Sleepless in Midland

As much as I hate admitting Obama might be right, ignoring terrorists attacks wouldn't be such a bad idea, but only if the msm would do it, too

President Obama is taking a lot of heat for attending a ball game in Cuba and dancing with a hot South American babe following the terrorists attack in Brussels. Well, he doesn't take Islamic terrorism seriously enough, that's a certainty. So his critics are right on that one.

However, specific attacks are a different matter. The terrorists and their prospective recruits consider terrorist atrocities major victories if they get a lot of publicity. That's the recruiting tool, not Guantanamo or Donald Trump's bombastic proclamations.

The videos on TV of the infidels running for their lives and the televised claims that Islamophobia is worse than terrorism probably do more to recruit adherents than any number of stories of the conditions at Guantanamo.

But ultimately, it's our friends in the media who are doing the dirty work. See ISIS Is Using the Media Against Itself:

The technique is not new. Indeed, modern-day terrorists have long embraced “propaganda of the deed,” a tactic that, in the words of the Australian Army information-operations specialist Jason Logue, involves ”planning and executing operations designed purely for their propaganda appeal.” However, ISIS understands the media like no other organization before it. It knows that, while territory and resources are crucial to the overall success of its aggressive insurgency in Syria and Iraq, the media is the arena within which the war of ideas is waged, where the group’s relevance—and, ultimately, its ideational longevity—can best be preserved and perhaps enhanced, even as it experiences territorial losses.

The title is a little bit misleading. ISIS isn't using the media against itself, ISIS and the media are using each other for their own benefit.

Finally, as if to prove the terrorists have won, we see this headline: Talent agency boss who 'confronted a Muslim woman in London and asked her to explain Brussels' is ARRESTED for 'inciting racial hatred'.

If Trump gets elected pres then Megyn Kelly could write her own ticket at any lefty media outlet

Megyn Kelly is the toast of lefties not so much for her tough handling of Donald Trump but for her status as target of Trump's barbs. They see Trump as sexist, for example: 'Who the hell wants to woo her!': Donald Trump renews attacks on Megyn Kelly ahead of Fox News debate -- which makes Kelly a victim in their eyes.

She's currently working at Fox News with her own show. But if Trump actually ends up at the White House then she can write her own ticket. Expect her to exit Fox and land at NBC or one of the other Democrat friendly media outlets.

Meanwhile a lefty finds a friend: Ed Schultz Nabs Nightly Show on Kremlin-Backed Cable Channel.

Open carry is a bigger deal to the media than to Texas gun owners

This morning a radio news program* pointed to the difference between the recently enacted gun laws in Texas and California. The laws taking effect this year in Texas are much more friendly to gun owners than the new laws in California. Maybe both states are reflecting the attitude residents in those states have toward their neighbors.

In Texas concealed handgun license laws have been in place for several years, and statistics show that CHL holders as a group have a low incidence of law breaking. While there are some bad people out there, as a general rule there is no reason to distrust Texans who own or carry firearms. The idea that anyone who owns a gun is a mere traffic jam, missed cigarette break, or dirty look away from murdering someone is a misguided myth somehow incorporated into the liberal belief system.

The state of California has new laws which increase government's control over guns and gun owners. It seems that Californians don't trust each other enough to allow them to own deadly weapons. Is that distrust realistic? I don't know, but whether it is or isn't, it does suggest a dysfunction in societal relationships.

Anyway, today is day four of Texas' open carry law, and we would like to express a sarcastic "Thank you" to the morning paper for keeping us safe. They've been relentless in their scolding, preenish, lectures about gun responsibility and open carry. Every damn day it's a fresh set of opinion pieces saying the same thing. The streets would have run red with blood but for their nagging. As my mom used to say, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

And all of that distrust in California I talked about? Add certain media elements in Texas to that category. You know the folks at MRT.com are itching for an opportunity to photograph someone carrying a handgun openly here in Midland, Texas. Any wonder why CHL holders may be reluctant to carry openly?

*(Your browser has to accept the SoundCloud tracker in order to listen to or download the MP3 of that broadcast.)

