MRC & Telling it like it is

Media Research Center. America’s Media Watchdog
When it comes to elections, the media are “fair weather fans.” When their favorite team (Democrats) are winning or favored, they can’t stop talking about the elections. They can barely contain their excitement.

But when things don’t look so good for their team, they’d rather talk about other things.

To prove this point, the MRC’s Kyle Drennen and Rich Noyes analyzed every election story on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through October 20 in both 2006 (George W. Bush’s second term) and 2014. (23 million people still watch network evening news – far more than cable news.)

What they found was amazing.

When Democrats were feeling good about their election prospects eight years ago, the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC’s World News aired a combined 159 campaign stories (91 full reports and another 68 stories that mentioned the campaign). But during the same time period this year, those same newscasts have offered a paltry 25 stories (16 full reports and 9 mentions), a six-to-one disparity.
ABC’s World News Tonight hasn’t mentioned the upcoming elections a single time since September 1!

Please take a minute to share this report with your friends and family. We know you have friends who don’t believe the media are biased. Send this to them and see what they say. Put it up on your Facebook page if you have one.

It would be easy to blame the nearly non-existent election coverage on the Ebola breakout, but the first U.S. case of Ebola wasn’t diagnosed until September 30.

And there were plenty of other news stories to cover in 2006, too – like the war in Iraq and Korea’s first atomic test – but they found room for 159 election reports.

It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here.

We hope you appreciate the work our analysts at the Media Research Center do to expose liberal media bias like this. Now we’re counting on you to help us spread the word!

You’re going to hear about this study a lot in the coming days – on TV, on talk radio, and on the Internet. Be the first to share it with your circle of conservative friends and help us spread the word. While you’re at it, please ask them to sign out “Tell the Truth” petition.

Thank you for all you do to help the MRC carry out its mission as America’s Media Watchdog!

Sincerely,
The MRC Action Team

Media Research Center
1900 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 600
Reston, VA 20191

Unsubscribe | Update Preferences

Tingle Matthews: Obama’s Rating Could Fall To 20s

The twitching, tingling Chris Matthews has looked up from his Obama reverie … finally found some “sense,” in his change purse of awe for the emperor with no clothes and zero credibility.

“If you can hit Obama on character,” he said, “you can take that 40 percent, which is already eroding, down to about 20.” Obama’s approval numbers are closely tracking those of his wildly unpopular predecessor, George W. Bush. Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro. Related articles

Daniel Garza: My American Experience

Mr. Garza is the executive director of The Libre Initiative which is a Conservative Hispanic  advocacy group.  He served on President George W. Bush’s cabinet.

The following short video tells of some of Mr. Garza’s and his family’s experience as immigrants from Mexico.

My American Experience

The Libre Initiative

The Latest From The Libre Initiative

Here’s the latest from The Libre Initiative, the Conservative Hispanic Organization making a splash across the nation.

The Latest From The Libre Initiative

English: President George W. Bush signs Execut...

English: President George W. Bush signs Executive Order 13230, creating his Presidential Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans and directing the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans to provide staffing and support. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Clowning Around: Dub’a At Fault Again?

After the clowns fall all around, the clean-up crew comes in and tries to mitigate the damage caused by ignorant and unthinking managers and employees.  Not satisfied with a chance to “man-up,” they look around for a way to shift the blame.  More on that later; for now, let’s look at the circus the GSA became back in 2010 and ask why we are just finding out about the extreme waste of our money — some of which involves paying bonuses to the boneheads (including managers) who planned the extravaganza of fools:

Awarding bonuses for wasting taxpayer dollars?

That appears to be incentive offered by the federal agency under fire for spending lavishly on a 2010 conference held near Las Vegas. The latest details from an inspector general report on the conference reveal 50 employees were given cash awards of $500 and $1,000 for their work arranging the now-infamous conference.

“It would also appear that a number of GSA bureaucrats who helped arrange the Las Vegas junket were handed cash bonuses for their work in wasting the better part of a million dollars,” Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said Tuesday.

It looks as though, there is coöperation across party lines to get all the ducks in a row as it applies to the guilty parties and the amount of taxpayer money wasted on this party, by the party in charge, i.e. the Democratic party administration of Barack Obama:

Rep. Mica also revealed Tuesday that one high-ranking official spent an extra night in Vegas at taxpayer expense, even though the conference was already over.

