Americans have lost confidence in the media

The media tends to over exaggerate the truth, and that is perhaps the main reason only about 25% of Americans have confidence in American newspapers and TV news outlets such as ABC, NBC, CBC, and the like. Yet we shouldn't be surprised at these low poll results.

When I was in school as a journalism student, and during psychology class, we studied how people have a tendency to love tragedy and drama. The example used was a many who has a heart attack in the middle of a street in New York, and how hundreds of people would stand around watching the drama.

It's not that they knew the person, or even cared, it was that they love that something dramatic was happening and they were able to be a witness to it. Another good example occurred just this past weekend in Shoreline Michigan. We had a plane crash about 2 miles off the shore of the Shoreline beaches in Lake Michigan, and as soon as word got out the plane was being hauled to one of the local boat ramps, hundreds of folks showed up to watch.

The good folks in the media feed on this, and this is the reason they tend to exaggerate tragic events, even make them worse than they really are. In fact, chances are they don't even know they are doing it.

Remember Katrina. There were Senators who proclaimed that over "100,000 people died! They are dead!" When in truth those Senators had no idea the amount, and were highly over estimating the numbers. Yes, it is surely tragic anyone had to die, or lose a home, yet it's not good journalism to allow you emotions to control what you say. Yes, the media trounced all over that 100,000 figure.

More recently you had the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. Yes, it was a tragic event. Yes there was oil covering animals and destroying economies of shoreline communities. Yet the event was not even close to "one of the worse disasters of all time!"

In fact, after the oil was plugged, you had columnists walking around saying, "Where is all the oil? It's not hitting the shore? Where is it?"

Well, if these journalists weren't didn't feed off their emotions and educated themselves and wrote based on facts as opposed to feelings, they would have known (as I wrote here) that there is as many as 40 millions gallons of oil that naturally seeps into oceans, lakes and streams on a daily basis, and you don't hear about that oil in the news.

You don't hear about it because this oil is naturally absorbed, sinks, or is eaten by oil eating bacteria as you can read about here.

Or, as this Time.com article, "The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?" notes, has the BP oil spill damage been exaggerated? Well, I don't know because I'm not at expert, yet when anyone in the media writes about pretty much anything these days, I don't have much confidence in what I read. Rather, one must read the news with a grain of salt, per se.

Another example is global warming and the fear that the polar ice caps are disappearing. Yet, now, while the waters are calm, we read, like,"Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss," from Yahoo.com.

The article perhports that Dutch and U.S. scientists did research that shows Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps melted due to "global warming" is only half of what was previously estimated. This is stunning and remarkable news considering you had some environmentalists actors claiming we needed to make dramatic regulatory changes that might destroy economies in order to save the world -- and the ice caps -- from the effects of global warming.

As you can see by this post, many of the effects of global warming might have been egregiously exaggerated just because some folks had economic ties to the belief that global warming was real. If it's proven wrong, folks like Al Gore take an ego and credibility hit.

Which is a perfect example of why it's more responsible, and better journalism, to let people like Al Gore over exaggerate the facts, and for the good folks who write journalistic articles and columns to write based on the facts only, and not based on emotions and feelings.

Is global warming real? Let our children decide, that's what I say. Let's not take one theory here and one theory there and put them together and say we have a fact. Let's be responsible, take care of our planet to the best of our ability, and not make rash decisions that will destroy economies and societies.

Of course now we have a new Gallup poll that shows that American confidence in the media is only at 25% today, which is less that it's ever been since Gallup started recording confidence in the media in 2002.

Well, if I were a journalism I wouldn't be proud of this number. As an American, and considering the trend of falsified reports and exaggerated claims by the media, neither I nor you should be surprised.

And this is sad, because the purpose of a free press is for the media to keep an eye on the powerful and to prevent them from making laws that are not to the benefit of the peoples. The media is not fulfilling that responsibility, and instead is feeding on the trash spewed out by politicians and activists. The media has becomes the lapdogs of garbage sent out by the government, instead of government watchdogs.

And that, I believe, is a shame.

Related links:

• Is global warming real: let our children decide
• Global warming: We need to stay open minded
• Climate gate should end global warming scare
• Global warming does not cause more bad weather
• American schools teach only one view
  

Media fallacies clarified

The media often spins the truth to make it look one way, while the truth shall have it another

Truth to be aware of:

1. Media fallacy: The tea partiers are not anti-government. Truth: The tea partiers are anti-progressive/liberal/ socialist. They are opposed to anyone who is a progressive, from Obama to McCain, so it doesn't matter what party.

2. Media fallacy: Voters are angry at incumbents. Truth: Voters are angry at progressives regardless of party who believe the government has the answer to all the problems society faces.

3. Media fallacy: You have to move to the center to win elections. Truth: Liberals have to pretend to be conservative to win elections. Bill Clinton did this, and so did John McCain.

4. Media fallacy: Tax increases make more money for government. Truth: Taxes make more money for the government up to a certain point, at which time economic growth is stymied. Perfect examples can be obtained by observing the FDR tax increases prolonged the Great Depression, and Bill Clinton tax increases caused 2000 recession. Hence, tax increases cause fewer tax payers.

5. Media fallacy: Tax cuts cause the fed to earn less money. Truth: Tax cuts generate more money for the government, as you can see by studying the economic booms following Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush tax cuts. In each of these eras money to the government increased despite tax cuts. Hence, tax cuts create more tax payers.

6. Media fallacy: Global warming is a fact. Truth: Global warming is a theory.

7. Media fallacy: Regulations result in more honest and safer industry. Truth: Regulations cause smaller industries to stop hiring, and many will close up shop, ultimately leaving only a few large companies to rule the market. With less competition, these few companies hire lobbyists to influence politicians to not make laws that would cause competition to increase, or create more regulations. Thus, the market rules Washington more so than the other way around.

8. Media fallacy: Minimum wages are good for low income workers. Truth: Raising the minimum wage causes industries to hire fewer workers and results in a rising unemployment rate.

9. Media fallacy: Unemployment benefits benefits the unemployed. Truth: Unemployment benefits cause some would be workers to become complacent and actually drives up the unemployment rate.

10. Media fallacy: Taxing the rich and creating government programs will help the poor. Truth: Redistributing wealth actually causes those receiving government checks to become dependent on government, and decreases their incentive to try to improve their lots in life.

11. Media fallacy: Jews of Israel are guilty until proven guilty. Truth: The Jews have won every war instigated against them by Islamic nations and earned the land they live on.

12. Media fallacy: The Jews stole Palestinian land and call it Israel. Truth: Muslims living in Israel left on their own accord because they thought the Islam nations that declared war on Israel would win. Years after Israel won, these Muslims started calling themselves Palestinians refugees to gain sympathy and, thus, sympathy money. The media to this day refuses to this day to acknowledge Israel had won, and still do. While any other nation in the world is allowed to keep what it gains in battle, Israel is the exception because it's run by the Jews.

13. Media fallacy: World peace is possible and therefore it is essential the U.S. lead the way by cutting back on it's nuclear stash Truth: There have always been and always will be bad people in the world, and the U.S. must maintain the greatest military in the world to defend freedom in America and around the world.

14 Media fallacy: If the U.S. creates enough social programs world poverty can be ended. Truth: The only times in U.S. history that people of all social classes improved their lots in life were during economic booms created by capitalistic means. The two greatest examples are the booms following the Warren G. Harding/Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan tax cuts.

Socialist liberals don't want our voices heard

Communism and socialism fail every time it's ever been tried because it provided no incentive for the little folks to get up and make an effort to improve their lives. It also fails because in order for it to succeed the voices of opposition (capitalists) have to be silenced.

A person I work with told me people should take an intelligence test on the issues before they vote. "Too many people," he said, "vote in this country who have no clue what they are even voting for."

I said, "Isn't that the purpose of living in a democracy, that everyone has a voice. That no one is held under the hand of tyranny. Isn't that the whole reason the founding fathers left the Mother Country, and why they formed a United Nation."

Personally, I think that if everyone studied they'd all vote for the most traditional, conservative candidate. I think he thinks the opposite. So, to stave off either one of us having a tyranny, everyone in America has a equal right to vote. That's why the Constitution was agreed upon as such.

I think my liberal friend is an elitist who thinks he knows what's best for everyone. He's arrogant, as the liberal media is elitist and arrogant. They think they know what's best for everyone. They don't even respect the constitution, as they know better than even the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution.

That is why the left does everything in it's power to shut out voices of opposition, which is what would happen if "everyone had to take an IQ test" in order to vote. That's exactly what happens when the U.S. government releases a document from the homeland security department claiming groups organizing from the right are "far right extremists." That's why the folks on the left try to silence voices like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity by re-enacting the fairness doctrine.

It's also why you see more traditional cable news networks covering all the issues from the right and the left, and why other media outlets, particularly the mainstream media of the major newspapers and the big three networks, shun out the right. This was proven yesterday when only one network covered the anti-tax tea parties in a "fair and balanced' way.

Media outlets have a Constitutional right to be bias, as all Americans have a Constitutional right to be stupid and to vote for the wrong person if that so happens to be the case. And so are attempts to shut out the competition.

CNN's bias coverage of the tea party protests is Constitutional. MSNBC's going out and calling the tea parties "idiotic" is Constitutional too. But I think it goes further than that. I think this is their fervent attempt at shutting out the voices of opposition.

I think the tea parties was the biggest story of the day yesterday, and for the first time in my adult life I actually see people out protesting something I ardently believe in -- a smaller and more responsible government. Yet, as I watch the Today show this morning, after I watched that show for over an hour, I heard nothing about what happened -- nothing.

When I watched CNN and MSNBC yesterday the protester were called "idiotic" and CNN even referred to the protesters as teabaggers. For those of you who never went to college and joined a frat, teabagging is giving lip service to someone's crotch, otherwise known as giving a blow job.

And, moments from now as I watch the CBC evening news, I expect the same to be the case. The left wing media does not consider the tea parties important because they do not further the left wing cause. To them, the protesters are nothing more than conservatives angry because Obama won.

The fairness doctrine, making people take a test to vote, are definitely not Constitutional, as they go against the 1st amendment freedom of speech. They also go against the addict that all men must be treated equal, as if some people are allowed to vote and other not some men (and women) are not created equal.

But liberals don't care about the constitution and fairness so long as they get their way. And that is exactly why the liberal press only covers protests that draws in new people to politics when those individuals support a liberal cause.

In a communist and socialist nation the voices of the little people are shunned out. And by the lefts attempt to silence the good folks in this country who do no agree with their big government socialistic agenda being ignored and belittled by the left, this is a perfect example of socialist elitism.

Rush Limbaugh versus Obama

I wasn't shocked when I was watching CNN and I heard a commentator say: "Rush said flat out he wants Obama to fail." I turned the channel and heard an MSNBC commentator say the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of what I have written about many times on this blog, that the media twists the news it doesn't like to suit its own liberal agenda.

"If you want Obama to fail," the CNN commentator said, "then you are anti-American."

If, taken in full context, Rush did not say he wants Obama to fail. Rush said he loves his country and he wants the best for it. But if Obama is going to set an agenda that is counter to what would make the country a success, then he cannot hope Obama succeeds.

I agree with Rush and I wrote a similar article on this topic a few days ago.

Rush claims that Obama has no intention of doing what is best for the country. His soul agenda is to pretend to want to help America, but he ultimately wants to create more poor people. The more poor, needy people you have, the more people who will vote for democrats, because democrats thrive on creating government programs under the guise that they will help the poor -- but these programs create more poor.

A perfect example of this is welfare and the war on poverty set forth by president Johnson. What turned out was the more people in poverty, the more people who became dependent on government and thus democrats. The less people in poverty, the more republicans because republicans are the party of success and prosperity.

The New Deal was another perfect example. While every depression before the Great Depression lasted fewer than three years, FDRs lasted for over a decade because of too much government spending -- taking too much out of the pockets of the people who are capable of stimulating the economy (the upper middle class and rich who create 80% of the jobs).

I suppose, Rush himself put it best:

“I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing ‘eternal’ power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.”

You can go back to what I previously wrote about FDR and the economy. I wrote about Hoover and the economy. I wrote a series on this a while back (1950s to 1980s, the 1920s). It is historically proven that never in the history of government has any government pulled a country out of a recession -- only the free market can do that.

(Harding Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush W. all proved this by limiting government and decreasing taxes to pull us out of a recession, while Hoover, FDR, Clinton and Carter did the exact opposite and drove us into a recession or deeper into one with big government programs as obama proposes).

There are many examples how the free market has pulled us out of a recession. Obama believes, as he has said, that only the government can do this. He is naive and wrong. The government succeed only in creating more wasteful government programs and more needy people, and that is what Rush has said the Obama's stimulus package will create. That is a direction he does not want to see America go in. That is against every ideal he (and myself) stand for. And he cannot hope for it to succeed.

Unless, I must add, his stimulus package has across the board tax cuts, an extension of the Bush tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts all of which would definitely (as historically proven) encourage spending, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. This has succeeded every time it has been tried. So why the heck would any government official want to do anything else other than for party gains?

And then you have Obama with the Gall to tell republicans that if they want to listen to Rush they can't deal with him. What the hell does Obama know about the economy anyway? Apparently, he hasn't read his history books as Rush has.

I certainly hope republicans stick it to Obama by refusing to buy int his stimulus plan that calls for welfare checks under the nam of taxes, contraceptives for poor people and more government.

Only the government would take something that has failed every time it's ever been tried and try it again. Any capitalistic business president who did this would be thrown out of office in a month.

I'm sorry, but I do not want the America that Obama is trying to make. I do not want poor people to be dependent on government. I do not want socialized medicine that will ultimately lead to more government and less choice for the people. I do not want an economic stimulus package that will create so much government there will be no hope for tax cuts in the future.

And therefore, if Obama chooses to take this route, I hope he fails. And, when he does fail, republicans will gain seats in the house, Senate and hopefully win back the presidency by 2012.

There, that is my rant for the month. Yet I'm sure the media will continue to twist Rush's words and hail Obamas because the agenda at CNN and MSNBC is no different than Obama's. I keep thinking that CNN is fair, but then I see something like this and it ticks me off.

Conservatism alive and kicking at republican base

Many of my friends say they are going to vote for McCain because the alternative is Barry Obama. Still, they don't think he is the best candidate.

How is it that we got stuck with John McCain anyway, when he barely even registered in any of the polls among republicans a year ago? Why is he the candidate we have no choice to vote for, when we really don't even like him.

Think of it this way. He is not conservative. I'm stating the obvious there. Sure, he says he is to get the vote of his base, but he is not conservative. He's not any more conservative than Bush, who is also not conservative.

Super Tuesday is the day where many presidential nominees are essentially chosen. Up to that date, 70% of the conservative vote went for three candidates: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney.

Conservatives who thought the economy was the biggest issue voted for Romney, those who were among the religious right chose Huckabee, and Thompson got the rest of the vote.

So, with the Conservative vote split up, and no one conservative candidate sticking out, that left John McCain with a mere 30% of the vote as the one candidate left with the most votes in early states. Thus, McCain won my default.

That's why John McCain is said to be the luckiest candidate ever.

While many democrats and independents believe that McCain is the choice of the republican party, he really isn't. He won basically because he was able to split the conservative vote.

That's actually a good strategy for Him. The only problem is, he had to spend the majority of his time since then repairing the damage of the base. Why? Because you cannot win the presidency without your base.

I don't care what you will hear in the media, it is not independents that win you the presidency; it is not swing voters: It is your base. And for republicans, it is the conservative movement which is alive and kicking.

I can go on record here and say that no president in the 40 years has won the presidency as a liberal, except when the conservatives in power have screwed up -- which is the case in 2008. It was the case in 1976, and that debacle only lasted four years because Jimmy Carter drove an already bad economy into the ground.

Ronald Reagan had to come and fix it, which is what usually what happens. We have a problem caused by both republicans and democrats, people think government is the answer so they vote for a liberal, and then a real conservative has to come in and un-do the damage that government caused.

It is a fact: Conservatism wins elections. Liberalism loses elections. Clinton did not win because he ran as a liberal. No. He hid his liberalism and ran as a moderate democrat when he was running for office. Clinton basically found a way to neutralize the conservative voters -- the majority of America (In a recent Gallup poll, 75% noted they tend to be more conservative than liberal).

Think of it this way too. Even in the 2006 midterm election, democrats actually ran to the right of republicans, and that is why democrats won the House and Senate. You won't hear that in the media, but it's true. The media is mostly libearl, and the refuse to give any credit to conservatism, even when conservatism is what has won.

What you hear in the media is democrats won because Bush is an idiot (not in those exact words, but close.)

The only candidate in the past 30 years to run as a true conservative was Ronald Reagan, and he won in a landslide. And, no matter who wins this election, republicans pray that a true conservative comes out of the fray -- perhaps Sarah Palin.

So, all these people who say that conservatism is dead, you are only thinking wishfully. Conservatism is alive and well. Conservatism is what will ultimately fix all the problems that currently ail us -- as it always does.

The thing is it usually takes a while. For some reason in this country we have to try to do things that make us feel good -- liberalism, have those programs fail or backfire -- see the Great depression or our current economic crisis, for people to eventually see the light that liberalism is not the answer.

Now, before I have people saying to me: "Um, Obama is the most liberal person in the history of the U.S. to run for president and he is up in the polls over McCain."

Mind you that a)the conservatives really have nothing to get excited about other than to NOT vote for the most liberal candidate ever, and b) the republicans are perceived to be the ones responsible for the current crisis, which we all know is not true.

What you are also not told very often is that there is a difference between conservative and republican, and that I will address in my next post. John McCain is a republican first and conservative second. The ideal candidate would be a conservative first, republican second.

Yet, the media does blame the Bush administration for all that ails us, and way to many people believe everything the media says -- like independents. Besides, no matter who is the president, he always gets blamed for the economy regardless that he couldn't have done anything to fix it anyway.

Which brings me back to McCain. He could turn out to be a good conservative. He has run as a conservative republican. Still, he does not have the voice that Obama has. He does not run out there telling every person what they want to hear regardless of whether he can fulfill all these promises or not (Note: He said he will give 90% of us tax cuts even though 40% of us do not pay any taxes).

If we have learned nothing else from the McCain campaign, or from the Obama campaign for that matter, it is that conservatism is NOT dead. What conservatives need is a voice, a true leader.

And perhaps McCain has given us that leader. We'll have to wait and see.

