« North of the Border Gender Disorder | Main | Analogy Zero »
July 20, 2010
Revealed: Media Conspiracy to Protect Obama From Coverage of Jeremiah Wright
Posted by Dave Blount at July 20, 2010 12:33 PM
CBS News alumnus Bernie Goldberg will tell you that there is no left-wing conspiracy among the mainstream media — it just happens to be made up almost entirely of moonbats who report "the news" as it appears to them while wearing their liberal blinders. I wonder what Goldberg makes of new revelations that the establishment media deliberately suppressed information about Obama's long and close relationship with Jeremiah Wright, who for 20 years spewed his hebephrenic hatred of Caucasians and America into B. Hussein's receptive ears:
According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
According to these lib journalists, their colleagues were oppressing poor Barry even as they slobbered on his shoes.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists."
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: "Listen folks — in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC [which enraged other liberal outlets by reporting on Wright] and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn't about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."
Let me translate, for those unfamiliar with communist lingo. When a leftist says "the people," he means "The Collectivist State."
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, "why don't we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?" Schaller proposed coordinating a "smart statement expressing disgust" at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
"It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort," Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. "YES. A thousand times yes," he exclaimed.
In case you thought there was any meaningful distinction between the "mainstream" media and radical left outfits like the Nation:
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to "particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media" who were members of the list. …
Hayes urged his colleagues — especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way — to bury the Wright scandal. "I'm not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don't think he's worthy of defense, don't defend him! What I'm saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable," Hayes said.
In other words, lie by silence. This tactic defines media coverage — or more accurately, the lack of it — in the age of Obama.
When the smoke clears and we're shifting through the rubble of our country for clues as to how Barack Hussein Obama could conceivably have been elected president when his ultra-radical background was public knowledge in advance, future historians can start with the cancer we know as the liberal media.
Hat tip: Stop the ACLU.
