amount of the time, citizens stop the killer, and an increasing percentage of those citizens are armed.
From 2000 to 2013, only five times did an armed citizen (who was not a police officer) exchange fire with the shooter. Three times the citizen killed the shooter, once the shooter committed suicide, and once the shooter was wounded. Fast forward to 2016–2017. In that time period, six armed citizens confronted active shooters. They stopped the shooting four times (in one case, the shooter fled to a different site and continued shooting, and in the other the armed citizen was wounded before he could stop the shooting).
The lesson? Armed citizens can make a difference, and as more Americans obtain carry permits, more Americans will be on-scene and able to react. Moreover, what’s missing from the data is any indication that armed citizens make the crisis worse. The stereotype of carry-permit holders spraying panicked gunfire is simply wrong.
Police can’t saturate populated areas. There are simply not enough cops to go around. The records of their responses are heroic (the incidents include large numbers of police casualties), but, as the saying goes, when seconds count, police are minutes away. But, by definition, people do saturate populated areas. And when an increasing number of those people possess carry permits, the instant response grows more likely.
It’s foolish to argue that “more carry permits” is the solution to our national challenge. I think it’s also wrong to claim that more carry permits isn’t part of the answer. But for carry permits to help, it requires a government to protect liberty and a citizen to exercise that liberty responsibly.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: concealed carry, crime, gun control, gun violence, media bias, oklahoma | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 27, 2018
I’m told that there’s no truth to the rumor that Steny Hoyer is going to introduce a bill called the “Fugitive Negro Act” to ensure that runaways like Kanye West and Chance the Rapper are returned to the Democratic Plantation and “re-educated.”
The Democratic leadership apparently considered and rejected the idea after realizing that the Party of Lincoln would never allow it to pass.
Wasn’t it Kanye who rapped “Free at last, free at last. Up yours, mo-fos, I’m free at last!”?
The editors at The Weekly Standard had some interesting thoughts about this matter. But to find that, you have to go through six pages of Google search results (search string: kanye west trump) without a single link to a non-left-of-center site.
I guess sites like Red State, Fox News, The Daily Caller, Reason, National Review, Townhall, The Washington Times, Washington Examiner, The Blaze, Power Line, et al, just didn’t have anything to say about Kanye’s apostasy that the entirely objective Google algorithms deemed worthy of sharing with Google’s product… I mean users.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, google, kanye west, media bias, plantation, thought crime, trump | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 23, 2017
… your first reaction to the latest London terrorist attack is to worry that it might help right-wingers. And your second reaction is to suggest that the perp may not have been an Islamic terrorist.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: jihad, london, media bias, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 20, 2017
There are many reasons why Trump won the election. Not the least among them is the mindset of the Washington establishment exemplified by MarketWatch editor Rex Nutting in the condescending opinion piece Welcome to Washington, Trump supporters (emphasis added):
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — I’m seeing a lot of Trump supporters on the streets of the District today, and as a 25-year resident of this great city, I say “Welcome! Stay awhile!”
Today is your big day to celebrate the election of the man who heard your voice and amplified it. It must feel great to be heard.
You won’t meet many Washingtonians around the Capitol, on the parade route up Pennsylvania Avenue, or on the Mall today. Most of us are staying away from downtown out of respect, and maybe a little anxiety about what is to become of our beloved nation.
After the ceremony and the parade, I hope you’ll wander around the city for a while. You may think that Washington doesn’t understand you and your problems, but I wonder if you understand us, the people of this metro area. There’s more to us than a swamp.
In the spirit of the day, get out of your bubble and get to know us, because we are America too.
To Nutting and his ilk, it’s those of us who live in flyover country who are living in a bubble. We need to meet the residents of the District of Columbia and visit its monuments to the “anti-Trump” political leaders of the past in order to get to know the real America.
SMDH.
UPDATE: Some visitors from flyover country are being removed from their bubble and introduced to D.C. residents whether they like it or not:
Celeste Sollars, who said she and her husband came to town from Kansas to see the inauguration, said they were spit on and her husband was put in a chokehold by protesters.
