July 25, 2015

Not News: Coal CEO Decries EPA’s ‘Political Power Grab of America’s Power Grid’

In a speech at a Republican Lincoln Day dinner in West Virginia earlier this week, Murray Energy Corp. founder and CEO Robert Murray decried the Obama administration’s determination to, as described at the financial news site SNL.com (to be clear, no relation to Saturday Night Live), “bypass the states and their utility commissions, the U.S. Congress and the Constitution in favor of putting the U.S. EPA in charge of the nation’s electric grid.”

In the establishment press, Murray’s speech was only covered in a single snarky paragraph by Darren Goode at the Politico titled “Don’t Hold Back Now” — obviously attempting to paint Murray as unreasonable and extreme — and a writeup at the Wheeling (WV) Intelligencer. After all, what does Murray know? He’s only the head of the largest company in an industry which is still responsible for fueling 39 percent of America’s electrical grid, and the majority of it in many states. Who would want to give him any visibility, as if he has anything valuable to say? Well, I do.

(more…)

March 30, 2015

AP Lapdog Lederman Covers Obama Golf Foursome, But Not How Reporters’ Pool Hung Out at a Shed (Updated)

UPDATE, March 31: This morning in an email, the AP's Lederman pointed me to a Saturday afternoon "Big Story" item time-stamped the day before the report to which this blog post below links. For whatever reason, that earlier "Big Story" item has more detail than what appears, despite the Sunday time stamp, to be Lederman's original report posted at the AP's national site. In that "Big Story" item, Lederman writes that "Like last time, the White House arranged for the reporters covering the president to wait at a separate location nearby where Obama won't be visible," and that "Previous administrations have allowed brief news media coverage during presidential rounds of golf. Obama's policy generally is not to allow reporters to observe him." Lederman did not mention reporters' decision to stay in a shed rather than return to their hotels. The posts' point about reporters' willingness to submit to what I described as "dismissive, insulting treatment" stands.

It has (until now) been commonly understood that “Big Story” items are mirrored at the AP’s main national site, but apparently that is not always the case.

At the Associated Press on Sunday, Josh “Lapdog” Lederman filed a brief report telling readers the names of the captains of industry who would be golfing with President Barack Obama that day. Bigwigs with the Floridian, the Boston Celtics, and (yes) even Halliburton, the former source of all evil during the Bush 43 administration, were in the foursome.

Lederman “somehow” failed to note that the White House ordered reporters back to their hotels, and that when they refused, they chose to hang out at a shed. Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner has the details Lederman didn’t care to mention, even in passing:

(more…)

January 2, 2012

Ten 2011 Examples of Major Media Malfeasance

It will get even worse in 2012.

____________________________________

Note: This column went up at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Saturday.

____________________________________

Those of us who follow the news closely often forget that probably 80% of the adult population (seen as 85% some time ago, but likely lower than that thanks to New Media and the Tea Party movement) is relatively disengaged. They are, at best, passive consumers of news who either legitimately don’t have the time to do their own independent research, or don’t care to.

If we had a responsible establishment press dedicated to informing the public in a fair and balanced way, this would not necessarily be a big problem. But we don’t, and it is.

In 2011, passive news consumers were extremely ill served, as the leftist legacy media seemed to almost completely abandon any pretense of objectivity or fairness leftover from its disgraceful collective performance in 2010.

Why did this happen? Beyond the normal factors, 2011 saw White House thuggery directed at a press corps already inclined to reflexively parrot its positions reach previously unseen heights.

To name just three examples:

  • In March, Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers, sent to cover a fundraiser involving Vice President Joe Biden and Florida Senator Bill Nelson, was confined in a closet “to keep him from mingling with high-powered guests.” Sentinel editors “dropped the story.”
  • In April, the White House banished San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci “for using a video camera to capture an event.” The paper was “threatened with more punishment if they reported on it.” Chronicle Editor at Large Phil Bronstein called the White House’s subsequent attempt to deny it all “a pants-on-fire moment.” Press coverage elsewhere was scant.
  • In May, the White House Press Office “refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser” because it objected “to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed.” The shutout was virtually ignored.

