NPR (or what I call “National Propaganda Radio”)

Another example of the media bias in the mainstream media can be found in NPR’s 5/13/10 Fresh Air show. There they cite supply and demand as the main reason why so many American couples are opting at leaving their long lines here in the US and going overseas to adopt. It is true that it is due to supply and demand, that is, that demand outstrips supply here in the US. But they fail to offer an adequate explanation for why this is. The only explanation NPR gives is to suggest it is due to difficult adoption procedures. The fact is there’s something else going on for which NPR does not tell us.

The problem here in the US why the supply does not meet demand is because the vast majority of unwanted children that could be put up for adoption have been aborted.

The irony is tragic: The young female populations who can conceive children and do, but don’t want their children, are often persuaded that abortion is the best option, whereas the older female populations who are now looking to settle down and have children are finding themselves unable to conceive. Then, when they desperately look to adopt someone else’s child here in the U.S., the supply of children is low because so many unwanted children are killed by their mothers.

CNN admits that MSNBC is biased to the left

HT to Black & Right

The Tape--Obama and the PLO

From Texas Rainmaker--but you can find the story on almost any right-wing blog:

Shameful and disgusting.

John McCain’s presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.

Apparently it was newsworthy enough to spawn an article in the paper, so we have to wonder what’s on the tape that is so newsworthy the paper (who has endorsed Barack Obama) does not want the world seeing before the election.

Maybe because the man Obama was heaping praise upon was a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and served on the PLO “guidance committee”…
Mr. Khalidi was at that time “a director of the Palestinian press agency.” That would be Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija, or WAFA, the PLO press agency, where Mr. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, was chief English-language editor in 1976-82. Mr. Friedman quotes Mr. Khalidi in his official capacity saying that the Israelis are out to “crush the P.L.O.” … he served on the PLO “guidance committee” at the Madrid conference, along with such figures as Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and Sari Nusseibeh.

And yet the L.A. Times has a video of Obama praising Khalidi and refuses to release it. Makes you wonder just what they’re trying to hide for their endorsed candidate.

That's a specific instance of media bias--but there's a general trend too. Here are some results from a recent Pew study of major media coverage of McCain and Obama over the six weeks between the conventions and the final debate (Sept. 3-Oct. 16):

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

I'm pretty convinced that the media are pulling out all the stops to push their chosen candidate over the finish line. Don't let them discourage you--they will probably be even more negative about McCain over this final weekend. I wouldn't be surprised to see polls showing a big Obama lead after they've been tightening all week. Just remember what the media bias is, take it all with a HUGE grain of salt, and go vote!

Youtube continues censorship

Youtube continues to remove content that jeopardizes the Obama campaign. The latest involves footage that describes the hypocrisy of Obama’s words at the recent Saddleback Civil forum where he criticized our nation's leaders for not following Jesus’ imperative to consider “the least of these” (Matt. 25:40). He boldly declares this all the while neglecting the needs of his very own half-brother who lives in poverty in the slums of Kenya.

Related articles:

Obama’s half brother found link

Townhall.com article link

Media Bias: Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson

Remember that big interview Sarah Palin did with Charlie Gibson of ABC News? Well, ABC released the full transcript of the original interview, not just what was shown on TV. Newsbusters describes how ABC did some serious editing to make her look less knowledgeable and experienced, more like a warmongerer, more like a "scary fundamentalist" and less like a reasonable Christian. Really interesting read, you should definitely check it out.

Also read Charles Krauthammer on Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine. Liberals are crowing that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and thus betrayed her ignorance of foreign policy. Krauthammer says Gibson got it very wrong and betrayed his "establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension" in the process.

This kind of clear media bias in misleading editing just shows why you can't believe everything you hear on TV. You need to make sure you're getting information from a variety of sources and checking it against what you know. I know, this is harder and takes time and effort and thought, but it's important.

(I know the interview was something like a week and a half ago, so I apologize for the tardiness of this post, but if you live in central Ohio you know we've been dealing with crazy power outages and so on. Anyway, I think it's still relevant.)

CBS News: Accident or Intentional?