“The cops wouldn’t do anything,” she said, crying. “This is not how it was supposed to be — assault is not a First Amendment right.”
So today the heartland ignoramuses visiting Washington are learning that the real America outside their 3000-county “bubble” is all about vandalizing property, burning cars, and assaulting people who think differently.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bubble, establishment, insularism, media bias, washington | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 5, 2016
On Tuesday, Clinton cheerleaders and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) were practically chortling because a much-anticipated Julian Assange press conference turned out to be just about WikiLeaks’ tenth anniversary, with no Clinton-damaging October surprise.
But there had already been an October surprise on Monday. It’s just that only Fox News (and various alternative media sites piggy-backing on their story) chose to report it (emphasis added):
Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.
Think about that for a moment. Not only did the Department of Justice and FBI hand out immunity deals to most of the people involved in the Clinton email affair (apparently without the usual requirement that they provide complete and truthful testimony), but they also agreed not to examine documents that might reveal a cover-up and to destroy the computers holding those documents so that no one could ever examine them.
I can think of only two explanations. Either the DOJ/FBI people responsible are so naive and easily duped that they shouldn’t be trusted to manage a kindergarten classroom or they colluded with the Clinton team to destroy evidence and obstruct justice. The latter is clearly far more likely. And it makes Watergate seem like the equivalent of jaywalking.
This is an October surprise that should have been breathlessly declared breaking news. It should have led off questioning at the vice presidential debate. It should have led to countless reporters clamoring for answers from Mills, Samuelson, FBI Director James Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton herself. It should still be dominating the news cycle today.
Instead, a Google News search for “fbi destroy laptops clinton aides” (sans quotes) yields only this. Nothing from the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or Boston Globe; nothing from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC; nothing from the Associated Press or Reuters.
The people who in journalism school worshiped Woodward and Bernstein, who preened about how they were going to “speak truth to power,” are in cahoots with the Democratic power elite to keep the American people in the dark.
Meanwhile, four Republican congressional committee chairmen have sent a letter to AG Lynch:
… The Republicans expressed “concern” that the “FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.”
The letter repeatedly cited Congress’ interest in the “evidence” that may have been jeopardized under the side arrangement.
The new letter asked Lynch why the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops and, significantly, what legal authority the FBI has to destroy records subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena. The letter also asked if the FBI followed through and in fact destroyed “evidence” from the laptops or the laptops themselves.
Asked for comment, a Justice Department spokesman said: “We have received the letter and are reviewing it.”
Based on past history, I predict DOJ will provide a less than satisfying response, various Republicans will bluster for a few minutes in front of microphones (and will be completely ignored by the MSM), and nothing more will come of it.
This country has become no better than a banana republic.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: clinton, corruption, journalism, justice, media bias, msm, october surprise | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on June 22, 2016
As Jazz Shaw observed at Hot Air, the mainstream media seemed rather uninterested in the attempt to assassinate Donald Trump at a rally in Las Vegas and in the perpetrator:
One might imagine that this was big news, but even the most rudimentary details of the attempt were missing from the few news hits which bothered to cover it. As John accurately included in his report, the press was telling us that he was, “a UK citizen who has been in the United States for about 18 months. He lived in Hoboken, NJ and then drove cross country to southern California. He drove from there to Las Vegas last Thursday with the intention of killing Trump.”
Eventually, we learned that Michael Sandford was in the country illegally and had been plotting the assassination for quite some time, but that’s about when the media dropped the story.
Can you imagine the coverage we’d be seeing if someone had attempted to shoot Hillary Clinton? The same could be said if it had happened with Barack Obama in the summer of 2008. Questions would be debated on air for weeks on end about the evil lurking in the hearts of men and why someone would be so desperate to prevent the election of the first black or female president. But when someone plots for more than a year to kill Trump, travels across the country to find an opportunity and then launches his attempt, it creates barely a ripple in the media pond.
The women on The View discussed it yesterday, and c0-host Sunny Hostin had an interesting point of view. Newsbusters has the transcript (emphasis added):
SUNNY HOSTIN: Let me say this. I mean, and it’s wrong what happened. I mean, you are never supposed to violently try to take someone out because of their views. But with the Trump campaign and all that campaign rhetoric to incite violence— I mean, he did say “I should punch this guy out,” one of the protesters. It makes me wonder whether or not that campaign, the vileness of it and all the rhetoric will bring more people out of the woodwork like that.
So essentially, “He had it coming, wearing that short skirt and everything.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: assassination, blame the victim, elections, media bias, msm, trump | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on December 5, 2015
WHEN YOUR BOGUS CLAIM ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS IS DISPUTED BY A MOTHER JONES EDITOR IN THE NEW YORK TIMES,IT’S REALLY BOGUS: How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really?
It’s pretty clear from Mark Follman’s column (link above) that he and Mother Jones are not exactly defenders of the Second Amendment (in case you had any doubt). But their definition of “mass shooting” is a reasonable one. More reasonable, IMHO, than the FBI definition (which was broadened under orders from Obama) because they exclude robbery, gang violence, and domestic abuse incidents.
OTOH, the definition used by the anti-gun Reddit group to arrive at the count of 355 this year is as bogus as the absurd reasoning used to “prove” that your gun is 50 times more likely to kill you or a family member than to stop a criminal. By their definition, if two Crips are standing on a corner, a car full of Bloods pulls a drive-by that wounds them, and two bystanders sprain their ankles jumping over the bus stop bench to get out of the line of fire, that’s a “mass shooting.” Thus, there are typically several “mass shootings” every Saturday night in Chicago.
Further evidence of how low WaPo, NYTimes, and other MSM outlets have fallen: they dutifully parrot the “355 mass shootings” nonsense from a Reddit forum (!) that uses a definition that the forum founder admits he just made up because he didn’t like the real definition.
Billlls Idle Mind has interesting data on the number of “mass shootings” (definition not clear) under each of the last five presidents. Also, some graphs putting the lie to recent media caterwauling about how gun violence is “epidemic” or “exploding.”
It seems that if we want to minimize mass shootings, we should elect a Republican. If we want to reduce violent crime in general, we need to return Bill Clinton to office.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: gun violence, media bias, msm, statistics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 9, 2015
Eugene Robinson, the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post columnist, was on MSNBC today, where he told Andrea Mitchell that it’s a good thing this week’s terrorism and hostage-taking in France didn’t happen in the United States. You see, he opined, in the US “weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that, that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more carnage.”
There’s your typical anti-gunner’s mindset: if people other than the jihadists had guns, they’d just be shooting wildly, leading to who knows how many more deaths (never mind that the additional casualties would likely be the jihadists). Thank goodness France has strict gun control so that the terrorists’ targets were unarmed and helpless, thus keeping the body count down.
Remember that chilling video of the wounded policeman lying on the ground with his hands up when the terrorist shot him in the head? Apparently, like many French cops, he was unarmed. I guess to the Eugene Robinsons of the world, that’s a good thing because if he’d been able to shoot his attacker, that would have just added to the “carnage.” As we say on Twitter, SMDH*.
This Twitchy post has some of the Twitter reaction to Robinson’s remarks, including Ace of Spades’ apt “one-note simpleton” characterization.
* shaking my damn head
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: france, gun control, media bias, msm, terrorism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 1, 2014
By now, you may have heard about the email that’s been labeled a “smoking gun” regarding the administration’s Benghazi coverup. It’s one of 41 documents finally obtained by Judicial Watch as the result of an FOIA lawsuit filed last summer. The email in question, written by Ben Rhodes on 9/14/12, sets out the talking points for Ambassador Susan Rice to use in her multiple Sunday news show appearances two days later. Rhodes’ title is “Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting.”
Is this email a smoking gun? If you rely on the Associated Press story (as it appears in the Denver Post), you have no way of knowing. AP simply presents it as “Carney said, Graham said” — as if there’s no definitive way of determining the truth. But there is.
ABC’s Jonathan Karl tweeted a picture of the relevant section of the email, which Carney insisted was not about Benghazi. It contains the heading “Benghazi.” The first talking point under that heading tells Rice to say “the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by protests at the US Embassy in Cairo” (see below). We know from other information (including earlier messages in the same email thread) that everyone involved at the White House was already aware that this was a planned terrorist attack and that there was no preceding “demonstration.”
