The article in question is a thoroughly slanted and emotional piece of crap by Alan Fram and Eileen Putman, passed off as an objective news report.
Fasten your seat belts. This could very well be the most egregious example of liberal media bias ever.
For starters, even the title and subheading are loaded with subjectivity:
Everything Seemingly Is Spinning out of Control / Out-of-control weather, gas prices, economy chip away at American self-confidence
Are you effing kidding me??? First of all, I’m no journalism major, but how can you use a word like “seemingly” in the body, let alone title, of an objective news story?
Second, I’ll admit that gas prices and the economy are fair game, but out-of-control weather? The only way weather could be considered a political issue is if you are an anti-capitalist (read: anti-Republican) shill for the man-made global warming hysteria crowd.
My argument is bolstered further by the authors’ ridiculous description of the weather as “out-of-control.” They would have you believe that until eight years ago, when a certain Republican became President of the United States, the country had never experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, extremely high and low temperatures, and floods. The weather has been calm for the billions of years of the earth’s existence and then suddenly, boom! The weather’s out of control. AND we can make the weather not be out of control (i.e., if we elect a certain Democrat president.)
Here’s the first paragraph of the “report.” It reads like a litany of lefty grievances repeated by virtually every Dem since McGovern.
Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
OK, let’s, as MC Hammer would say, break it down:
Midwestern levees are bursting. This is the current, Republican government’s fault? And if so, how is a new Democrat presidency is going to remedy that? The same way they folded to radical environmentalists in the 1970’s, which resulted in the inadequate levees in New Orleans?
Polar bears are adrift. Global warming alarmist crap. What the hell does “adrift” mean? It seems the authors are trying to give us the impression that as we speak hundreds of stranded polar bears are floating around the ocean on melting ice floes. There is absolutely no substantiation to this politically-motivated lie. The authors are probably referring to the only “adrift” polar bears they’ve ever seen: (1) the ones made famous by the U.K. Daily Mail in February 2007 and (2) the computer-animated clip of drowning polar bears in Al Gore’s movie.
Gas prices are skyrocketing. This is the current, Republican government’s fault? And if so, how is a new Democrat presidency is going to remedy that? They aren’t, as long as they continue to kiss the rear ends of the enviro-wacko movement.
Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. But all of these things (with the possible exception of health care) are neither the government’s fault, nor their responsibility to rectify. Or, maybe what the authors are trying to say is that these are areas where the free market system has failed “the people,” and the only way to rescue them is with a Democrat-led government takeover. However one interprets it, it’s clear these authors are hardcore socialists through and through.
Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism. This one is my favorite. Watch the wording now, people: Iraq. Check. Afghanistan. Check. AND against terrorism. Their point: Both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the war on terror, but rather Bush-concocted distractions from the real war. All lefty Dem propaganda; no basis in actual fact.
Also, there isn’t much “raging” these days, people. Notice how there isn’t much news about the war in the MSM? That’s because it’s going quite well. Until the occurrence of some roadside bomb casualties this weekend, Afghanistan hadn’t been mentioned in the mainstream press for quite a while.
* * * * *
Are you tired yet? ‘Cause so far we’ve just covered the headline, subheading, and introductory paragraph. Now grab your shovel. There’s lots more bull crap to come as we dig deeper into the body:
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault.
Perhaps. But according to what facts/data? And if so, whose fault is it? The government’s? And whose responsibility is it to rectify it? The government’s?
Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country’s sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year’s presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order—and hope. Republican John McCain promises an experienced hand in a frightening time. Democrat Barack Obama promises bright and shiny change, and his large crowds believe his exhortation, “Yes, we can.”
Whoa, hold the phone. Are the authors giving both Obama and McCain equally fair treatment in this article? “Experienced hand” is quite a compliment, albeit again a subjective opinion and not a fact-based assessment that belongs in an objective news article. But if you were thinking this lets the authors off the hook from being accused of being Democrat shills, here’s a subsequent paragraph:
American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s ...
Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House.
It’s that last sentence that stuck out for Blumer, and rightfully so. The authors’ message: Party change in Washington will solve our nation’s ills.
Oh, and about those hysterical hunts for Communists? First, I would consider the word “hysterical” to be just as fitting in an objective news story as “seemingly.” But at this point, would we expect anything less from these two? Second, regarding the hunts themselves, Blumer points out:
... [T]hose familiar with the Venona Papers and the work of M. Stanton Evans know that there is a better word to describe the “hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s.” The word is “necessary.”
Exactly. In addition, it turns out two of Prof. Lichtman’s three examples involve a party change from Democrat to Republican:
- The issues of Communism, the Cold War, and the Korean War led to Republican Eisenhower ending two decades of Democrat rule.
- Republican Reagan beat Democrat Carter after stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis.
- The only exception was the Depression, which greatly contributed to the defeat of Republican Herbert Hoover by Democrat FDR.
* * * * *
By the way, who is this Allan Lichtman, whom the authors simply describe as “American University historian?” I myself didn’t know, so I did a little Wikipedia search on him. What came up was, well, enlightening to say the least:
Lichtman has testified as an expert witness on civil rights in more than 70 cases for the U.S. Department of Justice and for civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Mexican-American and Puerto Rican American Legal Defense and Education Funds, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He also consulted for Vice President Al Gore and Senator Edward Kennedy. He assisted the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation into voting irregularities in Florida during the 2000 election, submitting an extensive report of his statistical analysis of balloting problems. Lichtman concluded "there were major racial disparities in ballot rejection rates". [...]
On September 28, 2005, Lichtman formally announced his candidacy for the United States Senate from Maryland. He ran as a progressive, opposing the War in Iraq and calling for an immediate and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops ... When he and other candidates were not invited by the League of Women Voters to a debate, Lichtman went to the Maryland Public Television studio and protested; he, his wife, and campaign volunteer Gail Dobson were arrested. On October 19th, 2006, the three were found Not Guilty on all charges.
“American University historian” my ass. This guy is a hard-core radical leftist with a truckload of political axes to grind against Republicans!
- Consultant to the likes of Al Gore and Ted Kennedy?
- Expert witness for several far-left groups like the NAACP?
- An ideologue of the Republicans-are-racist variety who was involved in the 2000 election investigation?
- Ran for Senate in Maryland on a "progressive" platform that makes Barack Obama look like Pat Buchanan?
No wonder he calls the hunting of Communists in the 1940’s and 50’s “hysterical.” His peeps were being “persecuted” by the evil Joe McCarthy.
Now, for Fram and Putman to cite this ideologue as an objective source is criminal in itself, but for them not to even label this guy at least as a "liberal" warrants a complete revocation of their journalism degrees. Could you imagine them citing a source just a smidgeon to the right of center without the qualifier “conservative” or “right wing”? I can’t either.
This is journalistic malpractice of the highest order, plain and simple.
* * * * *
But wait! There’s more! What would a biased MSM article be without some global warming crap stuck in there for good measure? And so the authors blame the Midwest floods on global warming with a level of audacity that hasn’t been seen since the detestable Al Gore went on TV last month to blame GW for the deadly cyclone in Burma:
Floods engulf Midwestern river towns. Is it global warming, the gradual degradation of a planet’s weather that man seems powerless to stop or just a freakish late-spring deluge?
Oh, gee, I don’t know, guys. Why don’t you tell us which one you think it is ... Your question is so open-ended.
First, what’s with "gradual degradation of a planet’s weather that man seems powerless to stop"? Are you implying that we’ve never had a flood before in this country? And second, what do you mean “seems”? These enviro-fanatics really do think that man can control the weather!
It gets even better. Y’see, if Fram and Putman’s “vote-for-Obama” message didn’t hit you over the head hard enough, go view their story online at ABC News. Each page of the three-page story has a picture. Page one is a montage of all the disasters the authors mention at the beginning of the story—flooded Midwestern towns, a gas station price marquee, and my favorite: a polar bear hanging out on an ice floe. How tasteful.
What pictures are posted on page two and three? A shot of Barack Obama and John McCain? No, two pictures of a smiling Michelle Obama appearing with the four cackling hens—also smiling—on The View. Talk about subtle!
Actually it’s quite clever: ABC gets to endorse Barack Obama and one of their TV shows. For a group of people who claim to detest capitalism, they can be quite good at it.
* * * * *
Really, this article is an absolute embarrassment in every way. A DNC press release couldn’t be more biased. There is positively nothing the least bit objective about this article. It’s a string of hysterical—yes, I can use it—unsubstantiated Democrat talking points.
The only thing spinning right now is the crap these Democrat shills try to pass off as news. Thanks, AP and ABC News, for delivering another textbook example of liberal media bias.