Calling the new revelation the “icing on the cake,” Mica said the official paid only $93 for a fourth night at the Vegas suite, which costs more than $1,000 a night.

The rest of the cost of the room “was apparently charged to the taxpayer” he said in a statement.

Rep. Jeff Denham, chairman of a subcommittee on economic development, public buildings and emergency management, said adding “personal vacation stays in Vegas” to the spending by GSA on the Las Vegas conference was “outrageous.”

Where were these members of the federal legislature between the loss of all the taxpayer money in 2010 and when the matter was revealed this year (2012).  It is one thing for the administration of Barack Obama to appoint foolish and unqualified managers … it is another thing for our watchdogs to be so inefficient that they can’t bite a hot biscuit when it is pitched their way.

There is more to this story and this circus of fools and how they want to blame Bush II.

A circus tent from behind
A circus tent from behind (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just follow the link below and don’t forget to check the related articles:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/10/federal-agency-cancels-new-vegas-conference-amid-scandal-over-its-lavish-2010/?test=latestnews#ixzz1rkle9KyI

Related articles

Pelosi: Pants On Fire

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the Hous...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

A way with words and charts, Ms. Pelosi might have as long as no one checks the facts.  Thanks to PolitiFact.com we don’t have to do much of the checking ourselves. It was just a couple of months back (May to be specific) when she posted the following on her Flickr account:

Flick Here

The information posted there and here would be quite telling: if it wasn’t telling several bald-faced lies.  PolitFact continues with their information which is, to say the least, quite a quagmire and a bucket of eels to boot:

A reader recently pointed us to a post on the website of MoveOn.org, a liberal group. The post features a bar graph titled, “Who Increased the Debt?” that offers figures for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan: Up 189 percent
George H.W. Bush: Up 55 percent
Bill Clinton: Up 37 percent
George W. Bush: Up 115 percent
Barack Obama: Up 16 percent

We can see why a liberal group would tout such numbers, since — if accurate — they offer powerful counterevidence to the claims by conservatives that President Barack Obama has been a spendthrift who’s set the nation on an unsustainable fiscal path.

But the reader who sent it to us was surprised to see the debt increase under Obama was so small. So we decided to check the numbers.

Check the numbers they did and you should check the numbers listed above with the numbers now appearing on Moveon.org.  You’ll see they have been adjusted to reflect the new Pelosi numbers discussed below.  What they found was sloppy fact gathering and questionable investigative techniques.  PolitFact speaks to the data utilized by Pelosi and they point out that the information used does not track well with the actual time served by each president and for that reason is scattered all over the landscape like the product of a calf with the scours.  Here is what they finally settled on after hitting stale information passed on as facts by Pelosi and her inefficient staff:

We quickly discovered the source of the discrepancy: Whoever put the chart together used the date for Jan. 20, 2010 — which is exactly one year to the day after Obama was sworn in — rather than his actual inauguration date. We know this because Treasury says the debt for Jan. 20, 2010, was $12.327 trillion, which is the exact number cited on the supporting document that Pelosi’s office gave us.

However this error happened, it effectively took one year of rapidly escalating debt out of Obama’s column and put it into Bush’s, significantly skewing the numbers.

Using the corrected figures does mean that, superficially at least, Democrats have a point. The debt did still increase more, on a percentage basis, under Bush than it did under Obama. But other problems with the chart and its methodology undercut even this conclusion.

• Time ranges: Bush served a full eight-year term, while Obama had served just 27 months by the time the chart was compiled. If the Obama figure were to be scaled out to a full eight-year period, he’d have a debt increase of 121 percent rather than 34 percent, making his increase greater than Bush’s. To be fair, that would be a simplistic exercise — but no less misleading than the chart.

• Public debt vs. gross debt: Not only did the chart say it was using one statistic and then use another, it also cherry-picked the one that showed the comparison in a more favorable light. According to OMB statistics, public debt rose by 70 percent under Bush, 16 percentage points more slowly than gross federal debt did. And according to the Treasury, the public debt rose by 53 percent under Obama, compared with the 34 percent rise in gross federal debt.

You get the idea and you can get a much clearer picture if you read the complete article.  The bull butter churned up by Pelosi and company is par for the crowd around progressives … nothing new, but go here for the entire article.  We will say that Obama turns out to be the undisputed red ink king.

Be sure to check for related articles below:

First President Bush — Now President Obama

 

President George W. Bush and President-elect B...

