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