Category: Media Bias

Ed Schultz Calls Laura Ingraham ‘Slut’; Feminist Outrage at MSNBC in 3, 2, 1 …

Posted on 26 Comments

What? No? You mean feminists aren’t threatening a boycott over this?

President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.

Via Michelle Malkin, who has much more (hat-tip to Alyssa Farah on Twitter). If anyone at Fox News — Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck — had used such a word in talking about Andrea Mitchell or Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz would be screaming about “right-wing hate,” and the story would be a front-page item at HuffPo with a half-dozen feminist bloggers commenting. But Laura Ingraham is a conservative, and so the feminist reaction . . .

What’s that, ladies? You’ll have to speak up. I can’t hear you because of the noise from all these chirping crickets.

UPDATE: Tim Graham at Newsbusters:

MSNBC anchor David Shuster was suspended in 2008 for suggesting Hillary Clinton had “pimped out” her daughter Chelsea on the air. So how will MSNBC handle their host calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” and a “talk slut”? Will Schultz be pressed to apologize to the Catholic churchgoer and mother of two?

Remember “civility”?

It’s the New Motherf–ing Tone!

Now a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE: Laura Ingraham responds on Facebook.


Media Psy-Ops in NY-26

Posted on 7 Comments

In my very first post about the NY-26 special election (May 10), I warned:

NY-26 is a winnable district, and a GOP defeat would be interpreted by the media (however falsely) as a repudiation of the conservative agenda.

And on May 17, I warned that a Democrat victory “will be headlined as evidence that the Paul Ryan budget plan is a political liability for Republicans.” You can see those prophecies fulfilled in this morning’s headlines at Memeorandum:

Democrat Wins G.O.P. Seat;
Rebuke Seen to Medicare Plan 

Six Months After Midterm Disaster,
Hopeful Signs for Democrats 

Democrat Kathy Hochul Wins Upset In NY-26,
Medicare Vote Key To Victory

Readers should be asking themselves, “Why didn’t I hear any warnings about NY-26 on talk radio or Fox News? Why have MSNBC and other liberal media been banging the drums about this special election for weeks, while most conservative media ignored it?” I don’t have any answers to those questions, but I think it’s important to ask.

Da Tech Guy contrasts the media spin on NY-26 with their spin on last year’s Hawaii special election. Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are attempting to turn perception into reality, by engaging in what Da Tech Guy accurately describes as “psy-ops.”

Rachel Maddow’s ‘Man Cave’ Moment: Planned Parenthood Does Oil Changes?

Posted on 15 Comments

Monday night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow went off on a tangent so incredibly weird that it is almost impossible to describe. The topic was Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who had apparently signed legislation defunding Planned Parenthood in his state. Maddow then evidently decided that guys in the audience failed to understand why Planned Parenthood is so vital, suggesting that what Planned Parenthood mainly does is health-care “maintenance” for women. Watch the video:

Question: Why is it only women who require “routine maintenance”? Is there no special need — a need so urgent that it must be subsidized by taxpayers — to provide health-care for men?

It’s almost as if Rachel Maddow were saying that men and women are biologically unequal.

But surely she doesn’t believe that? Or does she?

Chris Matthews Goes Off on GOP ‘Hate’; Mark Levin Goes Off on NBC News

Posted on 13 Comments

Watching MSNBC is fun from an anthropological perspective. This is the kind of stuff that liberals believe. This is how their minds work. Here is Chris Matthews accusing Republicans and the Tea Party of hate:

What is so bizarre about that is that this wasn’t some off-the-cuff  gaffe. It was an actual scripted segment, during which Matthews used the words “hate” or “hatred” ten times in less than two minutes.

Following up on David Gregory’s idiotic race-baiting on Meet the Press, yesterday Mark Levin went off on NBC:

” ‘Some people think that when you called Obama the food stamp president, you know, that has a racial connotation.’ Really? Isn’t that interesting?
“Well, some people think, Mr. Gregory, that your question has a racial connotation. Not just race-baiting, but prejudice, because apparently now it is the official position of ‘Meet the Press’ that if you’re on food stamps, you’re black. I just wanted to clarify that point, because otherwise the question makes no sense. Or, that a majority of the people are on food stamps are black, which is not true. And yet that is the inference. Well, why would Mr. Gregory make that inference? Sure he’s not prejudiced? Why would he do that?”

The New N-Word: ‘Food Stamps’

Posted on 19 Comments

According to David Gregory of NBC News, it is “coded racially-tinged language” to mention the increased use of food stamps under President Obama’s economic agenda:

“You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?”
— Newt Gingrich

Unfortunately for David Gregory, the facts are on Newt’s side:

Aleister at American Glob: “That’s not racism, it’s poverty. It’s families who work and own homes but can’t afford food or gas. It’s people who want to work but have no job prospects. . . . It sucks and Obama owns it.”

UPDATE: Et tu, Joan Walsh? Why is it that so many liberals can’t tell the difference between “poor” and “black”?

Holy Freaking Crap: Time Magazine’s GOP 2012 Chart Omits Herman Cain!

Posted on 43 Comments

Da Tech Guy points out that Time magazine’s resident political “expert” Mark Halperin has a chart giving odds on candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, a chart that completely omits the hands-down winner of the first debate in South Carolina.

Halperin also omits Rick Santorum and gives thousand-to-one odds against Michelle Bachmann — and Bachmann, whatever the odds, is (a) much beloved by Tea Party activists, (b) a Midwesterner, which certainly can’t hurt in Iowa, and (c) about thirty-zillion times more likely to win the nomination than Barack Obama’s Favorite Republican™ Jon Huntsman, whom Halperin rates at 20-to-1.

S.P. Gordon at Cain’s Corner asks a relevant question:

If Herman Cain is such a long shot for the election, why are ALL the major broadcast media running in fear from him?

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits. To quote Da Tech Guy’s favorite Yankee general: “Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!”

UPDATE: Linked by Little Miss Attila and If You Seek Peace — thanks! — and welcome, Instapundit readers!


Obama Lies About Unemployment

Posted on 8 Comments

Just flat-out makes up “facts” during a town-hall meeting on the economy in D.C. hosted by CBS News:

“The reason the unemployment rate is still as high as it is, in part, is because there have been huge layoffs of government workers at the federal level, at the state level, at the local level . . . Teachers, police officers, firefighters, social workers– they have really taken it in the chin over the last several months. And so, what we’re trying to do is to see if we can stabilize the budget.”

Jim Geragthy fisks this absurd claim:

All figures come from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Recent peak of private-sector employment, June 2007: 116,603,000.
Total private-sector employment in the month Obama became president, January 2009: 109,084,000.
Recent low of private-sector employment, January 2010: 104,933,000.
Total private-sector employment, April 2011: 108,494,000

Private-sector employment is 8.1 million jobs below its 2007 peak, and 590,000 below where it was when Obama took office. Meanwhile, Geraghty provides BLS numbers on government employment:

June 2007: 22,176,000.
January 2009: 22,471,000.
January 2010: 22,376,000.
April 2011: 22,594,000

No “huge layoffs.” Obama just made that up. And it’s a lie.

Via Memeorandum, with further commentary by The Lonely Conservative, Sister Toldjah, Gateway Pundit and Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler.