Latest Posts

The hurricane may have knocked anti-war Bush-hater Cindy Sheehan off the news pages of the New York Times, but she still has enough liberal cred to make a local splash, as shown in a Monday Metro Section report in the Times by Marc Santora on Sheehan's visit to a church in Brooklyn, "Mother Who Lost Son in Iraq Continues Fight Against War."

Nina Totenberg's call for higher taxes makes a little more, but not much, "sense" when you consider that she thinks giving to faith-based charities just ends up rewarding the President's political supporters. A few minutes after Totenberg called for a "Katrina tax" on Sunday's Inside Washington, she remarked:

The Houston Chronicle hits a home-run with this sap-fest on Illegal Immigration, delivering one sympathetic story after another on how mean the US border control policies are to people breaking the law.

It's got to be hard for Today and its MSM cohorts. In the wake of President Bush's inspired speech, with its ambitious agenda for rebuilding the gulf coast, attention is turning toward the future and away from the 'good old days.' You know: that period right after Katrina hit when the liberal media were in their glory, reveling in the halting governmental response, focusing almost entirely on the shortcomings of the Bush administration.

The Washington Post reports that the Lincoln Center hurricane fundraiser (broadcast in condensed form Saturday night on PBS) carried some liberal speechifying in it from celebrities.

 Just 40 minutes into the Emmy Awards presentations Sunday night on CBS, Blythe Danner, in accepting the award (picture of acceptance) for the Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series for her role in Showtime’s Huff, relayed views she attributed to her late husband Bruce Paltrow, best known as the producer of St. Elsewhere, though it was unclear if her political statement about Iraq, coming after a tribute to New Orleans, was her own or just what she believed her husband would have thought: "I know Bruce would want me to pay tribute to New Orleans, his favorite city, and all the Gulf Coast and our kids in Iraq. Let's get the heck out of there!” Just under two hours later, however, in accepting (picture of acceptance) the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series for her starring role on NBC’s Medium, Patricia Arquette delivered a classier appreciation of the troops in Iraq. She announced: “My prayer for you is that when you get home you can come home safe and sound."

Tonight (Sunday, September 18, 2005), 60 Minutes aired a segment entitled "Life in Baghdad," hosted by Scott Pelley and produced by Shawn Efran. The story was nothing but the bleakest of portraits of life in the city of Baghdad. The story? Violence, fear, despair: repeat.

However, unless you were paying close attention to Pelley's introduction to the story, you may have missed the fact that the segment originally aired nearly one year ago (On 60 Minutes II, October 6, 2004)! ("Last fall," as host Pelley put it.)

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos interviewed his former boss on “This Week” Sunday morning. The entire twenty minutes (video link to follow) appeared to be an opportunity for President Clinton to defame the current administration while pumping up his own legacy. Assisting this goal was Stephanopoulos who, regardless of what his former employer said, didn’t once challenge the accuracy of any of Clinton’s numerous misstatements of fact:

“Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means that every single day of the year our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, a military conflict by borrowing money from somebody else.”

This is patently false, and the fact that Stephanopoulos didn’t challenge it is extraordinary. After all, most of us learned in grammar school that America borrowed large sums of money from the French to finance our Revolution against the British. As such, our nation was born borrowing money from another country to fund a conflict.

Los Angeles Times' media critic Tim Rutten has long had a somewhat troubled relationship with reality (for just a few examples, see here, here, and here). He also has never been shy about letting his liberal political views get in the way of doing what he actually should be doing: Analyzing the media in a fair and objective way.

However, his liberal slams on conservative media reached a new low in his weekly column, "It's hard to feel bad for Geraldo" (Sat. Sept. 17, 2005) (reg. req'd), which begins as follows (emphasis mine):

"IT would be comforting to believe that Geraldo Rivera is inexplicable.

"Sadly, when we consider Rupert Murdoch's ceaseless schemes for global domination and the venal blood lust that pulses through Fox News, Geraldo is easy to explain — which makes him simply inexcusable.

"Seeing him descend bright-eyed and sweaty on wretched New Orleans, as he did in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, was like watching a vulture on crystal meth. The word that came to mind was not 'reporting,' but 'feeding.'"

"Ceaseless schemes for global domination"? "Venal blood lust"? Vultures on crystal meth? Is Rutten talking about a television network or a murderous, communist dictatorship?

And that was just the beginning of the article!

