Skip to comments.Media conspiring with Democrats against Limbaugh
Posted on 03/05/2009 5:56:20 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A new documentary movie by courageous filmmaker John Ziegler entitled Media Malpractice made its theatrical début Thursday in Seattle. The movie systematically proves how corrupt and dishonest the American media were during the campaign of 2008.
The film was revealing, coming just days after a similar well-orchestrated effort by the Obama administration, Democratic Party officials, and liberal advocacy groups in league with the mainstream news media against Rush Limbaugh and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as their primary targets.
Even the president played his part in the bizarre, staged play by telling congressional Republicans, You cant just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.
Ironically, the plan to attack Limbaugh was already being hatched while the unfair attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin, documented by Ziegler, were reaching a crescendo last fall.
The manipulation can only be called propaganda. Old-fashioned, unbiased journalism has died. The Limbaugh attacks in the news, we now know, were cooked up by Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg last fall. Internet-based Politico reveals the White House involvement in the conspiracy when it reported, A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.
Members of the media are performing their part of the script. Three speeches and the medias response to them serve as concise illustrations of the media role in the propaganda machine. They acted in unison, attacking and vilifying Limbaugh and mocking Jindal. Conversely, they are a choir of praises for the tone of his speech when reporting about Obamas address to Congress.
Limbaugh delivered his terrific speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference and it was broadcast nationwide. He detailed the differences between ultra-liberal Barack Obamas big government agenda and the ideal of smaller government. He explained why conservatives care about the individual. Limbaughs speech inspired the crowd, reminding them of the founding principles of America. He showed how starkly Obamas philosophy differed from traditional American ideas, while explaining what exactly is at stake in this present debate.
However, you wouldnt know this by listening to the mainstream media. Bill Schneider on CNN said, Well, it was an angry tone this was a very angry speech. They didnt do so well last year but theyre still angry. The tone of this speech was mocking, bullying, it was full of contempt, and I thought it was a very harsh speech.
David Letterman and Katie Couric joined the fun mocking Limbaughs clothing and his delivery, this, given the fact that none of the late-night comedians have poked any fun at Obama while they viciously mocked Bush. Chris Matthews lambasted Limbaugh while needling his guests to disown him.
Now, compare the reception of Limbaughs speech with the medias reaction to Obama. They criticized Limbaughs tone, ignoring the content. For Obama, instead, they focused on the rhetoric he uses to mask his agenda, overlooking his leftist content. While universally praising Obamas rhetorical flair, most commentators ignored what Obama actually said in his address. They omitted talk of the huge deficits, tax hikes for all through carbon taxes and the return to class warfare.
David Gergen oozed about a rousing speech, took us up to the mountaintops. The New York Times reported Obamas words, were often stern, but laced with optimism and humor, and he framed his argument with fresh urgency. Chris Matthews simply called it Churchillian. To top it off, CBS host Maggie Rodriguez said, And Americans loved it then out comes Bobby Jindal. Rodriquez called Jindal Debbie Downer, saying hated it, its not going to work because he didnt agree with Obamas leftist plan for America.
Talking heads praised Obama before and after his speech. MSNBC introduced the Jindal speech and Matthews unprofessionally audibly muttered, Oh God, as Jindal approached the camera.
As if muttering Oh God werent enough, Matthews introduced Jindal saying were going to hear a fairly right-wing speech tonight. Charlie Gibson echoed those sentiments, He is a very conservative Republican and youll hear that reflected, I think, in his remarks tonight. Yet, not one utterance was heard from the media about how liberal Obama and his agenda are. Maybe the most ludicrously biased comments were by Washington Post columnist Amy Argetsinger, who found his (Jindals) Manson eyes disturbing. The only exception to the discussion of the content of his speech was to say that Jindal was far-right.
These three different speeches provide clear examples of the medias preferential treatment for liberal ideas. The media shield the public from true debate. Instead they propagandize for Obama and the political left. Unfortunately, media bias didnt end after November.
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown are bestselling authors and speakers. Contact them at email@example.com.
No surprise at that news.
And Rush is loven it. ;-)
Media - Obambi - two sides of the same marxist coin. I’d have expected nothing better.
What a bunch of low-life lily-livered b*stards.
How do we get copies of this film, so we can pass it around?
Who is John Galt?
Never really existed, if I understand correctly. But old-fashioned journalism never pretended to be unbiased and thus was at least honest.
Today's journalism is fundamentally dishonest and totally corrupt to its core. (Realizing that, as in Sodom, there are a few good folks...)
Just as Anne Coulter loves it when they go after her. It just spurs her on to write more books. WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE MEN LIKE ANNE AND RUSH TO SPEAK DIRECTLY AND FEARLESSLY ABOUT THESE DEMOCRATS and to their faces. Everyone tries to “Be nice.” No being nice....not anymore. The Democrats are as nasty and vicious as Teddy Kennedy drowing Mary Jo Kopecne. Time to give them a little of their own medicine!!
Yegads, are you blind? LOL!
Ann has bigger stones than most of the men in the Republican party.
OIC ...got it. ;-)
Raise your hand if you want to blow beets everytime these bozos lose their juices, verbally or in print. Either they’re mentaly still in 4th grade, or they go along to get along so they, come payday, can continue to save their pathetic butts.
Too bad history’s not taught in schools anymore: By design, BTW...Thanks to the Alinsky lemmings.
Truth is, indeed, the new hate speech.
25th Div Vet
Newspapers in the founding era, and up to and even past the Civil War, were fundamentally different from the journalism of living memory. The reason is the Associated Press (founded 1848). "The wire" gave the members of the AP a source of news not in principle available to the general public until it was published in the newspapers. So the perspective of the printer, which had been the central element of a newspaper, has been relegated to the "editorial page" ghetto and the news - promoted as "objective" - is the central element.
But note well, when the newspapers are all members of the Associated Press they are just as much in cahoots with each other as the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox, as members of Major League Baseball, are when they promote their rivalry in order to sell tickets. By claiming that all journalism is objective, members of the AP are telling you that they are not competing with each other on the accuracy and reliability of their content. They are saying, as Rush puts it, that if you miss the New York Times, catch the ABC news. If you miss the ABC news, read the Washington Post. If you miss the Washington Post, catch CBS News. It is all the same stuff.
And the definition of news - unusual/negative stuff you haven't previously heard or read - implies that vanilla news will not focus on what is actually important but on what will make the journalist seem important. Before 9/11/01 the important stuff, obviously in retrospect, was whatever could be gleaned about Osama ben Laden and al Qaeda. Plus, obviously now, banking and finance which was over the heads of journalists, to the extent that it did not show the politicians who draft on journalism's wind in a bad light. We heard a little from journalism about bin Laden, and virtually nothing from them about the financial hanky panky on a scale which now threatens the global financial system and the very legitimacy of our republic.
The conceit of the Associated Press is that it constitutes "the press" of the First Amendment. It does not. "The freedom of . . . the press" is the right of the people to use technology to promote our ideas. To think otherwise is to hold, contrary to history and logic, that the First Amendment codified rights which were not intended to be implied in the body of the Constitution - and that the First Amendment lodged the right to freedom of the press in an organization which was not even a gleam in anyone's eye when the First Amendment was ratified. The conceit of journalistic objectivity is the idea that journalism is above critique by those who are not members of the Associated Press. The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.
Those who call themselves "the press" are interested in domination of the public discourse, and they are contemptuous of the general public outside their own organization. They have no interest in protecting the prerogatives of the people, and they therefore have no interest in protecting the rights of Rush Limbaugh. And plenty of reason to attack Limbaugh, who after all attacks them.
No doubt they’re paid by the word to do this, and they get lots of words to say through their earpiece phones to the WH.
Rush should start a story that he has xxX$ of gov’t bonds and gets a check every 6 months which goes to keep him in cigars. Then thank 0 profusely, the libs would go nuts demanding the gov’t default on those bonds.
We laughed when CNN was called the Clintonn News Network, not becuase there was a little truth to it, but because it was absolute truth. Without the media, the left couldn't win an election for dog catcher.
Saul Alinsky’s rule #12