Ted Cruz owes Donald Trump a big wet kiss

Think back a couple of years ago. Ted Cruz was the bad boy politician. He was public enemy number one in the main stream media.

Fast forward to today, and that spot goes to Donald Trump. Cruz hasn't changed, he's merely been pushed aside by the MSM in favor of the readership/viewership Trump provides for them.

And what's this? Cruz is ahead in Iowa. Cruz is supposed to have a pretty good ground game there, but maybe being out of the MSM spot light, since it was mostly negative, was a good thing for Cruz.

Cruz has Trump to thank.

So someone wants to pay 5 grand to someone who calls Trump a racist during SNL show -- here's what Trump should do to get the last laugh

I heard about this on WOAI this morning. Someone wants to pay $5,000 to anyone who shouts "Racist" at Donald Trump during the live broadcast of Saturday night's SNL. We know already that Trump will come up with a crude comeback.  But here's a better response.

The offer comes from a group called Deport Racism. Here's the url for the notice:
http://deportracism.com/pages/di-rupt-trump
They're obviously trolling for hits so the link will not be hyperlinked at Sleepless in Midland, at least not in this post. Anyway, here's the essence of the offer:

The DeportRacism.com Political Action Committee will pay $5,000 cash to anyone on the set of the show or in the studio audience who yells out or gets on camera during the live TV broadcast clearly heard saying “Deport Racism” or “Trump is a Racist.”

This is a chance to turn Trump’s appearance on the show into a media story that addresses his racist comments against Latinos. Anyone can claim the $5,000 bounty with no prior relation or involvement with the DeportRacism.com movement if they disrupt the show and meet the both of the following criteria:

1. Be heard clearly on-air during the live TV broadcast saying “Deport Racism” or “Trump is a Racist.”
2. Be identified by name in media (TV, print, radio or online) news reports as being a DeportRacism.com supporter.

If more than one person disrupts SNL and meets the above criteria, the $5,000 offered will be divided equally among them.

Here's what Trump should do when he starts his monologue: Announce that the offer is out there and invite the entire audience to shout in unison: "Trump is a racist." Then announce that if they'll leave their names with him he'll see that they get printed in some online news report -- that part shouldn't be too hard. Then everyone who did it gets to share in the five grand. If there are 100 people who go through with it that's a cool $50 each just for playing along with Trump.

It's the art of the deal!

Rubio nailed it -- mainstream media is Democrats' ultimate super PAC

It's so true. Conservatives have known about the MSM bias for a long time. And it was refreshing to hear it said on a national stage from a major candidate.

This occurred at the third Republican candidates' debate broadcast on CNBC featuring a panel of Democrats questioning Republicans. See washingtonexaminer.com:

"The Democrats have the ultimate super PAC. they're called the mainstream media," Rubio said before ripping them for praising Clinton's performance in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last Thursday.

The MSM were already aware of their bias, and nothing is likely to change. But it was refreshing to see them squirm as it was thrown in their faces at such a public event.

Another great sports photo from James Durbin

He's good. We talked about him before, see previously, James Durbin's airborne athletes. And he's still cranking out those extraordinary photos of athletes in action.

Take a look at the one below from print edition of the 10/24/2015 Midland Reporter-Telegram. The tackler has his arms outreached for the runner, and the photo was taken at just the right moment.

According to the text, the tackle was unsuccessful, but what a great shot it made.

I assume Mr. Durbin uses a camera with a processor fast enough so that he can snap, snap, snap, and get lots of photos of a sequence of movement within a play. Then he can pick the one that captures the moment. But that's not to take anything away from his obvious talent. He's got a good eye, and he had to be at the right place at the right time.

MSM should not aid and abet copycat mass-shooter suicides

It's no secret that mass shooters like the one in Oregon are seeking attention. They are unknown outside of their very small worlds, and they think they deserve to be known. Unfortunately, the only thing they can come up with is murder.

