« Feminazi: Sarah Palin Isn't Really a Woman | Main | Nobama Fashion Statement »

September 3, 2008

Media Bias 101

In case anyone was wondering whose side the shallow supermarket rag Us Weekly is on:


This pretty much sums up the role of the media in this election.

Unsurprisingly, Us Weekly's publisher Jann Wenner, who also publishes the equally contemptible Rolling Stone, is a big Obama donor.

Writes Michelle Malkin reader James D:

I’m a communication professor, and I’m posting this image outside my office tomorrow morning.

If we had more professors like James D, and less garbage like Us Weekly, Obama would have been laughed out from behind his podium months ago.

On a tip from Burning Hot.

Posted by Van Helsing at September 3, 2008 10:41 AM


If Sarah Palin was a muslim, like Obama's father, she would have to stone her daughter.
Instead Sarah Palin is going to love and support her daughter.

Posted by: shunha7878 at September 3, 2008 10:53 AM

Since the images there are so small, let me tell you what they say (but you have to guess which one is which):

Cover "A"

She shops at Target, loved Sex and the City and never misses her girls' recitals. The untold romance between a down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her 'my rock'

Cover "B"

* Under attack, admits daughter, [clue deleted], is pregnant * Investigated for firing of sister's ex-husband * Mom of [clue deleted]: New embarrassing surprises

I probably didn't give enough clues, but I'm sure someone out there is keen enough to venture a guess...

Posted by: Lyle at September 3, 2008 11:01 AM

Hey, this is good, ol' fashioned hardball politics. What gets me riled is that it's presented as fact...and it's EVERYwhere. You cannot avoid this stuff, there is very little balance (due to the fact that the libs have taken over most media the same way they've taken over grade, high, and college level schools), and people who are not well informed BELIEVE this crap.

I keep saying there is going to be a backlash...I sure hope we see it soon. If these guys win now, we'll be screwed for the next 30 years.

Posted by: matt at September 3, 2008 11:10 AM

This is nothing new. Even some in the media admit they are in the tank for Obama. Theyve lost all objectivity. No matter what Palin says tonight they will come down hard on her. The media is essentially and arm of the DNC.

If Palin was a Democrat running with Obama the media would be gushing with praise for her. This morning they are piling up on Lieberman depicting him as the ultimate traitor. But their primary focus is destroying Palin - she too is a traitor - how dare a woman be a strong conservative. How dare she not be a left wing liberal!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 3, 2008 11:25 AM

Media bias?!?! I hadn't noticed...

An MSNBC reporter, "to be fair" questions Newt Gingrich on Sarah Palin's credentials. Gingrich pulls the reporter's head off and hands it back to him on a silver platter, begging the reporter to tell him "one thing you think Senator Obama's done."

The reporter's reply? "Keith [Olbermann], back to you."

There's nothing like a good smack-down.

Posted by: Lyle at September 3, 2008 12:45 PM

And now there's the smear of "Palin about to bring women's rights back to the 15th century", because of her pro-life views.

Why is murdering one's baby considered a right?

OK, so you aren't into the religion thing. Want a good secular reason for encouraging fertility and outlawing abortion? Here you go: While you might be perfectly swell with a sub-replacement fertility rate, Achmed next door breeds much nearer the two digits. You do the demographic math. Or better still, read Mark Steyn's America Alone, which has done the summing up for you, and then some more. It's a security concern.

Posted by: Conservigilant at September 3, 2008 12:48 PM

Or better still, read Mark Steyn's America Alone, which has done the summing up for you, and then some more. It's a security concern.

You might also want to look at Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West". He provides some pretty extensive demographic information.

All the same, I think the abortion issue is a political dead-end. It's an attempt to solve a cultural problem by political means, and I don't think that'll work for conservatives any more than it does for liberals. You have legal abortion because you have a culture that demands it. You won't be able to gain the political support to outlaw it until the culture changes. And if you had a culture that frowned on abortion, you wouldn't need the laws....

Posted by: Rob Banks at September 3, 2008 3:10 PM

Rest in HELL Libstream Media 2008.

Reporters are the lowest form of scum alive.

Posted by: Conan in the USA at September 3, 2008 4:29 PM

I was bored the other day and began thinking "what would Oliver Stone think up" to justify nominating Sarah Palin and the media frenzy that followed. Here is what I came up with as a palusible consipracy theory. Check this out and tell me what you think.

McCain wants to jazz up the conservative base, realizing without their enthusiastic support victory is dead. He nominates someone who is extremely popular, is of the Western USA (similar to McCain and contradictory to Northeast lib Joemama Biden) and is popular with the conservative base. McCain knows of her family's past and thinks that by offering her up, like a political martyr, the preordained media frenzy jazzes up the base to near a 1984 Reaganesque level. NOW, the situation gets so dire, McCain, following the RNC, grugingly accepts her "resignation." The conservative world is stunned once more, the republicans are now looked at as being the victims of the hateful media. McCain now nominates a Romney or a Thompson (who were haughtly anticiapated VP picks before but now will look like heroes, picking up the Palin cause). Just think. Romney's religion will now be a distant second now that the media took out Palin, republicans will come out in droves to shove the McCain ticket down their throats for revenge.

