SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Media Stocks--Newspaper, TV, Radio, etc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (387)3/14/2012 5:27:11 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
Exactly what I was thinking.



To: longnshort who wrote (387)3/14/2012 7:49:13 PM
From: MJ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 826
 
Gruesome. Modern civilization would not exist.



To: longnshort who wrote (387)3/17/2012 2:13:31 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
NPR Retracts This American Life Piece For “Significant Fabrications”

finance.boston.com



To: longnshort who wrote (387)3/19/2012 1:30:15 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
Media Matters for America linked with anti-American, anti-Israel Al-Jazeera network

3/18/2012 By Jamie Weinstein - The Daily Caller
dailycaller.com


Media Matters for America is linked with Al-Jazeera, the anti-American and anti-Israeli cable news channel, The Daily Caller has learned.

Media Matters Action Network senior foreign policy fellow MJ Rosenberg’s column for the liberal organization regularly appears on Al-Jazeera’s website and, in 2010, Rosenberg represented Media Matters at a forum hosted by Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar where he praised the news outlet as “mainstream.”

Media Matters Action Network is part of the organization’s political arm.

According to two Daily Caller sources, the then-director general of Al-Jazeera, Wadah Khanfar, also visited Media Matters’ offices in Washington in 2010 and met with the organization’s two top leaders, David Brock and Eric Boehlert.

Representing Media Matters at the first Al-Jazeera “Unplugged” forum on social media at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort in Doha on May 22, 2010, Rosenberg explained that Khanfar invited him to the forum during a meeting in Washington earlier that year.

In his stunning speech at the forum, Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.

“Bush has been replaced by Obama,” Rosenberg said.

“Yes, I applaud too. Which means people from the United States government go on Al-Jazeera. This is very significant. Under the Bush administration, Al-Jazeera was boycotted by the United — it was worse than boycotted: As you well know, it was bombed by orders of the United States government.”

Rosenberg was presumably referring to either the U.S. bombing of Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad bureau in 2003, which killed one journalist, or the bombing of an Al-Jazeera office in Kabul in 2001. The U.S. government maintains both were accidental, not intentional.

While Rosenberg called Fox News “a very, very dangerous force in the United States” and Fox News host Sean Hannity “one of the biggest right wing liars on Fox News” during the speech, he praised Al-Jazeera as “mainstream” and “factual.”

“It just shows that everywhere in the world people are watching Al-Jazeera because people know it’s going to be — one, it’s factual,” he said.

“It has footage, it has pictures which we are essentially not allowed to see in the United States, that the networks don’t allow of what is going on in Iraq, what’s going on in Afghanistan.”

Bizarrely, Rosenberg also claimed the left-of-center New Republic magazine, which regularly defends President Obama, was “very much of a right wing, Jewish publication.”

In his speech, Rosenberg also praised Obama for treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worse than any American president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister.

“When Netanyahu came to Washington, no president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister as coldly as Netanyahu was treated by Obama,” Rosenberg said, with obvious joy, to what was presumably a largely Arab audience.

“Suddenly Israel today is, even though it gets what it wants to a certain extent, Israel is treated as another country, a foreign country, which makes it no different than all the other foreign countries. That is what Obama is trying to do: take Israel away from being the 51st state and make it a foreign country like Lebanon or France or any normal foreign country.”

“He has done that,” Rosenberg added. “You know, he has sent the Arab world signals from day one of where his heart is.”

Rosenberg has recently become a lightning rod for questioning the loyalty of American supporters of Israel by calling them “Israel firsters” and for taking other radical positions. Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law School professor, has denounced him in a series of recent interviews and articles, suggesting that Rosenberg’s rhetoric and ideas are similar to what neo-Nazi and pro-Hezbollah websites offer.

Absent from Rosenberg’s speech at the May 2010 forum was any criticism of Arab authoritarianism or any recognition of the threats Israel faces from Palestinian terrorism and Iranian nuclear proliferation. Rosenberg also didn’t offer any criticism of the anti-American, anti-Israeli biases of Al-Jazeera.


Read more: dailycaller.com



To: longnshort who wrote (387)3/19/2012 2:52:55 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
Media Matters Boasts to Al-Jazeera: Obama Mistreated Netanyahu

by Ezra Dulis 3/18/2012
breitbart.com

A spokesman for Media Matters for America, which communicates directly with the White House in a weekly "strategy call," boasted in 2010 of President Obama's mistreatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a forum held by Al-Jazeera.

The Daily Caller has published a report linking Media Matters for America to the anti-American, anti-Israel news network Al-Jazeera, primarily through the work of author M.J. Rosenberg, who has come under fire from Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz for using antisemitic language and alleging that American Jews display greater loyalty to Israel than the United States. Jamie Weinstein writes:

Media Matters Action Network senior foreign policy fellow MJ Rosenberg’s column for the liberal organization regularly appears on Al-Jazeera’s website and, in 2010, Rosenberg represented Media Matters at a forum hosted by Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar where he praised the news outlet as “mainstream.”

Media Matters Action Network is part of the organization’s political arm.

According to two Daily Caller sources, the then-director general of Al-Jazeera, Wadah Khanfar, also visited Media Matters’ offices in Washington in 2010 and met with the organization’s two top leaders, David Brock and Eric Boehlert.

Representing Media Matters at the first Al-Jazeera “Unplugged” forum on social media at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort in Doha on May 22, 2010, Rosenberg explained that Khanfar invited him to the forum during a meeting in Washington earlier that year.

In his stunning speech at the forum, Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.

Rosenberg expounded on the topic, claiming that the Obama Administration no longer considered America and Israel's relationship more special than with any other nation:

“When Netanyahu came to Washington, no president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister as coldly as Netanyahu was treated by Obama,” Rosenberg said, with obvious joy, to what was presumably a largely Arab audience.

“Suddenly Israel today is, even though it gets what it wants to a certain extent, Israel is treated as another country, a foreign country, which makes it no different than all the other foreign countries. That is what Obama is trying to do: take Israel away from being the 51st state and make it a foreign country like Lebanon or France or any normal foreign country.”

“He has done that,” Rosenberg added. “You know, he has sent the Arab world signals from day one of where his heart is.”

Rosenberg asserts that the President of the United States intentionally mistreated the Prime Minister of Israel to "send signals" to the Arab world. Since Rosenberg works for an organization that holds weekly "strategy calls" with the White House, it stands to reason that he may have been drawing upon insider information to make that claim.

It's unlikely that the mainstream media will follow up on this story and press Obama on his "signals" to the Arab world or his true feelings on Israel. But from this information alone, it's apparent that the president's closest allies are not in the pro-Israel--or pro-American--camp.



ON BREITBART TV Media Matters Boasts To Al-Jazeera: Obama Mistreated Netanyahu



To: longnshort who wrote (387)4/15/2012 11:28:19 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
How the Media Whitewashes Muslim Persecution of Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim,GATESTONE ONSTITUTE
gatestoneinstitute.org

When it comes to Muslim persecution of Christians, the mainstream media (MSM) has a long paper trail of obfuscating. While they may eventually state the bare-bone facts—if they ever report on the story in the first place, which is rare—they do so after creating and sustaining an aura of moral relativism that minimizes the Muslim role.

False Moral Equivalency

As previously discussed, one of the most obvious ways is to evoke “sectarian strife” between Muslims and Christians, a phrase that conjures images of two equally matched—and equally abused, and abusive—adversaries fighting one another. This hardly suffices to describe the reality of Muslim majorities persecuting largely passive Christian minorities.

Recently, for instance, in the context of the well-documented suffering of Christians in Egypt, an NPR report declared, “In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims and Christians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame the interreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak security forces. Others believe it’s because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and the minority Christian community [how did the "mistrust" originate?].” Although the report does highlight cases in which Christians are victimized, the tone throughout—and even from the title of the report, “In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise”—suggest that examples of Muslims victimized by Christians could just as easily have been found (not true). The accompanying photo is of a group of angry Christians militantly holding a cross aloft—not Muslims destroying crosses, which is what prompts the Christians to such displays of solidarity.

Two more strategies that fall under the MSM’s umbrella of obfuscating and minimizing Islam’s role—strategies with which the reader should become acquainted—appeared in recent reports dealing with the jihadi group Boko Haram and its ongoing genocide of Nigeria’s Christians.

First, some context: Boko Haram—acronym for “Western Education is a Sin”, its full name in Arabic is “Sunnis for Da’wa [Islamization] and Jihad”—is a full-throated terrorist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the secular government and establishment of Sharia law. It has been slaughtering Christians for years, with an uptick since the Christmas Day church bombing in 2012, which left at least 40 Christians dead; followed by its New Year ultimatum that all Christians must evacuate the northern regions of Nigeria or die—an ultimatum Boko Haram has been living up to: hardly a day goes by without a terrorist attack on Christians or a church, most recently on Easter day, leaving 20 dead.

Blurring the Line Between Persecutor and Victim

Now consider some MSM strategies. The first one is to frame the conflict between Muslims and Christians in a way that blurs the line between persecutor and victim, as in, for example, a recent BBC report on one of Boko Haram’s many church attacks that left three Christians dead, including a toddler. After stating the bare-bones facts in a couple of sentences, the report went on to describe how “the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…” The report goes on and on, with a special section about “very angry” Christians, until one all but confuses victims with persecutors, forgetting what the Christians are “very angry” about in the first place—unprovoked and nonstop terror attacks on their churches, and the murder of their women and children.

This broadcast is reminiscent of the Egyptian New Year’s Eve church bombing that left over 20 Christians dead: the MSM reported it, but under headlines such as, “Christians clash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21(Washington Post) and “Clashes grow as Egyptians remain angry after attack”(New York Times)—as if frustrated Christians lashing out against wholesale slaughter is as newsworthy or of the same value as the slaughter itself, implying that their angry reaction “evens” everything up.

Dissembling the Perpetrators’ Motivation

The second MSM strategy involves dissembling over the jihadis’ motivation. An AFP report describing a different Boko Haram church attack—another one, which also killed three Christians during Sunday service—does a fair job reporting the facts. But then it concludes: “Violence blamed on Boko Haram, whose goals remain largely unclear, has since 2009 claimed more than 1,000 lives, including more than 300 this year, according to figures tallied by AFP and rights groups.”

Although Boko Haram has been howling its straightforward goals for a decade—enforcing Sharia law and subjugating, if not eliminating, Nigeria’s Christians—the media with a straight face is claiming ignorance about these goals (similarly, the New York Times described Boko Haram’s goals as “senseless”—even as the group continues justifying them on Islamic doctrinal grounds). One would have thought that a decade after the jihadi attacks of 9/11—in light if all the subsequent images of Muslims in militant attire shouting distinctly Islamic slogans such as “Allahu Akbar!” ["Allah is the Greatest!"] and calling for Sharia law and the subjugation of “infidels”—reporters would by now know what their goals are.

Of course, the media’s obfuscation of jihadi goals serves a purpose: it leaves the way open for the politically correct, MSM-approved motivations for Muslim violence: “political oppression,” “poverty,” “frustration,” and so on. From here, one can see why politicians such as former U.S. president Bill Clinton cite “poverty” as “what’s fueling all this stuff” (a reference to Boko Haram’s slaughter of Christians).

In short, while the MSM may report the most frugal facts concerning Christian persecution, they utilize their entire arsenal of semantic games, catch phrases, and convenient omissions that uphold the traditional narrative—that Muslim violence is anything but a byproduct of the Islamic indoctrination of intolerance.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum



To: longnshort who wrote (387)4/24/2012 1:07:15 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
AP: Zimmerman has too many rights

April 15, 2012 by Don Surber

Through its news analysis by Curt Anderson, management and editors at the Associated Press apparently believe George Zimmerman has too many rights to defend himself in court. The editors at the nation’s largest news organization are befuddled by the notion that prosecutors actually have to prove that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense, rather than merely accept Al Sharpton’s version of the story.

The analysis began:

MIAMI (AP) — George Zimmerman persuaded the police not to charge him for killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, but the prosecutor has accused him of murder. Soon, armed with unparalleled legal advantages, Zimmerman will get to ask a judge to find the killing was justified, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll get to make the same case to a jury.

Unparalleled? Throughout the English-speaking world, a person charged with a crime can ask a judge to dismiss the charges and if that fails, be tried before a jury of his peers. The only aspect of this case that is different from others is that if acquitted, Zimmerman would be immune from civil damages.

And the Associated Press listed Curt Anderson as “AP Legal Affairs Writer”? Maybe he is a graduate of the Barack Obama School of Constitutional Law.

Mind you, this crap will be in Sunday newspapers across the country and people will see the word “unparalleled” and think that Zimmerman is getting something no one else has.

The very next paragraph blames the wicked NRA for this dastardly presumption of innocence:

The wave of National Rifle Association-backed legislation that began seven years ago in Florida and continues to sweep the country has done more than establish citizens’ right to “stand your ground,” as supporters call the laws. It’s added second, third and even fourth chances for people who have used lethal force to avoid prosecution and conviction using the same argument, extra opportunities to keep their freedom that defendants accused of other crimes don’t get.

Of course, the Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with the case. It is simple self-defense. Martin was pummeling him while Zimmerman’s back was to the ground. Maybe the old Lay On The Ground law should apply.

And it is nonsense that you get extra chances. Guess what, not only does every defendant get the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers, but he can appeal that verdict if found guilty. The AP routinely takes the side of killers, especially those facing execution. The AP legal writer apparently does not understand basic criminal law. He wrote:

One area that sets Florida apart is the next step Zimmerman faces: With the police and prosecutor having weighed in, a judge will decide whether to dismiss the second-degree murder charge based on “stand your ground.” If Zimmerman wins that stage, prosecutors can appeal.

I am pretty sure prosecutors can appeal any judicial ruling, including a dismissal of charges.