As was reported here yesterday, regardless of how accurately Rasmussen Reports predicted the 2004 election results, America’s media continue to ignore their polling data.  With special thanks to a NewsBusters reader named “Mass Liberal", it is evident that another report from Rasmussen just released this morning will likely get absolutely no air or print play, either. 

What will likely not get reported is Rasmussen’s finding that 50% of Americans favor the president’s proposal for reconstructing New Orleans, or that more African-Americans support this plan than white Americans:

“Fifty percent (50%) of Americans favor the main proposal from that speech--a federal commitment of $200 billion to help rebuild New Orleans. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed and 23% are not sure.”

“Fifty-seven percent (57%) of black voters support the federal reconstruction spending while just 17% are opposed. Among white voters, 49% favor the spending and 29% are opposed. This is the first Bush Administration proposal hat has attracted more support from black Americans than from white Americans.”

I caught just the roundtable segment of "Meet the Press," so I could hear PBS's Gwen Ifill and the WashPost's Eugene Robinson pitch the idea that they're not saying Bush or FEMA are racists, just that the structures of society at present are racist, and (more oddly) that those expressing these views are quite reasonable. That's wrong.

In what has become a daily ritual, another New York Times columnist thoroughly defamed and abused the president in an op-ed piece today. This morning, Frank Rich wrote:

“ONCE Toto parts the curtain, the Wizard of Oz can never be the wizard again. He is forever Professor Marvel, blowhard and snake-oil salesman. Hurricane Katrina, which is likely to endure in the American psyche as long as L. Frank Baum's mythic tornado, has similarly unmasked George W. Bush.”

Also of note, Rich demonstrated how Cindy Sheehan – remember her? – was just a pawn of the media while referencing how another of his cronies is now equating Katrina to Vietnam:

“It came only after the plan to heap all the blame on the indeed blameworthy local Democrats failed to lift Mr. Bush's own record-low poll numbers. It came only after America's highest-rated TV news anchor, Brian Williams, started talking about Katrina the way Walter Cronkite once did about Vietnam.”

What a difference a month makes: In August, it was Cindy Sheehan that represented Bush’s Vietnam as far as the were press concerned as reported by NewsBusters squad members here, here, and here. I guess anything that offers the media an opportunity to criticize the performance of the president is now akin to Vietnam.

Rich than predictably moved the discussion in a racial direction:

On the Inside Washington TV talk show aired on three Washington, DC stations over the weekend, NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, decked out in NewsBusters orange, suggested that President Bush’s Thursday night speech “would have been a great opportunity to say, 'look, I'm for tax cuts, but we need a Katrina tax, we need to really pay, to do this and to pay for it.’" Host Gordon Peterson repeated her point: "You want more taxes." Totenberg chuckled as she reiterated: "I want more taxes, yes." Two weeks ago, as recounted in this NewsBusters item with a video clip, Totenberg blamed tax cuts for the levee breakage: “For years, we have cut our taxes, cut our taxes and let the infrastructure throughout the country go and this is just the first of a number of other crumbling things that are going to happen to us.”

Fuller quotation of Totenberg follows.

Dick Meyer over at the Heyward Spin Machine (otherwise known as CBS News' blog, Public Eye) denounces "knee-jerk MSM-bashing."

"I know we’re a giant multi-national, evil-MSM behemoth. But we’re also a pretty small group."

You're a small group of PR flaks within the "evil-MSM behemoth." Maybe you should ask for a bigger budget. Tell them you have a Herculean task, taking on a huge part of the blogosphere.

Meyer also tries to instruct people on what comments to post.

As has been well reported by NewsBusters squad members here and here, the media in the past few weeks have been falling all over themselves to report President Bush’s apparently plummeting poll numbers.  However, few media outlets pay attention to the poll conducted on a daily basis by Rasmussen Reports.  Could it be that Rasmussen’s numbers don’t mirror the negativity of many of the other polling groups?

“Saturday September 17, 2005--Forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.”

Of particular note regarding Rasmussen’s numbers is that unlike most of the other polls making headlines, Bush’s approval rating has been virtually unchanged since Katrina hit.  In addition, despite the gloom and doom being espoused by other polls, Bush’s current rating of 47 percent is only one point lower than his low for all of 2004, and only seven points lower than his high this year.  As such, according to Rasmussen, there has been far less volatility in Bush's approval numbers than most other polling agencies have been reporting.