But there's another factor. It's contagious. Lee Habeeb cites some instances in which a single highly publicized suicide can inspire others. The same thing is happening with the mass-shooter suicides. Habeeb's article is Media Coverage Foments Copycat Suicides, Including Mass-Shooter Suicides:

I won’t name him because it’s what he wanted. Earlier this year, the deranged 26-year-old gunman who snuffed out the lives of nine innocent human beings before taking his own life on the campus of Umpqua Community College provided some real insight into the minds of the young men involved in what is a disturbing — and growing — trend in America: mass-shooter suicides.

And that’s what these are, these mass shootings. They are suicides that would not be big national stories without a body count that included innocents killed in movie theaters, churches, schools. And, to judge from the shooter’s words, they are mass shootings that might not have happened at all had there been no prospect of mass-media coverage.

But don’t believe me. Here is what the shooter had to say about another deranged gunman, the gunman who took the lives of two journalists in Roanoke, Va., this past August before taking his own.

“On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” the soon-to-be-infamous gunman from Oregon posted on a popular website.

He wasn’t finished: “A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

The killer wanted to be noticed. Sheriff John Hanlin recognized that early on and tried to deny him of that. But it takes effort on the part of reporters who see their jobs as publicist for the dreadful. But maybe, just maybe, they'll overcome this weakness when they see the harm they do.

But there's another culprit here. Hugh Hewett nails him: "But if a maniac can count on a command performance from the president within hours of his shooting spree, well then, that is quite the incentive, isn't it?"

Feminists (and other Democrats) have their knives out for Carly Fiorina

Democrats think they have a lock on certain demographic voting blocs, and someone in that demo who doesn't parrot the Democrat party line gets attacked, viciously. There are a bunch: Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales and Sarah Palin to name a few.

So it shouldn't be surprising that Carly Fiorina is the new target of an attempt to drag a conservative down. Media watchdog Howard Kurtz describes some of it in Carly’s caustic coverage: Why feminists are throwing her off the bus:

When Hillary Clinton first ran for president eight years ago, much of the coverage reflected the excitement surrounding a woman trying to shatter the ultimate glass ceiling.

Now that Carly Fiorina is getting traction in the Republican race, the media’s reaction is, shall we say, more muted.

The New York Times weighed in with a piece that essentially asked, how can many women support Fiorina when she is (gasp) a conservative? ...

And there you have it. If you’re a female politician who is not pro-choice on abortion, you are not just in the back of the bus—you are ejected from the bus, as that vehicle is defined by the left. You can’t claim to be for equal rights for women based on that one issue, as if there are no pro-life women out there. You have the Times reporting that “liberal women across the web are expressing conflicted feelings about her candidacy. At times, there is gratification at watching a woman forcefully take on Mr. Trump; at other times, horror at Mrs. Fiorina’s conservative policy positions, which these women see as anathema to the feminist cause.”

The knives are out. I'm betting Fiorina can handle it on her own, she needn't be too worried, because people who follow the news have come to expect this from the left.

Deal for data strengthens NBC's goal of helping Democrats

Washington Examiner tells us about a new agreement between NBC and TargetSmart, a data mining company which was hired by the DNC in 2014 to help elect Democrats. See NBC partners with Dem political firm for 2016.

What does TargetSmart do? They're data miners. A Politico.com article calls it one of the most powerful engines of the Democratic Party’s data operation.

Here's TargetSmart's mission statement about their voter data base:

VoterBase is the nation’s market-leading national voter file, containing accurate contact information and voting information on over 191 million voters, and 58 million unregistered voting age consumers. Thousands of campaigns each year rely on VoterBase data to power their fundraising, research, and voter contact programs. And now, through VoterBase Digital, you can leverage the same powerful political data online and through addressable TV and reach voters in a truly integrated campaign across multiple mediums, consolidating online, offline, and addressable television advertising platforms.

That's about 250 million people in their data base. It might be interesting to see how NBC uses this information to manipulate voters. But that would require actually watching NBC.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is probably taking advantage of the service. So whenever we see her changing tack in her campaign we could guess that TargetSmart pulled up some info about her base that she should be addressing.

Juan Williams is worried that Black Lives Matter movement will hurt Dems

Juan Williams is a popular commentator on the Fox News show, Special Report with Bret Baier, because he can be relied on to express the Democrat position articulately but without reliance on false narratives.

