Media Bias Run Amok

“These people are our food, not our allies.”

Deacon Frost, Blade, 1998.

This quote by the vampire leader played by Stephen Dorff sums up the way I believe the press should feel about politicians. ALL POLITICIANS. Unfortunately, the press has chosen sides — they’re on a Republican only diet.

Conservative pundits and many Hillary Clinton supporters have labeled 2008 as “The year journalism died,” meaning that reporting is not merely biased, but that even the pretense of objectivity has disappeared from the “mainstream media”. Welcome to the club Hillary supporters.

Like most conservatives I had long been distrustful of most traditional media, but, aside from the occasional story that did not portray my candidate or beliefs in a way that I felt was fair, there was no single event so obvious that I could point at and say “look!”

It was during the 2004 presidential election that I realized that the accusation that the “mainstream media” really was incredibly biased in favor of Democrat candidates was irrefutably true.

For months the alphabet networks and the nation’s newspapers ignored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 16 of the 19 officers in John Kerry’s chain of command went on record saying he was unfit to be commander in chief, the story was ignored for months, and when it finally could no longer be ignored it was always sandwiched between stories of Kerry’s medals.

Does anyone think for one second that if 75% of the officers who served directly with George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard went on record saying he was unfit to be commander in chief it would not have been THE story for the entire election?

Dan Rather was so desperate for a story that former Texas Army National Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, well known in Texas political circles for being less than mentally stable and with a history of making false claims against Bush, conned Rather with forged documents purported to have been typed on a typewriter over thirty years ago, yet so obviously produced in Microsoft Word that their falsity was immediately apparent to everyone except the most delusional left wingers.

Do you think Rather would have been so enthusiastic, desperate and careless if the documents had come from a nut with a grudge against John Kerry?

Fast forward to 2008 and the most unreported, misreported issue of this election, Barak Obama’s relationship with terrorist bomber and multiple murderer Bill Ayers.

Barak Obama and Bill Ayers.

Bill Ayers wasn’t just another Vietnam era protester. Ayers founded the Weather Underground, a terrorist group that carried out a campaign of bombings, jailbreaks, riots and robberies. Ayers and the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for 25 bombings and are credited by the FBI with many more.

Seven people were killed, and several others maimed for life in Bill Ayers weather underground bombings.

Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, another Weather Underground member and also former member of the FBI’s ten most wanted list, are unrepentant. They wish they “could have done more.” I want to point out again that Ayers and Dohrn were not just hangers on, they were the leaders of the Weather Underground, directly responsible for bombings, jailbreaks, riots, robberies and murders.

Obama and Ayers — The Timeline.

From 1993 to 2002 Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers and Obama served together from 1999 to 2002.

From 1995 to 2001 Obama served as director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education related non-profit founded by Ayers to distribute money to radical education programs. Ayers hand-picked Obama for the chairmanship.

In 1995 Barak Obama’s political career was launched in an intimate gathering of a dozen people at terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn’s house.

In November 1997, Ayers and Obama participated in a panel at the University of Chicago entitled “Should a child ever be called a “super predator?” to debate “the merits of the juvenile justice system”. The forum, including panel selection, was set up by Michelle Obama in her capacity as Associate Dean of Student Services and Director of the University of Chicago Community Service Center.

In April 2002, Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama participated together at a conference entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois-Chicago. Ayers and Obama were two of the six members of the “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis” panel. This forum was set up by Michelle Obama in her capacity as University of Chicago PR executive.

In February of 2005 Obama, Ayers and Dorn were among the attendees at a farewell dinner for Arab American Action Network founder Rashid Khalidi, longtime supporter of Palestinian “˜resistance’ attacks against Israel. Obama, Ayers and Dorn’s testimonials were among those in a commemorative book filled with testimonials from Khalidi’s friends and political allies. In 2000-2001 Khalidi’s group received $70,000 from Obama and Ayers Woods Fund.

Barak Obama and William Ayers are NOT the casual acquaintances Obama claims. It is obvious not only that they are long-time allies, but that Ayers was Obama’s mentor.