Conservatism is alive and kicking at the republican base, and yearning for a voice.

A galloping media poll

Sure we know all these polls that show Obama ahead anywhere from 2-12 are completely unbiased, even though most of them were completed by media outlets that are official satelights of the Obama campaign.

What I am posting here are some of the questions on the latest Gallop daily tracking poll. Just thought you'd like to know what some of the most common questions are being asked.
-----------------------------------------------------

Please answer the following questions so we can get an understanding of how you and the rest of this nation is positioned for the upcoming election. This is meant to be an unbiased poll.

1. Do you plan on voting for the man who is the best candidate for the country or John McCain who would simply be an extension of George Bush.


2. By the way, do you agree that the War in Iraq is being run poorly?


3. Oh, and do you agree that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place since, after all, we never did find WOMD. Or do you support the neo-con war.


4. Which of the following do you plan to vote for? a) McCain/Palin b)Obama/Biden


5. Do you think Palin is cute but too inexperienced for the presidency?


6. Of course you agree that Obama has enough executive experience because he has been running his presidential campaign since he was elected to the Senate two years ago?


7. Do you agree that McCain is way too old to run this country?


8. Are you a democrat or a right wing conservative neo-con-pro-war-republican


9. Do you agree that raising taxes on corporations as Obama says he will do will not cause the economy to sputter, and that he is the right person for the job? Or, do you like McCain's plan of more of the same (think George Bush here).


10. Oh, and by the way, how likely is it that you will vote in 2008?

Again, this is an unbiased poll. A small sample of democrats, er, um, a representative sample of America will be surveyed to represent the whole of how America feels at this moment. Please give us your honest answers.

The Galloping Media Pollseters

(Note: We are in no way associated with the liberal press).

Media fails to educate on financial crisis

This is the year journalism died. All over the media is spending all day talking about the head of Iran, and refusing to tell Americans the truth about the fallout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It started way back during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter wanted to make it easier for poor people to get loans so they could afford to own a house, so he created regulations to make it so. Most banks didn't take this too seriously.

It wasn't until the Clinton administration that the Fed decided to pressure banks to give out these loans. "If you don't give loans to people who can't afford it, we are going to make your life a living hell."

So then all these people were put into homes that they knew they couldn't afford. And the result was the cost of houses skyrocketed, and thus the housing bubble.

Finally the day came when the bills were do, and all these people who shouldn't have been given loans in the first place were forced to give back their homes through foreclosure. And the housing bubble burst.

And then came the day that the banks collapsed because of of all the fraudulent loans, i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The Fed -- the very people who caused this crisis -- now thinks it can solve this crisis with more government and more regulations. It seems odd to me that the fed wants to solve a problem of too much regulation with even more regulations. It's like putting oil on a fire.

Instead of taking a problem that was caused by a socialistic problem and trying to solve it by Socializing the Financial system, why not take the opposite approach and allow the market to solve itself?

I say why not, because it was government intervention that ultimately turned the panic of 1929 into the great depression. As I reported before, all the recessions and depressions prior to the Great Depression were short lived. The reason was because prior to 1929, Washington believed it was best to allow the market to fix itself, and it always did fix itself.

Yet, because Washington does not learn from history, it is doomed to repeat it. So now we have the very same people who caused this problem trying to solve it.

Not only has the media NOT told you what I just wrote here, but they have not told you who is really at fault here. It is not George W. Bush, it is liberals. It's Chris Dodd. It's Barny Frank. It's Bill Clinton. It's Jimmy Carter.

Early on in the Bush Administration, it was in 2003 I believe, the White House Warned that a crisis was coming if Congress didn't' to something. Yet liberals in Congress balked.

Barny Frank said, in 2003 following the Bush warning, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people in my judgment exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."

But the media does not tell us this now. There is no analysis of the news in the media. They no longer do their job.

And that's why if we do not do our own investigating we will not learn the truth, particularly about the present financial crisis.

And that, my friends, is the thought of the day.

Oberman not even close in his prediction

Like many of my fellow bloggers who like to get a fair view of opinion and analysis from a variety of voices, I like to flip through the news channels, particularly after watching political events and speeches.

After John McCain's speech, I so happened to click over to MSNBC where the opinionated Kieth Oberman was talking. He said, "There is one thing I can tell you for sure about this speech, it will not come even remotely close to the 40 million that Obama received last week."

I paraphrased there, but I think I did him justice.

Well, McCain did get 40 million viewers. In my humble opinion, Mr. Oberman should heed the example of Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams and keep his opinion under wraps.

On a side note, I was surprised that MSNBC allowed Mr. Oberman to be the commentator during the political speeches given the fact he continually slams republicans.

It's fine for him to have an opinion, as even I want to hear his opinion, but he should have been on the program as a political analyst if he wanted to state his opinion. He should not have been the commentator.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons MSNBC is viewed as a liberal TV network, and why it trailed every other news network, including the three major networks, in the TV ratings department during all the major convention speeches.

No fair analysis of DNC in old media

I mentioned this in a few comments to other blogs, but I honestly think the democratic party couldn't have scheduled a worse time for the democratic national committee.

I say this because this is the last week of summer vacation for most kids, and moms and dads would much rather spend time with their children than listening to a bunch of bloviating and political pandering in the speeches at a political convention.

So, that in mind, I took a break this past week from politics and blogging. Not because I'm not an Obama fan, but because I have better things to do.

Today, however, it is time to break out of my week long slumber and read the transcripts of the Bill Clinton speech. I'm nerdy that way.

And sometime after he finishes his speech, I will read the Barack Obama speech when I have a slow time at work.

Or, perhaps if my patient's have the speech on when I am giving a treatment, I will catch some of it live, and get the reaction from all the millions of his supporters. I suppose getting the reaction is a good thing when analyzing.

I love analyzing political speeches. Like many of you guys, I am geeky in that way. I think I started doing this in the 1990s during Clinton's speeches because I thought the media didn't do of very good job of it.

I learned in journalism school that it was the job of the media to analyze, but good analysis we did not get (or no longer got, as my teacher would say).

When I was in RT school I had a room mate named Bill. He and I would sit and watch Clinton's speeches, and I would take notes. He made fun of me for this, but I would use these notes and jot down in the margins my analysis of what Bill Clinton said. Then my friend Bill and I would debate.

