By Kyle Drennen | November 26, 2007 | 6:38 PM EST

Monday’s CBS Early Show picked up a liberal cause as co-host Hannah Storm fretted over the epidemic of taser related deaths in North America, citing how "at least six people died after being zapped by police last week, prompting a U.N. committee to consider tasers as a form of torture." CBS brought aboard a spokesman from Amnesty International which wants a moratorium on taser use and Storm endorsed the group's agenda as she pointed out how "the NAACP is weighing in and agreeing with you, saying this needs to be looked at" and she pined: "What would it take to ban tasers?"

At the beginning of the segment reporter Joie Chen described how a video of a recent taser incident in Canada, "led Taser International to slam 'sensationalistic media reports.'" Of course, Chen quickly went on to continue her own "sensationalistic" reporting on the issue. She concluded by blaming trigger-happy police officers for the recent deaths as she raised "the questions about whether taser carrying officers have become too quick on the draw."

By Kyle Drennen | October 12, 2007 | 2:03 PM EDT

On Friday’s CBS "Early Show," news of Al Gore’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize brought euphoria to hosts Hannah Storm and Harry Smith. The show began with lengthy congratulatory fawning over Gore as Smith exclaimed: "And the folks around the Al Gore household are probably running around in their socks and jumping up and down because Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize." Not to be outdone, that was followed closely by Storm’s assessment that "...certainly, no matter what your politics, everybody likes a comeback story, and this is a comeback story. Wow. Al Gore now in the history books." I think that there are many people who do not feel like hearing a "comeback story" today Hannah.

In order to illustrate this "comeback," Smith proudly observed:

You know, think about this. Seven years ago, right, hanging chads, votes in the balance, uncounted votes in Florida. Now an Oscar winner. And this morning the ultimate international honor.

Many can still remember Smith’s infatuation with Al Gore from his May interview with the former vice president, when Smith tried to pin a ‘Gore ‘08' button on Gore's lapel. Of course, the "Early Show" would not want to recount such a shameful display of a lack of journalistic objectivity. Guess Again:

By Kyle Drennen | October 9, 2007 | 4:46 PM EDT

On Tuesday’s CBS "Early Show," host Harry Smith interviewed former president Jimmy Carter, who he introduced as "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President Jimmy Carter." Smith then proceeded to launch into a discussion about Iran citing an "an exhaustive investigative piece in the New Yorker...by Sy [Seymour] Hersh." Apparently Harry and ‘Sy’ are good buddies. Smith described how Hersh’s article "chronicles the building up, the drum beats of the potential of war with Iran" and asked Carter: "Is there a best way to find peace with Iran?"

Asking the president who oversaw the disastrous Iranian hostage crisis how to deal with Iran is like asking the dictator of Sudan how to bring about an end to the genocide in Darfur. Oh wait, Carter has talked to the Sudanese tyrant about that very issue:

By Matthew Balan | September 27, 2007 | 5:31 PM EDT

Ted Turner made a rare appearance on CNN on Wednesday’s "American Morning," and made an odd statement about what his priority was in global affairs. "Well, the two things that I'm most concerned about are the nuclear arsenals and the fact that they are still on hair-trigger alert, the Russian and American arsenals, and if something were to go wrong, or a mistake, and they get accidentally launched, it's the end of the world in an afternoon. I think that's probably the greatest danger that we face. And the second one is probably global warming."

Turner also made a thinly-veiled attack on the Bush Administration while making a prediction about the future of the world. "We're in a dangerous spot, but we can pull it out if we really work together and go to work on it, and do the smart things and stop doing the dumb things, like bombing Third World countries."

Video: Real (1.85 MB) or Windows (1.56 MB), plus MP3 (1.15 KB)

By Noel Sheppard | September 22, 2007 | 2:33 AM EDT

Liberalism had an absolutely fabulous showing Friday evening as comedienne and former Air America Radio host Janeane Garofalo put on a performance on HBO's "Real Time" that likely left even her parents wondering what they had wrought.

By Noel Sheppard | September 9, 2007 | 6:35 PM EDT

For several years as the manmade global warming myth has taken center stage, the media have led people to believe that reports published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were written by thousands of scientists around the world all sharing a consensus view regarding this controversial issue.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

On Thursday, climate data analyst John McLean wrote a fabulous analysis of the most recent IPCC Assessment Report released in April, and in so doing, obliterated many of the press assertions that have become prominent fixtures in climate change lore.

Published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, this paper should be must reading for all media members and global warming alarmists. It began with a rather harsh review of the important Summary for Policy Makers (emphasis added throughout):

By Lynn Davidson | June 8, 2007 | 9:47 PM EDT

More headline editorializing, this time on Yahoo. A June 5 Reuters article titled, “Bush bashes Putin on democracy on eve of G8 summit” sounds like Bush attacked Russian president Vladimir Putin, but the body of the article clearly did not support that view.