Why does this matter?

It’s simple, our associations reveal who we really are. Our peer groups are people like us. We hang out with people we like and admire, whose company we enjoy. We choose or accept as mentors people whose behaviors we emulate.

Let me personalize it. Someone I had known for ten years and worked on several political projects with was arrested for a heinous crime a while back. After reading the police report it became my opinion that he was guilty as sin. I will never associate with this individual in any way ever again, not for political reasons, or to “cover my ass,” but because I am fundamentally repelled by what I believe to be his actions. My association with him would be a tacit acceptance of what I believe to be his actions, just as Obama’s association with Ayers and Dohrn reflects an acceptance of their actions and it would not matter if he committed this crime forty days or forty years ago.

Let me ask just one simple question: What if John McCain or Sarah Palin had similar connections to an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber responsible for over 25 bombings, numerous riots robberies and jailbreaks and seven murders? Do you think the dim-witted Anderson Cooper would be dismissing him as “some guy who wants to help kids?”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 27 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    Tim – you absolutely correct. The media bias in this country is out of control. The lib media darlings are in bed with B. H. Obama, no question.
    Fortunately, the mainstream media is becoming less relevant with each passing day.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Gotta love Obama’s response to the Ayers issue

    “Ahhh…ah. ahh.. lets get the record straight…ah.. Mr. Ayers was part of “a radical group” back when I was eight”

    Is this guy the most self centered person on the planet or what?

    How in the world can anyone be so self centered as to think the morality of an issue or act is somehow tied to when it happens in their lifetime?

    Here’s what I would have said back to him. I would have had a hard time not coming across the table at him.

    “Mr. Obama, I was eight too, you and I are the same age. Mr. Ayers was not part of “a radical group” he was part of a terrorist group no different than the IRA or Timothy McVeigh. That group was the Weather Underground Mr. Obama, and I can tell you, when they blew up a building in my neighborhood I never forgot it. I guess you do forget things like that Mr. Obama, a guy tries to blow up the Capitol and its irrelevant to you because it happened when you were eight, well, I can tell you, when I was eight and saw that building smoldering just blocks from my house it made quite an impression on me. I don’t think we need someone whose point of relevance is so self centered as yours seems to be. You seem to think that anything that happened when you were eight or younger is excusable. I think that attitude is inexcusable Mr. Obama”.

    As for press treatment of this story? Its laughable. If a Republican had this guy in their past, Democrats would already have bumper stickers printed up tying the candidate to Ayers and citing a vote against the candidate as a vote against hate, Bob Woodward would have a book coming out about the connection right about now as well.

    • David from Eugene

      I have yet to see any Democratic bumper stickers regarding McCain’ membership on the Board of Directors of the US chapter of the World Anti-Communist League and the funding of right wing terrorist groups by WACL and its affiliates during the time of his tenure. This is a much less tenuous link between a candidate and supporting terrorism then the Obama-Ayers linkage. But then they are running a more issue based campaign.

      • Anonymous

        That’s what I like about Obama supporters. Everytime a question comes up, instead of answering they start pointing fingers at somebody else. Is that what Socialism is about?????? Answer the question stupid

        • David from Eugene

          Rupert made an assertion that if the Dems had something similar to the Obama-Ayers relationship it would be front page news. I just pointed out that the Democrats did an it wasn’t on the front page. The fact is that they have at least two (the other being G. Gordon Liddy) and neither is getting press coverage.

          As to your Socialist Question, as I am not a Socialist, nor for that matter am I a laissez-faire capitalist or anarcho-capitalist which may be the source of your confusion, so I am not qualified to comment.

          On last observation, if you adopted a nome-de-plume, it would be easier to separate your comments from the other Anonymous posters.

  • Reper

    The media bias is an illussion.

    They have not overblown small irrelevent connections with eitehr candidate wetehr it be with Bill Ayers, McCain’s Keating connections, Palin’s troopergate, Rezco. Etc.