In a mid-May editorial, Investor’s Business Daily called out the press for failing to stand up for it own, and correctly characterized the White House’s actions as baby steps “toward state control of the media, using the carrot of access against the stick of exile.”

Nothing has changed. In December, a Washington Post item noted that “When a reporter gets something wrong or is perceived as being too aggressive, the pushback is often swift and sometimes at top volume” (including heavy doses of profanity). What do you guys expect when you just sit there and take it — something you would never do under a conservative or Republican administration?

It’s reasonable to believe that the constant threats of White House pushback and especially of access denial significantly drove this year’s extraordinarily negligent coverage of the administration’s scandals, corruption, policy failures, and misleading statements. What follows are just ten out of dozens of this year’s worst examples of media malfeasance. Except for the final two, which are clearly this year’s most egregious, they are in no particular order. In most cases, there was no press coverage, or no further coverage, of the items cited.

1. ”I am (possibly) the greatest.” In a 60 Minutes interview with the President which aired on December 11, CBS failed to include Obama’s preposterous claim about his accomplishments to date: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.” Note well that the superiority of the three other gentlemen cited is only “possible.”

2. “Taunt a Republican for me.” In early December, an Obama For America campaign email asked supporters to in effect taunt their Republican acquaintances when donating by providing their email addresses so that OFA could do it for them in their name. Two days later, OFA added the ability to taunt anonymously.

3. Yet another word for “lied.” In September, Bruce Siceloff at the Raleigh News & Observer identified a false statement Obama made in a Tar Heel State appearance: “In North Carolina alone, there are 153 structurally deficient bridges that need to be repaired.” After interviewing state officials who asserted that North Carolina has no such bridges, Siceloff reached this “brave” conclusion: “[T]he president may have over-suggested the risk to public safety.”

4. “Scandal-free” pretense. As Fast and Furious, Solyndra, MF Global, LightSquared and a myriad of other instances of corruption and cronyism continued to swirl around the administration, at least five media and academic apparatchiks continued to insist that it has been and still remains pure as the driven snow. Among them: commentators Brendan Nyhan, Kevin Drum, Jonathan Alter, and the especially odious Andrew Sullivan, along with American University history professor and presidential prognosticator Allan Lichtman, who described things as “squeaky clean.”

5. Obama’s false Mama drama. In July, a book by on-leave New York Times reporter Janny Scott (who has not yet returned) showed that President Obama’s mother was denied disability insurance coverage during her ultimately life-ending battle with cancer — but not health insurance, even though, as reported by the Times’s Kevin Sack, “the president (in speeches) left the clear impression that his mother’s fight was over health benefits for medical expenses.” Wisconsin blogger Ann Althouse’s assessment: “Obama lied about a central fact about his own life which he used — powerfully — to push health care reform.”

6. Libya Labeling. In May, 60 days after it undertook its “kinetic military action” in Libya, the administration failed to receive or even seek the legally required congressional authorization under the War Powers Act to continue to have U.S. troops engaged there. The Associated Press’s headline: “White House Skips Legal Deadline on Libya.”

7. Condescension Cover-up. At an April town hall, Obama gave an audience member concerned about gas prices, which were heading towards $4 a gallon at the time, grief over his ten children and the fact that he was still driving a vehicle getting only eight miles a gallon. The Associated Press’s Darlene Superville initially reported part of the exchange in an Obama-supportive manner. It disappeared very quickly in subsequent revisions.

8. Goodbye, Iraq. The bias was so pervasive this year that I need to bring out something I haven’t yet touched, namely the Associated Press’s historical revisionism two weeks ago as U.S. troops were about to leave Iraq. Readers here only need to see five words to get a clue as to how bad the AP story was: “No WMD were ever found.” Memo to Rebecca Santana and Robert Reid: Yes they werealong with 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, specifically “the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel.”

Now it’s time for the two worst examples.

Runner-up: Covering for the Occupy Movement. After Obama effectively endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement, it was inevitable that the press would do its utmost to cover up and downplay the movement’s deaths (including at least one murder); sexual assaults; socialist, far-left, labor union (including the News Media Guild) and “1%” backing; its disease-ridden filth; the costs it imposed on governmentsbusinesses, and the economy; and its fundamentally violent nature. Though the center-right New Media pushback was impressive, I still believe that most Americans don’t understand that the Occupy movement has been and remains an intimidation-driven enterprise co-opted by the mainstream left to assist wherever possible in ensuring Barack Obama’s reelection.

The Worst: Fast and Furious. This wasn’t a close call. The Occupy movement’s death toll is nine. The death toll from Fast and Furious is “at least 300 Mexicans” and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. This is a government-sponsored operation whose only “coherent” justification appears to be to create enough mayhem in the Southwest and elsewhere to justify the imposition of stricter gun laws and ultimately the end of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. We have an Attorney General who is so deep in the muck that he’s parsing the meaning of the word “lie.” And yet, with the impressive exception of Sharyl Attkisson at CBS, we’ve seen near silence and reflexive self-defense from the rest of the establishment press. The story wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for Attkisson and several heroic center-right blogs. In fact, as of December 13, according to Mary Chastain at BigJournalism.com, Brian Williams at NBC’s Nightly News has not mentioned Fast and Furious even once during 2011.

As bad as this past year was, there’s every reason to believe that 2012 will be worse. The press has to figure out a way to drag a president who is very unpopular despite their best efforts to date across the November finish line while the White House continues its “oversight.”

October 25, 2011

Obama the Ingrate

President Obama has decided to ban coverage by local reporters of his latest visit to the 1%-ers’ ATM machine in San Francisco, as relayed by Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle:

President Obama is scheduled to appear before hundreds of donors at a $7,500-a-plate noontime fundraiser today at San Francisco’s W Hotel – but not a single local reporter will be allowed inside to cover his only stop in the area, the White House said Monday.

Coverage instead is being restricted to a small pool of Washington-based reporters – a move that is a sharp departure from the practices of past administrations, political observers said.

Three former top White House press aides called the move insular and politically short-sighted. And some press watchers said it is hypocritical for an administration that Obama promised would be “the most transparent in history.”

Earlier this year, the White House threatened to ban The Chronicle from future local pool coverage after political writer Carla Marinucci, serving as a print pool reporter, recorded a video of a protest inside a fundraiser.

The White House said Marinucci had violated a rule forbidding print reporters from recording video. But there is no such rule. The White House denied making the threat.

Marinucci is of course among the locals who won’t be allowed to attend — and instead of following their alleged convictions and banning her, they decided to ban every local news source.

What makes Obama an ingrate is the fact that Marinucci deserves partial credit — arguably huge credit — for Obama’s primary victory over Hillary Clinton and his presidential triumph over John McCain.

In a January 17, 2008 interview with the Chronicle written up by Marinucci and Garofoli, Obama said the following about his energy policy ideas:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

Although the paper posted the video, Marinucci, who actually authored the writeup (link is to article as saved at the ProQuest library database), didn’t consider the quote about coal companies going bankrupt if they try to build new plants under his authoritarian energy regime newsworthy, and didn’t mention the statement’s existence.

Based on where things were at the time of Obama’s interview (he was NOT the clear leader), it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton could have used the raw material, and perhaps could have fended off Obama on Super Tuesday and won her party’s nomination.

As POR Economy creators Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and Harry Reid ramped up their anti-energy rhetoric during the summer of 2008, the passage just cited remained virtually invisible. Marinucci had to know that what Obama had said in January was legitimate news, and that the electorate’s knowledge of Obama’s stated objective to use cap and trade to prevent new coal plant construction and to bankrupt anyone who tried would have badly hurt his campaign. But she kept it hidden. Naked Emperor exposed it in the final days of the campaign. By that time, thanks in part to the travesty known as “early voting,” it didn’t make much of a difference.

And in spite of this, she and he local media colleagues are banned from Obama’s San Francisco appearance.

What an ingrate this man is. He should be using the occasion to hand Ms. Marinucci a trophy: Second-Most Valuable Press Apparatchik.

Ryan Lizza, writing at the time for The New Republic, as explained here, “deserves” the Most Valuable Press Apparatchik trophy, because he alone knows (besides parishoners, and they’re not going to talk) that Obama’s claim never to have read the church bulletins of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ was false. He virtually wrote it in March 2007 when he noted that Obama was “taking notes” during Wright’s sermon. Obama was more than likely doing so in that day’s bulletin’s blank “Notes” pages. Exposing such a simple statement (“I don’t read the bulletins” as a lie could have badly hurt Obama’s campaign. Given when the excitement over Wright occurred (March 2008), it probably wouldn’t have sunk his nomination, but it would have been very harmful in the general.