He seems to have an inside track with the Obama administration. So one wonders if he's delivering the administration's line in Juan Williams: #BlackLivesMatter is playing with fire. Some excerpts:

When they interrupt Democrats running for the presidential nomination, such as Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, they are alienating longtime political allies and their supporters. When they videotape Hillary Clinton after she generously agrees to meet with them privately — in an apparent attempt to embarrass her — they are distancing themselves from the likely Democratic nominee. And imagine how local and state officials will react now to any request for a meeting with the group. ...

Lobby Congress, hold voter registration drives, quiz candidates on their plan for sentencing reform, but don’t heckle the candidates and incite violence by calling for cop-killing. The movement could be critical to securing and mobilizing black support for criminal justice reform that actually would improve black lives.

Mr. Williams seems to be trying to rein in the monster Obama created.

Previously, Obama, like Dr. Frankenstein, was smart enough to create a monster but not smart enough to control it.

Jay Nordlinger is right -- journalists should broadcast their political positions not try to hide them

It didn't come as any surprise to conservatives that Gwen Ifill succumbed to her affection for Obama. But the animosity toward Benjamin Netanyahu she displayed with her "Take that, Bibi" tweet went a little bit farther. She basically admitted that in a political controversy, she's on Obama's side.

Well yes, the PBS ombudsman criticized her for it. But if it changes anything, journalists will simply try a little harder to conceal their loyalties to Democrats.

Jay Nordlinger gets it right in About Gwen Ifill wherein he encouraged news figures to be open about their partisanship.

We should all know where they stand. They aren't fooling anyone, but when they try to hide it they are really hurting the true non-partisans among them, if there are any, because the default position among conservatives is to think they are all in the tank for today's progressives.

Someone made a suggestions years ago which I think is apt. Require all news people to donate $1,000 each year to a political party. Then publicize the information with a TV crawl under their faces or a footnote at the end of their articles so we all know where they are coming from.

No one likes a pretender.

Carly Fiorina knocks it out of the ball park, again

I'm probably not the only conservative who was thrilled to hear that Carly Fiorina got such a tremendous response to her delivery at the second tier Republican Primary debate on Thursday. She's a talent worth watching.

She did it again the very next day. It was the Redstate Gathering 2015 at which she spoke for ten or so minutes then answered questions. Watch and listen at this Youtube link.

Democrats seem to have a problem with smart, strong, women who aren't Democrats. And the media are so consumed with Donald Trump that they haven't yet started demonizing her. Once they do, I think Fiorina will handle it quite admirably.

Poll -- only 24% think media try to report the news without bias

Washingtonexaminer.com reports it this way: Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased which skews it just a tad. But it conveys the same message.

The poll results were written up in a document titled The 2015 State of the First Amendment. And here's the relevant passage:

Only 24% now think that the news media try to report on news without bias. This represents a 17 - point drop from last year and a 22 - point drop from 2013. In fact, the 24% who now say the media try to report news without bias is the lowest since we began asking this question in 2004.

They're trying to blame it on Brian Williams and George Stephanopoulos, but anyone who reads a morning newspaper get a regular dose from the wire services. Furthermore, those of us who sympathize with the side against whom the bias is displayed have long memories. And the wounds opened by Candy Crowley's conduct during the Romney/Obama debate have gone untreated.

Ted Cruz summed up what a lot of people think when he said the following:

"They are not going to like us, they hate us. I'll tell you a funny story, a staffer in my office was commenting about a particular reporter. 'Oh she's really really nice.' And I said, 'Stop.'

"And I said 'You know what? She wants to destroy you. Nothing would make her happier than to take your life and filet you on the front page. And don't think because she smiles and is friendly that it's anything else ...'"

Many in the media are trying to woo millennials. But you know what? "Notably, only 7% of 18 - 29 year olds agree that the media try to report without bias..."

NYT double standard on Catholicism and Islam -- it's so much fun watching them try to explain it

Progressives today are so open minded that they can tolerate their own contradictions.

Every conservative has probably had liberal friends or acquaintances who were so smart they could convince themselves of anything. It's fun watching them tie themselves in knots trying to explain it. Problem is, there's usually no umpire around who can call fouls or declare a winner.

Thank goodness we still have a free press in the U.S. so we can watch some of these things play out in public.

The matter that brings this topic to light today is the New York Time's double standard on display when they produce a photo of an art piece depicting the pope made of condoms. It's just a tad distasteful. But then we are reminded that the same NYT declined to reproduce the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that had the radical Islamists so worked up they went on a killing spree.

Charles C. W. Cooke provides the short version of NYT's twisted excuse in On the New York Times’s Hilarious Charlie Hebdo Double-Standard, as follows:

The answer: For the same reason that the Times is happy to print one and not the other — to wit, because one is insulting to Catholics and the other is insulting to Muslims. If you honestly believe that this is a question of artistic merit or the psychic state of the artist — “ooh, look at the brushstrokes!” — then I have a Greek investment opportunity to put to you.

Succinct, funny, and true. He gets bonus points for tying it in with that stunning exemplar of socialism, Greece.

Oh that liberal media -- AP gets Ted Cruz' head and gun pointed at it in one photo

Breitbart News invites us to imagine the reaction if Associated Press photographer Charlie Neibergall had taken such photo with some prominent Democrat. See Guess the Political Party: AP Photo Lines Pistol Up with Senator, 2016 Candidate Ted Cruz’s Brain.  Whoa, would that ever happen?

Here's the photo in question.

If the government ran the media would they do anything different?

Faked gay marriage survey -- like counterfeit bills, you know there are more out there

By now everyone has everyone has heard about the survey the gay UCLA PhD published which purported to demonstrate that contact with a gay canvasser can change people's opinions about gay marriage. The survey was later shown to be bogus. They've created another fissure in the credibility of social scientists and the journalists who aid and abet that mendacity.

Daniel J. Flynn in What the Faked Gay Marriage Study Says About Academia and the Media says this:

Ultimately, the fraudulent peer-reviewed study says more about the corruption of the media and academia than it does about the corruption of one activist professor. Journalists and professors ostensibly dedicated to the search for truth unravel the institutions they serve when they imagine themselves as already possessing the truth.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and other leading publications initially ran uncritical pieces on the research. Princeton hired Michael LaCour, the UCLA Ph.D. allegedly responsible for the faked data, as an assistant professor and Science published his co-authored article.

We needn't look any farther than the global warming movement to see examples of science subjugated by ideology with willing media accomplices.

It's a little bit like counterfeit money. If a fake twenty dollar bill shows up at a convenience store, you know there wasn't just one out there.

Death to America - just an expression. Stomping American flag -- A OK. Picture of Muhammad -- Ohhhh Noooo!

Practically every utterance we get from Iran contains the phrase, "Death to America." But our own supreme leader says it's just an expression. Here at home the hipsters are making viral videos of themselves stomping the American flag. However, there's nary a word of discouragement from the fourth estate practitioners.

But if someone holds a Muhammad cartoon contest the outcry from the newsies is deafening. How easy it is for them to blame the victim. See Carol Brown's article I support free speech, but, however, and except.... Excerpt:

After Pamela Geller’s free speech event in Texas and the terror attack that followed, it has been stunning to hear one journalist after another ask Ms. Geller why she held the event, question the wisdom or need for such an event, and go so far as to insinuate that she was somehow to blame for the violence.

Just as the media’s coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas said that of course Israel had a right to defend herself, buuuuuuut…, these same journalists interviewing Ms. Geller start out by saying that of course we support free speech and that there’s no excuse for violence, buuuuuuuut…

Read the whole thing for quotes from the usual suspects.

They're rationalizing, of course. They're afraid, and they're doing a poor job of hiding it.

Reporters give Hillary Clinton a standing ovation

Apparently, they made no secret of their loyalty. According to Breitbart.com, msm reporters who attended Hillary Clinton's speech saying she was going to have no more secrets from the media gave her a standing ovation. See Reports: MSM Reporters Give Hillary Clinton Standing Ovation after She Takes No Questions, Jokes about Email Scandal.