I thought I would share something interesting I noticed at the end of CBS's coverage of the Republican National Convention last week. Right before signing off following John McCain's speech, CBS News anchor Katie Couric referenced an affiliate website people could go to for extended live coverage of that night's festivities. I immediately went to this site. Interestingly enough, however, I did not see what she promised I would see. Rather, I saw the “closing ceremonies” of the Democratic National Convention. Was it just an error on their part? Well, they are either guilty of unprofessionalism – for having the wrong streaming content, or they are guilty of lying. You be the judge. Based on their track record, I’ve made my decision.

Jumping the Shark

Election Update: Evangelicals for Obama?

If you're paying attention to the presidential election, you've probably seen more than one news report about how Obama is reaching out to evangelical Christians and how evangelicals are planning on voting for him in large numbers. Personally, I don't know how any Christian who cares about abortion and life issues could vote for him, but that's just me. What do the actual data say?

How many pieces have we read in recent months about how evangelical Christians are falling over themselves in a mad rush to support presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama? Every discovery that evangelicals care about more than just the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage is met with hopeful accounts about how the Republican Party is losing these voters to the Democratic Party.

Now, it may be true that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has failed to get many folks, including evangelicals, excited about him. But given all the coverage to the contrary, I was somewhat surprised to see the results of a new Pew study that indicates that Obama is getting slightly fewer — that’s right — fewer white evangelical supporters than John Kerry was at the same time four years ago.

If you follow the link, there are a lot of examples of media coverage saying evangelicals are supporting Obama. It's definitely not a trend that people are imagining.

Here's something interesting, though: voters aren't buying it. About half of Americans believe the media are trying to get us to vote Obama, and the numbers are growing:

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

Interesting. It's heartening to see some sort of evidence that people are catching on to media bias. And this recent, spectacular example should help even more:

If you doubt the media are in the tank for Obama, doubt no more. The refusal of the New York Times to print McCain's op-ed on Obama after an Obama piece was published has nothing to do with editorial judgment and everything to do with protecting the media's heartthrob.

One final note of interest to political junkies: Dr. James Dobson is considering an endorsement for McCain, because he disagrees so strongly with Obama. It's a pretty big deal because up to now, Dr. Dobson was very opposed to McCain's candidacy.

"Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation," Dr. Dobson said in a statement to The Associated Press. "His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to re-evaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain. I have not endorsed him, but … I have concluded for the first time that I might. If that is a flip-flop, then so be it."

Figures Don't Lie, but Liars Can Figure

My dad likes to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” His point is that you can spin statistics a lot of different ways to support the story you want to tell. If you assume that statistics are neutral truth and can always be taken at face value, you are making a big mistake. If you want to be a savvy media consumer, when you’re faced with a bunch of numbers, take a minute to stop and think about what you’re hearing.

The Two-Income Trap

Here’s one recent example: Two economists, Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi wrote a book called The Two Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke, which basically argues that the need to purchase more expensive houses in better school districts has forced both parents to work in middle-class families. The fairly liberal authors suggest that the government needs to help out these middle-class families with better schools, government-provided health care, money for child care, etc., etc. However, as Todd Zywicki points out, they are playing fast and loose with some of their data:

Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi compare two middle-class families: an average family in the 1970s versus the 2000s (all dollar values are inflation-adjusted). The typical 1970s family is headed by a working father and a stay-at-home mother with two children. The father's income is $38,700, out of which came $5,310 in mortgage payments, $5,140 a year on car expenses, $1,030 on health insurance, and income taxes "which claim 24% of [the father's] income," leaving $17,834, or about $1,500 per month in "discretionary income" for all other expenses, such as food, clothing, utilities and savings.

The typical 2000s family has two working parents and a higher income of $67,800, an increase of 75% over the 1970s family. But their expenses have also risen: The mortgage payment increases to $9,000, the additional car raises the family obligation to $8,000, and more expensive health insurance premiums cost $1,650. A new expense of full-time daycare so the mother can work is estimated at $9,670. Mother's income bumps the family into a higher tax bracket, so that "the government takes 33% of the family's money." In the end, despite the dramatic increase in family income, the family is left with $17,045 in "discretionary income," less than the earlier generation.