May 19, 2011

Boston Who? Establishment Press ‘Colleagues’ Virtually Ignore WH Shutout of Boston Herald

Imagine if the Bush 43 administration had decided to exclude a newspaper’s reporters from full access to presidential events–regardless of the ostensible reason. Does anyone believe that the New York Times or Associated Press would have ignored the story?

Well, in a thoroughly predictable but nonetheless sad development, that is what has happened since the Boston Herald’s Hillary Chabot reported that “The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news ‘fairly.’” Lachlan Markay relayed Chabot’s item at NewsBusters yesterday, and also chronicled several previous examples of White House mistreatment, maltreatment, and abuse of disfavored media members.

A search of the Associated Press’s main site late this morning on “Boston Herald” (without quotes) returned nothing relevant, as seen here:

APsearchOnBostonHeraldAt1124am051911

An advanced search at the New York Times also returned nothing relevant:

NYTsearchOnBostonHeraldAt1131am051911

At the Washington Post, the coverage consists of the following in Chris Cilliizza’s “The Fix” Blog, in its entirety: “The White House has shut out the Boston Herald from a presidential event today.” Wow. Don’t get carpal tunnel over this, Chris.

The LA Times, to its credit, had an item yesterday by Kim Geiger at its Politics Now blog. To its discredit, the story’s headline (“White House quarrels with Boston newspaper over Romney op-ed”) failed to communicate the situation’s true nature, while Geiger aired a mindless White House argument over what was supposedly “on the record”:

More than two months after the Boston Herald devoted its front page to promoting an opinion piece by Republican Mitt Romney, the White House press office denied the Herald full access to President Obama’s activities in Boston on Wednesday, sparking an unusual release of email banter that illustrated the sometimes adversarial relationship between the White House and the media.

The Herald published portions of what the White House says was an off-the-record email exchange, as part of a scathing report that suggested the White House was retaliating against the paper.

According to the Herald, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in an email that, in determining which local reporters to include in the press pool, he considers “the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly…”

Citing the March 8 op-ed, which ran as President Obama was visiting the area, Lehrich said: “My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting U.S. President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the president’s visits.”

Obama is in Boston for two Democratic National Committee fundraisers.

According to this link, one has to be an LA Times subscriber to view its print edition online. It would be interesting to learn whether or not Geiger’s work made it into print. I’m betting against it.

Leave it to Investors Business Daily to tell the full truth, in an editorial (internal link to Dan Gainor’s Fox News column on Soros money in the media added by me):

What the White House has done by telling the Boston Herald it can no longer send a pool reporter to cover local campaign events on behalf of the media is another baby step toward state control of the media, using the carrot of access against the stick of exile.

… As it stands, the Boston Herald is on its own, with its media colleagues in other organizations largely silent as a vindictive White House press office gets away with determining what’s “fair.”

It’s not as if the Herald was making up stories — as the New York Times or Washington Post have been caught doing. Its “crime” to the White House was an unrelated editorial decision to run former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s opinion piece on “the Obama misery index” on its front page two months ago.

Seems the newly self-appointed goons of “fairness” never noticed that what the former governor thinks is of particular interest to Massachusetts readers.

Nor did it notice that the Boston Herald has been unusually hard on Romney in both its news and editorial coverage in the past.

… Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci was threatened with the same booting the Herald got because of White House displeasure at her filming of a bunch of looney left protestors improbably criticizing Obama.

… Meanwhile, an Orlando Sentinel pool reporter was stuffed into a closet and held against his will on the Joe Biden campaign trail, while the Pleasanton (Calif.) Weekly was warned by the White House its coverage of first lady Michelle Obama was insufficiently flattering.

The media silence over these repeated violations of press freedom is baffling. Can the fact that 30 mainstream media outlets have been co-opted by $48 million in spending by George Soros, a top campaign ally of President Obama, have something to do with this?

Or is the urge to fawn over Obama more important than covering the news without fear or favor?