Do they love her? Probably not. More likely they just feel protective of her because of all the sexism and hostility they expect from Republicans. Now if you put Elizabeth Warren in her place, then we would see some real love.

Kaus out at Daily Caller -- says they won't allow him to criticize Fox News

One of the big problems many of us have with the msm is that they omit or underplay news that would be important to their conservative audience and should be important to all of their audience.

So here we have Mickey Kaus, who has always been a reliable commentator, getting his column pulled from Daily Caller because it was critical of Fox News' failure to cover immigration. Source: Mickey Kaus quits Daily Caller after Tucker Carlson pulls critical Fox News column.

Fox News is often described by its critics as an arm of the Republican Party, and the msm often acts as an arm of the Democrat Party. At least there is some balance, of sorts. However, there are those of us who are critical of both parties and would like to see some real balance.

Mickey Kaus is a Democrat with common sense, and it is always refreshing to read his critical remarks about both parties. Kaus will probably land somewhere else that will pay to publish his smart observations, so he's not gone for good. But it's discouraging to see conservative outlets circle the wagons like that.

Kausfiles.com was his old address, but it still redirects to Dailycaller.com. Maybe he'll correct that and get it back up and running again. Meanwhile, we'll miss you, Mickey.

Karin McQuillan makes a very convincing case for blaming Obama for Hillary's most recent problems

She sums it up in the first three paragraphs in Of Course Obama Wants to Take Hillary Down. To wit:

We can believe Ed Klein’s sources claiming Valerie Jarrett is the White House point woman for the destruction of Hillary Clinton.  Evidence:

It was the New York Times which broke the story. The Democratic press does not eat its own, ever. Yet here was the Gray Lady, setting the headlines for Drudge.

People asked how Hillary could have been so stupid.  The answer is that in the normal course of mainstream reporting, there is no Democrat crime too large for the press to cover up.  She knew she was perfectly safe.

The Democrat media has covered for prominent Democrats for years. But this time they didn't. McQuillan speculates that Obama was behind this because he wants to control the party more than he wants the next president to be Democrat.

Funny. Not too awfully long ago the msm would condemn such talk as a "conspiracy theory." Not any more. President Obama has taught us that for explanations for his actions we have to look in the gutter.

Two newspapers in one

Our morning paper, The Midland Reporter-Telegram (mrt.com) likes to provide its readers with editorials from other newspapers, and one of their favorite sources is the Houston Chronicle. Last week they gave us editorials from there two days in a row.

The first one was titled "The threat posed by drug cartels along border could be hype." (It was titled Border Splurge at Chron.com.) And it decried the Texas government allocating $86.1 million for border security to protect Texans from drug cartels. Fear of drug cartels is misguided, because "there is no evidence there is a spill-over of violent crimes," an expert says. But they let this slip out:

To date, Texas taxpayers have spent more than $800 million on beefed-up security even though it is supposed to be a federal role, as reported by Chronicle reporter Mike Ward.

So expenditures for security are up, and crime is down. Let's play cause and effect. Spending more for security is supposed to get the crime down.

But all is not perfect along the border. For example, see Cartel Bosses Run Mexican Empires from Safe Houses in Texas.

Back to the editorial under examination. One of their complaints is that the phrase "drug cartel" is outdated and is no longer used by experts. That brings us to the morning paper's editorial the very next day.  See it on the right.

The title of that one was "US has opportunities to help our neighbor to the south, as well as ourselves." That was the subhead at Chron.com where the top line title was Editorial: Mexico's dark days, and it was about the case of the 43 students who went missing recently in the state of Guerrero, Mexico, and who are presumed dead.

The word "cartel" appeared four times. Since experts don't use that term then Chron.com editors are obviously not experts.

Editors note: Why do you keep picking on the local newspaper? Robo-ed. -- I just spent $208 for another year's worth of that stuff. I've earned the privilege. But in all sincerity, while newspapers are in decline, I really do hope the best for them. Sleepless.

