Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press's Mary Clare Jalonick served as Democratic Party Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's mouthpiece, relaying his promise to "oppose with everything we have" any Supreme Court nominee who isn't fit the Senator's definition of "mainstream."
Hello to all. I appreciate being given the awesome task of handling tonight's NewsBusters 2016 general election thread. We'll go live somewhere around 5:30-6 p.m. ET and hang in there as long as we need to (hopefully not as long as 2000, for those of you who remember staying up til 6 a.m. the next morning and STILL not knowing who won -- and we wouldn't know for another 5 weeks or so.)
David Frum’s book assessing the conservatism of the early-to-middle 1990s was called Dead Right. If Gary Legum wrote a book about today’s conservatives, he might call it Undead Right. “The GOP is a zombie party, shambling across the countryside, spreading terror and devouring any living creature it comes across,” declared Legum last Friday. “But unlike in, say…a George Romero movie, you can’t kill it forever by planting an ax in its head…And unfortunately, because the GOP zombie cannot be killed, we are going to be stuck working our lives around it for the indefinite future.”
Assuming it thinks that orchestrated voter registration fraud and fraudulent voting are legitimate problems, the Associated Press's Friday attempt to explain the developing situation in Indiana on Friday was woefully incomplete. Unlike in other instances of documented and alleged fraud cited during this election cycle, and perhaps only because law enforcement is involved, the AP has at least given the Indiana situation national attention. But after two shorter stories describing the growing scope of the probe to nine Hoosier State counties and then to 57 (now 56), a Friday "answers" dispatch by Rick Callahan provided woefully insufficient detail about the ACORN-like group behind the alleged fraud under investigation.
The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" poll released Thursday had a stunning finding: Donald Trump's support among African-Americans had increased by over 10 points virtually overnight.
Armand Emamdjomeh and David Lauter, who wrote the narrative accompanying that poll, predictably ignored it, but they did even more. Readers here will see that their verbiage in the section specifically addressing "By race/ethnicity" pretended that the shift hasn't even occurred (dashed box around the "Black" box added by me):
Tuesday’s Hardball on MSNBC featured textbook Chris Matthews with liberal spin (fretting over Donald Trump bringing up Clinton scandals in the debates), a decent segment (a touching tribute to the late John McLaughlin), and creepiness (uttering “what’s new, pussycat” to a female guest), but it also included a struggle with the facts as Matthews claimed that 2016 marks a chance for Democrats to control Congress and the White House for the first time since the Johnson administration.
We recently detailed our concerns over how Univision/Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos might have crossed a line by writing an implicit endorsement of Hillary Clinton. His most recent column, however, has erased all doubt and crossed the final line between advocacy journalism and outright partisanship.
He voted for the bill before he was (sort of) against it.
Today much of the mainstream media jumped for joy when announcing that the Democrat Senate nominee in Indiana, Baron Hill, would step aside in favor of former Senator Evan Bayh to once again run for his old seat. Missing in all the happiness was any mention that Bayh, whose Senate career was rather undistinguished except for being the crucial 60th vote that made Obamacare possible, subsequently voiced extreme dissatisfaction with that same bill. Perhaps Bayh and the MSM hope that Bayh's radically shifting attitude would be sent down the memory hole but let us review some of the former senator's comments on this topic once he thought he no longer had to face the voters. Perhaps the most bizarre of the reasons he gave for his Obamacare vote which he later came close to recanting was so as not to see smug Republican faces as related in the New York Times:
When Univision announced its acquisition of the satirical fake-news purveyor the Onion as part of its digital shopping spree back in January, we expressed these concerns, which were confirmed by one particularly awful piece that ran last week.
DAPAgedón llegó el pasado jueves, en forma del veredicto del Tribunal Supremo contra las amnistías ejecutivas del Presidente Obama, y la cobertura noticiosa era tan mala como de esperarse. La hora ha llegado de que nuestros medios domésticos de habla hispana reflejen en el papel que desempeñan dentro de nuestro ambiente político tóxico con respecto al tema migratorio y la cobertura que le dan al mismo.
Univision's news brand pretty much centers around the stridency of its immigration coverage these days. However, it is fascinating to watch the network try to hide its biases on other major issues, as evidenced by coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas abortion case.
Estos días, lo que es la marca de Noticias Univisión gira en torno a la estridencia con la que cubre el tema migratorio. Sin embargo, es fascinante ver a la cadena tratar de ocultar sus sesgos a la hora de cubrir otros casos controversiales, como vemos en su cobertura del fallo emitido por el Tribunal Supremo en el caso de aborto de Texas.