![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Further Evidence That The MSM Is Biased
Somewhere in the greater New York area, Glenn Beck is smiling.From a Nexis search a few moments ago:
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.
9/5/09 UPDATE: The New York Times, ABC and NBC hold the line
After the Jones controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, the Washington Post published a story, "White House Says Little on Embattled Jones," on page A-3 of its Saturday edition. But the New York Times remained silent on the story.
Likewise, on Friday night the "CBS Evening News" reported the Jones matter, but ABC's "World News" and "NBC Nightly News" again failed to report the story.
Poor "embattled" Van Jones. He just couldn't withstand those GOP "attacks".
posted by Robert at 12:43 PM
16 Comments:
Get a refund from Nexis. As of an hour ago, front page on the NYT website. Two mentions of the brewing controversy since Sept 5. And that's just what a simple search of the NYT site shows. But hey, guess who else didn't mention Van Jones until Sept 4, well after the right wing blogs had been on his case for a few days? The Washington Examiner. Seems like everybody else, it wasn't on the case until it actually became news.
"well after the right wing blogs had been on his case for a few days"
The right-wing blogs and conservative talk shows publicized the issue. NYT and WP and MSM networks (besides Fox) ignored it until they had no choice.
"Two mentions of the brewing controversy since Sept 5." The controversy has been brewing for at least a week.
Two mentions IN the NYT since Sept 5, Jonathan. Grammatically correct and in context. Anything of value to add as to why the same Washington Examiner which now is exposing MSM conspiracies didn't write anything as well?
Alex,
Did you actually read the dates of the original article and the update from 9/5? The NYT and other MSM outlets reported the story alright. AFTER 9/4. After it had already broken out.
In the update, the author of the posts says as of 9/5 the NYT remains silent ("holding the line"). It wasn't true.
And again, what about the Washington Examiner, the paper he is the chief political correspondent for, not reporting about it either? Are they part of the conspiracy or is it because until the guy resigned it wasn't news?
Let me answer that because this coy game is getting tired. What he was looking for, and what most MSM-is-biased complainers want to happen, is not news reporting but piling on Van Jones and adding to the pressure on the guy because of his past affiliation with an organization that's costing Glenn Beck advertisers. He/them wants media to amplify his campaign. But that's not what a news outlet should do under any definition because it's manufacturing. That's up to the blogs, talk radio, opinion columns, and it's all well. It only becomes news when there's a reaction. Do any of those outlets report as news every time a left/liberal blog says Cheney and Rumsfeld? No they don't and I doubt you'd advocate they should.
If a Republican president had appointed a man with a background as disreputable as that of Van Jones the NYT and Wash. Post would have made a scandal of it. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc. would have picked up the NYT story and reverberated it for weeks. In this case a Democratic president appoints a commie kook, a real kook, and not a word in the leftist media until the controversy is so hot that the appointee is canned and they have to report something. Glenn Beck and the Washington Examiner are a sideshow, they're merely surfing this stuff. The cause of the controversy is Obama. The NYT and other big media are so far up his ass that they can't back out. They're probably hoping for a government bailout.
Tell us how you really feel, Jonathan! ;)
Hey Jonathan, I'm going to give you an easy one. Why don't you name me ONE Bush executive-branch appointee that was forced to resign because the NYT dug his/her dubious past? Not past criminal acts, not their actions as Bush appointees, just their pasta affiliations.
Harriet Miers? Susan Orr? Timothy Goeglein?
Every one else left for other reasons.
But you gotta admit Alex, appointing Van Jones was not the brightest Obama appointment and they should've known better.
Three swings, three misses; Ventanita. Miers was a judicial appointee, those are always scrutinized within an inch of their lives, liberal or conservative. Just ask the Wise Latina. Goeglein resigned because of blatant plagiarism -and it was discovered by that bastion of liberalism, the Fort Wayne News Sentinel, for whom he had written the articles. And Orr resigned not under pressure from the "liberal media" --in fact her resignation went unreported for three days-- but because there was intense lobbying by her former employer the FRC to reinstate the domestic gag rule. In her case the real controversy came after her resignation --did she leave in order to avoid a conflict of interest?
As to Van Jones, yes, I don't think Obama should have appointed him, but at the same time he was unimpeachable for the job as far as environmental credentials. Beck didn't go after him because of his "disreputable past", he went after him because an organization he founded got to Beck's advertisers. This was no principled crusade. Beck was just defending his pockets.
Here's the formula:
-If Obama is against something and Bush was for it you can say it's bad because Bush was for it (national defense, treatment of captured terrorists, etc.).
-If Bush did something stupid that Obama is now doing on a much larger and more destructive scale, the fact that Bush once supported the same thing justifies Obama's doing it ("stimulus" spending).
-Always change the subject to Bush.
-Attack the critics and messengers: Palin, Rush, Cheney, Beck et al.
-It's not about ideas, it's about choosing sides, winning and power. If you disagree with Obama you must be a Republican. If you are a Republican you must be defeated.
-When in doubt, attack the other person's motives.
To add to Jonathan's comment: What's wrong with Glenn Beck, or anyone else for that matter, "defending their pockets"? We have the right as free citizens to safeguard our hard-earned personal property and use legal and civil methods to confront those who threaten it.
This was no principled crusade. Beck was just defending his pockets.
Is the crusade against Beck principled? Should we lead a similar crusade against Olberman? How come no one cared about Beck when he was at CNN?
Everyone is defending their pockets Alex. Everyone.
Jonathan: YOU were the one who said "If a Republican president had appointed a man..." a formulaic statement if there was ever one. And YOU said the stimulus was part of Obama's master plan. And YOU took sides with your "leftist media" rant.
I didn't bring up Bush out of thin air and am more than ready to debate ideas, but you keep refusing to stay on subject. Why don't you start by finding me that ONE example I asked to support your statement? You are so certain of it and you speak with such authority, you must have ONE example, right?
Robert and Ventanita: nobody said there was anything wrong in defending one's pockets --I certainly like to stuff mine-- just pointing out Beck's campaign against Van Jones wasn't done out of concern that a guy with such a "disreputable past" that horrorizes Jonathan so much had been appointed.
"Is the crusade against Beck principled"? Yes, insofar the people asking Beck's advertisers to pull off don't have a direct financial interest in the boycott. And by all means, lead a campaign against Olbermann, the guy grates me. But leave Madoff alone.
I don't care much about Beck now or at CNN, but you have to admit Beck was a lot less strident and incendiary at CNN.
Sure, Beck was looking out for himself, but I don't think he's too crazy about someone like Van Jones so closely linked to the administration.
I used to watch Beck regularly when he was at CNN. He most definitely had his moments over there too (not to mention his radio show), but the FOX spotlight makes a big difference as far as being noticed is concerned.
Alex: I think you meant Maddow, not Madoff.
Thanks for clarifying that Robert. I was hitting my head against a wall trying to figure out why we should leave Madoff alone.
Alex, I have to admit, I watched Beck sometimes on CNN, but mostly I read his editorials. I really rather read my politics than watch them.
Post a Comment
<< Home