Bias In The "Main Stream Media"...UPDATED and now bumped!

***Media Research Center CyberAlert Special***
3:55pm EDT, Thursday August 30, 2007

MRC President on FNC's Hannity & Colmes Tonight About MRC Study

Media Reality Check: "New Network, Same Old Biased Katie"

Brent Bozell, President of the MRC, is scheduled to appear tonight (Thursday) on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes. He should appear about 20 minutes into the hour-long 9pm EDT show, so 9:20pm EDT, 8:20pm CDT, 7:20pm MDT and 6:20pm PDT. Hannity & Colmes re-runs at midnight EDT (11pm CDT, 10pm MDT and 9pm PDT).

Topic: The MRC's Study, by Rich Noyes, released Wednesday: "Rise and Shine on Democrats; How the ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the White House"

Original post is below:

Bias In The "Main Stream Media"...UPDATED!!

"Shirley" you jest!!

I received the following in my email from Media Research Center:

***Media Research Center CyberAlert Special***
3:05pm EDT, Wednesday August 29, 2007

MRC Study: "Rise and Shine on Democrats; How the ABC, CBS and NBC
Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the White House"

Below is the text of the Executive Summary for a study coordinated and written by MRC Research Director Rich Noyes, with research assistance from MRC news analysts Geoffrey Dickens, Scott Whitlock and Justin McCarthy, which was posted today.

The Executive Summary online: Rise and Shine

For the PDF, which matches the hard copy, of the entire 18-page report: Rise and Shine(pdf)

The HTML version of the full report, with a couple of video clips: Rise and Shine (HTML)

Now, the text of the Executive Summary for the August 29 Special
Report study:

Rise and Shine on Democrats;

How the ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the White House

As the 2008 presidential campaign season gets underway, wide-open primary races in both the Republican and Democratic parties are competing for the media's attention. So are the broadcast networks covering both sides equally, or are they tilting the campaign playing field in favor of liberal Democratic candidates?

To find out, Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 campaign segments on ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's The Early Show and NBC's Today from January 1 through July 31. Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign's quest for positive media attention.

The results are astonishing: Not only are the network morning shows overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, they are actively promoting the Democrats' liberal agenda.

Among the major findings:

# The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties or did not focus on the major parties.

# All three Democratic frontrunners received more attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with New York Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all.

# Undeclared liberal candidates such as former Vice President Al Gore and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg received more network TV attention than many of the declared Republican candidates.

# The network morning shows doled out nearly three times as much airtime (4 hours, 35 minutes) to interviews with the various Democratic campaigns. In contrast, the Republicans received just 1 hour and 44 minutes of interview airtime.

# In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts emphasized a liberal agenda. Of the substantive questions that could be categorized as reflecting a political agenda, more than two-thirds (69%) of the questions to Democrats reflected a liberal premise, and more than four-fifths (82%) of the questions to Republicans came from the same perspective.

# The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton cast as "unbeatable" and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged as a "rock star." The most prominent Republican, Arizona Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq.

# Not once did network reporters describe Senator Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "liberal," while ABC only once labeled Obama as "liberal." Yet the networks showed no hesitation in attaching the "liberal" label to Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who was so branded 12 times.

These early returns suggest that ABC, CBS and NBC are skewing their news in ways that will benefit the Democratic candidates in 2008. The broadcast networks have a responsibility to cover both parties in a fair and even-handed manner -- not for the sake of the candidates, but for the voters. That means giving viewers a chance to hear from all of the major candidates in interviews, asking them similar questions, and balancing the day-to-day news coverage to keep both Democratic and Republican primary voters equally well-informed.

END of Executive Summary for the MRC's Special Report


- Brent Baker

I wonder if "they" would agree with the Fairness Doctrine if it was aimed at them...

Is it any wonder why we in The New media are a requirement?

One may want to read this or this post exposing the media bias on 7/8/07 or this. The evidence of the slant towards supporting the Leftinistra by The Big Three is all so obvious and if it ever went to court, they would lose.

UPDATE!

Anti-War Agenda

Media: CNBC and MSNBC have refused to air educational commercials that support the war in Iraq. That's their privilege. And it's our privilege to point out the networks' rank hypocrisy.

