At the Associated Press Sunday evening, White House Correspondent Julie Pace's coverage of President Obama's Oval Office address was predictably weak.
One could cite at least a half-dozen problems with Pace's story, but two of them were particularly disingenuous.
On November 18, Scott Eric Kaufman, an assistant editor at Salon, clearly thought that he had identified easy objects for ridicule in Megyn Kelly and former radical Muslim fundamentalist Morten Storm.
Kaufman ridiculed Fox as "nightmare fuel for elderly white people who just want to celebrate Christmas" after Storm, a former al Qaeda terrorist, predicted that "within the next two weeks, we will have an attack" on U.S. soil on a "softer target." Kaufman really ought to be more careful about whom he mocks — but then again, he's at Salon, where there's apparently no accountability, or sense of shame.
Anchoring the CBS Evening News for a third-straight night in Paris following Friday’s deadly Islamic terror attacks, Scott Pelley concluded Wednesday’s broadcast with an emotional commentary looking back at how parents so often struggle to discuss tragedies over the past two decades with their children while some are also crippled by grief of losing loved ones in the events themselves.
Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo Islamic terrorist murders in Paris in January, the establishment press attacked those who dared to state something quite obvious about "no-go zones" in parts of Europe, i.e., that they exist. The media summarily and unilaterally declared that "no-go zones" were a myth propagated by the likes of Fox News, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, longtime terror expert Steven Emerson, and others — despite several direct references to them in media accounts, including the New York Times, going back as far as 2002.
Well, a not very funny thing has happened during the attempt to hunt down those involved in planning Friday's coordinated terrorist bloodbath in Paris.
As of 11 p.m. ET on Friday, according to CNN, the death toll was "at least 153" (since updated to "at least 128") who have been "killed in gunfire and blasts" in Paris in "coordinated attacks." CNN claims that "It is still not clear who is responsible." (Update: Early Saturday morning Eastern Time, ISIS claimed responsibility.)
Two days ago, leftist Democrat Hillary Clinton laughed at the idea of Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina being strangled. Today, we've learned that wealthy "liberal funders" are considering bankrolling the Black Lives Matter movement, whose followers have frequently been seen and heard targeting police with language like, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" and "What do we want? Dead cops!" But Salon's Chauncey DeVega wants everyone to know that, after Paris, it's the right in the U.S. which needs "to tone down their incessant violent rhetoric."
MSNBC host Chris Matthews closed out his October 19 Hardball program with the strange assertion that President George W. Bush is both ultimately responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen AND the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya eleven years later under the Obama/Clinton State Department.
As I noted on Friday, the New York Times has become the de facto head cheerleader for Truth, the movie which purports to tell the story behind CBS News's 60 Minutes report on President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service in the early 1970s aired in September 2004.
The Old Gray Lady has hosted a TimesTalk video in which one of the film's lead actors, Robert Redford as Dan Rather, claims that the movie gives the offending journalists "their day in court." (Trust me, Bob. The last place they want to be is in a real courtroom; Rather found that out the hard way several years ago.)
The New York Times has not merely climbed aboard the bandwagon of Truth, which exalts the fraudulent September 2004 CBS 60 Minutes report about President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service. It's now serving as the film's de facto lead apologist.
The most recent example demonstrating how deeply in the tank the Old Gray Lady has gone is Stephen Holden's Thursday film review published in Friday's print edition. Holden's praise comes from an alternative universe where genuine "truth" clearly doesn't matter, and uses a tortured analogy which in reality disproves his attempt at making a point (bolds are mine throughout this post):
The disgraceful determination of Hollywood to rewrite history not favorable to the left, its causes and its personalities has perhaps reached its nadir with the laughably misnamed movie Truth.
The film is about Dan Rather's September 2004 60 Minutes report on President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service during the 1970s. In Rather's words, "The nuanced, not preachy, script makes clear our report was true." The script may say that, but the historical record doesn't. On October 2, John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson's writeup detailing how bogus that report was from top to bottom appeared online at The Weekly Standard. Reading that essay in its entirely is undoubtedly important; but in this case, so is ridicule. Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View supplied that back in July.
It’s newsworthy when people of faith are killed by a gunman -- except when they are Christian. The broadcast networks made that clear by the difference between the massive coverage of the shooting of three Muslims in February and the little coverage of how the Oregon shooter reportedly targeted Christians.
“Many have already judged this as a hate crime,” CBS’s Scott Pelley asserted on the Feb. 14 evening news broadcast covering the Chapel Hill shooting. When three Muslim students were killed by an angry neighbor last spring, the broadcast networks jumped to allege this was an anti-Muslim “hate crime” -- bringing that phrase up a whopping 30 times in eight broadcasts.
Thursday evening, news broke that the Oregon school shooter had questioned students about their faith before he shot them. Later Thursday, The New York Post reported an incredible detail: Christian students were specifically singled out by the shooter. By Friday morning, all three networks had told viewers of that nightmare scenario on their morning shows. The Washington Post and The LA Times followed up with the story shortly after.
But, for some reason, one notable media outlet was silent for the majority of Friday -- The New York Times.
Early Thursday, a gunman opened fire on campus at an Oregon community college, killing 13 people and injuring at least 20. Every time a mass shooting happens, society is understandably shocked, saddened and outraged at the lives lost due to unneeded violence. But the liberal media took this a step further, from using the tragic situation to blame the NRA and the Constitution to trying to take away a right that many Americans hold so dear.
Take a look below at some of the actual demands made by the liberal media immediately after the shooting on Twitter.