BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Media Bias Archive

Monday

23

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

We're All Gonna Die! Pt. 6

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Media Bias

This is just too good. The headline proclaims: “Today’s Quakes Deadlier Than In Past.” The subheading: “Study: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming.”

New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.

The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of “global warming” is comprehensively and urgently addressed.

The analysis of more than 386,000 earthquakes between 1973 and 2007 recorded on the US Geological Survey database proved that the global annual energy of earthquakes on Earth began increasing very fast since 1990.

Dr. Chalko said that global seismic activity was increasing faster than any other global warming indicator on Earth and that this increase is extremely alarming.

“The most serious environmental danger we face on Earth may not be climate change, but rapidly and systematically increasing seismic, tectonic and volcanic activity,” said Dr. Chalko.

“Increase in the annual energy of earthquakes is the strongest symptom yet of planetary overheating.

The link to the article is here. Yes, that is the real link, and yes, it leads to a 404 error page. That’s because CBS pulled the story. A screenshot of the story on CBS can be found here.

It turns out CBS was duped or, more likely, tried to pull a fast one. The article, which CBS claimed was an AP story (of which there is no evidence and AP denies), was an exact copy of a press release by Dr. Tom Chalko, the “scientist” whose alarming research was the feature of the story.

Dr. Tom Chalko turns out to be Dr. Nutjob. A simple google background check reveals a man who claims to practice telepathy and astral travel. His previous global warming claims included the hilarious declaration that the planet would explode. Of course, CBS is too busy to do this kind of fact checking, especially when something pops up to support their predispositions. They’d rather just copy/paste and falsely attribute the story to someone else. Do they take responsibility when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Nope. They just deleted the article as if it never existed, issuing no apology or retraction.

Oh I almost forgot, and this should probably go without saying, but the claims about increasing earthquake intensity are bogus.

One thing is for certain: whether global warming gets us all or not, the concept of responsible journalism is long since dead and buried.

Saturday

14

June 2008

2

COMMENTS

Obama Seeks To Be Victim-In-Chief

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Media Bias

Having successfully dispatched Mrs. Inevitable in the Democratic primary, Barack Obama has begun a new phase of his presidential campaign: playing victim to dirty GOP tactics.

Bravely carving out a path to be the nation’s first Victim-In-Chief, Barack Obama and his useful idiots in the media are sounding the siren call about anticipated GOP attacks. The Obama campaign has wrapped itself up in a blanket of victimhood, a fact which the media has dutifully been alerted to so that they can loudly spread Obama’s tales of woe. ‘Michelle Obama is being attacked by the vicious GOP,’ they proclaim, largely ignoring the role of Clinton democrats in spreading the rumor in question.

In waging his victim campaign, Obama has taken the typical liberal tactic of attempting to prove an action by highlighting the reaction. In other words, he is running around acting offended that his wife is a target, even though she hasn’t been in any significant sense. “She must be a victim of GOP attacks, or else why would Barack be so upset?” the thinking goes. Democrats routinely fall for such fallacious acting. Sen. Obama has even launched an “anti-smear site” where he can overreact to supposed attacks 24/7.

The media has completely abandoned any pretense of objectivity and has taken to parroting this new campaign line regarding attacks-not-yet-waged (but we know they’re coming!). CNN bemoans that “conservatives are likely to throw some jabs at [Barack’s] wife, Michelle Obama.” This must be a new form of journalism I am unfamiliar with, wherein the reporter uses a time machine to anticipate future events. More likely it’s just the typical democratic-water carrying; a favorite media pastime. Others, such as Maureen Dowd, are doing their part by playing the race card on Obama’s behalf, whining that valid questions regarding Michelle Obama’s own campaign statements amount to an attempt at “mining a subtext of race.”

Obama is likely to find a receptive audience for his new strategy. Liberals are documented whiners who seem to find things to cry about in all circumstances. Victim hood is something these poor, put-upon people can relate to.

While whining about bullies may be a good way for democrats to get elected, it’s not a good way to govern. When the next terrorist attack occurs, a President Obama crying to the U.N. is not going to prove particularly helpful. Somebody should get the Senator some tissues; it’s going to be a long campaign.

Wednesday

28

May 2008

0

COMMENTS

Racists Threaten Obamatopia

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Identity Politics, Media Bias

The narrative for the general election is being cast and anyone who doesn’t immediately jump on the Obama bandwagon will be accused of racism. CQ Politics frets that Obama will face a “racial challenge” in the general election. To substantiate the proposition that people who don’t support Obama are all just evil racists, the article rests heavily on Newsweek poll, an organization with a history of using shoddy polling methodology.

