Catch MRC's Brent Bozell on FBN's Trish Regan Primetime, 11:48 p.m. EST/8:48 p.m. PST!
The press has gone into hyperbolic overdrive criticizing the Trump administration for separating families caught illegally crossing into the U.S. from Mexico. They clearly want the public, against all evidence, to believe that questionable processing of illegal-immigrant children and their families only began after Donald Trump took office last year. But in January 2016, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and a Senate committee issued lengthy reports about unaccompanied children who were released to human traffickers. White House reporters, particularly at AP, utterly failed to push the Obama administration over how this was allowed to happen.
If what Barack Obama contended in London, England on Saturday was obviously true, I suspect that the establishment press would be broadly proclaiming it and looking back at the President's wonderful work.
What Obama is claiming — that his presidency is responsible for "saving the world economy from a Great Depression" — is nonsense, but he's clearly beginning to lobby for it to become the historical narrative. This may explain why the Associated Press, while running a story on what Obama said, has made it pretty difficult to find. But it will be there for agenda-driven hacks to locate when it becomes time to spin the history. If a Republican or conservative president made such a claim, the fact checkers would already have been out in force.
On Wednesday, at a joint press conference with Argentine President Mauricio Macri in Buenos Aires, President Obama told the world that it can defeat the Islamic State "in part by saying, you are not strong; you are weak."
Fortunately for him and unfortunately for those who wish to be fully informed, the establishment press is almost always there to save Obama from himself. Google News searches indicate that fewer than 3 percent of outlets felt that Obama's naive belief that telling IS that "you are not strong" is part of a genuine strategy to defeat the group should be relayed to their audiences.
Memo to the Corrections Department at the Los Angeles Times: The following sentence is utterly unhistorical. “Since Democrats led the passage of civil rights legislation that marchers pushed for in 1963, Republicans have struggled to recover with black voters”.
Civil rights legislation of the 1960s was favored more by Republicans than by Democrats, so how did Democrats “lead the passage”? With three reporters contributing to the story – Kathleen Hennessey, Richard Simon, and Alexei Koseff – none of them could locate the actual Sixties voting record as they labored to make the GOP look bad for the Democratic unanimity of the event:
Code Pink's Media Benjamin managed to break into another presidential event on Thursday, namely Barack Obama's speech at the National Defense University. The topic was "U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy," meaning that the administration's aversion to the T-word seems to be diminishing as the damaging scandal-related news continues to pour in.
Readers will see that Benjamin was relatively civil towards Obama. In fact, Kathleen Hennessey and Christi Parsons at the Los Angeles Times wrote the following: "Rather than dismiss Benjamin as a heckler, the president engaged her, asking her to let him explain but also pausing to listen as she continued to talk while security closed in around her." That behavior is in direct contrast to how she behaved last decade during the Bush administration -- something never mentioned in any coverage of Thursday's speech I found. The full exchange with Obama followed by a recounting of what made Benjamin an overnight sensation in Sepetmber 2002, follow the jump.
My nominee for Media Puppet of the Day (we should consider making such an award a daily or weekly event) is Kathleen Hennessey at the Los Angeles Times.
From her perch at the paper's Washington bureau, she wrote a pathetic story today about how President Obama is so much more relaxed now that he's in his second term. Among other howlers, Hennessey claims that "Obama's vacations have been rare, brief and regularly interrupted by crises at home and overseas." Key paragraphs -- as many as I think readers will be able to stand, and no more -- follow the jump (HT to NB commenter Gary Hall at another post; bolds are mine):
What follows was eminently predictable, but noting it is nonetheless necessary.
Shirley Sherrod, and to a lesser extent her husband Charles, were media celebrities for a while in late July. Readers might have noticed their near absence from establishment media news reports during the past seven days. It would be easy to think that this has occurred because the story played itself out, with nothing newsworthy to add.
That stopped being true on Monday, August 2, when a column by Ron Wilkins ("The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod") appeared in the leftist alternative publication Counterpunch.
Wilkins is currently a professor in the Department of Africana Studies (not misspelled) at Cal State University. He claims in the final sentence of his column that he is knowledgeable concerning what he is writing because "I was one of those workers at NCI." "NCI" is New Communities, Inc., described at a RuralDevelopment.org link as "the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960's."
Here's part of what Wilkins alleges (excerpted items are not in the same order as they originally appeared; out of order verbiage is identified):
Anchor Don Lemon brought on the senior legal analyst just before the bottom of the 10 pm Eastern hour to discuss Kathleen Hennessey's article in the Sunday L.A. Times, titled "Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group." The Times writer indicated that Mrs. Thomas' new organization somehow risked the partiality of the Court, as indicated in the article’s subtitle, "The nonprofit run by Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is likely to test notions of political impartiality for the court." She continued later that "the move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation's highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day."