Tag Archives: leftwing bias

The media’s fraud and dishonest bias documented

Working for the Democratic Party: A detailed list of documented cases since 1992 where mainstream media sources were caught deliberately falsifying facts in order to slander conservatives or to promote the leftwing agenda.

None of these 48 examples are opinion pieces. In every case, false information or opinions were reported as facts, only to be found to be fabricated or completely counter to the facts as later documented. And as the author notes, the number of these faked stories has increased in recent years, partly because of the existence of alternative news sources on the web which point them out, but mostly because the mainstream media has become more blatantly partisan and dishonest in recent years.

Celebrating the death of the mainstream media

The rage builds.

[M]embers of the mainstream media are presumptively hacks, and the pain and misery they endure as their organizations convulse and die should inspire laughter and joy. Sure, there are honest reporters out there, but that’s only a fluke of statistics. There have to be some, if only because of the random vagaries of chance. They can get real jobs with the new media. But in general, MSM members’ pain is our gain.

Remember, they hate us. Hate us. They don’t merely not care about us. They don’t simply misunderstand us. They hate what we think. They hate how we live. They hate what we believe. They hate us.

And it shouldn’t come as a shock if we hate them right back. We normals have already started an unofficial, uncoordinated boycott of the mainstream media.

Read it all, and remind yourself that ABC News considers it perfectly acceptable for their lead anchor to contribute big bucks to the Democratic Party. This is also the same network that is working hand-in-glove with the communist dictatorship in Cuba to spread their propaganda.

The liberal bias of pollsters

In a strained attempt to explain the failure of pollsters to predict the election results yesterday in Great Britain, pollsters and pundits seem unable to see the elephant in the room that explains their problems.

And what is that elephant? Take a look at this list of bad polling predictions provided by Nate Silver, the mainstream media’s big polling guru because he correctly predicted both Obama victories:

  • The final polls showed a close result in the Scottish independence referendum, with the “no” side projected to win by just 2 to 3 percentage points. In fact, “no” won by almost 11 percentage points.
  • Although polls correctly implied that Republicans were favored to win the Senate in the 2014 U.S. midterms, they nevertheless significantlyunderestimated the GOP’s performance. Republicans’ margins over Democrats were about 4 points better than the polls in the average Senate race.
  • Pre-election polls badly underestimated Likud’s performance in the Israeli legislative elections earlier this year, projecting the party to about 22 seats in the Knesset when it in fact won 30. (Exit polls on election night weren’t very good either.)

Does anyone notice a trend? I could also reference other elections that pollsters badly predicted, such as the Sandinista defeat in Nicaragua in 1994, the Republican victory in 1994, Bush’s victory over Kerry in 2004 and practically every vote for or against the European Union. And there are others. For a bunch of so-called intellectuals who claim to be experts in predicting human behavior, they seem very oblivious to the obvious.
» Read more

The skewed view of American inside the progressive bubble

Link here. The author captures well the cultural and intellectual chasm that exists between the modern American elite community, mostly leftwing, and the rest of American society. Sadly, that chasm is very clearly demonstrated by how most reporters are covering the emerging Presidential campaign. Read it and note the differences in how they approach both sides: They greet the Republicans with skepticism and scorn. They have private off-the-record dinners with Hillary Clinton.

The left wing pundit press makes fools of themselves

Link here. Be sure to watch the video and then read the article. As the author notes quite correctly,

Every one of these “pundits” have spent the last six years extolling the virtues of President Obama’s brilliant foreign policy. Every single one of these panelists have written columns, given opinion, and appeared on TV shows telling the consuming sheeple how brilliant President Obama was. Now they sit around presenting themselves as some form of disconnected gallery observers talking about how the consequences of those same policies they exalted are abject failures.

Insufferable does not begin to explain the level of hypocrisy within the U.S. Obama Praetorian guard media.

I must also note that this video clip does a great job of revealing how the entire panel on Face the Nation are all supporters of Obama and the Democrats. Repeatedly, as they described the President’s string of failures in foreign policy, they were forced to note that it was Obama’s “critics” who were right about every issue, “critics” that happen also to not be present on this Face the Nation panel. So, who are these mysterious “critics” that none of these pundits can name? They are conservatives, including Republicans, journalists, and tea party leaders, none of whom Face the Nation thought worthy of including on its panel.

This shows us again how completely worthless it is to depend on television for intelligent and objective reporting and analysis of the news. Mainstream television is working for the Democratic Party. Know that when you watch it.

The media’s ten worst predictions for 2013.

The media’s ten worst predictions for 2013.

Most of these predictions involved major issues — Obamacare, climate change, the federal budget. In every case, the media either was either starkly wrong, badly misinformed about stuff they should be experts at, or participated in political lies to prop up their partners on the left. Thus, this list of news sources is a good guide for the news sources no one should rely on for information.

Not surprisingly, the list includes bad reporting from the news divisions of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Interestingly, the one media cable news outlet not mentioned at all in this list is Fox. It appears that this news outlet avoided making any of these foolish predictions, and thus avoided looking like a fool.

Update: Just to confirm the above conclusions: CNN’s top five credibility catastrophes in 2013.

Alan Grayson returns to Congress and immediately calls Republicans terrorists.

Leftwing civility: Democrat Alan Grayson returns to Congress and immediately calls Republicans terrorists.

That Democratic voters were willing to re-elect this vicious hateful guy back into Congress is proof to me that these voters really have no good will, are eager to demonize the opposition, and would possibly even approve violence against that opposition to achieve their ends. (Among Grayson’s many offensive acts, he once appeared uninvited at an opponent’s rally and refused to shut up, closing the entire event down. I just can’t find the link at this moment.)

“Bias” is no longer a suitable description of the character of the media establishment. “Partisan toadies” may be a better one.

“‘Bias’ is no longer a suitable description of the character of the media establishment. ‘Partisan toadies’ may be a better one.”

“Brainless fools” is another term I like. Also “Pravda.” “Irresponsible partisan hacks” also comes to mind. Consider this:
» Read more

NBC has been caught again, for the third time this year, of selectively editing news footage to create a false scenario.

NBC has been caught again, for the third time this year, of selectively editing news footage to create a false scenario.

In all three cases the false scenario aided Democratic leftwing politics.

I mention this story only to emphasis how completely unreliable NBC is as a source of news information. Sadly, none of the other media networks are much better.

The National Academy holds a panel of past and present presidential science advisers, and invites only Democrats.

The National Academy holds a panel of past and present presidential science advisers, and invites only Democrats.

It just wouldn’t be right to allow an alternative perspective into the discussion, would it?