While Illinois Sen. Barack Obama runs dead even with Arizona Sen. John McCain in a new Newsweek poll at 46 percent each with 8 percent undecided, the survey took a hard look at the race factor by employing what it called a “Racial Resentment Index” to further analyze voting blocs and it concluded that, “Obama’s race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters.”

Questions in the poll that tested voters on issues that involved race included views on affirmative action, whether blacks or whites lost out more because of racial preferences in things like hiring or school admissions, whether racial discrimination or personal responsibility accounted for problems facing black Americans, opinions on interracial marriage and dating and reaction that white voters would have if a black American with equal education and income moved into their neighborhood.

Measuring people’s motivations is admittedly a difficult task, but this is a horrible conceptualization of racism. Newsweek’s “Racial Resentment Index” doesn’t measure racism, it measures liberalism! The only questions that possibly have anything to do with racism are the last two; the rest are just direct measures of an individual’s proclivity toward liberal policy. Support affirmative action? If so, you’re a good non-racist (liberal)! See everyone as victims rather than in control of their own destiny? If not, you must be a racist (and an evil conservative)!

Be prepared: the media will, at the behest of the Obama campaign, continue to assault non-Obama voters and insist on labeling them all racists, with ever greater frequency, the closer we get to the election.

Thursday

18

October 2007

0

COMMENTS

Man Shoots Multiple Burglars Over 3 Weeks, Moonbat Reporter Goes Nuts

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, Media Bias

A Dallas man has been forced by criminals to use deadly force to defend himself and his livelihood on two separate occasions in three weeks.

Dallas business owner kills 2 intruders in 3 weeks

For the second time in three weeks, the owner of a machine shop fatally shot an intruder who had broken into his business, police said.

James Walton fired a shotgun Sunday at a man inside Able Walton Machine & Welding, police said. Walton, who lives upstairs from the shop, was alerted to the intruder’s presence by a motion sensor system.

“He’s got a right to defend his property,” Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes said. “What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business? He’s within every legal right to do this.”

. . .Walton also shot and wounded a second man Sunday outside of the shop. Police said the man escaped, but was eventually detained for questioning.

. . .About three weeks ago, Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles when Laureles was climbing through a pried-open window of the business, police said. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

Let’s hope the grand jury doesn’t do anything stupid. Anyway, since there’s nothing so repugnant to a gun-hating statist as seeing a private citizen engage in self defense (as that negates the need for the state to take power and act on your behalf), a reporter took it upon herself to ambush the 70-year old Walton, asking if he was “trigger happy” and wanted to “shoot to kill.” Being a normal human being who doesn’t want to have to harm people, but will if he must, Walton was reduced to tears. You can see the despicable video here (Edit: Video apparently had to be removed). The reporter gal has been suspended.

Mr. Walton had every right to take the action he did. John Locke explained in his Second Treatise of Government why a man has a right to defend himself with deadly force under these circumstances (emphasis mine):

[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he please, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can, for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Thursday

29

March 2007

0

COMMENTS

A "Peace" Offer They Can’t Refuse

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy, Media Bias

Arabs want peace, the media declares with glee with headlines like “Arab leaders urge Israel to take peace offer”

Arab leaders urged Israel and the world on Thursday to take up a 5-year-old peace plan to end the conflict with Israel, and the Palestinian president warned of more violence if the “hand of peace” was rejected.

Hmm. So, what do you call it when someone tells you to take a course of action or face violence? If it were Israel or the U.S. making such a statement, it would be called a threat. But apparently when Arabs do it, it’s called a “peace offer”. And that doesn’t even address the fact that what they are actually demanding is a return of land the Arabs lost in a war of aggression against Israel. This isn’t a peace offer; this is extortion. But by dressing up their demands in the cloak of “peace” they get to bemoan the warmongering Israeli’s when their land grab is rightfully rejected, with the media there to help them every step of the way.

Thursday

21

December 2006

0

COMMENTS

Friday

15

December 2006

0

COMMENTS

Reuters Pushing Big Government Agenda On Minimum Wages

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Liberty & Limited Government, Media Bias

Reuters is back, this time bemoaning the “poor” minimum wage workers in a story that reads as little more than partisan cheerleading. Even the title, “Democrats to raise wages for poor workers,” betrays the agenda, as most minimum wage earners are not poor – with only 19% below the poverty line.

The incoming Democratic-led U.S. Congress intends to give a hand to dishwashers, fast-food cooks and America’s other poorest-paid workers by raising the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade.

