Media Roundup: Press Give Cursory Knock on Obama's 'View' Appearance
Because the corrupt media is so breathtakingly corrupt in its push to reelect a failed president, Big Journalism needs a running live blog. Please help us in our quest to capture the breadth and scope of this corruption by forwarding your tips to email@example.com or Twitter me @NolteNC.
Newest posts are at the top.
When's the Last Time the Corrupt Politico Launched an Anti-Obama Narrative -- If Ever?
With nothing to beat Romney senseless with these past few days, the corrupt Politico has been pretty quiet hasn't it?
This has to be hard on a hopelessly dishonest news outlet that prides itself on driving the narrative.
But if you notice, they only drive the narrative with anti-GOP hits. For the life of me, I can't remember Politico ever dropping a story critical of Obama that drove a damn thing, much less the narrative.
Telling, isn't it? You know, that the corrupt Politico would rather not matter in the news cycle if the alternative means telling stories that will hurt their precious Obama. Think about all that's going in this Administration that ecould make news with some digging: the Libya cover up, the Fast and Furious fallout, the economy, and tracking the stimulus money... And on and on...
But Politico refuses to do it because they are nothing more than a bunch of liars and shills.
Politico is the worst. All I ask of God is to let me live long enough to spit on their rancid, poisonous, un-American ashes.
Liars and shills.
Shills and liars.
CNN's Jim Acosta Still Taunting Romney With the '47 Percent' Comment
If you're a reporter given the opportunity to interview Mitt Romney for a few minutes 42 days out from the election, would you ask a question he's already answered a dozen times?
Well, CNN's Jim Acosta did. Yep, not because he expected a different answer and only because he wants to taunt Romney and give the narative more life, Acosta used a rare one-on-one interview opportunity to ask Romney if he would represent the 47 percent as president.
With everything going on in the world, Acosta wasn't trying to inform the public. He just doesn't want to let this piece of Obama-gold go.
Fact-Checkers Pretty Much Destroyed Themselves This Year - Yippee!
Regardless of how the election turns out, one piece of good news for Republicans is that the noxious agenda journalism known as "fact-checking" is over -- suicide by shilling.
Oh sure, the liars and charlatans at PolitiFact still toil away and Glenn Kessler, that left-wing hack at the Washington Post, still has a job. But the impact is dead and gone. It's been a month or so since I've seen any media outlet cite a new "fact: from a fact-checker to back a claim or criticize a candidate.
Without impact, these fact-checkers are nothing more than left-wing, mainstream media scribblers just like the rest of them.
Buh-bye you lying losers.
Romney's Had Two Very Good Days, Obama Not So Good
Romney's on the stump right now in Ohio and he looks and sound great. In fact, since his Univision appearance last week, other than the Sunday shows still obsessing over the 47 percent video, Romney's looked and sounded great for a few days now.
Media-wise, he's also had a couple of good days. The corrupt media is attempting to beat him senseless with their insanely skewed polls, but the GOP standard-bearer is looking energized and commanding. His message is also starting to crystallize into a narrative -- which is crucial if he's going to have any chance in November.
Obama, on the other hand, has had a rough few days. His Univision and "60 Minutes" appearances gave the Romney campaign plenty to work with, and while I don't think it's going to penetrate, the media has at least criticized the president for choosing an appearance on "The View" over bilateral meetings with foreign leaders in town for the United Nations.
Prior to this week, during the media barrage he's faced over the hidden video and his criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology, Romney was looking weak and defensive -- and I don't mean through the media filter. He just didn't look poised in he public appearances, which is absolute death for a candidate.
Thankfully, Romney appears to have regained his composure and now we have to hope he can build on these last couple of days and start building a rationale for a Romney presidency that appeals to voters. Regardless of what you;re hearing from the media, there's still plenty of time to do that.
Why Poll Defenders Like Wapo's Chris Cillizza Make A Lot Less Sense Than Poll Skeptics
In today's Washington Post, Chris Cillizza wrote a lengthy piece defending polls that skew towards Democrat with the following reasoning:
The problem with that argument? It’s based on limited information and a series of false assumptions none bigger than that because the country has been virtually evenly divided on partisan lines for the past decade or so that the party identification question should result in something close to a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans. That’s not right.