    The truth is that political connections is not a headlien story unless it invloves something illegal.

    • Anonymous

      Last time I checked acts of terrorism, bombing, murder and robbery were illegal.

  • Gienie

    Either way you look at it, Obama has had some political connections that are questionable to say the least about his judgement. What concerns me more than anything is Obama’s dishonesty about these connections.

    I keep listening for the real story in there somewhere, but he’s always too busy denying he knew anything about anything.

    If he’s really that ignorant… why would we, as US citizens, ever want someone who turns a blind eye to illegal activity in the White House?

    I just don’t get it!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Truth is in the hang time.

    The fact of the matter is the press seemed to spend a huge amount of time on Robert Abramoff right before the 2006 elections. He spread a lot of money around to a lot of Republicans.

    Now, when we have the biggest financial crises of our time, there seems nary a mention of the amount of money spread around to mostly Democrats by Fmae and Fmac, with Obama being the second highest recipient. Somehow I don’t see that little fact mentioned very much. Everybody knew the name Robert Abramoff, he was on TV virtually every night, could anyone pick Frank Raines, phone consultant to the Obama campaign out of a lineup? Nope. How about Richardson? Nope.

    The fact is before the 2006 elections we had a whole big deal made of Congressman Foley sending a bunch of dirty emails to a congressional page. Can anyone out there name the congressman who took his seat and now is caught up in a scandal paying off at least one mistress? No.

    How about John Edwards? How come the media was so slow to report on his affair and yet for some strange reason we hear about Larry Craig tapping some guys foot in a bathroom almost instantainiously?

    Hard to argue this is all coincidence.

    • dean

      Rupert, I know how you hate being corrected, but I think you mean JACK Abramoff, unless my LTRR skills have failed me once again.

      John McCain had “the media” eating from his hand in 2000, and through the primary season this year. He made a decision, one of many he will come to regret if he is not regretting them already (hello Sarah Palin,) to hitch his campaign to the Rush Limbaugh wing of his party. This meant running as a divider, not a uniter, and necessitated railing against “the mainstream media,” whatever that is in a world of 24-7 reporting and analysis and opinion that is all over the map.

      So to the extent “the media” has called him on his ridiculous, lying, snarky, guilt by association campaign, well he earned it. He could have run on the independent thinking, straight-talking, non right wing record he had built up over many years. But he didn’t. He ran a confused, angry, cynical campaign scripted by a Rove pupil.

      You can blame the media, blame liberals, blame Hollywood elites, professors, ACORN, or whomever you want. But if McCain loses big, and assuming the Democrats pick up a bunch of House and Sentate seats to go along with, then you (conservatives) should spend some time looking inward. Do you really want to be the modern day version of the “Know-Nothings?” Because that is where you are headed.

      • cc

        Oh, dean….

        McCain was a media darling in the R *primary* contest.

        Nice try, but to assert that he would have remained so, even against that gasbag Gore, in the GE is delusional. You would simply have preferred some sucker who thought the media was open-minded. Accepting your contention that he would have enjoyed the same adulation if he had only stuck to “…(his) independent thinking, straight-talking, non right wing record…” strains credulity, almost as much as accepting your ridiculous statements in the past that you “might” have voted for McCain in 2000, if only he’d been nominated…


        Just more of your incessant drivel – nothing new here – just more of the same misdirection and off-topic BS you spew nonstop.

        Also tedious is your feigned and selective ignorance about the MSM (and any of the myriad other terms and concepts you “don’t get” when expedient for your baseless arguments) – do you really think anyone here buys that? I mean, I understand that there any many things you don’t understand – but “mainstream media” – please. That dog won’t hunt anymore, if it ever did.

        Trotting out the Rove voodoo doll is another trite and worn-out canard – have you got ANY original thoughts?

        Anyone can reach the logical conclusion of their choice if they invent the premises and have limited contact with reality. You’re living proof – living in a parallel universe, that is.