While I do support and want Sarah Palin, having a Mitt Romney without the stigma of his Mormon religion, the republicans have a much more experienced former governor and crucial to win the state of Michigan. This is just an insane rant, but maybe plausible?

Posted by: The Right is Right at September 3, 2008 4:46 PM

Well, Right Is Right, you are not the first person to voice the idea that Palin was a "play" of one sort or another, with the secret intent being to end up with someone else eventually.

So I will summarize the situation as I, one Republican voter, see it.

If Palin is taken off the ticket, for any reason, I will not vote for McCain.

There is NO WAY I would ever forgive McCain if the choice of Palin turned out to be even 0.00000001 percent short of authentic and permanent.

I believe there's another 30 or 50 million or so people who feel exactly as I do.

If Palin is removed or "quits" for any reason, McCain may as well not bother finishing the election. He would have 0 % chance of winning, because Republican voters will not bother to show up.

McCain and all his people know this.

So, no, I do not think there is a secret plan to replace her.

Posted by: mega at September 3, 2008 5:06 PM

I agree with mega. If Palin isn't on the ballot Nov. 4 I will leave "president" blank.

Posted by: single stack at September 3, 2008 5:36 PM

I agree with mega and single stack. If Palin gets shafted, I vote for Bob Barr.

Posted by: Rob Banks at September 3, 2008 9:04 PM

Needless to say, the left-wing media-created notion of dropping Saracuda is now a pathetically moot point, humorous in its morbid wishfulness for an era of uncontested Obama worship that officially ended at 11:00 pm tonight, and will never return.

the left-wing-media-created notion that McCain's judgement is in question for not vetting her well enough is, of course, also dead.

Posted by: mega at September 3, 2008 9:17 PM

Think that's bad, check this out:

Washington Post published an article about Palin "slashing funding for teen moms." Only problem being that the funding appropriation clearly shows that she reduced the size of the INCREASE in funding to the facility in question.

Send them an e-mail at to tell them what you think of them.

Posted by: mandible claw at September 3, 2008 9:22 PM

A little editorial comment on Jann Wenner, courtesy of your favorite uncle, Ted Nugent:

"After [Wenner] left his wife and children to go off into the sunset, ass in hand, with his new boyfriend, he turned up his antigun heat by increasing his hateful editorials and free magazine ad space with outrageous twisted lies about guns and gun owners."

Any surprise he'd do the same thing to advance his anti-GOP agenda?

Posted by: PabloD at September 3, 2008 10:24 PM

Trying to post this in WashPost comments section but can't for some reason:

This is the worst example of 'journalism' I've ever seen.

Paul Kane - can you read? The appropriation says Palin INCREASED FUNDING by threefold. Your headline says she "slashed" funding. How ridiculous.

Wait, I know! Maybe I could be a venerable 'journalist' too!

Hm, let's see..

Washington Post contributions look like this:


Lyndon LaRouche PAC

Lyndon LaRouche PAC

Obama, Barack (D)

DNC Services Corp (D)

DNC Services Corp (D)

Edwards, John (D)

Obama, Barack (D)

Obama, Barack (D)

And whaddya know? Not a single contribution to a GOP campaign from a WashPost member!

Oh, and the Lyndon Larouche PAC has spent over $5 million supporting Democrats this election cycle.

Quick, write a stunning new headline!

"Random Internet Guy Uncovers Rampant Political Bias at Newspaper"

Subheader: "Could this explain sleazy, inaccurate articles attacking GOP Veep candidate?"

Yay, I'm as good a journamalist as a WashPost reporter! Oh, wait, I'm better, because my story was actually accurate.

Posted by: mandible claw at September 3, 2008 11:06 PM

Posted by: V the K at September 4, 2008 3:40 AM

It was pathetic watching the US guy defending his rag on FOX News. When asked about the LIES and SCANDAL on the cover implying that PALIN was lying he said something like - well, if you look at the actual article it says its other people who are lying about her. That clown smiled the whole time - he knows most people wont actually read the article just the headline. And he would explain why the Obama cover didnt do the same thing about the lies told about Obama (there arent many actual lies, but there are a few).

Posted by: Anonymous at September 4, 2008 4:52 AM

After watching Sarah Palin last night at the RNC, I agree whole heartedly that if Palin is dropped from the ticket, I too would not vote for McCain, but will refuse to vote altogether.

On Hannity and Combs did you hear that moonbat, Howard Wolfson, state that if Shillary is campaigning in '12 for POTUS he would AGAIN go in front of DailyKos because he states that DailyKos, guilty of Monnbattery in the 1st degree, is a fringe of the demotard party and deserve to be heard. Can you believe this? I can; however, what would the demotards say if McCain campaigns at NAMBLA? NAMBLA and the DailyKos kooks are first cousins in the Kooks for Dermotards Hall of Shame

Posted by: The Right Is Right at September 4, 2008 7:11 AM

Van, according to US Weekly magazine Sr. Editor Bradley Jacobs, you owe your readers an apology for distorting their Liberal Blogger exposing coverage of the Palin family.

Posted by: Lyle at September 4, 2008 8:24 AM