Posted on 12/01/2008 8:30:06 AM PST by jazusamo
You may have heard enough about the biased mainstream media, but here is something new and important. We are at the beginning of an important, well-conceived and powerful organized effort to bring down the mainstream media. It is sponsored by the media watchdog, Accuracy in Media (AIM), an organization that has been fighting the almost total leftist bias found in the mainstream media for about 40 years.
So one of my most fervent prayers has been answered. And the answer comes in a form that will finally wage an effective battle against one of America's most dangerous enemies, an enemy that threatens the very foundation of a free society, an enemy that is a more dangerous than the threat posed by Islamofascists terrorists and genocidal maniacs that now spread across the planet. We know how to fight the war on terror and have been successful in keeping the homeland safe since 9/11. But to this point, there has not been a good battle plan to do something about the mainstream media, which often seems to be wining its war against America.
The enemy I'm talking about is the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media that is destroying the foundation of democracy by giving Americans a false picture of the world and that even going so far, as The Times has done on more than one occasion, of putting national security secrets and their front-page. This same media most recently elected a president, by defrauding the public with a false view of the candidate. The treasonous, treacherous New York Times is only one piece of the mainstream media, but it is unfortunately the most influential and the most dangerous. So that's why AIM is taking aim at on the Times.
The first shots in the war against the New York Times comes with the announcement that AIM has launched a boycott of that newspaper, and has set up a website to carry it forward at www.boycottnyt.com. The website includes articles and commentary about the boycott of The Times and a petition, whose signers pledge to boycott The Times, both its print and online edition as well as its advertisers.
The case against The Times has been made many times, but the editor of the boycott site, Don Feder, makes the case again in crystal clear fashion, and he should convince any of the still unconvinced. Mr. Feder writes, "The Times has, over the course of decades, blatantly distorted the news to advance an ideological agenda. The Times' persistent bias is reflected in its double standard in coverage of liberals and conservatives, its misreporting of election news, the hidden assumptions that underlie news stories and in the palpable imbalance in commentary. While The Times is notorious for editorials thinly disguised as 'news coverage,' during a presidential election, the gangs really come out."
Mr. Feder also beautifully states the rationale for the boycott: "When a company manufacturers dangerously defective products, despite repeated warnings, consumer advocates have both a right and a duty to organize a boycott. The Times is manufacturing a product ('news coverage') which is both defective and dangerous. By boycotting the New York Times, we are refusing to do business with a company that is undermining our values, our society and our nation." The public not only has a right to boycott The Times, it has a duty to do so.
As a consumer reporter, I've spent over 30 years reporting on dangerous and defective products, but I've never reported on one that threatens to undermine our values, our society, and our nation, and I've never reported on any that in effect commits treason and acts to aid and comfort the enemies of America. This is certainly among the most deadly of consumer products. And we ought to view the times as a dangerous consumer product. It can't be recalled or otherwise controlled by a government agency, but it can be boycotted.
The boycott of the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media is long overdue, as the dangers they pose become ever more serious. Most observers of the media scene agree that the reporting of the mainstream media is getting worse all the time, and hit a new and unacceptable low during the 2008 election and its aftermath. Mr. Feder said, "As bad as the New York Times has been before, it's nothing compared to the way the paper has managed, manipulated and mangled coverage of the 2008 campaign." For example, during the campaign, Feder wrote, "Not a day goes by that The Times doesn't misrepresent John McCain, ridicule Sarah Palin, refuse to report a revelation that reflects badly on the Obama-Biden campaign, or rationalize Obama's radical past."
The studies of media coverage during the campaign prove media bias has unfairly influenced public opinion. For example, a Zogby poll found that 93.8 percent of voters knew Mrs. Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, while only 18.2 percent of voters knew that Sen. Biden withdrew from a previous presidential run because he had committed plagiarism during the campaign. Such evidence shows that the mainstream media sold anything thought to be unfavorable about Mrs. Palin and suppressed the unfavorables about Biden. The same for the top of the ticket.