        Oh, and good luck with that bunch of *Sentate* seats. If you’re going to correct others, you might, at least, proof read your own comments…

        …unless you did.

        • dean

          Yes…odd…I always thought there were 2 ts in Senate. Couldn’t understand why that had a red underline on my screen. Now I know. Phorever in your debit.

          Well….maybe you remember things differently since we inhabit alternative realities, but what I recall is the MSM (love that shorthand, it makes brain parking easier) did not think much of Gore and fairly well ridiculed him in the fall campaign. So, yes, in my alternative universe I think there is a good chance McCain would have been treated quite well, asuming that he maintained his 2000 persona rather than early adopting his 2008 one. But neither of us will ever know what would have happened, and it all depends on which of our realities is more real.

          I don’t mean to feign ignorance of the “MSM.” Its just that I don’t think it actually exists. I think what exists are multiple sources of news, analysis, and opinion that are mostly uncoordinated and independent or semi-independent. I mean, FOX bills itself as the most watched news station on cable. Rush bills himself as the most listened to radio talk show. Doesn’t that by definition make them mainstream? But if you and yours want to continue to ridicule the MSM and whine about it, then I suppose you may be collectively conjouring up its existence, sort of like Forbidden Planet and the “monsters from the id.” So asuming it does exist, even if only in your collective id, and assuming it is as powerful at shaping public opinion as you seem to believe, wouldn’t it be prudent to stop picking fights with it?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Dean, I gave up arguing with you when your racial views got to be just too ugly to stomach. Sorry, not a lot to say to you any more.

        • dean

          Rupert…I have no idea what you are referring to, but there are no hard feelings on my part. Have a good life.

  • Dave A.

    Has anyone noticed how LITTLE the NATIONWIDE FBI INVESTIGATION of ACORN is being reported? It’s a NATIONWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD developing and almost none of the MSM are saying much of anything about it. Of course, we all know exactly what political party they are registering votes for

  • Gienie

    I have~

    I’ve noticed a lot of things are being overlooked… or brushed off.

    It makes me wonder.. why McCain doesn’t go after Obama more… maybe he too has something to hide.

    • dean

      Gienie…it could be because he knows in his heart of hearts that running his campaign on these sleezy accusations is beneath him, and he just has no taste for this. My sense is McCain believes he is by far the better man, that Obama “jumped the que,” and he hates the thought of losing to this guy. But he is losing nonetheless.

      Bottom line, the ACORN and Ayers and Reverend Wright issues are tempests in teapots. McCain himself has “associated” with G Gordon Liddy, who advocated shooting Federal agents. And Sarah Palin “palled around with” a guy who hates America and wants Alaska to secede, hardly a patriot. I mean…living a life means you are going to rub elbows with shady characters or loudmouths from time to time. You can’t just run away from them. You deal with them as they are.

      We are electing a President who is going to set policies for foreign affairs, settle 2 wars (I hope), decide our energy future, ride heard over the entire banking industry that we are in the process of buying, raise or lower taxes, and so forth. All that stuff has nothing to do with a few cups of coffee either candidate had with whomever. Its not worth the ink, and that is probably why the “media” is not doing the rumor spreading for the campaigns.

  • Gienie

    You are so delusional Dean. I mean… sometimes I come on here just to see your comments so I can laugh a little.

    Thanks for making me laugh 🙂

    • dean

      Its a talent (making people laugh) I am so good at that sometimes I succeed at it even when not intended. But anyway, glad to have done the service for you, even if unwittingly.

  • David from Eugene

    An observation, the political right points to the liberal main stream reporters and screams media bias, while the political left points to the conservative ownership and management of the major media outlets and screams media bias. Are we dealing with a matter of perception rather then reality?

    • Tim Lyman

      No, we are not dealing with perception.

      It’s not about ownership, it’s about reportage.

  • John in Oregon

    Any discussion of Media Bias has to carefully define terms. I have used the term Legacy Media in part for that reason. By Legacy Media I originally meant newspapers, letter network (ABC, CBS, NBC) TV (and associated radio), and the traditional news collectors such as AP.

