In the April edition of the Blaze Magazine, the question was asked of the media, why have American journalists “chosen to embrace Islam and defend it to the hilt against any perceived form of defamation”?
The fact that we haven’t answered that question twelve years after the murder of thousands of innocents on September 11th, shows that we have failed to deter the American media’s anti-American agenda. And by extension, we have failed the people of Boston.
And for that, we owe the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing a sincere apology.
Nowhere has our failure to hold the American media accountable for providing cover to our enemies been more prevalent than this terrible week.
Completely devoid of facts, liberal journalists set out to respond to the terrorist attacks as being perpetrated by right-wingers, conservatives, or Second Amendment supporters.
We were told it was right-wingers marking the anniversary of Columbine, or the birthday of Hitler.
We were told it was anti-government groups upset about Tax Day.
And we were told it had to be a “right-wing nutjob”, marking the location of the original Tea Party.
What the media failed to do however, was to identify radical Islam as a possible suspect.
As details of the suspects are slowly revealed even as we speak, the willful attempt to cover up the role that radical Islam plays in this and many other attacks on our country border on the criminal.
We are learning that one suspect was a “very religious” Muslim.
The other suspect, according to his social media page, held a world view in the eyes of Islam.
They posted videos sympathetic to al-Qaeda on YouTube, an account which included a subscription to a channel titled ”Allah is the one”.
All of this had to be a massive shock to the media, who despite their willingness to point fingers at the right, were unable to bring themselves to explore the possibility that radical Islam could have played a role.
But the media corruption doesn’t stop with politically correct coverage of these radicals. The masking of even the most minor of negative coverage toward radical Islam in today’s media complex is astounding.
As Andrew Breitbart once said, media bias isn’t just about “the things that they report inaccurately”, it’s also about “the things they fail to report”.
Earlier this month, the Associated Press set about erasing the term ‘Islamist’ from the minds of their readers for fear that the term was becoming “a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals.”
Last September, Newsweek had the audacity to use a cover photo which showed an obviously enraged group of Muslims, accompanied by the title ‘Muslim Rage’.
‘This should not be!’ the media puppets announced, as this was an act of grouping all Muslims under the umbrella of rage, and was therefore Islamophobic.
Nevermind the fact that the image was of Islamic protests being caused by a faux excuse for the Benghazi attacks. Nevermind that enraged radical Islamists had just murdered four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.
Rather than focusing on the real issues here, the liberal media has done everything in its power to avoid pointing the finger at radical Islamists. They seek explanation and understanding for why a particular group of people are prone to terrorist attacks, without ever naming that group.
And in the end, none of these false justifications for violence throughout the Middle East, and most recently on the streets of Boston, are acceptable.
The rage and the terror are predominantly perpetrated through the prism of radical Islam. The rage has been consistent and perpetual, and it has long been evident prior to Monday’s attack.
While we continue to fight over words and labels, pointing fingers at innocent groups of people, extremists continue to point their RPG’s at our foreign diplomats, storm our embassy walls, burn American flags, call for beheadings and public hangings, and on and on. Now they bomb our very own streets. All the while, the media criminally continues to whistle through the graveyard.
Anyone that points that out is immediately labeled Islamophobic.
That said, I would like to propose a change in how the media labels things of this nature. I’d like to redefine the term Islamophobia. The phrase, much like the race card, has been overused by the media and has been played out. It has outlived its usefulness. It no longer sticks as a term of bigotry or intolerance toward radical Muslims.
Instead, the meaning should revert to a more literal translation – Islam-phobia.
The phobia involves those in the media continually capitulating to the radicals and terrorists killing in the name of their religion. The phobia involves Democrats who continually bow down to the unreasonable demands of terror-linked domestic organizations such as CAIR, or the ICNA, and are willing to release known terrorists in a foolish attempt to establish peace.
The phobia equates to fear. That is why liberals refuse to stand up to radical Islam, and it is why the media refuses to accurately portray the level of rage being executed in the name of the tenets of radical Islam. They are afraid.
No more.
Journalism is a profession. Stop acting like amateurs. Stop being Islamophobes.
At some point, you will have to grow a spine when it comes to the threat of radical Muslim rage. At some point, you will have to stop pussyfooting and tiptoeing your way around the subject matter. In the end, at some point you will have to address reality, and not continue to long for some fantasy world that exists only in your minds.
Until we hold the media’s feet to the fire on this, we will have failed the victims of the Boston bombing. We will have failed the victims of the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. Those killed in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. At the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. With the USS Cole bombing in 2000. At the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. And of course, September 11th.
We will have failed them all. And for that, we owe them a sincere and humbling apology.
Earlier this month, we covered a suspect symposium being sponsored by a pro-Obamacare organization, designed to provide journalists with “specialized education in health care reporting”.
The anticipation of media bias was palpable.
The symposium, sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund, hosted by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), held at Reuters headquarters in New York City, and with a featured student body of 17 mainstream reporters – including the Dallas Morning News, Reuters, and Money Magazine – has since come to pass, and the concerns of blatant media bias should be even more heightened in the aftermath.
The SABEW has posted a recap of events at their ‘Business of Health Care Symposium’ on their web site, and the emphasis is clearly directed at the positive aspects of Obamacare.