The commercials were created by Freedom's Watch, a new tax-exempt advocacy group. Its $15 million campaign includes at least four ads it wants to run in 20 states through mid-September. They feature Iraq War veterans, some of them wounded, and military families, some whose loved ones have died in the war.

The goal is to provide a view of the war that old-line media don't care to report and to urge Congress not to give up on the troops.

So far Fox and CNN have aired the commercials. But CNBC and MSNBC won't touch them. Bradley Blakeman, president and CEO of Freedom's Watch, has written John Kelly, senior vice president for NBC News' network sales, asking why and requesting an "explanation of your basis in writing or station policy."

"It is our understanding," Blakeman says, "that the purported basis for the denial is a network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance." Then he points out that that NBC has a "recent history of airing such ads."

There's been no response, but none is necessary. The real reason the networks are refusing is clear: The spots are at odds with their position on the war.

So much for "fair and balanced" and "no political bias here" garbage, eh?

Bias In The "Main Stream Media"...UPDATED!!

"Shirley" you jest!!

I received the following in my email from Media Research Center:

***Media Research Center CyberAlert Special***
3:05pm EDT, Wednesday August 29, 2007

MRC Study: "Rise and Shine on Democrats; How the ABC, CBS and NBC
Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the White House"

Below is the text of the Executive Summary for a study coordinated and written by MRC Research Director Rich Noyes, with research assistance from MRC news analysts Geoffrey Dickens, Scott Whitlock and Justin McCarthy, which was posted today.

The Executive Summary online: Rise and Shine

For the PDF, which matches the hard copy, of the entire 18-page report: Rise and Shine(pdf)

The HTML version of the full report, with a couple of video clips: Rise and Shine (HTML)

Now, the text of the Executive Summary for the August 29 Special
Report study:

Rise and Shine on Democrats;

How the ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the White House

As the 2008 presidential campaign season gets underway, wide-open primary races in both the Republican and Democratic parties are competing for the media's attention. So are the broadcast networks covering both sides equally, or are they tilting the campaign playing field in favor of liberal Democratic candidates?

To find out, Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 campaign segments on ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's The Early Show and NBC's Today from January 1 through July 31. Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign's quest for positive media attention.

The results are astonishing: Not only are the network morning shows overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, they are actively promoting the Democrats' liberal agenda.

Among the major findings:

# The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties or did not focus on the major parties.

# All three Democratic frontrunners received more attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with New York Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all.

# Undeclared liberal candidates such as former Vice President Al Gore and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg received more network TV attention than many of the declared Republican candidates.

# The network morning shows doled out nearly three times as much airtime (4 hours, 35 minutes) to interviews with the various Democratic campaigns. In contrast, the Republicans received just 1 hour and 44 minutes of interview airtime.

# In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts emphasized a liberal agenda. Of the substantive questions that could be categorized as reflecting a political agenda, more than two-thirds (69%) of the questions to Democrats reflected a liberal premise, and more than four-fifths (82%) of the questions to Republicans came from the same perspective.

# The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton cast as "unbeatable" and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged as a "rock star." The most prominent Republican, Arizona Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq.

# Not once did network reporters describe Senator Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "liberal," while ABC only once labeled Obama as "liberal." Yet the networks showed no hesitation in attaching the "liberal" label to Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who was so branded 12 times.

These early returns suggest that ABC, CBS and NBC are skewing their news in ways that will benefit the Democratic candidates in 2008. The broadcast networks have a responsibility to cover both parties in a fair and even-handed manner -- not for the sake of the candidates, but for the voters. That means giving viewers a chance to hear from all of the major candidates in interviews, asking them similar questions, and balancing the day-to-day news coverage to keep both Democratic and Republican primary voters equally well-informed.

END of Executive Summary for the MRC's Special Report


- Brent Baker

I wonder if "they" would agree with the Fairness Doctrine if it was aimed at them...

Is it any wonder why we in The New media are a requirement?

One may want to read this or this post exposing the media bias on 7/8/07 or this. The evidence of the slant towards supporting the Leftinistra by The Big Three is all so obvious and if it ever went to court, they would lose.

UPDATE!

Anti-War Agenda

Media: CNBC and MSNBC have refused to air educational commercials that support the war in Iraq. That's their privilege. And it's our privilege to point out the networks' rank hypocrisy.

