by Kyle Smith • New York Post
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”
Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”
That was when Sharyl was being nice.
Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine. Continue reading
by Paul Farhi • Washington Post
White House journalists are creating an alternative system for distributing their media “pool” reports in response to the Obama administration’s involvement in approving and disapproving certain content in official reports.
A small group of reporters initiated an online forum this month in which they shared “pool” information among themselves, without White House involvement. The forum was set up by the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), which negotiates with the White House’s press staff over access for journalists.
Pool reports — those summaries of the president’s public appearances that go to the news media at large and are used in countless news stories — are filed by a rotating group of journalists whose work is intended to be free of content changes by the White House.
The pool journalists, however, must submit their reports to the White House press office, which distributes them via e-mail to hundreds of news organizations and others. The White House maintains the list of recipients.
Reporters have complained that the Obama White House exploits its role as distributor to demand changes in pool reports and that the press office has delayed or refused to distribute some reports until they are amended to officials’ satisfaction. Continue reading
The rigid tone, blind appeal to authority and constant use of the terms “denier” and “settled debate” do not reflect true scientific thought or serve the public well.
President Barack Obama recently warned the country about climate change, referencing the recently released National Climate Assessment, mandated by Congress and published every four years as a guide to policymakers. In doing so, he called out skeptics: “Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate. … Climate change is a fact. … Rising sea levels, drought, more wildfires, more severe storms — those are bad for the economy. … Climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now.”
Global warming and its dire consequences may very well come to pass. But with due respect to the president, his experts and everyone complaining about wasted time: The rigid tone, blind appeal to authority and constant use of the terms “denier” and “settled debate” do not reflect true scientific thought or serve the public well.
Science is about explaining nature. The scientist’s role is not to tell the public what to believe. It is to clarify ideas, as efficiently as possible, so the public can understand the questions at hand. Continue reading
The case for skepticism about climate scientists.
Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio came under attack this week for refusing to submit to scientific authority. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said in an interview with Jonathan Karl.
Nonscientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio’s words “undermine his other assertion,” namely “that he is prepared to be president.” Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had “disqualified himself” from the presidency.
Of all the silly things written on the subject of global warming, Marcus’s and Lapidos’s offerings are surely among the most recent. Apart from that they’re entirely typical of the genre of global-warmist opinion journalism, in which ignorant journalists taunt politicians for their ignorance but have no argument beyond an appeal to authority. Lapidos: “Does Mr. Rubio think scientists are lying? Or that they don’t know what they’re talking about? Either way, what leads him to believe that the ‘portrait’ of climate change offered by scientists is inaccurate?” Continue reading
The timeline of the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups reveals nothing less than a scandal. It is a scandal that blew into public view a year ago this week and about which the press has been far from curious.
In 2009, the president of the United States commented in a commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. Supporters of the president dismissed critics who worried that the “joke” was a “dog whistle” intended to declare open season on the president’s political opponents.
In January 2010, the president in his State of the Union Address publicly berated the six Supreme Court justices in attendance for their decision in Citizens United, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions. Continue reading
by Peter Roff
Is there some kind of unwritten law that says the IQ of a sportscaster can be no higher than the average combined score of the ten previous Super Bowls? After listening to NBC’s Bob Costas speak fawningly about the history of the former Soviet Union during the opening of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, you really have to wonder.
As part of his color commentary, Costas called the 1917 Russian Revolution that eventually brought Lenin to power a “pivotal moment” in history. He did so, however, in a manner that glossed over just why that was the case. It should never be forgotten that more than 100 million people around the world – and that’s a conservative estimate – died as a result of what that one event put into play.
Reporters have been telling lies about what the Soviets and their allies did for years. From the New York Times’ Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews – who wrote admiringly about Stalin and Fidel Castro – to television’s contemporary “superstar” journalists, far too many of those in whom rests the responsibility for telling the truth about world events have slanted their coverage in ways that benefited communist aims. Even today, the New York Times refuses to return the Pulitzer Prize Duranty won in 1932 for his dishonest account of the mass starvation in Ukraine. Continue reading
Poor Barack Obama. Ending his fifth year as the world’s most powerful man, he is running out of scapegoats and fairy tales. Blaming George W. Bush has lost its punch, and the ObamaCare debacle is shredding the myths he is competent and honest.
Still, before he rides off into that sunset of self-pity and low poll ratings, he ought to invite his remaining friends over for a heart-to-heart. That way he can tell The New York Times that its fanatical support does him no favors.
Instead, it feeds his arrogance and reinforces his belief that he can solve any problem with another speech. The unflattering truth doesn’t stand a chance — until it is too late. Continue reading
Fox News is the most trusted source of information on the new health care law for 19% of Americans – ahead of President Obama and other major networks.
The fight over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), has been one of the most contentious and bitter battles in domestic politics in recent memory. Media coverage of the issue has been particularly important, with the ins and outs of the passage and enactment of the law often dominating headlines. But information from politicians, government officials and insurance companies has also played a prominent role, with President Obama recently coming under fire after a key health care-related campaign promise – that Americans who liked their existing healthcare insurance plans could keep them – was cast into doubt.