But what bugged me in reading this story is the relentless attempt to cast this case as usual when it seems to me to be a sad homicide, in which a man claims he had to kill or be killed. Apparently, the Associated Press as an institution has a problem with self-defense:

An Associated Press review of federal homicide data doesn’t seem to bear that out. Nationwide, the total number of justified homicides by citizens rose from 176 in 2000 to 325 in 2010. Totals for all homicides also rose slightly over the same period, but when adjusted for population growth, the rates actually dipped.

Justified homicides are just that. Man gets attacked, draws a gun, kills his assailant. States are easing gun control laws and homicides overall are dropping. That sort of analysis should be in this article because it is, well, an analysis.

I might also point out that criminal homicides still outnumber justified homicides 50 to 1.

From the AP:

At least two-dozen states since 2005 have adopted laws similar to Florida’s, which broadly eliminated a person’s duty to retreat under threat of death or serious injury, as long as the person isn’t committing a crime and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Other states have had similar statutes on the books for decades, and still others grant citizens equivalent protections through established court rulings.

I am curious as to where AP would have Zimmerman retreat? His version is he was on the ground having the snot neat out of him...

blogs.dailymail.com



To: longnshort who wrote (387)8/21/2012 1:08:34 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
 
White House Sets Ground Rules for Local Interviews

by Keith Koffler on August 21, 2012
whitehousedossier.com

The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk.

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.

Obama Monday threw the White House press corps a bone by suddenly appearing in the briefing room for 22 minutes and taking questions from a total of four reporters. It was his first press conference at the White House – albeit in miniature – since March, and only his second of the year. Obama before Monday had taken exactly one substantive question from White House reporters since June.

But the three other interviews Obama also held Monday pointed to the advantage he gets by focusing on local press, with whom he has been speaking more regularly.

Under sequestration, if a budget deal is not reached by the end of the year, harsh automatic spending cuts will occur. Each of the network reporters were from cities with major military facilities that could be unduly impacted if sequestration occurs.

Two of the reporters were from Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, both presidential battleground states. The third was from San Diego.

The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. “The president invited me to talk about sequestration,” NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at:

“What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?” she asked.

Donna Deegan of FCN Jacksonville initially seemed to apologize for not broaching the appointed subject right away.

“Mr. President, I know we were asked to talk about sequestration today,” she said, but then added she wanted to talk about something else first. Finally, she got to it:

“Let’s talk a little bit about sequestration, because I know that’s why you invited us here,” she said.

Obama used an interview with WVEC Norfolk to specifically bash Republicans.

“The only thing that’s standing in the way of us getting this done right now is the unwillingness on the part of some members of Congress, and folks in in the Republican Party, to give up on some tax breaks for people like me who don’t need them,” he said.

The reporters were able to ask about other topics. But with their face time with the president limited to under ten minutes, and Obama well rehearsed to discuss at length his favored topic, there was little room for much else to come up.





Related Posts:
  • WH Press Corps Goes Seven Weeks Without a Question
  • Peers Unlikely to Sanction Daily Caller WH Reporter
  • WashPost Tackles White House Bullying of the Press
  • White House Likely to Step Up Bullying of Reporters
  • White House Bats Down Cranky WH Press Corps



  • To: longnshort who wrote (387)12/9/2014 2:05:20 AM
    From: joseffy  Respond to of 826
     

    of 821563
    Attkisson: I’ve Been On Receiving End Of Obama Official’s Profanity-Laced Tirades
    ..........................................................................................................................
    12/08/2014
    dailycaller.com



    Appearing on “The Steve Malzberg Show” Monday afternoon, author Sharyl Attkisson responded to former ABC News correspondent Ann Compton’s claim that President Barack Obama and his officials routinely direct profanity-laced tirades at reporters.

    Attkisson told Malzberg she has been on the receiving end of those conversations in the past, and others, specifically The Associated Press, have been subject to scorn at the hands of Obama officials.

    “Maybe this is just me or a personal opinion that a profanity-laced conversation with professionals in the press by the president of the U.S. is probably inappropriate,” said Attkisson.

    “That’s not surprising to me,” the former CBS investigative reporter told Malzberg. “There have been profanity-laced discussions on their part with members of the Obama administration that they’ve talked to me about similar things, thinking that a cover story…was not warranted or fair.”

    “They haven’t just done this with me, but with reporters at The Associated Press and other colleagues,” said Attkisson. “This is a tactic and a strategy.”

    “I don’t know if it’s heartfelt or sometimes it’s just to create the kind of pushback that leads to a self-censorship, because you’re so beaten down…by what they say, by the social media campaigns and the blog campaigns that they launch,”Attkisson added.

    Attkisson recently authored “Stonewalled,” which recounts her troubles getting her stories on the air at CBS that were perceived to be critical of the Obama administration.