With the gap between rich and poor widening, Democrats promised such a pay hike as a part of their campaign that saw them win control of both chambers of Congress in the November 7 elections from President George W. Bush’s Republicans.

Ahoy there class warfare! I didn’t expect to see you here. Okay, I did expect to see you here. But I still don’t like you.

“This is a moral issue, as well as an issue of economic fairness and justice,” said Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be the House of Representatives’ Democratic majority leader.

“No one can meet even the most basic expenses on today’s minimum wages,” said Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat who will chair the labor committee in the House of Representatives.

The assumption here being that minimum wage workers are, by and large, attempting to meet basic needs. Reality, however, paints a different picture. The average household income for minimum wage workers is more than $40,000. This is because more than half (53%) of minimum wage workers are under the age of 24, many of whom are living with their parents. Their goals are to gain experience – not support a family as the article later implies – which would be much more difficult to do with meddling legislators limiting their job opportunities. Ultimately, it should be up to the individual to decide whether to accept or not accept a job. Government shouldn’t limit those opportunities by legislating out low production jobs. As to being a moral issue, I thought Democrats frowned upon legislating morality? Anyway, the 3-page article only saw fit to include a one sentence reference to any opposition, and did so in the most minimalist of ways.

Traditional allies of corporate America, Republicans cite studies that show an increase in the minimum wage would hurt small business and reduce the number of entry-level jobs.

Of course, the author couldn’t cite opposition without including a backhanded insult, when the reality is that opposing minimum wage laws is in everyone’s interest. Nor could he be bothered to provide any specifics on how minimum wages harm low skilled workers.

Tuesday

5

December 2006

0

COMMENTS

BBC Goes Entire Article Without Mentioning Most Important Fact

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy, Media Bias

In an article on a disagreement over Israeli textbooks, BBC managed to never once mention that the “occupied” land in question was taken as a response to Arab aggression.

Currently, schoolbooks show Israel’s territorial conquests in the 1967 war – the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights – as part of Israel.

International law deems them occupied land that Israel has illegally settled.

. . .Settlers and their supporters have fought hard against any attempt by governments to withdraw from occupied land, either to foster peace with the Palestinians or enhance Israeli security.

About 430,000 settlers are thought to live in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, taken from Jordanian control in 1967.

The land was taken from Jordan in 1967. The end.

You’d almost think Jordan did nothing at all to provoke the capture of its land. Nothing at all alongs the line of – oh, I don’t know – invading Israel.

Monday

16

October 2006

0

COMMENTS

Scalia Debates ACLU President

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, Media Bias, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”

“On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment,” the Reagan appointee said.

“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution,” he said.

I think the headline here is rather telling. “Scalia Defends Positions in TV Debate”. It was a debate. That means that the two participants were both defending their positions as well as attacking those of the opposition. The headline, however, paints it as if Scalia was particularly defensive. The implication being that his opinions are errant, and in stronger need of defense.

Update: It looks like someone agreed with me as the headline has been changed. It now reads as the much more informative and less opinionated, “Scalia, ACLU Head Face Off in TV Debate”.

Saturday

16

September 2006

0

COMMENTS

Idiotic Media Theory Of The Day

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Energy and the Environment, Media Bias

Falling oil prices – get ready for this – are a dastardly scheme to aid Republicans in November! Or so ponders CNN’s Bill Schneider.

In a September 15 report for “The Situation Room,” CNN reporter Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices has been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections. He ominously asked:

Schneider: “The drop in prices may last a couple of months, long enough to get through the November election. Could that be what the oil companies want?”

Does this mean that high prices in the spring and summer were an attempt to hurt the Republicans? This theme, that oil companies are trying to aid the GOP, was repeated or insinuated throughout the report. In the segment, which aired at 4:40PM, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced Schneider by noting that a form of smog reducing gasoline will be pulled “as we head into the fall and the November elections.”

Will this gas price hysteria never cease? When gas prices go up, oil companies are evil gougers. When gas prices go down, oil companies are evil meddlers helping their evil Republican friends.

Never mind the falling price of oil. Never mind the end of summer and the decline in demand for gasoline that always follows.

Oh no, we will stand no market explanations here. Clearly these evil oil giants have nearly omnipotent market powers to raise and lower prices as they please (which they inexplicably never bothered to use until Bush came into office) and they are now using it to thwart the Democrats carefully laid plans to blame rising gas prices on Bush.

Yeah, you know what’s coming. I can’t help…it just has to be said.

Nuanced.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives