Why did the media chicken cross the road? Because it heard there was dirt on Newt to scratch on the other side.
If Gingrich was the big winner in South Carolina, the mainstream media was the big loser. At the Thursday evening debate, there were only two standing ovations – both for the ex-Speaker when he went after CNN moderator John King. BTW, isn’t CNN hosting a Republican debate a bit like having a debate for Prime Minister of Israel sponsored by Hamas and Hezbollah?
King started the evening by asking Gingrich if he’d like to “respond to” the allegations of his second wife, broadcast in an ABC interview that evening, that Newt had asked her for an “open marriage.” Incensed, the candidate shot back: “I think the destructive, vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern the country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate with a topic like that.”
Advertisement - story continues below
Makes it harder – for conservatives. ABC’s decision to go with the allegations of a bitter ex-spouse (along with its refusal to consider countervailing evidence) 48 hours before the polls opened in South Carolina, shows just how destructive and vicious big media intends to be in this crucial election. Anyone who thinks the timing of ABC’s broadcast is coincidental probably believes the Easter Bunny won Mitt Romney over to the pro-life cause, during a blizzard on the Fourth of July..
What happened to the media’s battle cry during the Clinton impeachment, “It’s just about sex” … plus perjury? Then, we weren’t supposed to care about what consenting adults did in the privacy of the Oval Office – even when one of them was a married president and the other an intern half his age. The MSM made us feel like a bunch of puritanical inquisitors peeking under DNA-stained skirts. Now, when it’s a highly suspect charge against a conservative that’s totally unsupported – well, inquiring minds want to know.
It was the media’s second attempt in a week to sandbag the Speaker. In the Monday evening debate, FOX’s Juan Williams asked Gingrich if he didn’t think his comments that inner-city kids needed a work ethic, combined with his assertion that Obama is “The Food Stamp President,” “belittle the poor and racial minorities.” If you can’t call someone a racist, say he’s insensitive to minorities or that his comments hurt their feelings. The audience booed Williams – demonstrating how insensitive they are to media bias.
Sadly, Black kids are primarily raised by women. In such single-parent homes, the work ethic is often absent. In 2010, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African Americans was 72%. Partially as a result, in August 2010, the Black unemployment rate was 16.7%, more that double that among whites. The number of food-stamp recipients (a majority white) has risen from a high of 28.2 million under George W. Bush to 44.7 million under Barack Obama (also in August 2011). But, because Obama is a man of mixed race, to recognize reality is bigoted, hateful and belittles the poor and racial minorities.
Advertisement - story continues below
While the MSM broadcast division was pummeling Newt, the print battalion was also arrayed on the soon-to-be bloody field of battle. The cover story in the January 23rd Newsweek rhetorically asked: “Why are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” – not to mention greedy, fanatical and dismissive of the poor and racial minorities.
Andrew Sullivan explained that, drooling idiots that we are, Obama’s critics don’t understand that “by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist” the president “demonstrates that they are the source of the problem: then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider.” No, honestly, that’s what he wrote. Please stop laughing so I can continue.
The man who worships at the shrine of Saul Alinsky – and once said America-hater Jeremiah Wright was a profound influence on his thinking – champions a “moderate liberalism.” The president who once told Republicans to shut up and “sit in the back” of the car, and now says he’ll ignore Congress and the Constitution and rule by executive order, has “extended a hand to his opponents.” The man who increased the national debt by more than 50% in three years, who nationalized GM, who’s poured billions in bailout money into companies owned by his cronies, who killed the Keystone pipeline to appease his radical enviro followers, who considers it a heroic achievement when unemployment dips slightly below 9%, isn’t the problem. It’s his dumb critics – stupid.
Newsweek is famous for bottom-feeder covers. Last August, it ran a photo of Michele Bachmann (labeled “The Queen of Rage”) that made the Minnesota Congresswoman look like the Zombie Farmer’s Daughter. Even The Washington Post noted the bias.
Advertisement - story continues below
Newsweek’s editors have no idea why the publication went from magazine-size to a hefty pamphlet in a few years. In November 2008, the average issue was 124-pages, with 73 pages of editorial content. In the February 21, 2011 issue, the weekly views magazine weighed in at a svelte 48 pages – only 38 of which are editorial content. Still, Newsweek rarely misses an opportunity to spit in the face of Middle America. Too bad Obama’s critics can’t be as brilliant as Newsweek’s editors.
Not to be outdone, last December, Time (the DNC’s other house organ) named “The Protester” its 2011 “Person of the Year.”
