Two men were nominated by President Obama for prominent scientific positions in the federal government. One was dubbed "controversial," they other … not so much.
Nominee #1 is pro-choice, pro-ESCR, believes in evolution, campaigned for Pres. Obama and was the geneticist who led the effort to sequence the human genome. However, he is an admitted *gasp* evangelical Christian, who even wrote a book about his scientific work called "The Language of God."
Nominee #2 published a book in which he and his coauthors argued that because of the ever increasing population of the Earth, governments could take drastic measures like forced sterilization especially those who "contribute to social deterioration" and national governments could be superseded by a "Planetary Regime." The book argued [wrongly in spectacular fashion] that unless some draconian laws were implemented our civilization would not reach the 21st century, as we stood then.
Isn't it obvious which nominee should be described in newspapers articles as controversial and should have straw man riddled NY Times Op-Eds written about the dangers of his appointment? It just be just as obvious that the other man has simply been "drubbed by conservatives as overstating environmental perils."
Two acts of terror were committed. Two people were murdered in separate
assassinations. One has been the subject of non-stop media coverage and blame assigning. The other has been almost ignored. Doubt that? How many times have you heard the name George Tiller, the partial-birth abortion doctor murdered by an anti-abortion extremist? How about William Long, the Army private murdered by a Muslim terrorist?
During the Bush administration, Newsweek's Evan Thomas reminded everyone the job of the news media and particularly his magazine: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do…"
Somehow with the election of President Obama, the job requirements have shifted ever so slightly. Now for Thomas it seems bashing has become worshipping: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God."
Care to imagine what would have happened if a Fox News reporter had made such a statement during Bush's presidency?
It becomes harder and harder for conservatives to not play up the whole "Messiah" bit when liberals, even those in the "non-partisan" press, keep speaking as if the joke is true.
I know this is a dead horse, but honestly is the irony not dripping from this statement at the Yahoo Newsroom blog, after President Obama made an impromptu and inappropriate joke about the Special Olympics on Jay Leno:
But in a way, it's heartening to hear our politicians stumble over words, mangle syntax and make inappropriate jokes. It shows politicians are human, too. Sometimes.
Really? I'm sorry, did the last eight years not happen?
I don't want to get in the middle of Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann trying to out petty one another in their little degree contest, but I have to wonder if I really did get a journalism degree. It seems that everyone else who has one is a liberal and it is starting to show … well, starting to show even more.
I have often been criticized here because of my tendency to post more negative stories about Obama than about McCain. I defended my posting habits, even though I have tried to be a bit more "fair" recently, by arguing that I am admittedly biased. I’m a conservative and the stories I blog about are going to follow that trend.
I wonder if the MSM will give the same argument about their writing more about Obama as well (over 3-to-1), although I think their coverage will be a bit more positive than mine. I’m also betting their bias comes from the other direction. But I’m not holding my breathe to see them make the same admission I did.
As an evangelical Christian, when I discuss issues with those who have a different belief system I have to always remember that the other person is often operating from an ill-informed, media-driven stereotype.
One of my favorite sites, Get Religion, deals with the media’s coverage of, obviously enough, religion. A recurring theme is the treatment of evangelical culture as if the reporter is working for National Geographic studying some lost people group in unknown regions of the Amazon jungle.
Three recent posts demonstrated that fact. One was dealing with an aspect of the purity movement. Another showcased clergy reaction to the California gay marriage ruling. The other highlighted one lone evangelical couple and their opposition to gay marriage. That post contained a link to a somewhat surprising site (at least to me): GaysDefendMarriage.com.
Many of us rely on wikipedia as a quick and dirty source of information in a hurry. And while some attack it as unreliable, it has shown to be fairly reliable in comparison with the Encyclopedia Britannica.
But on controversial subjects like global warming, DON’T expect wikipedia to be objective. As Lawrence Solomon of the National Post reports, Wikipedia’s zealots may be removing information that is not politically correct, or of the minority opinion.
For the last 18 months I have been profiling scientists who disagree
with the UN panel’s position. My Deniers series, which now runs to some
40 columns, describes many of the world’s most prominent scientists.
They include authors or reviewers for the UN panel (before they quit in
disgust). They even include the scientist known as the father of
scientific climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited
climatologist in the world….
I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have,
corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so. Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after
editing them, I wondered? I made the changes again, and this time
confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they
were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared
shortly after they were made.
says a professor known to partake of mind-altering drugs. To make this even more over the top – Yes, he was on drugs when his thoughts turned to the life of the Exodus leader:
The professor, who came up with his theory after experiencing firsthand the effects of a hallucinogenic brew used in religious rituals in Brazil, said the story of Moses and the burning bush also had the hallmarks of a psychedelic experience.
Honestly, it is becoming more and more difficult to determine what stories are from The Onion and other satirical news sources and what stories are genuine MSM stories. I’m not sure who looks worse in this story – the professor who proposed this “theory” or the media who dutifully report it.
John McCain once called the New York Times and the media his “base.” Well, the base has turned on him. After their huge report on a possible-kinda-sorta-not really close affair with a lobbyist, they have unleashed their latest salvo at the man they endorse a scant month ago: He might not be qualified to be the president because he wasn’t born in America. Well, no he wasn’t, but he was born to American citizens on an American military base as his father was serving our country in Panama.
McCain is not my favorite politician in the world, but I tend to agree with the vast majority of people: the old (bitter) grey lady is out for blood when it comes to John McCain. Maybe it was an especially bad breakup and McCain dumped all their stuff on the floor under their locker during lunch period. I don’t know, but it looks like they may start keying the Straight-Talk Express or have their best friend MSNBC send him nasty text messages.
Previously, a Harvard study revealed that most of the mainstream media, including both TV news and NPR, were very biased in favor of liberal Presidential candidates, while Fox News (and MSNBC) came out more balanced.
Now, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University has released a study comparing the Hume Report’s news segment with the other MSM TV news programs, and CONFIRMS that Fox News is more balanced and fair than the other MSM news outlets.
Being an evangelical Christian, I’m all for issues of faith being discussed in the public arena. However that does not mean that my vote for president will be determined by what a candidate believes about women pastors or their interpretation of the book of Genesis.