A Pew study found that only 9 percent of voters think the media favored Sen. McCain. In contrast, 70 percent think the media favored Obama. A study from the Project on Excellence in Journalism found that in the six weeks after the nominating convention, there were four times as many negative stories about Sen. McCain as about Sen. Obama.
The Times and the mainstream media have long been in the journalistic sewer violating all the accepted principles of journalism. Back in 2003, Bob Kohn, meticulously documented the journalist failures of the Times in a book entitled Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted. A reader of that book would find it hard to imagine how the coverage could get more distorted and biased, but it has and not by a little bit, but massively.
Of course, if you've been following the campaign and the post-campaign coverage of the coming Obama-Biden administration, you don't need a study, a poll, or even much research to sense the distortions and bias that permeate most mainstream media coverage. You get the feeling they are not talking about a mere mortal, but instead are reporting on a Savior, a Messiah, a combination of Lincoln and Roosevelt even before his inauguration, the leader of Camelot (Bamelot), the leader of the O-Generation, a genius, and about every other bit of effusive praise some seemingly Obama-intoxicated journalist can come up with.
The gushing praise of Sen. Obama is so extreme that its authors sometimes admit their views are irrational but try to explain them as though they still have some rational basis. Consider this headline from a New York Magazine piece (Sept. 17, 2008) entitled "Obamaism." The subhead line reads, "It's a kind of religion. But one rooted in a deep faith in reason." The same author, in singing the praises of his Messiah, also insults most Americans. That view is captured on the magazine's cover headline, "The President of Us: The triumph of the Obama idea, and the peculiar feeling of being part of America again." This has the taint of the hate-America views of Michelle Obama who admitted for the first time she was proud of America because her husband was running for president. She also said America is a downright mean country. The author of this article in the New York Magazine on the Obamas writes, "But for those of us born since World War II, never in our adult lifetimes (as the next First Lady undoubtedly meant to say last winter) has any single event made us prouder of our country." He describes us now all in a "strange and glorious new Technicolor world." I think most Americans have always been proud of their country, and didn't need electing Obama to make us prouder. Americans felt America was always a glorious, Technicolor place, with or without some new president-elect. And we always felt we were part of America, even before Sen. Obama.
The Times and the mainstream media, in my view, were responsible for electing Sen. Obama, as they served as his exclusive campaign managers, boot lickers, lapdogs, press agents, and propagandists. But that was just one part of their agenda. They also have a distinct anti-religion, anti-conservative, anti-Republican, anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-family, anti-patriotism, anti-small-government, anti-American, anti-Judeo-Christian values, anti-border security, anti-capitalist and anti-business agenda. They also have a politically correct stance, which runs against clear thinking and common sense. And finally, they have an isolationist ethic that is totally out of place in a world made ever smaller by advancing technology and engulfed in a worldwide war involving Islamo-fascist terrorism.
Different strains of this bias are documented at the boycott website. For example, you should read the article on The Times' anti-religion agenda, and the article on The Times' jihad against domestic oil production. Among the other excellent postings is a report on how The Times did not report how the terrorists and thugs seem to love Obama until after the election was over. And you should also read the report, "NY Times Delirious Over Obama's Election."
To give you a flavor, The Times held back the news that thugs such as Castro and terrorits such as Hamas were in love with Sen. Obama. Only after the election did they run a story about one of the terrorist fans of Sen. Obama. But then The Times also ran a story that Sen. Obama's election was a victory in the war against terrorism. Feder put that Times' nonsense away with a few master strokes:
"The Times thinks international terrorism suffered a staggering defeat because the voters elected a president who isn't white, thus confirming that America cares about the downtrodden - like Harvard-educated lawyers with seven-figure incomes.
"Never mind that Obama has multiple ties to radical Muslims, including his friend Rashid Khalidi. Forget that Sen. Obama said he would meet with the leaders of Iran and Syria without preconditions. Never mind that Sen. Obama intends to hand the terrorists a victory in Iraq.