The commercials were created by Freedom's Watch, a new tax-exempt advocacy group. Its $15 million campaign includes at least four ads it wants to run in 20 states through mid-September. They feature Iraq War veterans, some of them wounded, and military families, some whose loved ones have died in the war.

The goal is to provide a view of the war that old-line media don't care to report and to urge Congress not to give up on the troops.

So far Fox and CNN have aired the commercials. But CNBC and MSNBC won't touch them. Bradley Blakeman, president and CEO of Freedom's Watch, has written John Kelly, senior vice president for NBC News' network sales, asking why and requesting an "explanation of your basis in writing or station policy."

"It is our understanding," Blakeman says, "that the purported basis for the denial is a network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance." Then he points out that that NBC has a "recent history of airing such ads."

There's been no response, but none is necessary. The real reason the networks are refusing is clear: The spots are at odds with their position on the war.

So much for "fair and balanced" and "no political bias here" garbage, eh?

The Enemies Within

And they are many. They call themselves Patriots but I question that which they are Patriotic to. CBS News is one of those questionable groups that have questionable if not outright dubious associations with the socialist influences within our own borders.

Given the atrocities performed daily by U.S. soldiers against innocent Iraqi citizens, as well as the lies upon which the Iraq War was sparked, U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, says The Nation.

And where are these "daily atrocities"? If it is the "Haditha Massacre", that whole Murtha wet dream is unraveling and unraveling hard. And what are the lies, exactly, other than the emotional twists and turns of opinions held by pathetic mental patients?

The alleged and highly acclaimed and suspect exhaustive investigation by The Nation, of all entities of the Hate America and Blame America First crowds, is incredulously flawed. Where are the substantiations to the claim of "daily" wrong doings? Last I knew, hearsay was and is to be discounted for what it is...doubtful.

To date, on this New Media Blog, I have 155 CENTCOM releases, each of which average 12 stories. CENTCOM reports everything and leaves not a thing out. If there were "daily atrocities" as alleged by the wanting-of-proven-content of the dead-beat rag called The Nation, I would be joining their efforts.

Along with the CENTCOM releases that I post and publish, I have RSS feeds to CENTCOM, DefenseLink (that I also post and publish) and MilNews. All of them publish everything, the good with the bad. One can also tune into Pentagon TV where all sorts of news is available and everyone (with .01 microns worth of brain matter) knows that the Pentagon isn't always in favor of the military, strange as that may be.

The Nation, the Rag of Idiots and Morons, is no better than organizations like Code Pinko and A.N.S.W.E.R., that have known associations with communist nations and enemies of the United States.

Unlike organizations such as mentioned above, we in The New Media, of which I am proud to associate with, produce facts and figures and provide substantiations to our allegations and claims. Traitorous and seditious groups such as The Nation and their low-intelligence level followers do not and cannot. They rely solely on the uneducated, the emotional and the easily beguiled.

The New Iraq...A Lesson In National Emergence

I have read email after email, blog after blog, article after article since I began blogging over six years ago. I haven't always had my own blogs and in the beginning, I messed up the blogs so badly I had them deleted.

While achieving skills for my own blog at Townhall, I was "playing with" other blog platforms and eventually got the Word Press blog up and running. After I achieved the #1 slot at Townhall, I began "playing with" Blogspot at the suggestion(s) of other popular bloggers because they said it was fun to work with. While the Word Press blog gained some recognition,I began "playing with" Blogspot and decided to use my new Blogspot blog as the primary blog. I still maintain the others due to loyal readers, viewers and those that wish to leave comments.

As my learning curves began to show promise, at least to me, an odd analogy emerged. No matter the conflict; no matter the venture; no matter the conflict; no matter the goal; they take time.

For instance, The United States. Yes, we hear of our Founding Fathers and the Framers and the First President and how all gave their all and some even lost their fortunes in the process. But, how did they get to where they were? What took place between the end of the American Revolutionary War and the inception and ratification of the United States Constitution and how did we become the United States of America? Did it happen overnight? Did it emerge from sort of primordial ooze?

