According to Gallup, six in ten Americans express little or no confidence in the accuracy or integrity of media news reporting. Gallup thinks this is important because the revelation comes at a time when Americans rely on media to understand political platforms and perceptions of the presidential candidates. One wonders how media can be important when most people question its objectivity.
Republicans and independents distrust the media most, leaving democrats and communists willing to give a blind eye to media biases. Gallup tells us that since this poll, enthusiasm among democrats for voting increased significantly. Really? Now we are wondering how objective Gallup is.
Nevertheless, the Gallup data is interesting. Check it out.
More evidence about how ludicrous the media have become. From Hot Air, dated September 26, 2012; I note that this was reported in the Daily Beast, i.e., Newsweek (Of all places!):
ReplyDeleteUS knew Stevens assassination was work of terrorists within 24 hours of attack
Five days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto five Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking of the consulate was the result of a protest over a YouTube video that “spun out of control.” The government of Libya was already scoffing at that story, and by the end of the next week the White House began reluctantly admitting that terrorists had attacked the diplomatic mission.
In other words, either Susan Rice lied to the press, or was lied to by the Obama administration and sent out to the press deliberately. That leaves the national media in a quandry. Clearly, with only a couple of exceptions, the media hasn’t wanted to address the implications of a successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic installation … at least not during the Barack Obama presidency. Now it’s becoming very clear that the administration didn’t just tell them to “f*** off,” the White House actively lied about the attack in order to deflect further questions from the media.
Will national news organizations begin to demand answers about who told Rice to tell that story, and why? Or will they continue the pattern of last week, in which the media suddenly developed a keen interest in economic policy when the White House narrative on Benghazi began collapsing?
Remember what happened in Tehran in 1979? Ultimately, that event was the undoing of Jimmy Peanut.
This time around, the mainstream media are doing more to protect their Dem candidate.
Nothing's changed with the Lame Stream Media since, at the VERY LEAST, 1967. I've been counting.
ReplyDeleteIts like living in one of those scifi movies where reality doesnot match the news. Government run schools are working as intended. They are producing a zombie population that will believe anything.
ReplyDeleteIt does not even matter than several WH Officials has since back stepped the idea that this was spntaneous. The "jury" heard it was the video first and that is what they believe. And they believe it because the Arab world wants a law to stop all speach that offends Islam.
Here is my question. Why that guy was targeted? Was it easier to get to him than any one else? or was it something else? He knew he was being targeted but why? What was he really doing there in Libya?
Yes, Marine4ever,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more, but the communist corruption was there since the inception of the modern media.
When we consider how far to the left The New York Times -- "The Paper of Walter Duranty" -- has ALWAYS been (my father was railing against it when I first rose to consciousness in the 1940's!), the left-leaning, anti-Christian nature of the founders of the television industry, and prominent media "personalities" like Edward R. Morrow, Walter Cronkite, the cast and crew of Sixty Minutes, etc. all of whom really were and remain crypto-Marxists, you realize the extent to which we trusting, guileless, ordinary, everyday American citizens have been had.
Like you, I saw it for what it was soon after the assassination of John F Kennedy.
The journalistic assassination of Richard M. Nixon in 1972 made me realize just who was really in charge in this country. It was the ENEMEDIA, as I soon began to call them -- the Enemy Within.
But all this mental and moral ROT began with the emergence of HOLLYWOOD and the Entertainment Industry in general as possibly THE Major Player in The Shaping of the American Mind.
The insidious, tragically powerful influence of The Frankfurt School on our universities infected several generations with the mental disorder we variously call Marxism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, and so it has gone.
We've all been tricked and seduced into playing the role of so many frogs in a cauldron. The fire was ignited underneath the pot long before most of us were born. We are just now realizing we are, indeed, being boiled alive.
We ARE what we THINK and BELIEVE. Too bad we've been so easily led astray through intellectual aggression whose tactics were dreamt up by clever, unprincipled, oh-so spiteful fiends.
~ FreeThinke
SORRY! I meant to write Edward R. M-U-R-R-O-W.
ReplyDeleteArthritic fingers do strange, wayward things that constantly betray the mind.
~ FT
The major news papers in America are almost a thingof the past. NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN are losing viewers. Sadly, however, what readers and viewers they have are most likely those easiest to persuade, which is why I believe they continue to work so hard to push the Obama scam along.
ReplyDeleteYeah, FT, I meant to say about the JFK thing! How could I have forgotten THAT! I know people that STILL THINK the Warren Commission is/was as pure as the driven snow. SHEECH!
ReplyDelete"Here is my question. Why that guy was targeted?"
ReplyDeleteI'll let Mustang run with that one... he's SO MUCH BETTER at it... you're up, Mustang!
"Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly."
ReplyDeleteThis just may be another sign of the overall decline in rectitude that this society continues to suffer from.
Enthusiasm among Republicans to vote may be increasing as well, assuming I can consider myself to be a bellweather of change. In spite of my taking a Devil's Advocate view of the worth of voting, I registered online today as a Republican. Living in California and voting for Romney is probably the same as pissing into the wind, but seeing what Obama has in mind for us if he gets re-elected is too horrible to contemplate. I couldn't deal with the guilt if I didn't at least try to stop him, and blogging just isn't enough.
ReplyDeleteB/S -- I spent many a year(s) with an attitude JUST LIKE the one you have about voting... or, lack of voting, there with. Then, that sorry $&%#^ +£¥€%. #<€£=¥€?%, John Kerry ran for office. THAT was my wake up call. I vote in EVERY election that's local, state and/ or nationwide. At the very least, I can go to sleep at night saying, "Well, I tried."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo understand just how far away in Obama Fantasy Land the media can be, try watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC one evening. You would think that absolutely nothing happened in the world of politics but guffaws by Romney. And if he actually didn't provide fodder today, she will spend segment after segment on "old" news. OK, MSNBC is nothing but an Elect Obama cable station. (I won't even use the world "news" in the description.
ReplyDelete@ Liabilityguy --
ReplyDeleteDid you say something?
"What was he really doing there in Libya?"
ReplyDeleteI think there are 3 new stars on the wall at Langley.
Journalists record events and publish them for the edification of all. That isn't what is going on these days. I call them newsies because they aren't journalists at all. No, they are spineless know-nothings who write whatever their leftist editors tell them to write, even if that means distorting the truth in pursuit of the leftist agenda. How does anyone trust people like that?
ReplyDeleteEd Bonderenka said...
ReplyDelete"What was he really doing there in Libya?"
I think there are 3 new stars on the wall at Langley."
The State Department has its own intelligence apparatus (The Bureau of Intelligence and Research.) It seems to have a decidedly political bent is known to have been at odds with the CIA in the past. Since Clinton's term as liar and chief, the CIA has been a nest of desk driving pencil pushing bureaucrats a lot more interested in saving their jobs than saving the nation.
I doubt sincerely that either one would use the others resources or trust their personnel.
The military attache to any given country is usually the head US "spy" in a given country. The CIA represented by the Army and the Navy representing their own intelligence service. CIA officers carry reserve military rank.
My information might be out of date.