Journalists conspired to spike news stories, promote Obama campaign The Daily Caller exposes media bias during the 2008 election

WASHINGTON, DC—The Daily Caller reports it has obtained documents that show a concerted plot by liberally minded journalists to spike negative news stories about then candidate Barack Obama. Among many negative stories, an effort was made in unison to blackout the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story. 

The Daily Caller states in their piece on the journalistic conspiracy:

“Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.”

The conspiracy to blackout negative stories about the former Illinois senator was in part prompted by an interview conducted by former Clintonite George Stephanopoulos when he asked Obama about the far-left, black liberation theologist who headed Obama’s church:

“Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Besides the FOX News network and talk radio, news consumers were not apprised of the Jeremiah Wright story and his anti-American, racist tirades he flung in Obama’s church for twenty years. Instead, liberal columnists were recommending to their colleagues to turn the tables on any Obama critics. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman wrote:

“[Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics]; Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Like environmental alarmist scientists manipulating data in the Climategate scandal, we are learning the newsrooms and bureaus are and have been activity engaged in manipulating the news, not reporting it.

--Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

What the media isn’t telling us about Afghanistan Reports about the war faltering are out there, but the democrat defection is not

WASHINGTON, DC—Writing in The Washington Examiner, Michael Barone, exposes democrat support for the “good war” to be eroding irretrievably. The basis of this phenomenon seems to come from a polling question found in an ongoing ABC/Washington Post poll that places a distinction on “good war” from “bad war”.

Remember Bush lied, people died? Iraq was a bad war, a distraction from the get-go in 2003, while Afghanistan was the good war—the war that needed to be waged and won.

In July 2009, 41 percent of democrat voters gave the good war vote to Afghanistan and only 12 percent gave the good war vote to Iraq. This July, a four point drop to 36 percent of democrats giving a good war vote to Afghanistan, while seventeen points appeared in the Iraq good war column, moving its approval up to 29 percent among democrats.

Why the change of heart? Probably because there is demonstrable success in Iraq, while Afghanistan languishes and because a democrat is in the White House—no Bush, no bashing. But it still contradicts what dems were saying in 2003 through 2008. That’s no problem because the media isn’t covering it.

--Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

The only war the administration is willing to fight

The Obama administration has finally found a war that it is more-than-willing to fight – and its not in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the enemies aren’t militant Islamic terrorists or warlords – it’s a war of words against FOX News.

While the administration plays Nero’s fiddle as Afghanistan backslides and unemployment creeps up toward 10%, it is pulling out all the stops in battling what it has publicly deemed the most important issues: health care reform most Americans are opposed to, and dirt-kicking a cable news network.

From a strategy standpoint, one wonders what in the name of Pete the administration is doing: since the row began two months ago, FOX News ratings have only gone up. Not to mention the political fallout: republicans who don’t much approve of the president’s policies aren’t being wooed, independents that put Mr. Obama in the White House are left to scratch their heads as his post-partisanship posture expires, and those on the left either already dislike FOX News and/or are concerned about more meaningful issues.

David Gergen, who has served in the White House as an adviser to Presidents: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton said, "(White House officials) have gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest…I mean, for goodness sakes – you know, you engage in the debate.”

The fight between the White House and FOX News began in August when FOX News Sunday’s Chris Wallace fact-checked contentious allegations made by VA Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth.

Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, has stated that fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." By her declaration, Ms. Dunn seems to believe that any assertion or statement made by an administration official should be accepted at face-value and the American people don’t have a right to know what is and isn’t true.

FOX News has time and again asked for administration officials to come on the network to correct whatever errors might have been made however, Mr. Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has likewise chimed in and the word is out – no administration official will be made available to FOX News – much like more troops won’t be given to the generals who request them.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact