By L&T Managing Editor Larry Phillips
Since Obama’s re-election, the“Lame Stream Media” has become not only emboldened, but has actually discarded any resemblance of shame at openly supporting Obama and his leftists’ – or outright socialists’ – designs.
If one listens to National Public Radio, one can see the difference in handling news stories before re-election and afterward.
Prior to the election, they were scrambling to try and give differing views on a subject – their feeble attempt at “fair and balanced.” I think they were doing that because if Romney got elected, they knew their breadbasket – the public’s tax dollars – would dry up, and they would have to survive in the free enterprise system all other new organizations have to survive in.
In other words, they wouldn’t be getting your billions of tax dollars any more.
Now, they openly push their liberal agenda. When they do interview a person with an opposing view, it’s superficially brief, and they try to use a source that’s easily discredited. A few examples earlier this week include a story on how a state will have to lay off hundreds of public defenders.
The NPR reporter said the reason was because of “deep budget cuts due to the sequestration.” He went on to add the head attorney was having to “slash his budget beyond recognition.”
Not once did the reporter say that the sequestration is only decreasing next year’s budget increases by 2.4 percent. Not last year’s spending, but projected spending increases for this year – 2.4 percent people.
But again, the report supports the point the Administration is trying to make, that sequestration is BAD! Let’s make the American people suffer and blame the Republicans.
Not once have I heard reported on NPR that sequestration was the idea of – and pushed by – Obama.
NPR also reported a couple of days ago that not everything in Venezuela is bad. Forget that a ruthless socialist led that country for 14 years and nationalized almost every industry in the country. This reporter told how wonderful it was for the bankers under Chavez, and still is.
Banks in Venezuela are breaking records for profits, because, as a banker interviewed said, “We are forced to give low-interest loans to people who can’t pay them back, but the government policy (set up by Chavez) reimburses us the money and pays us 16 percent interest.
“How can we lose?” he asked.
The reporter just glowed at this remarkable tale of riches in a socialist country. She never once asked, “Is this sustainable?” or “How long can the government keep doing that?”
Simple questions and apparently none the banker ever considered.
The answer is “No.” Venezuela doesn’t grow money trees.
Speaking of Chavez, did you see how the Associated Press – or AP, the international press service – handled his obituary?
Dan Gainor, who is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture, wrote a great opinion piece for Fox News on comparing Chavez’s obit to that of Margaret Thatcher.
“Then there’s Hugo Chavez, who AP called a “fiery populist,” who “crusaded” and “championed.” AP didn’t even hint at Chavez’s controversial nature until the third paragraph and there they still softened the criticism. “He polarized Venezuelans with his confrontational and domineering style, yet was also a masterful communicator and strategist who tapped into Venezuelan nationalism to win broad support, particularly among the poor,” wrote AP.
Gainor continued: “… AP kept up with its tribute, calling him a “political survivor” and a “burly president (who) electrified crowds with his booming voice.”
It went on-and-on, but here is some of the obit AP wrote about Thatcher, the conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
“The Iron Lady, who ruled for 11 remarkable years, imposed her will on a fractious, rundown nation — breaking the unions, triumphing in a far-off war, and selling off state industries at a record pace.”
Gainer pointed out this paragraph AP wrote: “For admirers, Thatcher was a savior who rescued Britain from ruin and laid the groundwork for an extraordinary economic renaissance. For critics, she was a heartless tyrant who ushered in an era of greed that kicked the weak out onto the streets and let the rich become filthy rich.”
Don’t believe AP is biased against conservatism? Check this out – if you haven’t already heard – it’s written by Sarah Muller (@digimuller).
“The Associated Press announced its decision Tuesday (April 2) to drop the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant” from its journalism style-guide.
“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person,” explained Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in a blog post. “Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.
“The news-gathering organization, which provides reports and content to hundreds of media outlets around the world, said the decision came after discussions with ‘many people from many walks of life’ on the hot-button topic.”
I love what Sen. John McCain said about that.
“Someone who crosses our borders illegally is here illegally,” McCain said. “You can call it whatever you want to, but it’s illegal. I think there’s a big difference between someone who does something that’s illegal and someone who’s undocumented. I’ll continue to call it illegal.”
AP’s bias will destroy it in the long run. Someone like Roger Ailes will start a “fair and balanced” wire service and half the country will switch in a heartbeat.
It’s sad that our generation is watching the death of true journalism in the United states – and it doesn’t bode well for America herself – or you.
The “Lame Street Media will let you know what they think you should know.