For example, in a section titled ‘Spreading the Word to America’, speaker Rachel Klein explains to the reporters that “a key challenge” in messaging lies in “informing consumers of how the ACA (Affordable Care Act) will benefit them”.
Klein adds that, “The majority of uninsured Americans don’t know the health reform law will help them.”
Benefit. Help. The positive tone has been set.
The following is a slide from Klein’s PowerPoint presentation at the symposium:
Another slide provides “Targeting Messages”:
In another section covering the effects of the ACA on small business, speaker Ben Geyerhahn explains how reporters “can alleviate the fear that small business owners have” in regards to the ACA.
Geyerhahn tells reporters that “The simplest thing is to say … There’s no negative here for you.”
“There’s only upside,” he surmises.
Specifically, Geyerhahn is referring to the provision in Obamacare which penalizes businesses who do not provide health care coverage if they have 50 or more full-time employees.
Surprisingly, he tells attendees that he sees no evidence of business owners changing their operating procedures to avoid the employee mandate, despite tangible evidence of this occurring at such companies as Darden Restaurants, Kroger, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, Denny’s, as well as some college universities.
Shouldn’t a fair and balanced media be reporting on both the upside and the downside? Shouldn’t they be reporting on both the benefits and the detriments?
Not with the Commonwealth Fund financing this event apparently.
The Commonwealth Fund is a private organization that makes no secret of their support for Obama’s universal health care plan. The group’s President up until last month, Karen Davis, trumpeted their role in the reform process:
“The Commonwealth Fund marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.”
Perhaps more troubling than looking at the Commonwealth Fund as hosts of such an event when they clearly harbor a pro-Obamacare agenda, is the nature of the actual speakers at this journalism training session.
First, the symposium was kicked off by a former member of the Obama Administration, Sherry Glied, who served under the President at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Then there are the actual speakers representing the Commonwealth Fund – an act that may violate the SABEW Code of Ethics - Stuart Guterman and David Blumenthal.
Guterman serves as executive director of the Commonwealth commission, and isn’t necessarily impartial with his political donations either, having contributed $1,000 to President Obama, and $2,000 to senate Democrats this past election cycle.
David Blumenthal is a former health care adviser to President Barack Obama, and current president of the Commonwealth Fund. Like Guterman, his political activities include substantial contributions to prominent Democrats during the past election cycle.
You’ll notice that Blumenthal’s campaign contributions came when he served as chief health information and innovation officer at Partners HealthCare, a position he held up until last month when he became Commonwealth Fund president.
Partners HealthCare itself, also contributed vast amounts to promote Democrat causes in the previous election cycle, as seen in the OpenSecrets diagram below:
Not only did Blumenthal’s organization donate a whopping $62,000 to President Obama last year, but of the $123,524 in total contributions to candidates, over $119,000 of it went to Democrats – a rate of nearly 97%.
In short, Blumenthal, his past and current organizations, and his associates are strong promoters of the liberal cause for health care reform. They are cheerleaders for Obamacare.
And they’re training journalists on how to provide you, the reader, information on the President’s signature legislation.
This may be one of the most blatant examples of media bias and propaganda in journalism today.
This column first appeared at FreedomWorks
“The Commonwealth Fund marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.”
Just an absolutely epic line.
Media Research Center founder, Brent Bozell, went on Sean Hannity’s show last night and summed up MSNBC host, Chris Matthew’s constant fawning over the President in this manner.
Via Gateway Pundit:
Brent Bozell went there tonight on Hannity. The Media Research Center founder and president told Sean,“If Chris Matthews could carry Barack Obama’s next child he would… This goes way beyond the (thrill up the) leg but we’re not going to go there either.”Agreed.
Here’s the video…
Remember the blatant case of journalistic malpractice exercised earlier this year regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting? The one in which an Hispanic neighborhood watch captain was magically transformed into a White-Hispanic racist thug who hates black children?
For those needing a refresher course on racism and media bias, here was a prime example over at NBC…
In this particular case, NBC had obtained audio of the 911 call made by George Zimmerman the night of the shooting, and doctored it in a manner that would leave the viewer with no other option than to conclude that Trayvon Martin had been targeted because he was black. The original dialogue in the call read:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy—is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
NBC’s edited version read:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good…He looks black.
The audio had not only been edited aurally, but had successfully edited the viewpoints of those who had heard, tainting public perception of the case. After being exposed by Fox News and media watchdog NewsBusters, NBC launched an official investigation into the incident, which eventually led to the dismissal of two reporters and a producer.
Now it appears, George Zimmerman is fighting back.
Via the AP (h/t Weasel Zippers):
George Zimmerman is suing NBC, claiming he was defamed when the network edited his 911 call to police after the shooting of Trayvon Martin to make it sound like he was racist.
The former neighborhood watch volunteer filed the lawsuit seeking an undisclosed amount of money on Thursday in Seminole County, outside Orlando.
The lawsuit claims NBC edited his phone call to a dispatcher last February. Zimmerman describes following Martin in the gated community where he lived, just moments before he fatally shot the 17-year-old teen during a confrontation.
NBC spokeswoman Kathy Kelly-Brown didn’t immediately return a phone call. Three employees of NBC or an NBC-owned television station lost their jobs because of the changes.
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder but has pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense.
Media bias is now officially on trial.
(c) 2013 MenRec.com - Site Maintained by Grassfire Lab