The article paid homage to protesters throughout the ages: “In the 1960s in America they marched for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War (and gave us boat people and killing fields), in the 1970s, they rose up in Iran (and installed a lunatic regime that today threatens nuclear annihilation)… in the ‘80s, they spoke out against nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Europe (but not against nukes in the Soviet Union), against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (but not against Palestinian terrorism or Islam’s rhetoric of genocide)” … and so on.
And today, their gift to humanity is the so-called Arab Spring – paving the way for Muslim Brotherhood takeovers in Egypt and Libya – and the Occupy Wall Street movement (the Obama jugend) laying the blame for our economic woes at the door of stockbrokers, hedge-fund managers – and Jews.
Advertisement - story continues below
Compare the media’s treatment of the Tea Parties and OWS. The Tea Parties obtained permits and rallied for a few hours. The OWS rabble squatted for weeks on end. Tea Party activists picked up after themselves. The occupiers created squalor and sanitary conditions worthy of the Third World. Yet, in the media’s eyes, OWS are Jeffersonian idealists, while the Tea Partiers are a crypto-fascist lynch mob.
When a black Congressman claimed that prior to the House vote on ObamaCare, Tea Party demonstrators on Capitol Hill shouted the N-word 15 times at members of the Black Congressional Caucus, the MSM was all over it. (Was it true the average Tea Partier wore a white sheet under his street clothes? And are they still stringing up uppity Congressmen?)
Big Journalism’s Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who could provide a video of the alleged hate-fest. It’s going on two years later, and there are still no takers,
Try Googling Occupy Wall Street and anti-Semitism and see what comes up on YouTube – sneering OWS activists calling elderly Jewish counter-protesters “Hyman” and creeps carrying signs about “Jewish Zionist bankers” and the “Jew Federal Reserve System.”
And the MSM couldn’t care less. In the October 11, 2011 Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin asked the musical question: “Occupy Wall Street: Does anyone care about the anti-Semitism?” Anyone in the establishment media? That would be no and no.
Rubin quotes the publication Israel Today, which discloses :“In Los Angeles, California, protester Patricia McAllister, who identified herself as an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District … had this to say: ‘I think the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve… they need to be run out of this country’” – as the first step toward a Final Solution to the Jewish banker problem? (A video of McAllister’ Elders-of-Zion mutterings is also available on YouTube.)
The American Communist and American Nazi Parties were united in their support for OWS. Rocky Suhayda, fuhrer of the home-grown Hitlerites, charged: “Who hold the wealth and power in this country? The Judo-Capitalists. Who therefore is the #1 enemy who makes this filth happen? The Judeo-Capitalists.” Rocky forgot to mention the ritual slaughter of Christian children as leaven to make interest rates rise.
Unlike charges of racism against the Tea Parties, which they eagerly pursued, the MSM was totally uninterested in substantiated charges of anti-Semitism against Occupy Wall Street. All movements are equal – but some are more equal than others.
The public is wise to media manipulation. In a September 2011 Gallup survey, 55% said they have “little or no trust in the media,” compared to the 44% of Americans who have a “great deal” to a “fair amount” of trust in the Fourth Estate. (This is the reverse of a similar Gallup poll taken in 1999, when 55% trusted the media and 44% didn’t.) In the 2011 poll, of the 60% who believe the media is biased, 47% say they’re too liberal, compared to the 13% who live on a planet in a distant galaxy, and, consequently, think the media are too conservative.
In a just-released Gallup survey of “Honesty/Ethics in Professions,” high marks went to nurses (84% positive), physicians (70%), police officers (54%) and clergy (52% – even after the clerical abuse scandals). By comparison, only 26% of the public think journalists are honest and ethical. On the plus side, reporters and editors were ranked above real estate agents (in whom 20% have confidence), lawyers (19%), telemarketers, car salesmen and members of Congress (8%, 7% and 7% respectively). Fortunately for the Fourth Estate, serial killers and child-molesters weren’t included on the list.
Media bias of the past will be nothing next to what we can expect in the most consequential election in our lifetimes. What happened in South Carolina last week will be like kisses from your high school sweetheart compared to the torrent of lies, innuendo, smears, distortions and manipulation the MSM will unleash to secure the reelection of the greatest president who simply ever was.
At the 1964 GOP Nominating Convention at the Cow Palace in San Francisco, at one point, Goldwater delegates shook their fists at the press box. Gingrich’s two standing ovations at Thursday evening’s debate was a reprise of that glorious moment. We know who the enemy is. How could we not, when they fly their colors so openly on the masthead?
This article first appeared at Grasstopsusa.com and is republished here with their permission.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.