Posts Tagged ‘Liberal Bias’

I have been asking myself what has happened to journalism in this country for a few years now. I heard two stories on NPR recently where they spent less than 5 seconds on the fact that the Planned Parenthood videos are less than honest and really didn’t address the origin and veracity of the videos. I was and am still so incensed I felt like writing an email to NPR (see said email to NPR at bottom.)

Matt Taibbi’s tweeted something that was very on point today. Glenn Greenwald first tweeted this:

On the ludicrous conceit of “objective, opinion-free journalism

with a link to an article. Someone named The Meteor Guy tweeted back to him and another person:

@ggreenwald @JulianPhilosphy keep separate the facts from the opinions is one of the basic rule of journalism.

And then Matt Taibbi responded:

That couldn’t be more incorrect. Which facts you choose to present IS an opinion.

I think it comes down to them, NPR and the rest of the media, being terrified of the “liberal bias” label. Their fear makes them leave out key facts in almost every single controversial story. And as such are, inadvertently I think, presenting an opinion. An opinion that will affect national opinion, which will in turn affect support for Planned Parenthood. The end result is that they are carrying water for the conservative agenda. Inadvertent or not, it’s just flat out wrong and it’s piss poor journalism. I for one am sick of it.

 


Sent 8/6/2015 via Contact Us form at NPR.org

Yesterday morning I listened to an NPR report on the latest sting video of Planned Parenthood. The reporter (sorry don’t remember her name) spent less than 5 seconds on its questionable nature. She characterized it, downplayed it, so that it came off as “excuse making” by Planned Parenthood. For example, she said something like ‘Planned Parenthood as part of their defense pointed to statements that had been edited out of the video’. That is VASTLY different from the truth. The guy making the video had an agenda and he significantly altered the video in order to make it look as if Planned Parenthood was guilty of committing a crime. That needed to be said but it simply wasn’t. In the real world that’s called framing. Instead the story came across as one of the “poor optics” for Planned Parenthood. This is the exact same thing that happened to Acorn and they are now defunct.

In addition other reports and opinions expressed on NPR’s other shows has been about the optics as well. I don’t want to hear about optics in the news. I want to hear as many facts as you can put into the time slot. NPR used to be the one news source I could go to to get some semblance of reality and avoid the horse race reporting and biased news presented by the rest of the media. But over the last year that has been disappearing. Sadly it seems NPR has bowed to political pressure not to appear as “liberally biased”. NPR is over correcting and it means you are leaving out facts that are vital to understanding a story and presenting it fairly. If the reality has a liberal bias, report it and let the chips fall where they may. And vice versa, if the reality has a conservative bias, then report it and don’t worry about the shrilling of the right or the left.

That does not mean, however, that I only want a centrist view. A variety of opinion is desperately needed and is lacking on all the political shows that I have listened to to include Diane Rehm’s and This Week in Politics. “This Week in Politics” is supposed to present two opposing sides to the political debate. Instead you have E.J. Dionne for the left. He’s more of a Democratic Party supporter….which does not necessarily make him a liberal. He, more often than not, presents mild and ineffectual retorts (if given the time) to snide, condescending rhetoric from David Brooks. David Brooks is a conservative masking himself as a centrist and he does not represent the conservative base in America. Even these two gentlemen, supposedly from opposing sides, took the centrist view on the Planned Parenthood story and the conversation hinged on the bad optics. It shouldn’t be about bad optics and by making it so you feed into those bad optics and as a result carry water for a political agenda. This has been happening with increasing frequency over the last few years.

And finally, while I can see plenty of facts online in NPR articles about the veracity of the videos and how government money to Planned Parenthood is really spent and how they provide crucial healthcare to millions of women, I have yet to hear that on any of the radio shows, which is where most people are exposed to NPR. Like most people, I listen on my way to/from work. Since the radio is how most of your listeners will hear the news, the articles online are of little use in affecting the current national conversation. And make no mistake about it, you are affecting national opinion. If that opinion turns against Planned Parenthood and they lose funding, tens of thousands of women will suffer.

I’m sad to report that NPR has now become the best of the bad and that decline will ensure that I do not rely on NPR for news or anything else in the future.