My friend Bill would set me in my place every time. He WAS a true, good debater. Or so I thought. When I would tell him how frivolous the idea of increasing taxes was, Bill would tell me that tax hikes were needed to raise money to help the poor.

Then, when I told him that the best way to raise money for the poor was to "A" Cut taxes, and "B" teach the poor how the rich got rich instead of teaching the poor how to be victims, he would get really mad at me and make ME feel all the idiot.

However, since then, I have learned politics Rule #1:

Politics Rule #1: If the person you are debating gets all upset and starts personally attacking you, then you win. If he gets mad, smile and walk away, because YOU are the winner.

I know that rule now like the back of my hand. And that's why I smile whenever someone bashes my head in during a good debate.

There was also something else that my friend used to say during our debates: "If you don't believe me, just read the newspaper."

I read the newspapers, and they usually did agree with my friend. But something is fishy about this, I thought. Why is it that everything I read agrees with my liberal friend Bill.

The media may not be wrong by some people's standards, but by mine they were not fair.

I was not far off base back then. While I KNEW that Conservative analysis was void in the media, I couldn't really put my finger on it. It was fishy, almost as though I knew I was right but could not find anyone else who agreed with me other than those in my circle who happened to share the same views as me.

Of course, then came Rush. Then came Fox News. Then came the Internet into my life, and basically in that order. Then came blogs. And now I can get plenty of both liberal and conservative analysis.

So now I do not have to listen to speeches at the DNC or RNC and do my own analysis. I simply go to the many places that do give fair analysis, because there are now many available -- like blogs.

I no longer limited to the evening news, the Detroit Free Press, and my local paper for news analysis.

Now of course many blogs participate in partisan pandering themselves, including this one at times, and that's fine too. But as this is the case, there are many blogs out there that provide fair and balanced analysis of the news.

And just for fun, and if I find time, I'm going to read it and analyze it myself. Because I can. I might give a fair and balanced analysis, and I might be partisan.

Most people simply don't have time to do their own analysis, so they rely on others. That is why it is so easy for liberal view to become popular, because people have no choice but to read the analysis provided by the old mainstream media.

ME: I'm still skeptical of the old mainstream media after they let me down when I was debating my good friend. And even when the old media does analyze, I don't trust them any further than I can spit.

Anyway, I'm back from my vacation.

It's obvious: Media, Europe in love with Obama

What's funny to me is this newspaper article I read today said that Obama's speech today in Germany was one of the most anticipated in U.S. History.

Is not this type of coverage a bit over the top? They -- the media -- seem to treat Obama like he is the second coming of Christ.

The media noted that flags were cut out of cardboard so the crowd had something to wave at Obama.

Of course, it would make sense that opinion of Obama in Germany, and the rest of the world as well -- including the radical Muslims -- would be high on Obama, considering his plans to calm down the Arrogant America. He has a vision of the New World Order.

Two-hundred thousand Europeans showed up to listen to Obama because they think he supports them in their view that America is to blame for much of what ails the world today.

Obama wants to decrease the military, decrease our military mite around the world, which would bode well for radical nations around the world who don't want America "bullying" them around, and other nations who don't want to see America "bullying" the rest of the world.

With a diminished American military, one with no defense weapons in space (which Obama pledges to stop), we won't be able to defend ourselves against a nuclear attack, making America more vulnerable.

However blind they are that a more vulnerable America makes it far easier for Iran and North Korea to get its way. Maybe even provides an opportunity for them to build up their nuclear programs (without the United States knowing about it.)

Obama wants to raise our taxes, both in the name of government programs intended to "help" the poor, but also in the name of global warming or climate change. Obama actually thinks he's doing something good by all of this, but other nations are eager to watch as all this government results in a sputtering American economy, which brings the "arrogant" America more on par with the rest of the world.

This is not necessarily my opinion, but the opinion I think a good portion of the rest of the world has toward America, and Obama. Not all of the rest of the world, but at least enough to garnish excitement about attending an Obama speech with as much "anticipation" as the Germans did for this speech.

And I don't know if the media is trying to pull one over on the American voter here, but I do know this: A large number of American voters know what the media is up to, as evidenced by a new Fox News Poll showing Obama has lost 2 points to McCain in the past week, and is now only up by 1 point.

They know that the American media will do whatever it takes to muster up sales, and right now Obama is good for sales far more than McCain, as evidenced by the one reporter available when McCain got off a plane the other day.

You'd think they'd pretend to be non-bias for one day and have at least 2 reporters on McCain. Or at least one magazine cover with McCain on it. When I went to the library the other day, Obama was on the cover of six magazines, McCain zero.

So, while McCain trudges forward, the media has turned a blind eye to him and is drumming up enthusiasm toward Obama, particularly now that the rest of the world is all hyped up about him. But an intelligent America is not buying into the hype, as polls show.

The neatest thing of all about the "anticipation" and "love" of the rest of the world for Barack Hussein Obama is: They don't get a vote.

Obama Gaffes not scrutinized by media

Republican presidential candidates of the past have been tarred an feathered by gaffes on the campaign trail. Remember Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato?

Even past democratic candidates have been doomed by gaffes. I'm sure you remember this one: "I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it."

While I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio on my way to pick up my daughter from gymnastics, a liberal called into the show to debate with Sean, and said, "You guys criticize Obama for what his pastor said, you can find nothing wrong with anything he has said."

Do you want to bet.

"But what about Barack Obama?" asked Michelle Malkin in a recent post at National
Review Online. "The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign." You can check her list of Obama gaffes by clicking here.

Here's a pithy review of the gaffes Malkin lists that came from the lips of Obama and were not scrutinized by the media:

1. America has 57 states (there are actually 50 states)


2. A tornado in Kansas killed 10,000 people. (Actually 12 were killed)


3. Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois (Illinois is actually closer)


4. Obama was born as a result of the March on Selma, which happened in 1965. (Obama was born in 1961)


5. Since translators are in Iraq, we can't use them in Afghanistan. (The people of Afghanistan speak a different language as the people of Iraq.)

Malkin describes his biggest gaffe as such: “Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to us — cluelessly arguing that 'tiny countries' with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

I think we can go beyond the gaffes to find dirt on Obama. Dirt many outlets of the media choose to ignore, supposedly (I'm assuming) because they love Obama and they want the country to love him too.

Hey, how about his gaffe:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

While his gaffes go un-scrutinized by the media, so do other questionable policies Obama states that he will implement.

He has said he wants to talk to Iran "with no pre-conditions." And he implied that"Ronald Reagan talked to the Soviet leaders during the Cold War.

True, but Reagan didn't talk to the Soviets without pre-conditions. He knew what he wanted to get out of the talks and do did the Soviet leader, or Reagan would not have gone.

Obama doesn't understand economics either. While historic economic trends show that the lowering the capital gains is the single best method of stimulating the economy, Obama proposes to raise this tax.

He also doesn't understand how capitalistic societies work. He said this recently:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll -- we'll be fine, don't worry about us. That's not leadership."

What's he implying here, that the world has limited resources. That if I get rich there's going to be a bunch of poor people who have no chance of getting out of poverty.

We became the greatest economy in the world because we are a capitalistic nation. It only makes sense that we use 25% of the worlds energy. We have most of the world technology, and most of the worlds economies stand on solid ground because of the U.S.

Thus, if the U.S. economy crashes because a person is in office who doesn't understand how capitalism works, or how the economy works, so will all these other nation's economies crash who depend on the U.S.

Again, Obama is just as prone to making gaffes as anyone, and he is also entitled to his opinions, but if he is not being scrutinized by the mainstream media, we expect McCain to get the same royal treatment.

Another optomistic economic spin by the Times

The New York Times must really be trying to shed the "bias" shadow, as it has released another article today about the economy, and instead of starting with evidence that the country is near or heading into a recession, it started with the good news first.

So here, in my investigation to show that the New York Times has a liberal slant, I'm almost tempted to say it doesn't exist. Still my sample is small, but I'm impressed at this point in time.

It always seems that in the past few election cycles when a republican is in office, the media tended to try to make the economy look worse. They can't really lie about the news, but they can shape their articles so that the worse news comes first and then, later in the story, get into the news that makes the economy look good. They shape the story this way because they know that most people, as I stated yesterday, read the first few paragraphs of a story and then move on.

In trying to think of a reason the NYTimes reporters would want to make the economy look good, if that is in actuality what they are doing, I'm now forced to wonder if maybe they think that Americans might not necessarily blame the republican president for the ailing economy but the democrats, who control both the House and the Senate, who do have the power to make some changes that would in effect benefit or hurt the economy.

One of the things we learn as journalists is that when we start our stories we start with the most important news, and in a reverse pyramid form, end the story with the least important. The purpose of this is because if someone only reads the first couple paragraphs, which happens most of the time, he will get the most important news. And, if something has to be cut to fit the story in the press, the editor simply starts cutting from the bottom up.

Thus is why it is impressive as the times article starts with the unfortunate note that 20,000 more workers lost their jobs in April, which is evidence the "economy is ensnared in a recession." But, it sets a more positive note in the next paragraph:

"But the size of the loss was significantly smaller than many analysts predicted, and the unemployment rate nudged down to 5 percent, sowing hopes that the economy may not suffer as severely as some have feared."

Then, as the Times did in yesterdays optimistic story about the economy, the reporter reiterates the "optimistic" economic picture with a quote:

“The good news is it strongly argues that this downturn will be mild and short lived,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “As long as businesses hold the line on their layoffs, the economy will weaken, but it won’t unravel.”

While this more optimistic trend is true, the Times EASILY could have started this story with more pessimistic news, which it got into as the article wore on, as it was noted later that the average weekly wages fell $3.55 to $602.56.

That, coupled with the fact that the number of people taking on a second job, are proof that inflation, rising food, and rising gas prices, plummeting real estate prices, and rising foreclosure rates, and "and tightening credit conditions as jittery banks hold on to their dollars," are forcing Americans to "feel the pinch."

This "feeling the pinch" is also evidenced by the rising number of people who are now working part time jobs, which is something I myself have been pondering.

Plus, the article could have started with the FACT that the unemployment rate does not necessarily represent the number of unemployed, as the number of people who have simply given up looking for work rose to 412,000.

Yet, while there was a ton of pessimistic news about the economy that would have allowed for this reporter to set a more pessimistic tone regarding the economy, the reporter was fair in his reporting once again today and reported the news in a positive way.

Thus, as the election dawns closer, this reporter sees no evidence yet of media bias, at least as it comes to the economy. Thus, once again, I am impressed.

The NY Times upbeat about economy today

Perhaps the NYTimes.com reporters read my last post, because there is a really cool article today, "Economic Clouds? Wall Street Sees Signs of Sunshine that was quite optimistic by Vikas

Bajaj, that is very optimistic about the economy.

For the record, I implied yesterday that by their post about the latest economic report, the Times seemed to make sure no reader saw anything optimistic about the economy (perhaps for political reasons).

This recent article about the economy has the exact opposite effect, as it makes the economy look good, making up for the last article. That is what you call fair and balanced reporting.

The article started like this:

"Despite a drumbeat of bad economic news, the stock market is up — almost 11 percent in the last few weeks. Junk bonds, those risky corporate I.O.U.’s, are rallying. The value of financial shares, bank loans, tricky credit derivatives — up, up, up.

"Many on Wall Street, the epicenter of the credit mess, seem to think that the worst is over. For the first time in months, analysts and executives sound upbeat again. Many of them see a broad, sustained recovery in both the economy and the financial markets coming in the second half of this year, a prediction some market strategists call hopeful at best."

This article made no attempt to make the economy look bad. I'm very impressed. It actually has a pumped up feel to it.

Non only is the market surging, the article notes, oil prices fell for the third day in a row and the dollar strengthened.

Some experts say this might be a sign of brighter things to come for the economy, as the reporter notes, "It is, of course, not uncommon for Wall Street to run ahead of the broader economy. Investors, after all, make money by anticipating the future. The job market, by contrast, improves more slowly than other aspects of the economy."

"But, "Bajaj continues, "specialists say the two sides will eventually converge. Either the markets will give up their recent gains or, if the optimists are right, the broader economy will show greater strength as tax rebate checks and lower interest rates stimulate the economy."

Now economic experts note that we are not "technically" in a recession after the economy grew at a meager 0.6% in the last period. However, economists contend that a recession is defined by two consecutive periods of economic decline, and that has not happened. So, technically, we are still not in a recession, and there is a possibility that there is hope the economy is improving.

However, we'll still have to be humble about these signs, as they could be premature as "foreclosures are climbing at a strong clip and the decline in home prices has picked up speed in recent months."

Either way, the Times has impressed me today by starting an article with the good news first, and putting the gloomy stuff at the end of the article. This is important, because most people read the first few paragraphs and move on to the next article.

Again, I'm very impressed. Perhaps the Times is making a gallant effort to improve its declining market share by no longer being bias. Then again, let's not get carried away.

The media can shape the economic mood

The way people perceive the news is often determined by how the news is reported. A perfect example of this was presented to me today as I was perusing the media outlets at my fingertips here on the Internet.

First I went to Breitbart.com and read one story about how the economy is bruised and battered, and "growing at just a 0.6 percent pace as housing and credit problems forced people and businesses alike to hunker down."

However, these statistics "did not meet what economists consider the classic definition of a recession, which is a retraction of the economy. This means that although the economy is stuck in a rut, it is still managing to grow, even if modestly."

Then they reiterated that there was hope with a quote:

"The economy is weak but not collapsing," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Bank of America's Investment Strategies Group. "A recession can't be ruled out, although the stars are not lined up at this point to definitively say one way or the other."

Not the best economic report ever, but it's still holding above water.

On the other hand, one clicks on over to the NYTimes.com, and one gets a different picture from the same economic report, as the report there starts this way:

"Consumer spending barely budged in March, the fourth lackluster month as Americans grappled with higher food and energy prices amid an economic downturn.

"Spending grew 0.1 percent in March when adjusted for inflation, after staying flat in February and recording a slight rise in January, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. At the end of last year, spending actually declined.

Then, to reiterate how bad the economy is, the Times reporter adds in a quote: "“What you’ve got here is a very dramatic consumer slowdown,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief United States economist at High Frequency Economics in London. “It’s much more severe than anything we saw in 2001,” he added, referring to the last recession.

Thus, while the Breibart.com post made me feel slightly hopeful that the economy is moving in an upward direction, barely, but still going in the right direction, the NYTimes article makes me feel grim about the economy, that there is little hope that we will avoid a recession.

Not only that, but the Brieibart article mentions that the economic figures do not meet the criteria for a recession in the first few paragraphs, while the word recession is not even mentioned in the NYTimes article until paragraph 13. Thus, the later reporter certainly didn't want you to get the idea that we are not in a recession, if you by chance didn't already think of it on your own.

Are we in a recession? Are we going to go into a recession? I don't know. I'm no economic expert. However, the reporter of the Times article wanted to make sure you did not get a glimmer of hope in reading his article, and the author of the Briebart article did.

Just another example of how a story is written can effect the mood of the person doing the reading, and perhaps even the confidence in the economy. If people aren't confident in the economy, they will hunker down and stop spending. When that happens, a recession is bound to happen.

Thus the media can effect the mood of the country.

Which is what liberals who hate George Bush and want to see a democrat win the office of the President in November want to happen. Conservatives want the opposite. Good journalists try to simply report the news, and how the news is perceived is representative of reality.

Now is this shoddy reporting by both media outlets? Was this done intentionally? Again I have no idea. More than likely, it was just human nature to spin the news so it represents that hidden agenda the reporter has pent up deep inside his head. Or perhaps its the respective media outlet catering to its audience.

All reporters are guilty of it to a certain extent I am sure. And this is a perfect example of why we need to make sure we get all our news from more than one source. Unfortunately, however, most of us do not -- we tend to get our news from the sources we agree with.

New Time mag cover epitome of elite media bias

Media bias? What Media Bias?

With that question in mind, I had to do a double take when I found out via the Business and Media Institute that for only the second time in 85 years Time magazine decided to forgo its traditional red border for green for its April 21 issue.

Not only that, but "Time took the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag and replaced the flag with a tree," according to "Iwo Jima Veterans Blast Time's 'Special Environmental Issue Cover" by Jeff Poor over at Businessandmedia.com.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, Time magazine's editors can do whatever they want on their cover, because we do have this thing called the freedom of speech in the country, but Time magazine is a member of the elite media, one of the elite outlets of the best reporting in journalism, and one of the most popular news media magazines with a goal of maintaining a well informed audience, and a denier of media bias.

In describing this cover, A "Time editor tells MSNBC 'there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change.'"

Veterans think this is an "absolute disgrace" to Marines who were Iwo Jima survivors, and I tend to agree. On the same note however, I can also tell you that this is not good journalsim. The purpose of journalism, as I reported in a previous post called journalism 101, is to report the news, not make the news. In this issue, Time magazine breaks one of the premire rules of good journalsim.

A time editor purported that " “[O]ne of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change." This is a fine quote if Time magazine were a liberal magazine or a conservative magazine like National Review, however it is not.

Time magazine is a place where people go to get their news and a good analysis of the news. This cover is the epitome of bad journalism and a quentissential example of media bias. They are bias in their attampt not to report the news, but to make and shape the news.

If Time magazine came out and said it was a liberal leaning magazine, this cover would be fine. But considering it claims not to be a source of good journalism, then the editors should portray all of the facts regarding global warming, both the pro and con, and let its readers decide, rather than trying to inculcate the idea that global warming is real, which is aweful journalism -- and bias, and not the way of maintaining a well informed audience.

Likewise, it Time magazine would have stuck to the basic rules of Journalism 101, American Veterans would not be upset right now. It's that simple.

A time editor, on MSNBC, defended the cover by stating, "O]ne of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change. It seems to me that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot of sense to them and a candidate who can actually bundle it up in some grand way and say, ‘Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that.’ I don't understand why they don’t do that.”

This editor misses the point. It's fine that he believe in global warming, and he might even be right about it, but there are other theories out there that need the same respect by an elite magazine that considers itself non-biased. By forcing it's values on its readers this way, the magazine is not being fair to its readers.

It does not matter if 80% of the people believe in global warming. It is not Time magazines job to cater to one segment of its audience no matter how large it is, or whether this segment is right or wrong -- unless the magazine changes its mission statement.

Bias? What bias?

New & Old media folks need to be open & honest

I now firmly believe that it is impossible for any media outlet to be unbiased. So, I think it's about time for all editors and journalists to come right out and admit the following:

"I am a human being, and I have an opinion. And, sometimes my opinion effects what I write. I don't mean to do it intentionally, but it just happens."

When I was in journalism school I was tought to get opinions from every angle possible, and to keep my opinion out of the story. However, I find this is not the case in many, not all, of the journalism pieces I read.

Few media outlets admit to being bias, however we know they are. For example, CNN tends to slant its news to the left, while Fox News tends to slant its news to the right.

A wise person once said, "Never get all your news from one source."

I think the reason this person said this was because different news sources approach the news from a different angle. Quite often, intentional or not, the most recent trend is to approach the news from either the liberal or conservative perspective (i.e. CNN and Fox News).

I have no problem with this. My only wish is that more anchors would come right out and tell us what their point of view is, just so we know. It's no big deal. I just want them to be honest.

Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs are the exception. They both are very open about what their opinion is. Both of them are the editorial pages for their respective media outlets.

Wolf Blitzer tries to be fair in his reporting, however he tends to lean liberal. Why can't he simply come out and say, "Hey, guys, I'm a liberal. However, I will do my best to portray the news as fairly as I can. However, I am human, and I might be prone to a slip up now and again."

I think people would respect him a whole lot more if he did that. The same is true for, say, Britt Hume of Fox News. I love to watch his round table discussions, but I am also aware that these discussion tends to lean conservative. And it's quite obvious that Hume is a conservative.

So, why doesn't he come right out and admit it. Let's just all be honest here.

When we pick up a magazine like National Review, there is no secret that the magazine is a conservative magazine. However, when we pick up a magazine like Time, we only learn through our readings that it tends to lean liberal, however it denies this truth.

Newsmax is conservative and so is the Drudge Report, no matter how many times they deny these truths. It's no big deal. Just like Newsweek and Time are liberal. They all may have one or two oposing columnists, but the basic overal lean of these magazines is obvious.

It's okay. Let's just be honest.

We are very much aware that the bottom line for these media outlets is not what they will tell us; it is not to do fair and honest reporting: it is to make a profit. That is the bottom line for any business, and journalism is not an exception.

That, folks, is why publishers, like those of the New York Times, do not want to stop their reporters from being bias in their writings, because they know they cater to a more liberal leaning audience.

I'm not saying there are no conservatives who read this paper, but many Conservatives have since departed the Times for more conservative outlets such as the Wall Street Journal. It's business as usual. It's fine.

When you have a business, it is your right to do with it whatever you want, so long as you make enough money to stay in business. If you want your media outlet to lean one way or the other that's quite all right, just be honest about it.

Journalism 101

According to public records of the Federal Election Commission, reporters give democrats money over republicans 9 to 1. This confirms polls that show that over 80% of journalists claim to be democrats.

This is no big deal if these journalists follow the guidelines of journalism they learned in journalism 101. But, the facts show that they do not.

As you probably well know, media headlines are often twisted so you, the reader, see only the story the way the reporter wants you to. That’s fine when you’re reading the editorial page, but not the front page.

Here’s a paragraph from a recent Reuters report:

“The White House said it was studying the proposal. Bush has sought to make permanent earlier tax cuts, while Democrats would like to let tax reductions for the wealthiest expire.”

Look, the statement, “tax reductions for the wealthiest,” is an editorial statement. It’s an opinion. Opinions belong on the editorial page, not in a news story.

Now, if this was a quote from someone, then it would be okay. However, if it was a quote, then the reporter would have to hunt down a person of the other position and get a quote from him or her too. This article did not have that.

The old media used to do this, but sometime after the late 1960s they forgot what they learned in Journalism 101: show both sides of the story, the reporter’s opinions do not belong in the story, contact at least 2 people who support and two people oppose, try to be fair to all political positions, and, on the editorial page, at least try to have people of all positions on staff.

I know this was taught in school because I have a degree in journalism and I was a journalist. I was there. I was part of it.

Fox News found a nice niche hear, and all they had to do was go back to the basics of journalism 101. And, while their ratings have gone through the roof, the old media are grasping at their elderly audience hoping to keep them from learning about the New Media.

Rush Limbaugh loves the old media’s bias; he thrives on it. In fact, he's made a living by it. So does Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and the entire Fox News Network.

The old media doesn’t tell us how many of our enemies have been killed. They don’t tell us how many of the people trying to kill our troops have been killed. They don’t tell us how many terrorist plots have been ended. Doing this would not move forward their agenda. This, however, is bad journalism.

They don’t tell us how many terrorist leaders have been killed or rendered useless because they have been on the run, nor do they tell us any of the good things that have come out of the War on Terror, such as the fact that 56 million people have been liberated. And they have done little if any reporting on a new study that shows the death toll in Iraq has diminished by 70% the past 3 months.

It's sad, but if it weren't for the new media, I would not know of these things. I listen to reporters claiming things like, "I wanted to make a difference." Here's a note to that reporter: it's not your job to make a difference, it's your job to report the news, and all of it.

They don’t tell us about all the children who are now going to school in third world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan instead of participating in terror training camps. They don’t tell us that the majority of explosions in Iraq are caused by terrorist thugs coming into Iraq from Syria and Iran, and instead tell us there is a Civil War going on in Iraq.

They tell us often about the poll results showing 80% of Iraqis not wanting to be occupied, but they don’t tell us that nobody would want to be occupied. What they also don’t tell us is that 80% of Iraqis, including the Iraqi government, doesn’t want us to leave either.

They are mum about polls showing 80% of Iraqis being excited to have their God given freedoms of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the new Constitution of Iraq, of which Iraqis voted for.

The New York Times recently reported that the U.S. was fighting in Iraq at the expense of fighting in Afghanistan, or hunting for Bin Laden. However, the same week this report came out, 125 Taliban were killed in Afghanistan. This was not even mentioned in America’s “Elite” newspaper.

The media doesn’t tell you this because they don’t want you to know anything good is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else the U.S. is fighting the War on Terror. Or, at least that’s what it looks like to people like me.

Who cares that most journalists are democrats, so long as they report the news as they were educated in journalism 101. Hey, all you folks at the Times, pull out that old Journalism 101 book, blow off the dust.