Main stream media ignore Jonathan Gruber's gaffe

People who watch the network news programs or read the two primary liberal newspapers were left in the dark about Jonathan Gruber and his comments about how they had to lie to keep the stupid people on their side in the Obamacare debate. Howard Kurtz remarks in Media blackout shields ObamaCare architect who bet on public stupidity:

And yet there hasn’t been a mention on the network evening newscasts. CNN’s Jake Tapper played a clip once and that was about it. Nothing in the Washington Post but for a couple of online items. Not a word in the New York Times, which in 2012 ran a puffy profile of Gruber (“It is his research that convinced the Obama administration that health care reform could not work without requiring everyone to buy insurance”).

This is utterly inexplicable, except as a matter of bias. No matter what you think of ObamaCare, on what planet is this not news? Maybe on that comet where the spaceship just landed.

Oh, THAT liberal media. By electing not to expose their readers/viewers to this they're basically agreeing with Gruber that the ends justified the means.

By the way, remember all the hoopla about "Bush lied" because he relied on faulty intelligence? Well, if network bigwigs didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.

Ben Bradlee would never have done to JFK what he did to Nixon

Byron York's Ben Bradlee: A cautionary tale of Kennedy's courtier is a cautionary tale indeed.

The legendary Ben Bradlee gets credited along with Woodward and Bernstein with swaying public opinion to the point that Richard Nixon felt compelled to resign the presidency. But those of us who have followed the news in the last few years have noticed something. Those bad things only happen to Republicans. Democrats get a pass.

Byron York tells us that Bradlee was infatuated with John F. Kennedy. And when they took him into their circle he became more than a friend. He became loyal lackey. Here are some excerpts:

Bradlee's book, Conversations with Kennedy, told the story of his, and his wife Tony's, friendship with John and Jacqueline Kennedy from its beginning in 1958 until the JFK assassination in 1963.

For much of the book Bradlee seemed impossibly star-struck. ...

Bradlee didn't tiptoe up to the line of journalistic propriety in his relationship with Kennedy; he stomped all over it. Not content to write glowing accounts of Kennedy's campaign, Bradlee also gave JFK private intel on the opposition.

Bradlee stayed close to Kennedy as the new president took office. There were fun dinners, frequent phone calls, trips to the country. White House dances were "dazzling," Bradlee wrote: "The crowd is always young. The women are always gorgeous, and you have to pinch yourself to realize that you are in the Green Room of the White House." ...

Bradlee's admirers revere him as a man not afraid to stand up to power. But that depended on who was in power; his is a mixed legacy.

Had a Democrat done the things Nixon did we would have never heard about it. Looked at another way, what if a Republican had done the things Obama did? Man-o-man. There'd be hell to pay.

Another reason why people don't trust main stream media -- they buried Hillary's dumb remark about job creation

It was right up there with Obama's "You didn't build that." Hillary paraphrased it somewhat with, “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

But here's the thing: The main stream media declined to report it. When a Republican makes a gaffe they're all over it, but they seem to be covering for Hillary. In Hillary Clinton Flunks Economics Newsbusters gives us a list of the media outlets that ignored it, or in the case of New York Times, buried it deep in the paper. Newsbusters close with this observation:

The people who complain that our news media consumption is too “polarized” -- and their assumption that conservatives depend too much on alternative media – fail to acknowledge how our traditional "news" media are consistently burying Democrat gaffes they don’t want anyone to hear about. When Hillary says something stupid, they want it to be just like that metaphorical tree that falls silently in the forest. Peace and quiet is comforting.

What a shame. And what an insult to the consumers when the main stream media spoon feed them only what the media minders want them to know.

Carol Costello's ridicule of Bristol Palin -- her sin was doing it so openly

When Carol Costello went bananas over the audio recording of the Palin girl's complaints about being assaulted it was telling. Costello didn't just snap, it was premeditated. One has to assume that her mindset is quite typical of the people on the left, people who felt so smug bashing Sarah Palin and her family in 2008 in order to get Obama elected.

Costello knew her audience. And the complaints didn't come from them. That audience was quite content with a spokesperson willing to get out in public expressing their own feelings -- contempt so fluid it drools from their chins. They just needed a little confirmation every once in a while by someone in a position of media power so they know it's still OK.