    Next one needs to define what is good news reporting. My definition is simple.

    *O* Report the facts.
    *O* Report all the facts.
    *O* Report only the facts.

    An obvious question is who is the dead tree legacy media. I focus on three, the Washington Post, The New York Times, and the LA Times. Those three particularly because they drive the national news into the local market news outlets. Two I didn’t include here, the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily are far more balanced although neither drive local news content.

    That media bias exists is beyond dispute and violates all three of the tenants above. Entire stories not reported, missing facts and outright false facts.

    The Acorn story is one of the best examples. Major investigations in 13 states including Los Verges where a task force of the Democrat Attorney General, the Democrat Secretary of State, and the FBI seized evidence from Acorn under search warrant. The documented registration and voting in Ohio by Obama campaign canvassers listing their temporary housing address. The evidence they are now sharing with plaintiffs in the Ohio RICO suit.

    You did know about that? Did you know about this?

    “What’s happening here is something we have never seen before, centrist Clinton Democrats and Republicans are working together to expose the DNC and Obama campaign’s illegal activities and orchestrated, coordinated fraud. Both parties are working with federal agents to investigate ACORN, which has been funded with upwards of $800,000 in questionable donations from the Obama campaign (in what appears to be the expressed and explicit direction to engineer voter fraud in the general election)”

    Or this?

    “A lifelong Democrat from D.C., Dr. Lynette Long, has spent the past 6 months investigating and tallying results from the Democratic Party nominating contests. Her conclusion:
    “As I write this, the Democratic Party is poised to formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for President of the United States.

    “It’s the triumph of fraud.

    “I’ve spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that *the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process.”* (emphasis in original)

    • dean

      John…if all the media did was “report the facts, all the facts, and only the facts” they would be the Encyclopedia Britainica, not the news industry.

    • John in Oregon

      > *John…if all the media did was “report the facts, all the facts, and only the facts” they would be the Encyclopedia Britainica, not the news industry.*

      Will wonders never cease? You agree the legacy media is an industry manufacturing some bizzaro version of reality.

      Hark, hark, what is that I hear
      Oink, Oink up in the sky
      Up in the sky what doth appear
      OMG pigs really do fly

      • dean

        Other than NPR and a few other non-profits, the news media is a business John. They are selling a product. You seem to have some expectation for them that treats them like a public agency. They aren’t. Their business goal is to make a profit…a big one. They do this by attracting readers, viewers or listeners so that they can sell advertising space. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have shown others that there is more profit in playing to a self-selected audience than there is in aiming for a muddled middle when it comes to political news. So we are perhaps returning to the late 19th and early 20th century era where news outlets play to their audience. But its just business, and most major newspapers are located in major cities. If you look at the red-blue maps, its easy to see that major cities are majorly blue, so their news outlets are likely to go with that flow.

        I’ll give you some unsolicited advice. If you want the major media to be more sympathetic to your cause, then stop whining about them, or treating them as an enemy, and stop sending know-nothings like Sarah Palin to run for high office. You have fallen into a trap of waging an unnecessary battle against those with the bigger megaphone or printing press. This approach might be good for Fox, Limbaugh, and Colter, but is not good for your movement.

    • David from Eugene


      *Next one needs to define what is good news reporting. My definition is simple.

      O Report the facts.
      O Report all the facts.
      O Report only the facts.*

      This definitely should be the goal, but like all goals it is not completely realizable. The problem is time, there is not enough time in a network news show to provide coverage for all of the day’s news, nor is the 15-30 seconds available for the average news story long enough to report all the facts. Plus there is an understandable bias in television news to those stories with interesting film footage.

      As to the coverage of the ACORN story you are correct the whole story is not being reported. For example the fact that most states require anyone conducting a voter registration drive to turn in ALL cards they receive; that it was ACORN who brought the questionable registration cards to the attention of the officials and that ACORN terminated many of the collectors of questionable registration cards are often missing from press coverage.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)