National Review

Liberal Journos Use End of '24' to Claim 'Torture,' Liken Intelligence Officials to Jack Bauer
By Lachlan Markay | March 29, 2010 | 1:22 PM EDT
With the recently announced end of Fox's hit series "24," many liberal pundits are parading the show as a false depiction of the notion that "torture works." Contrary to their accusations, the Jack Bauer interrogation methods bear exactly zero resemblance to any actual interrogation techniques used by American military, law enforcement, or intelligence agents.

"On '24,' torture saves lives," the New York Times's Brian Stelter writes, disapprovingly. James Poniewozik, writing on a Time Magazine blog, attributes the show's supposed approval of harsh interrogations to the "conservative politics of co-creator Joel Surnow."

Any American who has serious doubts that our military and intelligence officials would allow interrogators to, say, directly threaten the lives of a terrorist's family (let alone inflict tremendous physical pain) to elicit information has a better grasp of interrogation techniques -- and the integrity of our men and women in uniform -- than most of the liberal media.
A Tale of Two Leaks: NYT Bashed Palin, But Won't Touch ClimateGate
By Lachlan Markay | November 24, 2009 | 12:41 PM EST
The ClimateGate email leak has demonstrated in full force a glaring double standard in the mainstream media's coverage of leaked information. Too often, liberal media outlets jump at the chance to damage conservative figures by publishing sensitive information, but refuse to publish such information if it discredits or hinders the left's efforts.

As Clay Waters reported yesterday, Andew Revkin, who writes for the New York Times's Dot Earth blog, refused to publish emails from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showing efforts to manipulate climate data and marginalize global warming skeptics.

Said Revkin, "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here."

Revkin is correct that the emails were never intended for the public eye, contained private communications, and were released by hackers who violated the law in obtaining them. But apparently this standard for publication of such documents does not apply to information about Sarah Palin.
Even Liberal Dissenters in Firefighter Case Thought Sotomayor Goofed
By Ken Shepherd | June 29, 2009 | 1:45 PM EDT

<p>Here's something most likely to go unnoticed as the mainstream media continues reporting on the fallout of the New Haven firefighter case. </p><p>In his &quot;Bench Memos&quot; blog, National Review's Ed Whelan explains in &quot;<a href="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTBhOTEzMTZhMmMyNDczNTE5MjA4MTI0... target="_blank">9-0 Against Sotomayor</a>&quot; how even the four liberal justices in today's <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Ricci v. DeStefano</i></a> ruling thought Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor goofed in issuing summary judgment for New Haven when the case was before her (italics Whelan's, bold mine):</p><blockquote><p>In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg states: &quot;Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration [whether the City of New Haven in fact had good cause to act] would be in order.&quot; But because the majority saw no need to remand, Ginsburg explains &quot;why, <i>if</i> final disposition by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.&quot; (Emphasis added.)</p><p>In other words, <b>Ginsburg doesn't believe that final disposition of the case is appropriate</b>. She and her fellow dissenters therefore believe that <b>Sotomayor and her Second Circuit colleagues and the district court were wrong to grant summary judgment to the City of New Haven.</b></p></blockquote>

As Specter Switches, the Ira Einhorn Saga Deserves Wider Mention
By Tom Blumer | April 29, 2009 | 12:10 AM EDT
IraEinhornMugs

Ira who?

The establishment media is saying almost nothing about the man who co-founded Earth Day, and who also happens to be in jail for life for murder. Arlen Specter's involvement with the Ira Einhorn case is an important event in the party-switching Senator's career that curious readers would want to know about -- if the establishment media cared to note it.

You know they would be bringing out similar stories quite prominently if they existed about a Democratic senator switching parties. Look at what the Associated Press and the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself) laid on Joe Lieberman in 2006 ("AP Labels Joe Lieberman 'Democrats' Public Enemy No. 1'") -- and he's still considered a reliable Democratic vote.

Time Magazine recounted the sordid case history in 1997; it's a read the whole awful thing piece if there ever was one.

But before excerpting Time, let's look at two of the earlier paragraphs at John J. Miller's related National Review piece in April 2004, written days before Specter barely withstood an aggressive GOP primary challenge from then-Congressman Pat Toomey:

Former RNC Chair on Media: Refs Now Wearing Democrat Jerseys
By Noel Sheppard | March 29, 2009 | 11:15 AM EDT

Though there have long been concerns about liberal bias in the media, 2008 was the year the referees took off their striped shirts and donned a team’s jersey.

So wrote former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie in his National Review piece castigating what has become of journalism in our country. 

To be sure, the former counselor to George W. Bush, having watched his boss for years get torn to shreds by a media Gillespie claimed "loathed the president," has a lot of opinions concerning liberal bias.

In this article, they marvelously came out:

Replacing Kristol: NYT Won't Guarantee Another Conservative
By Jacob S. Lybbert | January 29, 2009 | 3:15 PM EST

In what can only be interpreted as another blow to media balance & fairness, the New York Times has refused to guarantee that another conservative would replace fired columnist Bill Kristol.

On Monday, it was announced that Kristol's gig with the New York Times had come to an abrupt end. My colleague, Noel Sheppard, quoting a report in the Daily Beast, noted the conflicting and contradictory reports about the supposed reason for Kristol's firing. He quoted one source as saying “His conservative ideas were cutting edge and influential,” I was told. “But his sloppy writing and failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy.”

But, as Noel also pointed out in his column, the Times sure doesn't seem to have a problem with the sloppy writing and fact checking of other columnists, like Paul Krugman.

Rush Limbaugh Responds to President Obama
By Noel Sheppard | January 24, 2009 | 6:55 PM EST

As my colleague Tim Graham reported earlier, President Barack Obama, according to the New York Post, told Congressional Republicans on Friday to stop listening to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

National Review's Byron York got in touch with Limbaugh Saturday, and published his response to the President at NRO's Corner blog:

Karl Rove Documents Bush's Farewell, MSM Absent
By Jacob S. Lybbert | January 22, 2009 | 10:00 AM EST

In addition to his regular pundit responsibilities at Fox News and sometime column in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove has taken it upon himself to do the job of the MSM--reporting the news.

Yesterday, my colleague, Noel Sheppard, noted the lack of coverage of President George W. Bush's homecoming in Texas. Only Fox News was present to cover what was, in Sheppard's words (and I agree), "one of his finest speeches ever." Thanks to Fox News, we have documentary evidence of this speech.

Were it not for Karl Rove, we might not have any similar evidence of President Bush's hearty farewell at Andrews Air Force Base. From Greg Pallowitz at NRO's Media Blog, video after the jump.

ABC Wants You To Think This Photo Wasn't Staged
By Mark Finkelstein | December 23, 2008 | 8:08 AM EST

ABC can't be so naive as to believe it wasn't a carefully calculated publicity stunt.  Surely the good folks at Good Morning America know it was anything but an invasion of privacy--that the Clintons wanted the world to see the image of a blissfully happy married couple tripping the sand fantastic. And yet .  . .

GMA devoted a segment this morning to a collective tongue clicking in concern that the Obamas' privacy is being invaded by photographs taken during their current vacation in Hawaii. To lend historicial perspective, other instances of photograhic invasions of presidential privacy were aired, including the image displayed here.  According to ABC's Yungi de Nies, who narrated the segment, the photographic invasion of vacation time was "something the Clintons had to get used to.  They were spotted dancing in the sand on one vacation."  "Spotted"?  I suppose. In the same sense streakers are "spotted" running across football fields.

View video here.

Let's let Kate O'Beirne, in a 2005 column in the National Review, tell the real story behind the Clintons' careful mise-en-scène:

NRO's Hanson: Obama-Loving Media Have Committed Suicide
By Noel Sheppard | October 31, 2008 | 11:32 AM EDT

The media's abysmal coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign has been the equivalent of a mass press suicide that has signaled the end of journalism.

So wrote National Review contributor and Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson Friday in a scathing rebuke of all those so-called impartial journalists who sacrificed their souls and whatever was left of their integrity this year to assist Barack Obama win the White House.

Here are some of Hanson's key points (emphasis added):

Bill Whittle Rips Media's Epic 'Fail' on Obama's 2001 WBEZ Interview
By Tom Blumer | October 27, 2008 | 1:32 PM EDT

NROlogo.jpgAt National Review Online today, Bill Whittle does a tremendous job dissecting the content of Barack Obama's 2001 interview at Chicago public radio station WBEZ.

But he also has some insight into the source of the audio and some choice words for a media elite that has spent nearly two years failing to do even the most basic digging into the Democratic candidate's background and associations.

Here's what Whittle reveals, and most of his related comments:

CNN’s Griffin Acknowledges ‘Botched’ National Review Quotation
By Matthew Balan | October 23, 2008 | 11:30 PM EDT

Drew Griffin, CNN Investigative Corresponent | NewsBusters.orgCNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin appeared on Thursday’s Newsroom and Situation Room programs to explain how "in no way did I intend to misquote" from a recent article by National Review’s Byron York: "This exchange aired just once in the 6 pm hour, and as soon as the National Review brought it to our attention at 7:05, we immediately realized the context could be misconstrued. We cut that portion of the interview. It never aired again." Griffin also mentioned how he had "since called Byron York and his editor Rich Lowry, explained what happened, and told them both that I regret any harm this may have brought."

In an interview excerpt aired on Tuesday's Situation Room (NB post with video), Griffin had told Sarah Palin: “The National Review had a story saying that, you know, 'I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above.'” In fact, York was mocking media coverage of Palin: “Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for Vice President, it's sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward or -- well, all of the above."

Griffin first appeared seven minutes into the 2 pm Eastern hour of Newsroom. Anchor Kyra Phillips asked the correspondent about the criticism he had received over the misquotation. He played a clip of the question, and explained the impression he had of the interview overall. He then played the initial exchange he had with Governor Palin over the "botched" quote, and most of her answer.