The headline told a very different story than the article. Editors not reporters are generally responsible for headlines, and they can greatly influence opinions about the news. The importance of a bias-free headline is that most people don’t read every word of every article; they often just skim the headlines. That meant the people who read just the headline got a very different impression from those who read the entire article (emphasis mine throughout):

"Russia is not our enemy," Bush said after meeting Czech leaders on a visit aimed at highlighting the country's emergence from Soviet domination.He said he would urge Putin at the summit to cooperate with the U.S. plan to deploy a radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland, but later in a speech took a dig at Moscow's record on democracy."In Russia reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development," Bush said.

By Noel Sheppard | June 6, 2007 | 3:37 PM EDT

As people who are following the G-8 summit in Germany are well aware, it is highly doubtful that any meaningful accord will be reached at this meeting concerning CO2 emissions. In fact, reports out of Europe and Asia for many weeks leading up to this event have made this eventuality quite clear.

Yet, this didn’t prevent the Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein for blaming the lack of such an agreement on President George W. Bush.

In an op-ed published Wednesday entitled “Don't Sugarcoat Climate Change; Calling out Bush's intransigence on emissions caps may be the best way for other G-8 countries to get the U.S. to budge on global warming,” Brownstein chose to ignore all of the facts surrounding this issue, and instead pointed an accusatory finger at the media’s favorite target (emphasis added throughout):

By Noel Sheppard | June 6, 2007 | 1:15 AM EDT

A battle of wits between two men named Christopher took place in Berkeley, California, on May 24. Unfortunately, one contestant came embarrassingly unequipped, so much so that by the end, he chose to not even respond.

Break out the cashews and your favorite libation, sports fans, because this debate between former New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges, and the never at a loss for words Christopher Hitchens was one for the ages.

The following video is an edited compilation of key moments as prepared by our friend at Zombietime (h/t Allah). What follows is ZT’s transcript of this video. However, the reader is highly encouraged to view all of the videos of this event created for your viewing pleasure:

By Lynn Davidson | May 5, 2007 | 2:38 AM EDT
USA Today

An April 4 CNN.com article helped peddle the recent “Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond,”  written by acclaimed “Hotel Rwanda” star Don Cheadle and former Clinton administration official John Prendergast, who is now a “human rights activist” and an advisor to the Soros-financed International Crisis Group.

In this Aspen Steib article, there is no mention of the 22-year civil war that devastated Southern Sudan when Arab Muslims targeted black Christians and Animists or the Bush administration’s efforts to end the wars in both Southern Sudan and Darfur. Cheadle’s intentions are probably good, but this article ignored many issues. Darfur’s crisis is complex, and this article’s approach had one note: it's Bush's fault. 

Cheadle and Prendergast detail what they think what needs to be done (emphasis mine throughout):

"It is urgent that President Bush act ... to confront the Sudanese regime for the atrocities that it is committing and perpetuating to bring this genocide to an end once and for all," they write.

By Warner Todd Huston | April 8, 2007 | 8:14 AM EDT

Agence France Presse has published a whopper about Global Warming, titled "Climate refugees -- the growing army without a name", in which we get the claims of a UN Climate Committee that "50 million" will be homeless because of Global Warming "by 2010". But the report is so filled with could be's, might be's and the ever popular "some experts say" that it is hard to take the claims seriously. It is, in fact, downright impossible to believe a word in the report unless you suspend all faculties of disbelief and merely accept as a matter of faith that they "could be" right. Of course, that is the nub of the Globaloney debate in the first place; the willing suspension of disbelief.

The first paragraph of this report sets a dichotomy that the rest of the report tries hard to refute with their "expert" testimony.

By Tim Graham | March 1, 2007 | 2:51 PM EST

Over at National Review Online Jay Nordlinger is praising a national media outlets for its reporting from the United Nations. The UN is not exactly a hot or hostile beat for liberal media outlets, who seem to like the intentions of the UN, and never seem to worry much about the follow-through. Oil-For-Food fraud? Yawn. Sexual harassment by UN brass? Yawn. This story is more pedestrian, about how "multilateralism" can often break down into a moral void.

I wanted to be super-sure that you saw this highly revealing article about the United Nations. It’s by Edith M. Lederer, the excellent U.N. correspondent of the Associated Press. 
The United States criticized the United Nations for refusing to list a panel it organized Tuesday entitled “State-Sanctioned Mass Rape in Burma and Sudan” on a U.N. Web site.The U.S. Mission to the United Nations arranged to hold the panel on the sidelines of the annual two-week meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women which this year is focusing on discrimination and violence against women. It will include presentations about rape and sexual violence in both countries.But the U.N.’s Meeting Services branch objected to the title, which was published in the U.N.’s daily journal last Thursday, because it “would be perceived as offensive to named member states,” according to a letter to the U.S. Mission obtained by the Associated Press.