Media Bias, Part IV

* I have to admit, I am tired of, and annoyed at, liberal complaints about Fox News. Those who single out Fox are not only wrong, but also reflect how they simply parrot whatever emanates from the Obama Administration. So here are three questions to ask liberals when they criticize Fox: 1. Why do you believe that no one in the media should challenge the Obama Administration on any of their policies or actions? 2. If you claim other media outlets do, name them and give examples. 3. Are you aware of any recent examples of obvious bias by the mainstream media?

* As noted, liberals simply mimic what comes from the Obama Administration. In 2009, David Axelrod said Fox is "not really a news station." Anita Dunn said Fox was a "wing of the Republican Party," and "let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." And this recent comment by Obama reflects what he thinks of any opposition to him: "If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it." As a demonstration of this Administration's intolerance of opposition, they recently kept Fox off of conference calls regarding Benghazi. Yet, Fox was the ONLY media outlet consistently covering the story; and ultimately showed that the party line about the attack being caused by an anti-Muslim film was a lie. So be honest - if you agree with the ban on Fox from the White House, then admit that you no longer agree that the media should pursue truth, or act as a check on government power.

* CBS. One of the "real" news networks. On a recent airing of "60 Minutes" Steve Kroft interviewed Obama and Hillary Clinton. He acknowledged that the segment was Obama's idea. He later told Piers Morgan on CNN that: "I think he (Obama) knows that we're not going to play gotcha with him, that we're not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid." Not like they did with Bush, McCain and Romney. No, those guys are Republicans. Romney and his sons were criticized for their lack of military service. Obama? Not asked. Romney was asked if he had premarital sex with his wife. Not appropriate to ask Obama. Dan Rather pushed phony records about Bush's National Guard service. Oh, that's right, can't ask Obama about that topic. In Clinton's testimony before Congress about Benghazi, she was criticized for the Administration blaming the attack on a video rather than Muslim terrorism and yelled: "What difference does it make?" Kroft, apparently, was unable to think of what difference it might make either, so never challenged that comment.

* CBS. Again. John Dickerson is the political director at CBS News. This is a person one might expect would approach the political arena with some neutrality. After all, CBS is a "real" news station. Dickerson wrote for the liberal "Slate" that "The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat." And: "Obama's only remaining option is to pulverize...Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents." Needless to say, Mr. Dickerson was criticized by conservatives for those comments. But Mr. Dickerson was unable to see the bias, the advocacy for Obama. Said he: "For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion. Some people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts...this is the only plausible path..." So Dickerson thinks Obama should "delegitimize," "pulverize," and "destroy" the GOP. Loyal opposition? Not when they are Republicans. And Dickerson saw it as a math problem with an "unmistakable" conclusion. That one word - unmistakable - tells you all you need to know about why the mainstream media will not challenge Obama. After all, everything Obama stands for is "unmistakably" correct. So what's to question?

* ABC. Another "real" news organization. Recently, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez was on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." The FBI had announced that Menendez was under investigation for visiting Dominican prostitutes. As if that was not bad enough, the prostitutes were said to be minors. So what hard-hitting questions did Stephanopoulos ask the Senator about the allegations? Anybody? NOTHING! As the IBD put it: "Would Communist Russia's TASS news agency or Pravda newspaper have been any more subservient to the party in power, the chief executive who leads it, or the ideology at their foundation than America's major media outlets are being to Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and their socialist-style liberalism?"

* Rolling Stone. Okay, not one of the typical mainstream media outlets. But the editor, Michael Hastings, at least had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that, when in Obama's presence, the media starts "behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon." THEY SWOON! Criticizing himself, Hastings said: "Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not." Too busy swooning, apparently.

* MSNBC. As an arm of NBC, clearly one of the mainstream media outlets. Martin Bashir was presenting some film clips of the testimony before Congress on gun control. When I subsequently saw a clip on O'Reilly that had first been aired by Bashir I was heartbroken. Here was a father who lost a child in the Newtown murders, and was testifying in favor of gun control. It appeared that pro-gun rights people were either heckling him or talking over him. It seemed outrageous to me. Then O'Reilly told his audience he was going to show the full unedited film clip. There was total silence as and after the father spoke. Total respect, as was appropriate given the circumstances. It was only after the father turned to the audience and suggested that no one could disagree with what he said that there were comments. This is not the first time such editing has given the wrong impression of events. Sadly, the mainstream media continues to have no problems with it. It is reminiscent of the Trayvon Martin incident, when the 911 call was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman might be racist because he mentioned that Martin was black; when, in fact, race never came up until the 911 operator specifically asked Zimmerman what Martin's race was.

* Townhall magazine (February, 2013 issue) cites a study showing that 91% of journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, when he received only 43% of the popular vote. To put it another way, UCLA professor Tim Groseclose (author of "Left Turn") suggested people imagine the most liberal city they could, such as San Francisco or Cambridge, Massachusetts - and then realize those cities are more conservative than the journalists in the mainstream media.

* This complete and total one-sided bias of the mainstream media makes it imperative for all concerned citizens, who care about this country and the world in which we live, to make sure they read and listen to a variety of viewpoints. I would even go so far as to say shame on you if you do not watch Fox News, at least occasionally. If your only news source is the mainstream media, it means you are willing to be spoon-fed the facts on which you base your beliefs.

* (NOTE: For those readers who may new to the blog, there was a three part series on "Media Bias" posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12 and 1/21/12.)