Archive | Media Bias RSS feed for this section

MSNBC has figured out why IRS targeted Conservative groups

20 May

 

File this one in the “Can’t Make This Stuff Up” category.  MSNBC actually speculated today that because the former IRS Commissioner was a Bush appointee that he may have been targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups because he was felt that they were unpopular and a threat to the GOP:

Is it possible that the right-leaning Tea Party was being forced to reconcile onerous information requests from the Internal Revenue Service because former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush, thought the nascent conservative movement reflected poorly on the Republican Party? This is the theory that was posited on MSNBC on Monday in an effort to explain the IRS’ admission that they had singled out conservative groups for undue scrutiny.

“Is it really the interesting part here that Shulman, who was a Bush appointee, might have been looking at Tea Party groups because of what it might have done to the Republican Party at the time – in the future of what we’re seeing now; basically, splintering the foundation of the Republican side?” MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked?

Allahpundit from Hot Air adds more:

The logic is ironclad and inexorable: Doug Shulman, appointed IRS commissioner by Bush in March 2008, was so fiercely loyal to his Beltway Republican masters that he decided to risk his career to kneecap conservative insurgents’ nonprofits in 2010 … even though Bush had left office more than a year before and the GOP establishment he represented was widely loathed by pretty much everyone in America. Oh, and even though (again per Rothman) Shulman himself has donated to the DNC in the past. Say it with me, guys: This. Is. A. Republican. Scandal.

In the same spirit of half-assed spitballing/“news,” how’s this for an alternate theory: Shulman tacitly approved of the tea-party targeting because he was eager to prove himself a loyal soldier to a new Democratic administration that might have been suspicious of his Bush pedigree. After hearing tea partiers impugned a thousand timesby Dem officials and liberal media outlets — none more so than MSNBC — maybe he got it in his head that singling out these right-wing would-be domestic terrorists was the patriotic (and career-furthering) thing to do. Slightly more plausible, yes? As theories go, I’d say it’s 51-percent-assed. Soon we’ll get to hear Shulman’s side of it when he’s inevitably subpoenaed by Darrell Issa’s committee. And, almost as inevitably, his testimony won’t be carried live by MSNBC.

I guess what MSNBC is saying is that, in sort of a round-a-bout way, it’s Bush’s fault that the IRS targeted Conservative groups.

 

Chris Matthews: interest in Obama’s multiple scandals due to racism and white supremacy

15 May

 

Well, I have not heard this excuse in at least ten minutes.  Racism…that has to be it…why else would anyone care that the President, his administration and the IRS are involved in multiple scandals, involving intimidation, harassment, cover-ups, and deaths?  Has to be because of racism.

 

The problem is there are people in this country, maybe ten percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe twenty percent on a bad day, who want this president to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t president. … They want to be able to say, well, he didn’t really have that batting average; he really wasn’t the first African American president; he really didn’t do health care; he really didn’t kill bin Laden. There’s an asterisk, and they have been fighting for that, the people like Donald Trump, since day one. They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country. Not all conservatives, not even all right-wingers, but it always comes through with this birther crap and these other references and somehow trying to erase ObamaCare, erase his record in history, and a big part of it is bought into by people like John Boehner, who’s not a bad guy, but he knows the only way he can talk to the hard right is talk their language.

I really wonder sometimes if people like Chris Matthews actually believe this nonsense or does he just know his role and what is expected of him if he wants to have a show on MSNBC?

 

 

“Top CBS, ABC, CNN execs all have relatives working as advisors for White House”

13 May

Can’t make this stuff up.  No wonder these “news” outlets don’t like to cover stories that are harmful to Democrats.  They would be hurting their own families!

 

More here from Hot Air:

Would the media reaction really be different without the sibling/spouse conflicts of interest, though? Half of me thinks the blood ties between the White House and media VIPs deserve lots of publicity and half of me thinks that publicizing it inadvertently lets them off the hook. They’re not in the tank out of family loyalty, they’re in the tank out of ideological loyalty. Replace the leadership at CBS, ABC, and CNN and you’ll get the same results. But Grenell’s not arguing to the contrary: The point here is simply to show that our government leadership and our media leadership are so chummy that, not infrequently, they’ve literally lived in the same house. It’s an especially vivid illustration of a wider problem.

White House has meeting with media allies on Benghazi fiasco – off the record

10 May

 

Politico reports that the Obama White House held an off the record meeting with their political strategists the media this afternoon to discuss the Benghazi  investigation.

The White House held a “deep background” briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.

The meeting was conducted on “deep background,” according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest, but sources told POLITICO that the existence of the meeting was “off the record.” The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing until mid-afternoon.

The session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.

Emails obtained by ABC News show that State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland requested that the CIA scrub references to an Al Qaeda-linked group, which, Nuland told White House officials, “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly referred to the meeting as “off the record.” Though the existence of the meeting was off the record, it was conducted on “deep background.” 

UPDATE (3:05 p.m.): I asked Earnest to explain the meaning of “deep background,” as defined by the White House, for my readers. He emails:

Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can’t be quoted.

Hmmm.  Someone must be on to something if the Obama White House is calling a special meeting with their comrades in the media.  Look for the media to all be singing the same tune by the time the Sunday shows roll around.

 

 

 

“Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers”

8 May

This is a tweet from the Washington Post shortly after the whistle-blower hearings on Benghazi started today:

 

So, rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers are the only people who care that 4 Americans died?

Keep up the great work, Washington Post!  Don’t know what we would do without all of the “objective” “news” organizations like you.

 

 

 

When Liberals Attack: Seattle May Day

2 May

 

 

Leftists in Seattle behaving about like you would expect yesterday.  One can only imagine what the reaction would be if a Conservative group did something like this.  Obama would probably already have a press conference scheduled to call for civility, or something.  But, since it’s people who side with Democrats on most issues, it will get hardly any coverage (if any) from the Democrat media.

In Seattle, protesters threw rocks and bottles at police officers and news crews. As they moved through downtown Seattle to another neighborhood, they flung construction street barriers, trash cans and newspaper bins on the streets in an attempt to stop police officers. Windows of businesses were broken and vehicles with people in them were banged around.

At one point, a crew from CBS Seattle affiliate KIRO-TV was surrounded by rowdy protesters. They spit and sprayed Silly String on KIRO reporter David Ham and hit his photographer, the station reports.

Obama Housing Nominee: “Majority of White Voters” Would Never Vote for a Black Candidate, Should be Excluded from the ‘Democratic Process’

2 May

 

From The Daily Caller:

President Obama’s pick to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency once said that a “majority of white voters” would never vote for a black candidate and that they should be excluded from “the democratic process.”

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama will nominate Democratic North Carolina Congressman Mel Watt to take over the FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country’s government sponsored mortgage companies.

Watt, the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has in the past accused white Americans of racism.

“There would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate,” Watt said Oct. 14, 2005 during a Washington hearing held by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”

I’m beginning to notice a pattern here.

Shockingly, no Democrat media outlets mentioned any of this in their reporting of this nomination:

LA Times – no mention

Yahoo News – no mention

U.S. News and World Report – no mention

 

Seems to be another pattern.