@PressSec says @rhodes44 email not released bc “explicitly not about Benghazi.” It has section entitled “Benghazi” pic.twitter.com/SP3c5MynS6
— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 30, 2014
If you rely on CBS for your news (really?!), you don’t know anything at all about this email because CBS News hasn’t reported the story. I wonder if that is in any way related to the fact that presidential advisor Ben Rhodes is the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: benghazi, corruption, media bias, msm, obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 23, 2014
In every poll, the Arkansas Senate race has been extremely tight, with most showing challenger Tom Cotton (R) with a slim lead over incumbent Mark Pryor (SD). Until now. A new New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows Pryor leading by 10 points. Bill Kristol looked beyond the headline at the polling questions, and discovered something interesting in question 12.
That question asked poll respondents if they voted for President in 2012 and if so, for whom. 32% didn’t vote, 26% voted for Obama, 27% voted for Romney, and the rest voted for someone else, didn’t know, or wouldn’t say. Kristol explained the significance:
In other words, the Times and Kaiser have produced a sample in Arkansas that reports they voted in 2012 for Romney over Obama–by one point. But Romney carried Arkansas in 2012 by 24 points. …
The whole point of question 12 is to provide a reality test for the sample. That’s why they ask that question–we know what happened in 2012, so the only thing to be learned by asking the 2012 question of the sample is to ensure that it’s a reasonably accurate snapshot of voters in the state. Of course there’ll always be some variance between reality and the sample’s report of its vote a year and a half ago–but not a 23 point variance.
A reputable news organization would have looked at question 12 and thrown the poll out. But then again, it was the New York Times.
It’s entirely possible that they paid a great deal of attention to question 12 — to ensure that the sample was not a reasonably accurate snapshot of the voters.
Heck, if they really wanted an accurate snapshot of the voters, a third of their sample wouldn’t be non-voters in 2012.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: arkansas, media bias, msm, politics, polls | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 29, 2014
Despite the sensational nature of the Leland Yee story (see Anti-gun CA state senator charged with firearms trafficking, corruption), which features international arms trafficking (including automatic weapons and rocket launchers for an Islamic terrorist group), bribe-taking, and links to a notorious Chinatown gangster nicknamed “Shrimp Boy,” it’s been completely ignored by CNN and most of the MSM.
I just searched Google News for “Leland Yee arrest,” and except for CBS News, a Washington Post blog, and a very brief “released on bond” AP story in the Boston Herald, the first page of results was from local California news outlets. As of a short while ago, a search at CNN for “Leland Yee arrested” still returned the message “Your search leland yee arrested did not match any documents.”
CNN has received numerous complaints, including from me and others on Twitter. As Tony Lee reported on Breitbart, their response has been to lie:
CNN dismissed complaints that the network was not covering last week’s shocking arrest of Democrat Leland Yee, the California state senator who was arrested for alleged arms trafficking and bribery, and falsely asserted that it does not give attention to state senators.
That standard did not apply to Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, whom CNN covered relentlessly. …
…
In just one of many stories on CNN about Wendy Davis, the network gushed over and played up her biography–without even vetting it–after her filibuster [of a bill limiting abortions] made her their heroine. …
(Davis’s biography was later determined to contain several significant falsehoods.)
Davis also appeared on many of CNN’s primetime shows in 2013 as it blanketed its airwaves and online real estate with puff pieces about Davis, the state senator, long before she was even a gubernatorial candidate.
As Weasel Zippers noted, CNN has also covered the California state Senate candidacy of Sandra Fluke and Yee on many occasions.
As the mid-term elections get closer, expect CNN to extensively cover every story about a Republican dog-catcher or county commissioner caught with his hand in the cookie jar. In the meantime, they’ll continue to focus on such breaking news as the fact that airliners have trouble remaining aloft after running out of fuel.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: cnn, media bias, msm | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 27, 2014
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: media bias, msm | Leave a Comment »