The authors present no explanation for why they present only the tax data in their two examples as percentages instead of dollars. Nor do they ever present the actual dollar value for taxes anywhere in the book. So to conduct an "apples to apples" comparison of all expenses, I converted the tax obligations in the example from percentages to actual dollars.

In fact, for the typical 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income is $22,374.

Although income only rose 75%, and expenditures for the mortgage, car and health insurance rose by even less than that, the tax bill increased by $13,086--a whopping 140% increase.

Basically, Warren and Tyagi hide the most substantial increase in the family budget--taxes. Because admitting that the tax burden on the middle class is significant and increasing doesn’t fit with their agenda of bigger government social programs fueled by tax dollars. When you see sets of numbers presented in non-comparable ways, you ought to wonder why.

Economic Reporting

Democrats and the media are broadcasting never-ending bad news about the economy. But you need to know that there is often more than one way to interpret these statistics. Here’s one example: We’ve heard that “real wages are stagnant” or “real median household income is down.” Jon Henke takes a look at this common refrain. First, some definitions. Median household income is the wage and salary income received by a household in the middle of the US income distribution. “Real” income means that the numbers are adjusted for inflation. So, if your “real” income is the same as last year, that means that you should be able to buy about the same amount of stuff this year as you could last year. Now, according to Jon Henke, some things you need to know about the assertion that real median income has dropped:

• The decline in median income is statistically insignificant. The Census Bureau calculates the median income using the Current Population Survey, and like all surveys this provides a good estimate of the real data, not an exact true figure.
• 32.2% of employee compensation is from benefits, not wages. Real total compensation is up.
• Median household income is, obviously, reported by the household, not the individual. The Census Bureau also reports that average US household size is dropping. So, if household income is roughly constant, this means that individual income must be increasing.
• People don’t only get income from wages. If you include capital gains, employer-provided benefits, and other non-cash transfers (welfare payments), household income is up.
  All this complicated economic lingo means that our economic situation isn’t quite as bleak as some people would like you to think. Of course, individuals will still face hard times, the economy is slower than it was a couple of years ago, and rising oil and food prices aren’t helping, but continued GDP growth and an unemployment rate around 5% indicate an economy that is not in recession.

Just two examples that show why you need to stop and think about statistics. Don’t assume they present the truth. Always remember, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

Sensible Environmental Protection

Here’s a link to a grassroots movement that is advancing a biblical agenda for caring for the environment and the poor, based on solid facts, without all the hysteria.

We-get-it.org is sponsored by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Weather Channel Founder Doesn’t Buy the Hype

Thousands march on Washington…MSM yawns

By Michelle Malkin

Another Try By the Press at Divide & Conquer

In a recent propaganda piece in the New York Times entitled “The Evangelical Crackup,” the left-leaning MSM can be seen once again waging their subtle campaign of divide-and-conquer as they “reach out” to their sworn enemies – the Church. In this piece, as elsewhere, they try to convince Christians that our cause is losing momentum. Under girding this article is the consistent talking point of the left, that being, “We might as well give up. It’s a hopeless cause.”

Well I say, “No! I’m not buying it.” Like Satan in the garden or in the desert, it’s all a bunch of lies! Lie! Lies! Lies! Christians need to recognize the spin.

They’re also saying that new leaders within the Evangelical community are coming into their own with a fresh, new perspectives on the issues. They say, “Here’s how you need to think about it, you good-hearted church-goers.” For example, they note the change in leadership within the Southern Baptist Convention:

“The winner, Frank Page of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., campaigned on a promise to loosen up the conservatives’ tight control. He told convention delegates that Southern Baptists had become known too much for what they were against (abortion, evolution, homosexuality) instead of what they stand for (the Gospel).”

Ahhh! Maybe they got something here! Who wants to be negative? Right? Not me? Maybe I need to put down the banner of the anti-abortion movement (negative), and pick up the banner of global-warming (positive). Yeah! And maybe I need to put down the flag of the anti-gay movement (negative), and pick up the flag of civil rights for everyone! Hey, that’s positive! Yeah! Maybe now I’m seeing the light!!