The latest research from YouGov shows that when Americans are asked to pick the one source of information about the new health care law that they trust the most, Fox News Channel (also known as Fox News) tops the list. Most trusted by 19% of Americans, the basic cable news channel narrowly beats out ‘friends and family’ (17%). Continue reading
Like the falsified story Obama told about his mother, cancer and health insurance, ObamaCare is full of purposeful falsehoods. This is not a new problem with Obama, he’s been doing this – peddling blatant falsehoods on the national stage – since at least 2008. And the mainstream media has largely cheer him on or, at best, slept.
by Mona Charen
Remember President Barack Obama’s mother? Though the airwaves currently echo with his vow “If you like your plan . . .” I keep remembering Obama’s account of his mother being denied coverage by her insurance company as she lay dying of cancer.
The moving and infuriating story was a staple on the 2008 campaign trail. His mother had insurance, he explained, but when she came down with cancer, her insurance company claimed her disease was a “pre-existing condition” and refused to pay for her treatment. In a debate with Sen. John McCain, Obama said: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
There would be, if it had been true. Continue reading
When conservatives pointed out that you couldn’t keep your insurance policy, you couldn’t keep your doctor, and that the government or its panels and boards would decide what treatment will be given and what treatment will be denied (i.e. death panels), the President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and virtually all of the Democrats in Congress, as well as the mainstream media, howled with outrage and claimed that such talk was absurdly false, patently dishonest, and even racist. Evidence now proves that the conservatives were right on all counts and that the President and his allies were lying or were just plain stupid.
With the cancellation of millions of policies and even the President’s half-hearted “apology,” it is now beyond debate that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep your insurance,” or doctor or hospital is fantastically false. That is no longer debatable. The only question is who knew they were lying and who stupidly repeated the lies of others without actually knowing. Continue reading
“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” President Barack Obama said yesterday. The media called it an apology. But he apologized that Americans “are finding themselves in this situation.” That passive construction is meant to exculpate himself from responsibility. It was like he was telling us he was sorry that a terrible fire damaged our home or that our dog died. But he didn’t say he was sorry he set fire to our house or that he killed the dog. And make no mistake, he did this. We didn’t find ourselves in this situation. He pushed us into this situation.
Notably Obama did not say, “Im sorry that I misrepresented the facts about whether you could keep your coverage if you liked it. The truth is you can’t and you never could. I knew that. I shouldn’t have hid that fact from you.” His passive apology — “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation” — is simply an attempt to appear to apologize without actually doing so. Simply stated, he was not remotely clear about what he did that warrants an apology and the entire statement was intended to hide what he did. And what he did was lie, over and over again about the law. He did it because he had to lie about the law so that it would pass. He didn’t have a single vote to spare so the lies were a necessity if he wanted to win passage of the bill. Continue reading
The Obama administration continues to play politics and operate in perpetual campaign mode, rather than lead or govern. Obama has shutdown portions of the government and even private property owned by American citizens not because the law requires it, but because he sees a political advantage in doing it and then blaming his adversaries. He knows that the mainstream media will gleefully assist him in this endeavor regardless of the facts.
One party hopes to force the nation to have a serous conversation about government spending, our nearly catastrophic national debt, and our seeming addiction to deficit spending. The other party calls names, shifts blame, and acts lawlessly to inconvenience, burden and disrupt the lives of Americans. They want to make the government slow-down as painful and as difficult as possible. Continue reading
by Mike Gonzalez
PolitiFact is a website of the Tampa Bay Times, manned by journalists and editors. It purports to rule from on high on the veracity of political statements, assigning “Truth-O-Meter” ratings that range from True to “Pants on Fire.” It is all very droll, or painfully sophomoric, depending on where you stand politically. Studies by George Mason University and the University of Minnesota have concluded that PolitiFact is a biased outfit that is much harsher on conservatives than on liberals.
Last week, PolitiFact decided to rate statements on defunding Obamacare made by Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint at town hall meetings across the country. Well, these are not ratings made last week—PolitiFact just wrote on how it had rated these statements in the past. A bit of a summer rerun. Continue reading
by Ken Allard
CNN spent an hour of prime time Tuesday night to air a special anchored by Erin Burnett, “The Truth about Benghazi.” They claimed to have learned two vital lessons from their supposedly extensive investigation of that tragedy: It must never happen again, and politics trumped patriotism.
Really? That’s it? Are you kidding? The smiling, earnest naivete of Ms. Burnett suggested a graduate student who worked, you know, like really hard at the library all weekend — but apparently didn’t get within spitting distance of a reasonable conclusion.
First of all, Ms. Burnett may have noticed that her program aired just as American embassies in the Mideast were shuttered against a resurgent terrorist threat that Susan E. (Second Time’s the Charm) Rice is crisis-managing in her debut as national security adviser. Or that Vice President Joe Biden’s election-year litany — al Qaeda is dead and General Motors is alive — has been updated. Now it seems that al Qaeda is alive, and Detroit has gone belly-up. Continue reading