Category: Media Bias

Our Criminal Media

Posted on 13 Comments

Michelle Malkin rips into them good here:

With great fanfare and elite media sympathy, Jose Antonio Vargas publicly declared himself an “undocumented immigrant” this week. . . . In the felony-friendly pages of The New York Crimes — er, Times — the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist turned illegal-alien activist spilled the beans on all the illegal IDs he amassed over the years. He had documents coming out of his ears.
The Times featured full-color photos of Vargas’ fake document trove — including a a fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card and a Social Security card his grandfather doctored for him at a Kinko’s. He committed perjury repeatedly on federal I-9 employment eligibility forms. In 2002, while pursuing his journalism career goals, an immigration lawyer told him he needed to accept the consequences of his law-breaking and return to his native Philippines.
Following the rules would have meant a 10-year bar to reentry into America. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense. Document fraud is a felony offense. . . .

You should read the whole thing. The decision by the New York Times to publish Vargas’s column is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. In what alternative universe does it make sense to celebrate a man for committing forgery and perjury — crimes involving dishonest falsification — when that man is supposed to be practicing a craft devoted to truth-telling?

Please note that Vargas is a native Filipino, just like Michelle Malkin’s parents. But her parents obeyed the law — which, by the perverse logic of liberalism, somehow entitles liberals to shout “RAAAAACIST!” at their daughter. And the New York Times publishes a column by the admitted felon Vargas, but would never publish anything by Malkin.


You Stay Classy: Liberals Now Peddling Gay Smear on Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Posted on 25 Comments

My reaction on Twitter last night was brief and blunt. It is astounding that they’d do this and I’d rather ignore it altogether, but now the desperate and ridiculous gay smear against Rick Perry has been promoted at both Politico and New York magazine.

Isn’t it interesting how so many high-minded journalists who sneered at the Anthony Weiner scandal as an absurd “distraction” from the real issues — an attitude that just coincidentally reprised Weiner’s original defense against accusations that later proved entirely true — are now willing to lend credence to mere rumors which are not only unsubstantiated but also highly implausible? There isn’t any reason at all to believe this smear, so why was it necessary to recycle it?

I’m not a particular admirer of Perry and, so far as talk of his entering the GOP 2012 field is concerned, my gut hunch is that voters probably won’t be eager next year to put another Republican governor Texas in the White House. Been there, done that, OK?

Yet we see that as soon as talk of a Perry ’12 presidential campaign got reasonably serious, the liberal media went hunting for the very lowest dirt peddled by left-wing bloggers in Texas.

Once again it is demonstrated that, if it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

Ace of Spades delivers a freakin’ dissertation on what vile scum Texas liberals are, and gets a knowing “yup” from Bryan Preston, who spent two years as New Media director for the Texas GOP.

New York Times: ‘Media Colonoscopy’ of Palin E-Mails Was ‘Not a Witch Hunt’

Posted on 22 Comments

Clay Waters at NewsBusters calls attention to an article by New York Times writer Jeremy Peters:

The New York Times and The Guardian sent reporters armed with scanners and then solicited readers’ assistance. Politico enlisted a dozen editors, reporters and interns who worked as a team from their Northern Virginia newsroom “plowing through” the documents, as one editor described it. The Washington Post initially asked for 100 volunteers to sift through the documents. They were quickly overwhelmed with too many applicants. Unable to screen all of them, the paper abandoned the plan late Thursday, opting instead to invite reader comments.
Were news organizations Dumpster diving, as one outraged reader of The Washington Post put it?
News outlets insisted that they were trying to be as thorough and efficient as possible while reporting on information that the public was entitled to know.
“This is not a witch hunt,” said Jim Roberts, an assistant managing editor at The Times. “There are 25,000 documents here, and we can use all the eyeballs we can get.”

It was Greta van Susteren of Fox News who called this ridiculous exercise a “media colonoscopy.”

VIDEO: ABC’s Jake Tapper Reports on Calista and the Newt 2012 Implosion

Posted on 13 Comments

Watch this — it’s only about 2 minutes — and tell me if you see a way for Newt Gingrich to recover:

Meanwhile, in Beverly Hills, California:

“I will endure the challenges. I will carry the message of American renewal to every part of this great land,” Gingrich told a crowded ballroom at a Beverly Hills hotel. “And with the help of every American who wants to change Washington, we will prevail.”

Yeah, Newt: Just keep reaching out to those grassroots conservatives in Beverly Hills . . .

VIDEO: Wasserman-Schultz Discusses Weiner Scandal on ‘Meet the Press’

Posted on 68 Comments

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the NBC transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, let me start with you.
REP. SCHULTZ: Sure.
MR. GREGORY: What, what led to the change? Why now call for him to resign?
REP. SCHULTZ: Well, I think that since this story broke we were giving Congressman Weiner some breathing room to be able to be, be circumspect, do the right thing, make a — you know, reach the conclusion that, that he needed to step back and step down on his own. And as of yesterday, when that didn’t happen, it was important to, to weigh in.
MR. GREGORY: But before his actual admission, you spoke about this during an interview, and this is what you said.