Perhaps you are wondering what this has to do with the title of this post. I would be. I was reading Spree's post today in regards to the Benchmark issues in regards to progress in Iraq that the Leftinistra are soiling their Depends over and I suddenly recalled a history exam essay which I wrote many moons ago as I was going for my degree(s) in American History and American Studies. I cannot locate that essay as I am not physically able to crawl into my attic and break the seals of boxes to look for it. Suffice it to say that the data at hand can be located here.

As the "war drags on" and as the "war is lost" and "we cannot win", I find it sadly comical and horridly ignorant to think that instant success in Iraq is obtainable. We live in a society where Instant Success is expected and if our microwave ovens are no longer functional, life for us ends. The end of the world comes down all around us if a Crime Drama takes more than 2 hours to solve, or if our Cappuccino Machines break down.

The Articles of Confederation of the newly free colonies was ratified in 1781. Presidents served for one-year terms. From 1781 to 1789, eight men served as President of The United States, as mandated in Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation. George Washington was actually our ninth president but the first president under the new Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were found to be deficient. That experiment was not so much a failure but a learning curve; an eight year long learning curve.

In our history there were other learning curves, the last major one in my estimation was the War Between The States. We are still learning and emerging.

So is Iraq. They had elections. Air Force Pundit tells a tale of tribal units joining American Forces fighting AQI. Al Anbar is no longer the worse place in Iraq. Operations Rolling Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper are rendering similar results in the Northern Provinces of Iraq.

AQI is on the run in Iraq and we are winning and the full force of the "surge" (horrible term for what is happening) is just now beginning to fall into full play. Three weeks ago, the total Surge Force was finally in theater. I suppose Reid and his fellow 16% Approval Ratings Crowds expected the surge to be over by now. If they knew what they were yakking about, perhaps we would be more understanding of their ignorance and stupidity. After all, one of Reid's people doesn't know that $2 exist...he thinks they are phony. What kind of an operation is Reid running anyway?

Some are demanding a political solution. Like Korea? That worked out well, right? How many troops are STILL in Korea and why? Sherman Adams; "At the moment of a Korean truce," he said, "we shall be in danger. There will be nothing in the terms of such a truce which will give any permanent relief from the ominous threat which confronts the free world." The Marxists were rather pleased.

That was a "political solution" and look where we are today in the Korean Zone. Is this what we want in Iraq? Another Korea?

Was Vietnam a military solution or a political one? Silly question I know but it needs to be asked. It was a political solution. And look at that aftermath. At least in Korea we left troops there to ensure South Korea remained South Korea. The Democrats completely abandoned the Vietnamese people and that resulted in the Killing Fields. Well done, Democrats. Well done.

Is this what we want in Iraq?

Here is my gut call.

The Leftinistra KNOW that a withdrawal will bring about a repeat of the Cambodian Killing Fields and thus they can lay the blame at GWB's feet. This will ensure (to them) a sure victory in 2008. They cannot afford to be seen as the owners of defeat of which they are. Troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq on their watch.

Should their efforts cause a loss in Iraq and, our troops are still in theater in 2008, the Leftinistra cannot afford a loss in Iraq and they will NOT pull the troops out.

Just a thought.

The Learning Curve here in this modern day is this; the Democrats are the Party of Defeat and must be challenged and exposed at and on all levels possible. It is our duty to do so as members of The new media.

The New Media

Lame Stream Media and Progress
Lame Stream Media and Progress
Monday, March 26, 2007 4:39 PM

Progress repulses the Lame Stream Media when the progress is contrary to their string pulling proponents.

Behold; the news they are not permitted to print…

Sheiks Join US Military In Al Anbar Province (who’d a thunk it?)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni Sheiks Join Fight Vs. Insurgency
By TODD PITMANAssociated Press Writer

RAMADI, Iraq — Not long ago it would have been unthinkable: a Sunni sheik allying himself publicly with American forces in a xenophobic city at the epicenter of Iraq’s Sunni insurgency.

Today, there is no mistaking whose side Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is on. Outside his walled home, a U.S. tank is on permanent guard beside a clutch of towering date palms and a protective dirt berm.

The 36-year-old sheik is leading a growing movement of Sunni tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaida-linked insurgents in Anbar province. The dramatic shift in alliances may have done more in a few months to ease daily street battles and undercut the insurgency here than American forces have achieved in years with arms.