I’d say it’s both.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

April 29, 2011

WH-Banned West Coast Pool Reporter Gave Obama Invaluable Early 2008 Assist by Omission

Yesterday evening (late afternoon West Coast time), Phil Bronstein at the San Francisco Chronicle informed his readers that one of its reporters had been banned by the Obama administration:

The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.

White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

The reporter involved is Carla Marinucci.

As will be shown later, Bronstein’s characterization of her as “one of the best” is questionable. But let’s continue the story:

(more…)

November 2, 2008

January 2008 Audio: Obama Promises Cap-And-Trade Will Bankrupt New Coal Plants (and SF Chron’s Coverup)

Here is a mini-slide show for the video-challenged (click here or on graphic for a larger pic in a separate window; moving left to right, the third, fourth, and sixth slides represent things Barack Obama actually said in January 17, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle):

ObamaCoalBankruptcyPlan0108

Here’s the YouTube from New Emperor:

Here’s a partial transcript compiled by PJ Gladnick at Newsbusters:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

(rest of transcript — added Nov. 4, obtained from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

Do I really need to elaborate on the mindlessness, the arrogance, and the whiff of authoritarianism that is present? The final excerpted sentence sounds on the audio like a barely concealed brag.

In connection with its interview (the one from which the audio almost certainly came), the Chronicle published almost 2,500 words on January 18 (link is to ProQuest Library file saved at my web host for fair use and discussion purposes). 1,300 went to its primary article, and roughly 1,200 went to an “In His Own Words” segment. None of the verbiage in the audio is in the Chronicle’s coverage. Lots of other verbiage that is much less newsworthy is.

What’s more, during the energy debates of July and August, when, among other things, Harry Reid was telling us that “coal is making us sick,” reporters Carla Marinucci and Joe Garofoli, who wrote the January 17 items, “somehow” forgot Obama’s aggressive anti-fossil fuels statements in the January interview. Real journalists would have remembered –and reported.

August 27, 2008

SF Chron Cuts Obama ‘Pay Grade’ Comment from Print Edition

Filed under: Life-Based News,MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:18 am

It doesn’t get much more obvious than this.

A San Francisco Chronicle article last Wednesday relating to growing concerns about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s recent campaign performances “evolved” in a quite convenient way for the Illinois senator by the time it got to the paper’s print edition and went through its final web revision. That article, among other things, addressed Obama’s appearance at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Values forum the previous weekend.

The current entry at Google News, obtained by searching “That’s above my pay grade” (entered in quotes), reads as follows:

SFchronGoogNewsObama082008

Although it’s framed in a very biased way (“thoughtful but fuzzier”?), at least a reference to Obama’s infamous “That’s above my pay grade” comment is present (the original transcript segment containing that remark is here).

Wait until you see what happened next.

I copied a text string within that Google News result, and was able to gain access to an earlier cached version of the article (saved at my host in the event the cache goes away), written up by Chronicle Political Writer Carla Marinucci. It doesn’t have a normal web page appearance, but it does appear to contain what would have been the article’s full text, including the Google News result text cited above.

That text consists of 24 paragraphs. Paragraph 16 says:

And Obama’s thoughtful but fuzzier answers to questions about when human rights begin (“that’s above my pay grade”) were a clear contrast – and not a good one – to McCain’s head-on approach that it was “at the moment of conception,” he says.

But if you click on the original Google News link itself, you get taken to a revised version of the article (“Bad news should wake up Obama, experts say”).

At the bottom of that linked page, we are told that “This article appeared on page A-1 of the San Francisco Chronicle.” So this is what print edition readers got to see.

But what they got to see contains only 23 paragraphs. The one removed was — you guessed it — the one that referred to Obama’s “pay grade” comment.

The only other difference I found between the cached and print version was one spelling correction, changing “jiu-jitsuing” to “jujitsuing” in the tenth paragraph. Otherwise the two are the same, word for word.

So at some point, the full original 24-paragraph report was available on the web; otherwise, my original Google News search would not have picked it up. But the “offending” paragraph was later deemed to be unworthy of the print edition, and was also removed from the web edition. Now you can’t find that paragraph on the web any more without engaging in workaround tactics.

Don’t even try to tell me that traditional media outlets aren’t doing everything they can to cover for Barack Obama.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.