And yet they try to accuse political opponents of waging a war on women. What a farce. It would make a great sitcom if these minions weren't leading us all down the road to serfdom.

Sharyl Attkisson got a raw deal from CBS and the people suffered for it

This has got to be one of the worst MSM cover ups since CNN squelched coverage of Saddam Hussein's atrocities in the run up to the war in Iraq.

Fortunately, Sharyl Attkisson didn't shut up and go quietly, and she's out selling her new book, "Stonewalled." Here's a taste from Daily Mail:

Eric Schultz, part of the Obama press team, reportedly yelled at her when she pressed him about the scandal over the ATF's gunwalking scheme called Operation Fast and Furious.

'Goddammit, Sharyl!' he shouted. 'The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!'

"Not reasonable" apparently meant not helping smother the uncomfortable facts. It's almost like a fanatical cult. A nonbeliever is out there blaspheming their religion, but fortunately, their rules of conduct forbid them from beheading her.

Meanwhile, in case anyone wonders what would happen if Watergate happened today, here's Dailysignal.com quoting Attkisson:

The investigative reporter and author  of the book “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington,”  said Nixon likely would refuse to turn over the tape recordings of his Oval Office conversations to Congress, aides would refuse to testify before congressional investigators or plead the Fifth, and journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward — the Washington Post reporters who broke the story of Watergate — would be “controversialized” on social media by special and political interests.

There should have been a caveat. Nixon was a Republican, so the same thing would likely happen today as happened then. It's Democrats who get handled with kids' gloves.

Updated 10/28/14: CBS stonewalled reporters who asked for response to Attkisson's allegations.

Imagine the outcry if this Ebola outbreak happened while George Bush was president

The Center for Disease Control dropped the ball on the Ebola thing and hasn't looked good lately. And here we have a doctor telling us Ebola is primed to go airborne, and the CDC hasn't tested whether coughs can spread it.

Well, that's bad. The CDC obviously should have put a little bit more effort into it.

But what if George W. Bush were president? Everything that happened during his administration, even bad weather, was blamed on him. Can't you hear the main stream media? Bush lied, Africans died.

Barack Obama's own incompetence is catching up with him. But will the main stream media fix blame on him? That would mean admitting they were mistaken to put so much faith in him in the first place, but now that they've got another mission -- getting Hillary elected -- there's a slim chance they'll do it.

Media bias so pervasive even David Gregory notices

Gregory thinks reporters are simply too lazy to go against the narrative. (See David Gregory hits media 'laziness'.)

"Lazy." That's a charitable way of looking at it. Another possibility is that they are caught up in the fervor for the progressive agenda and don't want to do anything that might detour from the mission.

Gregory is free to admit it now that he's been relieved of his role in Meet the Press, although if he remains at NBC he'll still be beholden to the narrative. But who knows? Maybe he'll become another Bernie Goldberg, slamming the lefty media every chance he gets.

In any case, Gallop.com reports that their poll results show media's credibility is scraping the bottom. See Trust in Mass Media Returns to All-Time Low. Democrats are the outlier with over half thinking the media are doing it just right.

Back to Gregory. The NBC audience consists mostly of Democrats who expect the leftish bias. Any reporter who disappoints them ends up on the outs. Ask Sharyl Attkinsson.

Ben Carson is giving his opponents ammo to be used against him

There's a small effort underway to get Ben Carson to run for the Republican nomination for president. He would probably be a good president. But the Republican establishment is a tough nut to crack. Besides, a primary win requires a lot of people doing legwork on the ground, and without that a candidate, even the perfect candidate, doesn't have a chance. See Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

Then there's the Democrat attack machine and their war-on-women canard. Ben Carson was close to falling into a trap the other day with remarks about Ray Rice. See Ben Carson Defends Ray Rice: Don’t Start ‘Demonizing This Guy’.

If you read that short article you would see that he wasn't defending Ray Rice. He was merely saying that both Rice and his girlfriend need help -- a valid point. But never mind. Once Democrats and their media enablers get their hands on stuff like that he'll end up portrayed as waging his own personal war on woman.  Too bad.  He has a lot to offer the country.