Huh?!!! As Alfalfa from the little rascals says: “Heeyyyyyyy, wait a minute!” (Yeah, I know I lost the younger crowd; even those my own age.) Alright. You want me to be positive. I’ll be positive. I’ll be pro-life (positive), pro-creation (positive), pro-family (positive), and pro-marriage (positive). There. [Note to MSM: Goch-ya. You may fool many, but you ain’t foolin’ me.]

What the Church needs is a good dose of discernment. But that’s not going to come by going down to the local pharmacy and getting a quick fix. It’s going to come by the hard work of study…turning off the boob tube (that’s TV for those who don’t know), reading more, and thinking more carefully.

Poll findings depart so far from reality it’s laughable

For propaganda to be effective it needs to stay fairly subtle as it slides the bar in the direction the manipulative promulgators want people to go. Here’s an example of the MSM trying to tell conservatives what’s important to them. But it’s obvious they go way too far in mischaracterizing reality. Note to MSM: Subtle! Subtle! You’re forgetting the effective tactics of your friend the devil. Remember, your costume is that of an angel of light, not a costume with horns and a pitch fork!”

If you consider yourself a Republican, read this so-called “survey of Republicans” and ask if you find yourself holding to these so-called “majority opinions.”

WMDs Found In Press Room

I took a few minutes this morning to re-read portions of an addendum to President Bush's policy statement on human cloning written by Dr. Robert P. George of Princeton. Sounds dry, I know, but not at all. Although it was written over five years ago, it is of as much extreme relevance for us today as it was then.

By contrast, the inconsequential details of the inner life of Anna Nicole Smith have absolutely no bearing on the moral direction or consciousness of our nation. Yet, which topic, would you say, has more dominated news coverage over these years in the mainstream media?

The rationale behind the Presidential Council’s recommendations of a four-year ban on human cloning – as opposed to proposing an immediate permanent ban – was intended, as George pointed out, to “provide time for a careful and thorough public debate about the moral status of the human embryo.” Well, thanks to our national media, that careful and thorough debate never really happened. In its place was incessant borage of headlines about everything from Anna Nicole Smith to the vilified, but now vindicated, Duke men's lacrosse team.

Despite having no significance to society writ large, the Smith story, for example, became a major topic of discussion around the water cooler at work. The mainstream press pushed it down our throats convincing us that she was worth more of our time and attention than discussions on the details of proposed legislation on human cloning.

To illustrate the incessant nature of the media’s coverage of her at the expense of more worthy topics of discussion, let me bet you that I can tell you more about her than the average person can tell you about human cloning. This is true despite the fact that I NEVER tried to learn ANYTHING about Anna Nicole Smith. In fact, I RAN whenever I heard anything about her story. I could smell that story a mile away! Her story was simply another WMD (“weapons of mass distraction”) that the MSM frequently lobs at the American people at the expense of really important matters that should be covered in the news.

As a self-professing moralistic society, how we handle the issue of human cloning has significantly greater implications on the moral fabric of our society, than what we voyeuristically think about concerning the private and troubled life of an individual woman. In fact, this is an understatement of monumental proportions.

In closing, might I encourage you to turn off Jerry Springer (just kidding) and take a few minutes to read the piece on human cloning by Professor George. Greg Koukl calls this “the most sublime piece of reasoning about the morality of cloning and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) (and abortion, by logical extension) that [he has] seen in print.” Read it here.

A horror story the MSM won’t tell.

Be ready for your blood to boil on this one folks! (This will also break your heart.) Just click on the picture to watch this Vent report by Michelle Malkin of Hotair.com.

What PBS doesn’t want you to see.

Watch a Hotair.com interview with Frank Gaffney about the taxpayer-funded film that PBS continues to suppress. watch here

Other links:

FreeTheFilm.net
Center For Security Policy

Can We Trust The BBC?

On this Blog Week In Review podcast, we hear an interview with Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality, who left the network and has written a new book, titled Can We Trust The BBC?. You can say he’s the British version of Bernard Goldberg, the former executive producer at CBS who exposed the bias in the American media around the time of Rathergate. Aitken discusses in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. For those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, it’s an eye-opener.