Basically, what Cillizza does here is to take our argument to an extreme so he can debate the extreme. Because I don't know of anyone who's demanding D+0 polling.
But look at the logic behind what he's defending. Cillizza is defending national poll after poll after poll with a skew that says Democrat turnout in 2012 will beat the D+7 turnout Obama enjoyed during the perfect storm year of 2008.
Even more absurd is Cillizza defending polls coming out of swing states such as VA, OH, and FL -- swing states with recent (2004 and 2008) partisan splits much closer to even -- with skews as high as D+10.
In other words, Cillizza and others wrist-flicking poll critics are taking a position that says an incumbent president struggling with a bad economy, the unpopular ObamaCare, and filling campaign venues, will somehow INCREASE his 2008 turnout advantage in 2012.
So who's dealing with the real logic problem here? Those of us who think D+3 or +4 is a pretty reasonable sample or those like Cillizza who believe Obama's 2012 is going to be better than his 2008?
Furthermore, any number I've seen looking at party trends shows that it's Republicans increasing their ID this year.
So if Cillizza wants to convince us these polls are correct, first he has to convince us Obama can pull off a 2012 that looks better than 2008.
I'm all ears.
And the Pollsters Excuse For D+10 Polls Coming Out of R+1 States Is....
"There are more people who want to identify with the Democratic Party right now than the Republican Party[.]"
This per The National Journal.
So we're supposed to believe that R+1 Ohio is now a D+10? And that Rasmussen and Gallup are insane?
We're supposed to believe that with his record, Obama is more popular now than he was in 2008?
Sorry, not buying it. Right now we are seeing pollsters giving the media what it wants in order to get media attention.
As November looms, for credibility sake, we will see the polls reflect reality again. But not before the corrupt media has had months to try and disqualify Romney as an incompetent who can't even run a campaign.
Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is just as skeptical:
The pollsters claim that they’re seeing a big shift towards identification with the Democratic Party. If so, then Gallup and Rasmussen have both missed it. Both organizations routinely do general-population polling for partisan identification. In fact, the latest state-by-state polling from Gallup (August 2012) shows that the shift has gone the other way[.]
Pollsters weight for many things but seem to think party ID is sacrosanct and shouldn't be touched.
This simply doesn't compute.
Obama Faces Media Criticism Over Refusal To Meet With Foreign Leaders. But So What?
It's great to see Obama taking a few hits for choosing "The View" over a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and other foreign leaders this week. But does anyone really think this is going to hurt Obama with voters; that voters care at all about who Obama does and doesn't visit?
We've pretty much lost Egypt as an ally and the White House spent 10 days lying to us about what happened in Libya and the security failures. But instead of digging into these failures and scandals, the media chooses a pretty safe narrative to attack Obama with that in turn allows them to say, "Hey, we criticized Obama!"
I could be wrong about this. The Romney campaign has been pushing this narrative pretty hard, but where's the over-arching insight into what Obama is really doing?
What Obama's doing is everything he can to downplay his foreign policy failures -- to "bump in the road" the fatal collapse of his Middle East policy of disengagement and the media is letting him even as they tsk-tsk his refusal to meet with foreign leaders this week.
The calmer Obama looks as the Middle East burns around him, the less dramatic his failures look. This is a head fake on 'No-Drama Obama's' part, where he's putting what's good for his campaign above what's best for the world and our country.
This is what the media should be talking about.
NBC's Chuck Todd Blames Elizabeth Warren's Woes on Sexism and Nasty Campaign
It's good to know NBC's Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, hasn't decided to only shame himself shilling for Obama. He's also selling his journalistic soul over the Senate races.
On his "Daily Rundown," Todd refused to discuss Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's scandals involving her claim of being part American Indian or the new scandal involving her law license. Instead, Todd and his "balanced" left-wing panel simply wrote the whole thing off as a race that's gotten "nasty" and sexism towards women in the liberal state of MA.
Romney's Clinton Global Initiative Speech Gets High Marks From CNN
GOP nominee Mitt Romney just delivered a superb and very well-received speech at the Clinton Global Initiative conference this morning and both Carol Costello and Jim Acosta of CNN gave him high marks.
The speech was good inasmuch as Romney offered what might have been the most detailed vision of what a Romney administration might look like with respect to the use of foreign aid. Romney also presented a philosophical vision of his governing style.
Best of all, Romney promised that there would be more of this to come.
NRO's Mona Charen Rips 'Most Corrupt' Press Coverage in History
Ms. Charen is one of my early influences; someone who sparked my desire to write about politics. I even sent her a fan letter about twenty years ago. Here she is today:
Mitt Romney is facing perhaps the most corrupt and tendentious coverage in presidential history, as members of the fourth estate eschew any semblance of integrity in their attempt to skew interpretations in favor of their pinup, Mr. Obama.
Like I've said before, regardless of how the election turns out, something important that might come out of 2012 is the conservative movement waking up to the fact that the media isn't bubbled or out-of-touch, but rather an institution that is wholly-owned by the Democratic Party and corrupt to its core.
That's step one.
Step two is what are they going to do about it?
Story ObamaMedia Will Ignore: Egypt Describes U.S. Relationship as Somewhere Between Friend and Enemy
It's bad enough that Obama's refusal to get his hands dirty in Egypt resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood becoming the ruling party. Egypt was our biggest ally in the region and a close one.
What's truly tragic, though, is what this might mean for Israel.
But the media will ignore this breathtaking change of events because for the next 42 days the narrative must remain: Obama can do nothing wrong and Romney can do nothing right.
The media is determined to disqualify Romney by making him look incompetent while Obama looks cool and in charge. And covering up the complete dissolution of Obama's Middle East policy is one way they are going about this.
Just another bump in the road, baby. So don't be alarmed. No biggie. Whatevs.
Both CNN and MSNBC Cover Romney Speech at Clinton Initiative
Former President Bill Clinton offered a very gracious introduction to Romney. Romney then started his speech with:
If there is one thing we’ve learned in this election season, a few words from Bill Clinton can do a man a lot of good.
Romney is talking free enterprise and charity. Thus far, he's giving a very good speech.
No, Joe Scarborough, Wrong Again. This Is What We're Criticizing You For...
Last hour on "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough said something to the effect of:
Romney sycophants criticized me last week for criticizing Romney jumping the gun on his Libya criticism, but let's talk about Obama's gaffes Chuck Todd!
No one criticized Scarborough for criticizing Romney. We've all been critical of Romney at one point or another. But Scarborough's so lost, he can't even be honest with himself.
What we we are critical of, is Scarborough using his own show to aid and abet a 20 day anti-Romney rampage that perfectly fit the MSNBC/MSM/White House narrative over Romney's Nothingburgers.
What we are critical of is the fact that while the White House lied and covered up security lapses in Libya, the quisling Scarborough was on the set of his own show chuckling and guffawing it up with the left-wing media as they attempted to cover up a brewing White house scandal by focusing all their fire on Romney.
What we are critical of is that Scarborough's own show is absolutely no different than any other on MSNBC.
What we are critical of is that all you have to do is watch Scarborough's show to know that he finds his place as a backslapper among Mark Halperin's "Gang of 500" a higher priority than the truth or even the fate of his own country.
What we are critical of is that Scarborough sold his Republican soul for acceptance amongst America's arch-enemies, millions of dollars, and "Vanity" Fair covers that a Gingrich-era Scarborough probably would've vomited over.
What we are critical of is that the media uses Republican criticism of Romney to extend these deadly narratives and it's always obvious by the wide smile on his chubby face that Scarborough just loves to be used.
This is a man with his own influential morning show who doesn't even have the sand to use it in the waning days of a crucial election to fight what he knows is an absolutely corrupt media narrative. Pathetic.
Oh, and then on top of all this -- Scarborough poses as superior to the rest of us.