The American commander responsible for Ramadi, Col. John W. Charlton, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, have helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents’ fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and many others fled.
The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point; insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaida assassins, said insurgents were “killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough.”

Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did.

“I was always against these terrorists,” al-Rishawi said in an interview inside his American-guarded compound, adjusting a pistol holstered around his waist. “They brainwashed people into thinking Americans were against them. They said foreigners wanted to occupy our land and destroy our mosques. They told us, ‘We’ll wage a jihad. We’ll help you defeat them.’”

The difficult part was convincing others it wasn’t true, and that “building an alliance with the Americans was the only solution,” al-Rishawi said.

His movement, also known as the Anbar Awakening, now counts 41 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar, though al-Rishawi acknowledges that some groups in the province have yet to join. It’s unclear how many that is, or much support the movement really has.

And there is opposition. In November, a top Sunni leader who heads the Association of Muslim Scholars, Sheik Harith al-Dhari, described al-Rishawi’s movement as “thieves and bandits.” And for at least a year, U.S. forces have also witnessed sporadic firefights between Sunni militias and insurgents in Ramadi, reflecting the growing split among Sunnis. They used to describe such skirmishes as “red on red” fighting — battles between enemies. Now they call it “red on green.”

But violence in some districts of Ramadi previously hit by daily street battles has dwindled to a degree so low that American soldiers can walk on the streets in some areas and hand out soccer balls without provoking a firefight — apparently a direct result of the sheik’s influence.

U.S. Lt. Nathan Strickland, also of the 1-77th, said the sheiks were influenced by the realization that Shiite Iran’s regional influence was rising, and “the presence of (Sunni) foreign fighters here was disrupting the traditional local tribal structure.”

Al-Rishawi and other sheiks urged their tribesmen to join the police force, and 4,500 Sunnis heeded the call in Ramadi alone — a remarkable feat in a city that had almost no police a year ago.

Local Sunnis have deeply resented the overwhelmingly Shiite Iraqi army units the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has deployed here. Sunni tribes have begun to realize that if anybody is going to secure the city, it might as well be the sons of Ramadi, Strickland said.

Also pouring through the streets in police trucks fixed with heavy machine-guns are 2,500 Sunni tribesmen who have joined newly created SWAT team-like paramilitary units. Paid by the Interior Ministry with the blessing of U.S. commanders, the so-called Emergency Response Units are clearly loyal to local sheiks. Some wear track suits and face-covering red-checkered headscarves — looking startlingly like insurgent fighters. Others wear crisp green camouflage uniforms bought by al-Rishawi.

The ERU members were screened and sent either on 45-day police training courses in Jordan or seven-day courses at a military base in Ramadi — part of an effort to capitalize on the Awakening movement and make use of them as quickly as possible.

“I’d say 20 percent of the credit for the change in Ramadi could be taken by U.S. forces,” said Strickland. “The vast majority of the turnaround is due to the sheiks.”

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made his first trip to Anbar province this month, meeting al-Rishawi and saying he applauded Sunni tribes and clans that had “risen up and countered terrorism.”

Still, al-Rishawi complained the Interior Ministry had given police and ERU units “one-tenth” of the resources they needed — from equipment to guns to food, despite promises to do more. Some of the fighters use automatic weapons they brought from home.

“If I had the tools, I could wipe al-Qaida from Anbar within five months,” al-Rishawi said.
Strickland said the government was probably “hesitant to strengthen and supply something that might become a popular Sunni movement.”

The message has taken longer to spread to eastern Ramadi, but it’s getting through there, too, said Maj. Dave Christensen of the U.S. Army’s 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment.

The base he works from used to be hit daily by mortar attacks, prompting outgoing barrages targeting launch sites that inadvertently damaged buildings, killed cattle, and alienated locals. The sheik responsible for the neighborhood where the attacks originated began cooperating with Americans a few months ago, prompting insurgents to attack and burn down his house.

“He fought back, then called and said, ‘Hey, I’ve been helping you, now I could use your help,’” Christensen said.

U.S. forces moved into the now relatively quiet area, and Christensen’s base has seen only a handful of mortar strikes since.

The New Media is here to stay and that New Media is us…Reagan Era Conservative bloggers.

HOOAH?