(Videotape, June 2, 2011)
REP. SCHULTZ: Anthony Weiner is dealing with a personal matter, and it should be left as a personal matter.
(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: When did it become less a personal matter and more an issue of public trust?
REP. SCHULTZ: Well, I made that statement before it had been revealed that Anthony had not been truthful, and that, that, that he was engaged in the conduct that he had been denying at the time. And once he crossed that threshold, acknowledged that, that he’d been lying, had engaged in conduct that is, you know, completely unacceptable and indefensible…
MR. PRIEBUS: Well, here’s the problem, David.
REP. SCHULTZ: …that’s where I thought that the — that’s where I thought the line was crossed.
MR. GREGORY: Well, I’ll come to you in just a second.
But is this enough that he seeks treatment, or would you still like him to straight out resign?
REP. SCHULTZ: The statement I made speaks for itself yesterday. I think Anthony Weiner needs to resign so he can focus on his family, focus on his own well-being, and make sure that…
MR. GREGORY: So there’s going to be more pressure from top Democrats to say this is not quite enough, leave of absence is not enough, he should step down completely.
REP. SCHULTZ: I think Leader Pelosi, Steve Israel, myself, we all came together yesterday…
MR. GREGORY: Well, what, what is it you can do? I mean, he’s obviously not listening to the admonitions of his colleagues.
REP. SCHULTZ: Well, at, at the end of the day, you know, a member of Congress makes their own decision, and that, that’s certainly going to be up to Anthony Weiner. But we have made clear that he needs to resign, he needs to focus on, on getting his, his own personal issues in order…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. SCHULTZ: …focus on his family and, and do the right thing…
MR. GREGORY: From your, from your…
REP. SCHULTZ: …by his constituents.

Politico notes Wasserman-Schultz’s admission that Democrats are powerless to force Weiner’s resignation.

Under House rules, a vote to expel Weiner could only come after a full Ethics Committee investigation, which would take months, and thus probably extend the scandal into 2012.

UPDATE: Linked by Donald Douglas at American Power — thanks!

UPDATE II: Linked by Don Surber — thanks!

PREVIOUSLY:


VIDEO: ‘Tipping Point’ for Weiner?

Posted on 13 Comments

Here is last night’s ABC News report:

Weiner’s stratagem — taking a leave of absence and seeking “treatment” — has the advantage of ensuring that he isn’t available to answer questions on Capitol Hill when Congress re-convenes on Monday.

When Pelosi and other Democrats are asked about the scandal, all they have to say is, “Well, we called on him to resign,” and pretend that’s all they can do. Weiner remains a member of Congress in good standing, yet Democrats pretend they’ve dealt responsibly with the problem, and the media can “move on.”

So at least for now, it appears to be a stalemate.

UPDATE: New scandalous developments — this thing just never stops, does it?

CNN’s Toobin on May 31: ‘What Andrew Breitbart Was Insinuating About [Weiner] With Young Girls Is Outrageous’

Posted on 42 Comments

There’s no possible way Breitbart could be right, right, right, while CNN’s “senior legal analyst” was wrong, wrong, wrong — or is there?

“This is a silly little thing that happened”? “Not a big deal”? Yeah, idiot: Tell that to the cops who just interviewed the teenage girl in Delaware!

Maybe some of the numbskulls at CNN should go read what “senior legal analyst” Ace of Spades has to say tonight — Ace doesn’t have a network contract, but he’s been right, right, right all along.

UPDATE: Jennifer Preston of the New York Times actually has a pretty solid story about the latest development:

Representative Anthony D. Weiner said on Friday that he had exchanged at least five private messages on Twitter this spring with a 17-year-old Delaware girl who became an admirer of his after hearing him speak during a high school trip to Washington.
Mr. Weiner’s spokeswoman, Risa Heller, did not provide copies of the messages, but said they were not inappropriate.
“According to Congressman Weiner, his communications with this person were neither explicit nor indecent,” Ms. Heller said.
A member of the girl’s family who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her identity characterized the messages as “harmless” but expressed concern that Mr. Weiner had communicated privately with the teenager, a high school junior.
The family was aware that there had been exchanges between Mr. Weiner and the girl but assumed that all of their conversations had taken place on a public Twitter feed. Then a scandal erupted last month over a photo Mr. Weiner sent of himself in his underwear to a college student.
Last week, Mr. Weiner acknowledged that he had sent other explicit photos and messages to at least six women he met over social media.
The family member said: “I am angry. This is surreal and unbelievable. It is absolutely crazy. We are just regular people who go to baseball games and basketball games, as ordinary and plain as can be.”
In the past few days, the girl and her family have become subjects of intense interest in the news media. On Friday afternoon, the local police arrived at their home and asked the girl and her mother to bring the girl’s phone and computer to the police station so they could be checked to make sure no crime had occurred.
The family member said the family complied, and did not expect any further action to be taken.

The important thing here is: Weiner admits he sent this teenage girl “at least five” DMs.

Does the phrase “grooming” ring a bell?

OK, that last sentence was probably not what you’d call responsible, professional, ethical journalism. But I have sources I could contact, experts in such matters, and I’m reasonably sure that if they were to take a long, hard look at the available evidence here, their responses would include something like the phrase “warning flags.” Here is Weiner, recklessly cybersexing with complete strangers, sending photos of his junk to people he’s never met — clearly driven by some sort of wild sexual compulsion — and this man is sending DMs to teenagers?

Like I said: “Warning flags.”