Media organizations complain about Israeli air strikes, but they make no effort to put distance between themselves and Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist operations during a war. If reporters voluntarily choose to act as human shields for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, what exactly does that say about their agenda?
I have seen a variety of articles and editorials taking the conservative media, primarily FOX News, to task for its overenthusiastic reporting on a landslide that never materialized. And that’s fair enough. But when you have an entity called “Conservative Media” or “Liberal Media” then the bias is baked in. It would be nice if we had a genuinely independent media, but no such thing exists.
Slain SEAL’s Father to Obama: “If This Attack on American Citizens Happened in LA, Would You Have Waited Seven Hours Before You Sent the First Airplane?”
“My question of the president would be this: Your Honor, I respect your office as president. But if this attack on American citizens, on American soil, happened 2,000 miles away from Washington, D.C. — say in Los Angeles or in Seattle — would you have waited seven hours before you sent the first airplane? Would you have waited seven hours until the attack was over? Would you have waited a couple of days until you had all of the videos and all the information before you responded in a responsible military way?”
“Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building.”
Mr. Weinstein, after buying the movie, “came into the edit room” and suggested a revision. The film has been recut, using news and documentary footage to strengthen Mr. Obama’s role. Some of the Obama moments were added at the suggestion of Mr. Weinstein, they said, using material gathered by Meghan O’Hara, a producer who worked closely with Michael Moore
A free society with open elections is most vulnerable at the interface between the voting public and the political candidates. That is where the Mediacracy has attempted to cut democracy’s throat by controlling that interface. Mediacracy is not interested in truth or facts, only in power. It is not interested in providing a service to readers, but in controlling them. Mediacracy is strangling democracy and threatens the integrity of the political process.