Image via Wikipedia

 

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

A shoe for President Bush in Iraq and now a book for President Obama in the United States.  By now everyone should know about the shoe and the book.

Whatever else, we (collective we) should know, we certainly should know that neither incident was humorous or proper.  The office of President of the United States, no matter where it might be disrespected, still belongs to the people of the United States.  As such, any effort to physically belittle or physically demean the office holder and potentially cause the office holder physical injury  should not be tolerated or supported in any way.

Just as many applauded when President Bush was insulted with the shoe throw, many have verbally celebrated the book toss for President Obama.  We (I) believe  both incidents were shameful and not to be tolerated and I hope my fellow Americans and people everywhere will pause to reflect on the repercussions for such actions.

It was reported that the man who threw the book at President Obama was not arrested and when questioned said that he was just trying to get his book to the President.  We find the non-arrest and the alleged statement  suspect and call for the release of more  information so the citizens of this nation can know the full details of the incident.  The reports in my mind do not pass any reasonable test … much less the smell test.

Here are some links to the story, which contain narrative and video:

Link to Mediaite report

Link to Daily Mail report

More links below:

Demos Meltdown — Repubs Not Blowing It

Citizens registered as an Independent, Democra...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

William Kristol writing an editorial on The Weekly-Standard.com says the Democrats are in meltdown and the Republicans are not blowing it (for once.)  we aren’t sure we can agree with Mr. Kristol’s opinion this soon as there are signals, such as Mr. Rove’s blubbering that might lead others to believe differently.  Since we respect Mr. Kristol, it is only right that he be given space  to show he is correct or close to reality in his editorial.  Whatever he might do, Mr. Kristol cuts to the chase without mincing words or withholding much in the way of what appears  serious joy:

It would be unbecoming for us at The Weekly-Standard​—we do have to uphold standards, after all!—to chortle with glee as the Democratic party melts down. It would be unkind to whoop at the top of our lungs as Obama White House big shots quit or get fired, and to cheer with gusto as the GOP leadership behaves sensibly, the Tea Party goes from strength to strength, and momentum builds towards a huge Election Day repudiation of big government liberalism.

So, instead, we’ll simply point out, calmly and quietly, that the Democratic party is in meltdown, the Obama White House is in disarray, and the voters are in rebellion against both of them.

Let’s just say right here, that we cry no tears, crocodile or otherwise, to hear this opinion as we stop short of saying we told you as much on more than one occasion, and would have told you again and again, but we were relatively convinced that most of you, no matter the party affiliation managed to get it close-in to the beginning of this administration.

If this administration was a piece of prime steak ready for basting, now would be the time for Kristol to rub it in, and he doesn’t disappoint.  Let’s see:

… This White House will have lost, by the end of this year, a remarkably high percentage of its original senior staff members. The White House counsel, communications director, budget director, and chair of the council of economic advisers are already gone—to say nothing of the estimable Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation. The chief of staff, national security adviser, and top economic policy director will follow shortly. Almost all of them were oh-so-convinced they were the best and brightest, oh-so-contemptuous of others who had labored in those jobs, and oh-so-disdainful of the American people. If we were less good-hearted and generous in spirit, we would be tempted to say: Goodbye and good riddance.

At this point in his editorial Mr. Kristol begin to praise … at least to raise, the Republican’s Pledge to America as an indication the Republicans have not blown their chance to recapture congress, but have instead, rushed rapidly toward that goal.  Here, since we are political neophytes, is the point where doubt creeps in and reason lingers behind.  At least it does so a short distance as it is quite difficult, given the last ten years, and especially the eight years of Mr. George W. Bush‘s administration to be convinced the Republicans really do have it, or that they will get it.

Mr. Kristol believes the “Pledge” is the right direction in many decent steps toward Republicans taking over Congress.  He says the Pledge to America differs from The Contract With America (circa: 1994) in several ways:

The Pledge, moreover, is a step up from 1994’s Contract with America. GOP strategists in 1994 seized on the idea of a “contract” as a way of bringing disillusioned Perot voters back into the tent. One source of Republican disillusion was that the first President Bush had promised not to raise taxes, and then did so. A contract was a way to make up for the failure to honor the promise to “read my lips.” And the good-faith and sincere attempt to implement the contract, to the degree congressional Republicans were able to do so, went a long way to repairing the damage of the broken promise of 1990.

Mr. Kristol rounds it all up and out with two more paragraph.  You can read all of his editorial right here.