"The New York Times wants us to believe that Obama's triumph is a setback for al-Qaida. Sure, and the election of a disciple of Saul Alinsky is a victory for the free market."
As I said at the outset, this is the beginning of an important movement. And I hope that AIM follows my suggestion to create a master plan that can be used to implement boycotts against mainstream media outlets all over the country. There should definitely be one organized to boycott the Philadelphia Inquirer, and there is a need for hundreds of other such boycotts all across the nation. There is already one effective boycott now in progress against the Los Angeles Times, the disgraceful wet coast version of The Times. I hope AIM serves up the format for a standard approach that can be used, and then coordinates all the efforts of these websites designed to boycott the mainstream media. Many others and I would be delighted to get involved in one or more of these efforts.
One thing you can do right away is sign the petition at www.boycott.nyt.com/boycott-the-new-york-times-petition. Also take a look at the boycott site and AIM's site at www.aim.org. Here is the language of the petition:
Whereas, the New York Times consistently and blatantly distorts the news to advance its leftist agenda.
Whereas, the New York Times promotes an anti-family, pro-big government, anti-faith, anti-American, politically-correct, isolationist ethic - in the guise of news coverage.
Whereas, the New York Times has spent decades maligning conservatives, misreporting campaign news (to favor the more liberal candidate), sneering at patriotism, denigrating America and undermining Judeo-Christian morality.
Whereas, many of the New York Times "news" stories contain hidden assumptions, among them - the rich aren't paying enough taxes, we need more government, abortion is a right, same-sex marriage is a matter of fairness, conservatives are heartless, man-made Global warming is an incontrovertible reality, gun-control is the most effective way to combat crime, foreign terrorism suspects are entitled to all of the due-process rights of American citizens, and negotiations are the best way to confront terrorist states.
Whereas, the influence of the New York Times extends far beyond the number of copies sold or visits to its website.
Whereas, the New York Times sets the agenda for the mainstream (establishment) media, and is widely copied by other media outlets.
Whereas The New York Times consistently violates journalistic ethics - including a duty to be accurate, impartial and balanced in news coverage.
Whereas The New York Times is impervious to change, and is deaf to valid criticism, despite the substantial decline in its revenues.
Whereas, the public has a First Amendment right to protest the foregoing in the form of a boycott and a duty to do so when media bias adversely affects the general welfare.
Therefore, the undersigned pledge to boycott the New York Times, both its print and online editions. Wherever possible, they will also refuse to patronize The Times' advertisers. Additionally, they will do their best to get out word of the boycott and to persuade the organizations with which they are affiliated to join the same.
After you sign the petition, join the battle against one of the premier enemies of America, the mainstream media. Here are a few things you can do:
1. Write a letter to The Times complaining about its biased journalism. You can get the e-mail address of various people at the Times on the boycott web site.
2. Call a talk show and complain about mainstream media bias. You might start with the great around-the-clock line-up on WNTP (990 AM) or some of the conservative hosts on (1210 AM).
3. Start reading some of the alternative media that will give you a picture of both sides of the issues. Two of the best magazines are the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Also start following some of the best websites such as townhall.com and hotair.com.
4. Extend the boycott beyond The Times. The obvious place for Philadelphia-area residents is the Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the worst examples of the mainstream media.
5. Go to some of the other media monitors such as mediaresearch.org. This is an excellent source of information on liberal media bias. It is headed by Brent Bozell. There are also two other valuable sites specializing in bias in reporting news from the Middle East - camera.org and honestreporting.com.
But get involved. If there was ever a time when eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, this is the moment. The U.S. and the free world face almost certain destruction if we go down the wrong path, and it will take an enormous amount of citizen input to keep us on the right path.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.
We can already count out Smerconish from 1210, a RINO who supported Obama. How this guy continues to get away with calling himself a Republican is beyond me.
I often find the Bulletin at the top of my driveway. It often gets delivered free as a promotion. I cancelled the Inquirer long ago after an Inquirer editorial yelled at Republicans for “pandering to taxpayers” (no joke).
They’ll get a bailout from the 0bamanation. No worries ...
I believe it might be fun to send the above list of the NYTs misdeeds to some of their advertisers.
Excellent article. Not new information to know how biased and perverted the news about America’s politics are.
I fear the horses are already out of the barn, corral, and gone.
I sincerely this has legs and actually gains momentum.
Never give up.
Memo to the GOP: Put some money into grant programs for small educational franchises, books, plays, TV shows, community activities that are fun. Stoop down from Washington to raise up the middle class workhorse that has sustained your fine lifestyle for so long, Senators, Congressmen, RNC leaders, lobbyists and other party toadies. Too proud to associate with the middle class? Too proud to teach a child, Mr. Steele?
Let Bill Ayers and the Chicago power base show us how its done. We're only 40 years behind the curve. The GOP needs to get busy and reproduce itself. Physically, idealogically, and culturally.
When was the last time the GOP funded lawyers and grants for small businesses being roughed up by the IRS? When has the GOP gotten involved in the street-level of you community other than to ask for money for some candidate? Point to some GOP influence in your child's public education. Can't be done. Won't be done. Michael Steele is a DC corridor politician. The GOP is doomed no matter what the media says or doesn't. It's wasted energy to fight the MSM. Cultural judo must be learned by the RNC or it will die as surely as morality has.
Did you call?
sooner or later the msm will figure out that libs don’t have/spend money and discover a conservative audience is needed. at that time we will see a huge shift in coverage. when it happens , it will be an all-out-war against libs. all for the sake of money....
Smerc is a republican in the same manner as his hero, Arlen “Scottish Law” Spector. That Spector is a hero to him speaks volumes.
I prefer Mark Levin’s take on Spector.
Indeed it is. Nice graphic.
As a longer range alternative to a boycott we should consider simply buying the NYT when the stock price gets to $.01 or perhaps $.001. We could then rename it to The New York Free Republic. That name has a really nice ring to it.
I’m not sure how much good a boycott campaign will do, since most of those interested in supporting it already are boycotting the Times.
But if they can add to the pressure, more power to them. It’s certainly about time to finish this treasonous rag off for good.
ping
Boycott, schmoycott. Yada, yada, yada. How about an online petition, too?
Thanks for the graph, it speaks volumns. Perhaps AIM will help speed up the crash.
I hear you but like you say, it may add some pressure.
“The GOP is doomed no matter what the media says or doesn’t. It’s wasted energy to fight the MSM. Cultural judo must be learned by the RNC or it will die as surely as morality has”
That’s why we need to voycot the RNC for its and our own future.
The RNC/GOP loses every election before they begin because they do not care about their reputation. What actions have they taken in the last 20 years to combat the MSM’s erosion of their image?
There’s not an organization on earth that doesn’t care about their “brand” except for the RNC.
Try announcing at a dinner party or at work that you’re a Republican (and try doing this as a minority). What do you think will happen?
We know the MSM is biased but that’s a fact of life, not something to whine about (and not fight against). We cannot depend on individual politicians getting the opportunity to speak into a camera about the truth (especially now). Who will hear it? It will be filtered out or not heard at all. Even if a new Reagan came along they will be personally smeared within nano-seconds.
If the RNC does not start an annual campaign to rebuild their reputation and fight the myths, smears and lies, they will never win any major elections again.
Someone needs to craft a short and simple letter that we can all email to the RNC demanding that they put this in action. They must place a “Top Ten Myths about the Right” (or similar) at their website so politicians and pundits can always mention to the media, “check it for yourself.” They must sponser town hall debates, buy ads, website banners, infomercials and much more to fight the smears spread by the socialist parasites on the left and their MSM flunkies.
If this isn’t done now, what’s the point?
Seriously. That should be the first front.
Second, we establish an Energy beachhead much like Ayers established an education beachhead in Chicago. We base ours in Alaska and/or Texas and begin the States' Rights movement in earnest, on the matter of Energy production and conservation.
Third, we Balkanize the two-party process. I've lived long enough and heard all the "two party" arguments. I say we need twelve parties so that each little "rugged individualist" American need not be concerned with being tarred by the same brush as the fill-in-the-blanks with whom we disagree about the morality of sex with furniture or whatever. It'll keep the MSM busy trying to define all the parties and their actual ideals. They may have to, y'know, ask questions and sh*t like that. It'll keep the pollsters way too busy to ask stupid meddlesome questions about race and class warfare.
We already have class warfare, so why not just expand it to the point of irrelevance?
*pout* The world won't let me run it. *pout*
Sorry my wife likes the coupons and specials
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if AIM boycotts the New York Times how will they know when it is printing more lies?
;)
I totally agree, but why wait for the stock to get that low. Buy it up before the NYT gets a leftwing bailout.
Yes, I check the Union Trib often for articles on the military (Marines and Navy), it is a leftist rag but they do run military articles that are okay from time to time.
We may instead find ourselves in a situation where "Daily Kos" inherits the mantle of "authoritative news source" for much of the populace.
You’ve got a point, Doc. ;-)
Newspapers are not funded by the people who buy them. They are funded by ad revenue.
The reason why the MSM is Left, is that the Left is better at intimidating/boycotting advertisers who advertise in publications that are too "right".
mark for later read
I received the renewal invoice for my Sunday-only subscription to the Washington Post two weeks ago. I was happy to write “CANCEL” in big red letters and then “HOPE you like the CHANGE” across the bottom.
I’m sure they’ll start calling, whining about giving me the weekdays free if I’ll only resubscribe. Last time I was late in renewing the punk from the circulation desk threatened me with cancellation. If my mother hadn’t been so keen on the sunday inserts I’d have told him off then. Now, I will.
The NYT doesn't care about the right boycotting, but if enough people contact their advertisers and state that they refuse to buy products or services from those companies as long as they give the paper money, then some change might happen.
Maybe get an email list of people who are NYT-haters, and choose one NYT advertiser at a time - an advertiser who you think would be susceptible to consumer pressure. This would probably mean a national company, as opposed to one in NYC. Then, deluge that advertiser with emails telling them that they have chosen sides by giving their advertising dollars to such a partisan outlet, and have insulted you in the process, and won't get your money as long as they support that which you are opposed to. And don't let up. Pick off their advertisers one at a time. Tie the label on companies of being a supporter of the left - most companies want to be apolitical and not alienate half of the public.
When one advertiser has been chosen to target, find any negative information you can about the company - negative product reviews, unfavorable comparisons to competing products, BBB complaints, etc. Teach these companies that if they continue to advertise with the NYT, they'll feel incredible scrutiny.
So, find a big advertiser in the NYT...one with a national base. This should be for a product that would be of interest to a broad spectrum of Americans. If the product is favored by areas or groups that lean left, then it should not be chosen. It might help if the company is facing lean times and is afraid of anything which might harm it in a weakened time. Maybe carmakers, for instance.
Then, hand the far-left-supporting, partisan label on the company and don't let up until they feel the pressure.
Maybe do some on-the-street interviews with executives of the company, distributors, salesmen, etc. asking about the company's support of the NYT.
Whichever company is chosen, maybe you could have a small little banner that could be displayed on websites and blog that announced:
BOYCOTT COMPANY_XLEADING ADVERTSER
IN PARTISAN NYT
Is there a link to that editorial? It would sure be interesting to read!!
Actually I was sort of kidding about buying the NYT at $.01 or $.001 per share but it is a fact that the only way that the conservative movement can regain anything like balanced reporting by the MSM is to simply buy them out.
The liberals have built a system that will, IMHO, be impossible to destroy from within - the liberal arts colleges will forever stream leftwing nutjob journalism majors into positions of power with the media. I really don't see what we can do about that without ownership of the media itself. Fortunately the cost of procuring the MSM lock, stock and barrel is falling by at least 20% per annum.
The strategy has to move away from “tearing down the establishment” rhetoric to reformation. Why destroy the NYT when it can be reformed and used as a constructive source for information dissemination and proper education for the people?
Blindly flailing away at the NYT without telling them what they need to do to correct the situation and giving them the opportunity to fix it is childish and will only appeal to a small segment of the population, rendering the effort futile.
“The liberals have built a system that will, IMHO, be impossible to destroy from within - the liberal arts colleges will forever stream leftwing nutjob journalism majors into positions of power with the media.”
Somebody has to first hire them and somebody hires the people doing the hiring. Put pressure on the stock price and the stockholders and BOD will take notice. Put the right CEO in place and things will change.
Newspapers are dying. A boycott of NYT will hasten the death of the NYT and all newspapers.
We are using cyberspace right now to make our voices heard on a conservative friendly website.
Wouldn’t a more effective approach be to go to a lib site such as digg or the NYT and make our voices very loud so it would drown out the lib message?
We need to get off our duffs and get our message out in as many ways as possible, some have already been mentioned, such as getting out in the community, using cyberspace, just plain talking.
Stomping your feet and crying unfair is not the kind of political organization that is going to attract members nor get anything done.
huh?
This is the critical error in conservative thinking on this subject, that hastening the demise of the print MSM will somehow translate into the general demise of liberal hegemony in information dissemination.
Go check the most trafficked news websites...they're all liberal. They have been planning for ten years on how to move their ops to the digital age while maintaining dominance. Someone who took the NYT newspaper will simply move to having them deliver it to their computer or hand held device ever morning...and throughout the day.
It's not MSM hegemony we're fighting, it's their content. The only solution to that problem is strategically addressing the content issue.
On target.
I’ve founded small community papers, substitute taught in schools, volunteered...but rarely see other conservatives taking tangible action like the libs do.
That editorial was from over twelve years ago, even before I had internet. I’m sure I clipped it and saved it somewhere because it flabbergasted me. Around that same time the local newspaper, ‘Bucks County Courier Times’, published an editorial bemoaning the fact that “far too many people in New Jersey have failed to turn in their guns” after that state passed an “assault weapons” ban.
America is dead and gone. A fascist socialist state has replaced it - - the National Socialist Democrat Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Democrat Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP or simply Nazi Party).
You have a point. I live in NYC and whenever I say that I’m a Republican or Conservative or not a Leftist, people react with either horror or amazement (”but you’re so intelligent, how could you be?”). Cultural judo is exactly what we need — I respect all branches of our movement, but does the image have to be so stuck in the Eisenhower era?
The NYT ran an editorial with that claim back in 2003.
LOL, thanks for that link!
Apparently all of those lefty scumbags think alike.
FRegards,
LH
Now are we three. I just need another few million to achieve my goal of world domination!
:o)
Logic says you are right. But I don't think you are.
Having watched the net worth of most if not all of the MSM networks, magazines and newspapers continuously fall for some time now leads me to believe that financial suicide is a more likely outcome. Their fall is certainly due, at least in part, to their biased coverage of news. Certainly the current management of these firms understands that and could easily correct their news coverage with a goal of slowing down or ending the fall in readership/viewership. But they don't do it. The management doesn't do it. The Board of Directors doesn't do it and the stockholders don't demand it.
The Lesson: Leftist Philosophy always Trumps Economics. Ask Marx. Ask CBS, Ast the NYT. Ask the LAT. Amazing but true.
BTT
Exactly!
You can post comments to articles on the NYT website.
(Most newspapers allow you to do this.)
Yes, the most trafficked sites are liberal ones, so why not bombard them. If enough people pushed the conservative content on these sites they would then become conservative sites.
We have the numbers, unfortunately we need to work at getting people motivated to regain control of the party and the country.
Whatever I post here I also post on digg. I shout it to as many conservatives I can find. It gets digged, It always use to get buried, but as I find more conservative diggers, less I get buried.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.