The online version of the major state paper, AZCentral.com, did a little fact check on the following statement by State Rep. Adam Kwasman (R-Oro Valley):

This (Senate Bill 1062) is not a discrimination bill. It makes no mention of sexual orientation.

At first they decided it was “True” then they revised their decision to say it is “somewhat true, somewhat false”. What they’re really doing is trying to be balanced to avoid being labeled as biased as either too conservative or too liberal. So they hemmed and hawed and still haven’t gotten it right.

If they take the literal meaning of what he said in the second half–no mention of sexual orientation, then yes, it’s true. BUT the first part that says it’s not a “discrimination bill”? Is patently false. Which makes the entire thing false. Just because a bill doesn’t use an exact phrase doesn’t mean that the intention and effect of the bill wasn’t to violate the Civil Rights of American citizens.

Discrimination in the U.S. often takes the form of Civil Rights violations. Refusing to serve someone on the grounds of her race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, and in some states sexual orientation, would be a civil rights violation. Arizona does not prohibit discrimination against LGBTQIA. However, if it went up through the Federal Courts I can guarantee you that they would uphold it as discriminatory regardless of what state law says. Even if they didn’t, it’s still discrimination based on religion. For example, a business person saying “I won’t serve you because you’re gay and my religion says that’s evil” is the same as saying, “You believe that being gay is okay, so your religion allows it. That is different than my religion, so I am not going to not serve you.” Still discrimination.

So no matter how you slice it the paper got it flat out wrong–their “fact checker” sucks and it’s because they’re so scared of the “bias” criticism that they’ll bend over backward to make both sides happy. They’ve forgotten that journalism is about pleasing the politically motivated. It’s the report the objective truth–sometimes that truth is a conservative thing and sometimes it’s a liberal thing. But it’s still the truth and should be reported as such. This is precisely why our entire MSM (with the exception of Fox News who is clearly conservatively biased and makes no apologies for it) is quickly becoming useless.

Who knew that Big Bird was the real source of our economic problems in the U.S.?  I certainly didn’t.  I mean, after all, I was a big fan of the large, mild yellow bird as a child.  As a poor latch key kid Sesame Street was a lifeline–a safe place to escape and learn something new every day.  I have a picture of me sleeping in a crib when I was 3 years old* with a large Big Bird doll next me. He’s on his side and my head is turned to face him….his beak and my nose almost touching.  Who would have thought that Big Bird was such a profligate spender?  Next thing you know we’ll start hearing about how he is gay and his relationship with Snuffaluffagus was much more than a bromance.  Will he be pilloried by the right for secret orgies with that other gay pair, Sponge Bob and Patrick?  Who knows?  After all, it seems that just about anything can come out of Romney’s mouth, other than actual facts that is.

PS:  Loved this response by Neil DeGrasse Tyson via Twitter

Neil Degrasse Tyson Tweet about Big Bird

 

___________________

* we didn’t have enough beds, there were 7 of us in a three bedroom house, so I had to sleep in a crib for a little longer than is typical

Show me a single instance of this kind of thing from the left. I have never heard or seen a single Liberal say anything about eliminating the GOP nominee, much less advertise it on a frickin billboard. Both sides don’t do it and the level of vitriol and hate is in no way shape or form equal. Ever since Obama was a candidate in 2008, this kind of “eliminationist” talk has surfaced and become more and more blatant. This is dangerous and morally reprehensible.

You call this civil?

ht Bob Cesca

No, not the kind where I am off my meds, but more of the kind where I am thinking WTF?!  So here are some things that made say WTF recently.

1.  Candy Crowley on her execrable show on CNN called State of the Union had a segment this past Sunday where she used the segue of “Is the President bad for business?” She didn’t use a neutral segue such as “How has the President affected business?”, which would have made one think that actual journalism was going to occur.  And she didn’t use the liberal phrasing, which would have been “Is the President good for business?” No, she used the conservative (Fox  News) phrasing1.  So any viewer who might already be thinking that about the President needed nothing more than to hear the segue before nodding their heads and changing the channel to something equally informative like The Kardashians or NASCAR2.

2. If you were unfortunate enough to continue watching Crowley as I was, you would have seen Carly Fiorina, former failed Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate and failed business executive of Lucent Technologies, being presented as an expert on the economy. Really Candy!? Why for the love of all that is holy can’t you have a REAL expert? One who hasn’t failed in everything they’ve done3, or one who wasn’t given everything they have or one who wasn’t given a really good head start and then vulturizedTM healthy companies to gain profits….you see where I am going with this, right? How about have a REAL FRIGGING economic expert with both experience, education and a historical track record of being right?! The reason Fiorina was on was for the sake of faux balance. She was the only Republican financial-sort of person that Crowley could find in her incredibly limited contact list. The truth is Crowley couldn’t find very many REAL economic experts who wanted to come on TV and peddle GOP bullshit so she had to rely on somebody like a Fiorina. Trump was probably her next in line if Fiorina said no.

2.  Several Governors are refusing to implement, and several more are considering refusal of, the expansion of Medicaid enacted by the ACA in their state  in spite of the fact that the first three years they would receive 100% reimbursement from the Federal Government.  Mainly because a) the Supreme Court said they could, b) thumbing their noses at President Obama is oh so much fun, and c) because campaigning against non-existent welfare queens is so much more newsworthy than campaigning on behalf of real people with real problems.  The whole welfare queen argument is a dog whistle so Why TF are we still seeing this crap in 2012?

3.  Probably because asshats like Mitt “vote for me because I am as white as Karl Rove’s shiny bare ass” Romney keeps putting out ads that say things like,

Under Obama’s plan you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job.  They just send you a welfare check.

This ad is based on a blatant lie that you won’t see anyone in the MSM actually call him on because evidently the establishment media must have had to turn in their testicles  (or ovaries as the case may be) when they signed a contract to work for a major television news channel.  The truth is that the President granted an exception to two Republican Governors who requested the exception4.  Yeah, this is a definite WTF moment.  So do me a favor, count and make note of the number of times you see anyone in the MSM mention the fact that Mitt Romney is a lying sack of pooh on this issue, and send me an email or comment.  I’m betting the wires will be very, very silent.

4.  Another thought on current news….let the example of Lt. Brian Murphy serve as the ultimate cautionary tale. Lt. Murphy is a 21-year law enforcement veteran who was the first to arrive at the Sikh Temple this weekend. He was and is highly trained for just such situations, and of course, he was armed. Lt. Murphy ended up being shot 8 or 9 times and remains in critical condition. It wasn’t until reinforcements showed up that the perpetrator was killed. So to all those online conservative posters who were SO certain that if THEY or SOMEONE had been in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and had a weapon they would have been able to stop the full body-armored perpetrator in the midst of a dark, tear gas-filled theater full of the noise of the movie soundtrack and screaming, scrambling moviegoers, I say bullcrap.  You would have a) crapped your pants, b) run for the hills or cowered on the floor c) shot more innocents, d) made yourself a really fine target by your own muzzle flash, and/or e) ended up full of lead like Lt. Murphy.  The perp always has the  advantage of surprise and the confusion that results in any crowded area5.  If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be allowed to wear in a gun in public because you’re an untrained, dangerously overconfident braggart.

5. And finally, Pat Robertson, the Christian televangelist that had the nerve to say that 9/11 happened because we tolerated homosexuals had to put his two cents in this weekend and say that the perp who killed many innocents over the weekend at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin was an atheist who hated God.  No, no, no, no!  You stupid, ignorant, blind idiot!  The perp was a Christian, specifically a White Supremacist.  You know those Aryan lovin’ brothers who all claim to be Christians?  Robertson, just shut up, really…..if you’re going to say anything at all, pray for the victims. Otherwise, just shut up.

NOTES:

1.  Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, “Race to the bottom”, as in ratings CNN.

2. Not that reality TV or NASCAR or any other popular television phenomena isn’t informative, it just isn’t all that informative about what really matters….like choosing the Leader of the supposedly Free World.

3. And no, Fiorina managing to stay rich in the face of failure isn’t a qualification of an economic expert. Once you’re rich it’s pretty damn hard not to continue to be rich. Hell, all you have to do is invest your money at a relatively low-level of risk, sit back, and watch it grow. My 9-year old could do that. The point is, you can destroy a company, hell even an economy, and still keep your personal wealth. After that, everything else is a cakewalk. But that hardly makes you an economic expert. Still not convinced that if you have money, you can make more than enough money to stay rich even though you have no worth as a human being whatsoever? Two words–Paris Hilton.

4.  BTW this is one of the many compromises the President has made that the MSM loves to ignore while the other party NEVER EVER compromises in any way shape or form but somehow it’s the President’s fault he hasn’t changed the climate in Washington.   For the love of God people, get  a clue!  Candy Crowley, I’m looking at you, you over-privileged useless excuse for a journalist.

5. You have to go down to the comments to see my back and forth with at least one of the braggarts.

SOURCES:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1208/05/sotu.01.html

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/why-cnn-treating-fiorina-expert-econo

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13145392-falling-through-cracks-if-states-dont-expand-medicaid?lite

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0709/Texas-Perry-rejects-Medicaid-expansion.-What-now-video

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/07/cop-critical-after-being-shot-nine-times-while-trying-to-stop-sikh-temple/

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/08/07/there-he-goes-again/

http://news.yahoo.com/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes-115717096–abc-news-topstories.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.asp

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/pat-robertson-suggests-atheists-blame-sikh-t

The current political situation in the U.S. is perfect for playing a game I like to call “Where’s Ruprecht?” 1 TM Ruprecht is the guy with the cork on his fork and this “useful idiot” can be found all over the political map.

Let me describe the definition of “useful idiot” and put it in historical context.  Apparently, Lenin coined the term  when talking about capitalist dupes who “will sell us the rope with which to hang them”, i.e.,   dupes that, in order to make a profit, continued to deal with the Soviet Union and in the end harmed their own country and aided their enemies by supplying them with what they needed to compete with us.  Evidently the literal translation from Russian is actually “utter simpleton” but Americans got the gist of it and believed that “useful idiot” was the better translation.  How sadly correct we were and still are.

Later this term was used by conservatives to refer to liberals that would not acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a brutal, police state and continued to advocate normalizing relations with the USSR.  I’m sure there were people who genuinely believed, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that the USSR was not a threat to us.  And there were businessmen who cared little for the politics and more for the profit to be had.  Both types shot themselves in the foot and could be called “useful idiots”.  It has also been used to describe the relationship of African Americans as a voting bloc within the Democratic party by BOTH conservatives and extremists on the left.

And although it can refer to any duped group of persons that prop up another group and doing so isn’t in their on best interests, the term still seems to be mostly applied to liberals in the U.S.   It’s part and parcel of the entire image that conservatives have been hammering into the American subconscious for the last 40 years.  We see it every day being used against Pres. Obama.  He is supposedly weak on defense and a non-fighter in domestic politics.  He is supposedly elite because he is intelligent and educated.  He is supposedly naive or disingenuous….etc, etc, etc….

To see how this is being hammered into the public discourse and how these labels stick so well, do a search for +liberals and +”useful idiots” and you’ll get over 1.4 million hits, most of them conservatives sites applying the term to liberals.  Then do a search for +conservatives +”useful idiots” and you’ll get over 1.3 million hits, mostly of the same links as the previous search.  The level of vitriol in the conservative blogosphere and the media that they control and put out there out advertises, out shouts, out funds and generally out does the application of stigmatizing label attacks on the left–they are geniuses sociological manipulation and Americans are buying into it.

The GOP has perfected the name calling business to such a degree that too many liberals have been afraid to proclaim themselves as such, hence the usage of “progressive” by many liberals today.  I don’t consider many so-called progressives to be the same as those of the Teddy Roosevelt era kind, but that’s another post best left for another day.  The refusal by several generations of liberals to even use the word in advocating their positions, in declaring their political philosophy or even using it in conversation in general  added to the MSM’s aversion to the accusation of “liberal bias” is proof enough of the efficacy of labeling.

But back to these so called “progressives”….I would actually label them as Ruprechts.   Liberals not buying into their self-sabotage generally label them as “Firebaggers”2.     Who are the other Ruprechts?  The Tea Party, and, of course, the wonderfully absurd and ever entertaining Herman “I can’t get enough of the ladies” Cain.

Since I love lists, here’s one of what all Ruprechts have in common.  

1.  Denial of proven factual reality – The Tea Party denies long established scientific principles such as Evolution and even go so far as to eschew the scientific method for “belief” or “faith” based knowledge.  For example, this extreme wing of the GOP wants to put Creationism on the educational curriculum in, wait for it……..science classes….  The Firebagger’s deny the very real but separate and equal branches of the federal government.  For example, when President Obama wanted to shut down Guantanomo he had to request funding for it from Congress, because that’s their job–to assign the money–and they said no.  The Firebagger’s blamed the President for the subsequent failure to close Guantanamo.  Herman Cain…..well, his attempt to get the GOP nomination in 2012 is pretty much dead, but will he admit it?  Hell no!  Conclusion:  All of these Ruprecht’s can’t even see the facts much less make logical deductions from said facts.

2.  Acting against their own long term best interests  – The Tea Party votes for tax breaks for the very wealthy, when very few of them actually are the very wealthy.  Not only that, they believe despite all evidence to the contrary that “trickle down” economics work.  And to top it off they demand the taxes continue to be cut and government shrunk but don’t you dare touch their Medicare.  Mind-boggling, I know.  Firebaggers have been making noises about putting someone up against Pres. Obama in the primaries in spite of the fact that it has proven to be an phenomenally impractical and just plain bad idea virtually ensuring disaffectation and further infighting on the left for years to come at the precise moment when they need to unite to defeat the GOP.  Furthermore if any of the clowns from the right should get elected as President (literally any one of them including Romney) much of the hard fought progress made by Pres. Obama will be obliterated and we’ll be back in the “lost Bush years”.   No one truly on the left should EVER want that!  And speaking of clowns, good ole Herman should never have thrown his hat into the ring in the first place….but his megalomania wouldn’t let him hold back.  Now the skeletons and peccadilloes discovered as a result will follow him around forever and if not affect his business career, definitely will affect his personal relationships.  Conclusion:  Ruprechts would be better off not playing the role but they just can’t help themselves–for why that is the case, next item.

3.  Aiding the enemy – Some might argue that The Tea Party has actually aided the right, and they certainly have rallied the base enfusing it with renewed fervor.  But the truth is they’ve done a great job to disaffect anyone on the left and a lot of people in the middle because of their extreme views interlaced with the ugliest and shameful parts of the American psyche3.  In the end they will help us re-elect Pres. Obama and I personally hope their extremism continues for a good long while.  The same could be said Cain…let the circus atmosphere continue…it only makes the Democrats look better and better to the Independent voter.  On the left the Firebaggers are playing directly into the hands of conservatives and in some cases have actually collaborated with members of the GOP to oppose Pres. Obama on a number of issues.  If they try to primary the President or offer up a third candidate, they would likely siphon off votes similar to what happened in 2000 with Nader, partially causing the loss of the election and President Shrub’s 8 year long debacle.  As to why they do this?  Well some of the GOP/Tea Party are cons, playing a game and others are true believers…either way the result is the same.  Cain is simply a megalomaniac and with regards to the Firebaggers I am not entirely sure.  I believe that some are true believers in their cause (such as Glen Greenwald) and others are simply trying to make a buck (such as Jane Hamsher)….their increasing appearance on MSM outlets hand-in-hand with scum like Erick Erickson, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Breitbart, etc, doesn’t lend credence to their declarations of ideological purity.  Conclusion:  Ruprehts might actually be in on the con or they may actually be idiots, either way the result is the same…they end up getting conned along with the rest of us.

Now you know how to spot a Ruprecht.  Go out there and find some more!

Notes:

1.  If you don’t know who Ruprecht is you MUST watch the movie “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” and if you can’t be bothered, you must at least watch this scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqMc9B7uDV8.  Two con men take turns bilking lonely rich women out of their fortunes. The con men take turns playing the suave debonair seducer and the idiot with the cork on his fork, aka, Ruprecht.  Ruprecht is the useful idiot and in the movie the con man character played by  Steve Martin realizes that he is also a useful idiot in other ways as well because, well, that’s the nature of a con…sometimes the conner can become the duped.

2. For the uninitiated, Firebaggers tend to call themselves liberal and progressives, and represent an extreme view on the left that condemns President Obama no matter what he does and no matter how he does it. The name originated from a blog called Firedoglake by one of the chief complainers, Jane Hamsher. You might see them called Hamsherites as well.

3. I refer here to the widespread racism and religious bigotry exhibited during the 2008 Presidential election by Tea Party members, the dog whistles being used in the current GOP nomination race for 2012, age discrimination of the elderly who want their Medicare at all costs at the expense of the young and the future of the country, class warfare of the wealthiest Americans waged against the middle class, the refusal of the GOP as pushed by the Tea Party to compromise on anything with Pres. Obama even if it was an idea they formally advocated for, etc, etc…this list is endless.

We’ve been hearing it for decades now….the media in the U.S. has a liberal bias.  We’ve heard it so often from so many people that it has become an accepted norm. The only problem is, it isn’t true.  Or if it was true at some point, it is no longer true.  Here’s a prime example.

Today, as I was reading the news on Yahoo I found in the News For You section a link to an article entitled “Who’s Behind the Wall Street Protests?” that was written yesterday, Oct. 13, 2011.  Being aware that the movement Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was a spontaneous movement, a true grass-roots happening that started in New York and then spread around cities in the US and  now the world, I was curious.  The article by Reuters news agency doesn’t pull any punches.  They get right to the point.  They assert that OWS isn’t a grass-roots movement but is instead the creation of one George Soros.

For the uninitiated, George Soros is a Hungarian-born philanthropist who has called the U.S. home for many decades.  He frequently supports progressive-liberal causes and spends a great deal of money and time in those endeavors.  One of his main motivations comes from surviving the Holocaust as a young man.  Nothing like surviving senseless extinction at the hands of a fascist regime to make one value freedom and democracy, right?   To liberals he is a kind man who believes in the worthiness of liberal causes, but I don’t know anyone, who is very active in liberal politics, who has ever met him or received anything from him.  Many of us have, on occasion, joined with organizations that he has donated to such as MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress.   So many of our causes and our activities have indirectly benefited from his largess.

If you do  a Google search on Soros you will be overwhelmed with information….I found over 2.2 million hits for his name alone–which doesn’t include all the organizations and causes to which he is linked.   The reason isn’t because he’s wealthy, because there are plenty of very wealthy individuals in the U.S. that don’t get so many Internet mentions.  The reason isn’t because he donates to progressive/liberal causes….again there are many wealthy people that do that too.   No, the reason that George Soros is so talked about is because several important figures on the right in the MSM have decided to villify Mr. Soros as some kind of shadowy puppet master (e.g.,  Pres. Obama being cast as a “Manchurian Candidate” created by Soros, China, any and all enemies of the U.S. and any combination thereof) leading the country ignorantly to a Marxist state.  Although nothing could be further from the truth, media figures such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Riley, Pat Buchannen, etc, etc, etc…..have been pushing conspiracy theories stirring up the passions and fears of their libertarian and evangelical base to the point that far too many people are now buying into the theory, including some mainstream news sources like Reuters.

So linked on a Yahoo News page that will be seen by millions of users in the U.S. and around the world is an article baldly stating that Soros is behind the OWS protests.  Their proof?  Three things.  1) Soros previously donated money to a liberal ad agency in Canada who first started calls for “occupation” protests in response to large banking and investment companies that crashed the world economy and still earn billions in profits.  This ad agency, called Adbusters, was the origin of the idea of OWS and the connection here is indirect as Soros is not the only donor to Adbusters and he didn’t donate money to them in support of this particular cause.  The article at least admits that is indirect.  2) Soros and the protesters “share ideological ground”.  Of course they do?!  Soros is a self-proclaimed supporter of liberal causes.  And so do I but that doesn’t mean that agree with everything that comes out of the mouths of OWS protesters nor does it mean that either Soros or  I want the destroy my country and install a Marxist state.    That’s like saying that if you share beliefs with a mass murderer, then you must be a mass murderer.  Well, I believe that there are some beliefs that Timothy McVeigh had that millions of Americans also supported……but very few of them would say that means they were in cahoots with McVeigh.  And 3) Rush Limbaugh said it.  That’s the incredible contribution to journalism offerred up by Mark Egan and Michelle Nichols, two reporters from Reuters.

So, having read said piece of crap I thought I would investigate a little more.  I looked up Adbusters and found out that they did indeed originate the idea but not the actual protests of OWS.  Then I did a Google search on “Reuters wall street protests”  and the third result down was an article on Reuters site by the same authors that is entitled, “Soros:  not a funder of Wall Street protests” also published yesterday.  In reading the article they actually engage in some journalism and spoke to Adbusters who said that Soro’s had NOT given them money directly but they wish he would.  They had received money from a group called the Tides Agency which is directly funded by Soros.  Soro’s aides say he’s never even heard of them.  The ad agency indicated that 95% of their funding comes from individuals who subscribe to their magazine.  These revelations are buried in paragraph 14 of the story.  HOWEVER, the same reductionist logic that claims Soros IS behind OWS is right up at the top in paragraphs 2 through 4.

Still curious, I decided to see how Reuters reported on the funding behind another supposed grass-roots protest, the Tea Party.  I did a Google search for the following string:   “who is behind the tea party protests?” reuters

Guess what I found?  Nothing.  Not a single link or word about it.  Take out the Reuters and I get 5 results.  That’s it, 5 total. So I thought maybe its the phrasing…..so I took off the quotes and I found over 102 million results.  Now many of these links are to the sites and stories of actual Tea Party members.  And no doubt there are quite a few individuals who joined that movement with sincere beliefs and honest intentions because they love their country.  However, I find it depressing that the same search replacing “tea party” with “wall street” finds thousands of results with or without the term Reuters in the search string.  Then I did a search about the known (freely admitted) bank roll behind the Tea Party movement, the Koch Brothers of Koch Industries fame.  Then I found about 1 million hits…..half of what you get on George Soros.  And the types of links…progressive bloggers.  What kind of links do you get when you search for Soros….MSM links.  This is no coincidence.  Let me explain why by asking a question.

Who is Reuters anyway?  It is headquartered in London and was originally a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters.  In 2008 it was merged with The Thomson Corporation, an information business, known mostly for its higher education textbooks.*  Thomson is registered in Canada but has their headquarters in the U.S. (nice little tax maneuvering there I figure…..)  In recent years they have divested themselves of traditional media (i.e., textbooks) in an effort to concentrate on digital and online media.  The current CEO of Reuters is Tom Glocer and the current chairman is David Thomson (of the Thomson family that owns 70% of the company).

Who is Glocer and what is his angle?  Well he has been with Reuters since 1993, moving up the ranks until he reached CEO in 2001.  He lives in NYC, has a law degree and one can safely assume that he is filthy rich. **  As for David Thomson, filthy rich doesn’t even come close to describing his wealth, $23 billion at last count, ranked as #16 on the list of wealthiest families in the world by Forbes.  I won’t bother going into his royal title, the “3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet”.***

What possible motive could these fabulously wealthy, media magnates have that would encourage the mis-characterization of the OWS protests (she asks disingenuously)?  It couldn’t possibly be maintenance of the status quo, keeping the balance of power squarely on the side of corporations and the 1% could it?  Could it?

I mean all the evidence, of which the Reuters story is only one tiny, tiny piece, is becoming a mountain of evidence that the MSM is manipulating the American public to turn against their best advocates, themselves, and in the end vote against their own best interests.  I’m one of a few voices telling you not to believe it.   The Soros boogeyman isn’t real and the ones that are real, like Dave Thomson and Rupert Murdoch, who own most of the news sources are invisible to the average American.  Liberal media bias, don’t believe the hype.

Notes:

*Full disclosure I have used many Thomson textbooks to teach computer programming courses over the years and have recommended them to other instructors as well.

**For you glibertarians and conservatards reading this, I’m not saying he didn’t earn it so don’t go there!

***I presume they aren’t referring to Fleet of enema fame (I couldn’t resist the scatological reference, I’m sorry!!!!)

Sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html;_ylt=AlGZIa2Qn6oOwB4V_KHtDP2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqZGFpbzR0BGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEcGtnA2E2MTRjYTExLTMzMDItM2EzMS1hZDNhLWQxMGI3NzFiNjc1YgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHZlcgM0NGQwN2EwNi1mNWJhLTExZTAtYTM0Yi03OGU3ZDE1ZGJlYWM-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/13/us-wallstreet-protests-origins-idUSTRE79C1YN20111013?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71