Sexy Sarah Palin: Leftist Sexists At It Yet Again–UPDATED, UPDATED AGAIN
Monday, November 16th, 2009How ribald can you be? Newsweek will show you:
The CBN’s David Brody says:
You’ve got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don’t use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don’t tell me they didn’t purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let’s face it. This isn’t JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where’s the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?
We see Obama with halos hovering over his head. We see Sarah in running shoes. The whole purpose is to diminish, denigrate and destroy a woman who differs politically.
As if fair-minded Americans needed more evidence of press bias.
Updated:
Sarah Palin responds to the cover from Facebook:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.
- Sarah Palin
After this post got fed to Twitter, I got into an argument with a leftist feminist there about this cover. She brought up Hillary Clinton. She believes that Sarah Palin did this to herself by posing for Runners World. What serious politician or man would pose for that sort of cover?
What serious newsweekly would put a degrading picture, say of Obama frolicking in the surf or Bil and Hill dancing in the sand for the camera, on the cover of a magazine? Only conservative politicians need worry about being portrayed as trivial and sexy (Sarah), mean and old (McCain), mean (Cheney), mean and stupid (GWB). A Democrat gets gravitas-portraying treatment.
Always.
And that’s why conservatives view the press as biased. They don’t even attempt, even feebly, to hide it anymore.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Well, I knew this story had legs. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Anyway the feminists are coming out against Newsweek. It’s about damn time. It is heartening to see them facing this bias. Women should be evaluated on their content, beliefs and actions. When Sarah Palin is reduced to her legs, the men don’t have to evaluate her on her merit.
Julie Millican of Media Matters [!] says:
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don’t have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek’s November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”
When will the media stop this degrading nonsense? I think it’s when those within the ranks start holding them accountable. That’s happening, thankfully, at long last.
Obama’s Big War With Fox News Makes Him Look Small..And Reveals His Relationship With The Press
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009Ruth Marcus calls out President Obama (uh oh, no scoops for her):
Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. “Opinion journalism masquerading as news,” White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant — but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn’t match its opinion?
The interesting thing here is that President Obama has received nothing short of fawning adoration and tenderly delivered, incurious questions from the rest of the press corps save a few notable examples. He probably gets less love from basketball team members. The press, unfamiliar with physical endeavors and the kinship of teams, takes loyalty to a whole new level. Obeisance thy name is modern journalism.
And then there’s Fox News.
Fox’s collective sin is not loving enough. Bill O’Reilly makes me throw up in mouth a little every time he opines about Obama’s bravery for coming on his show. Puhleeze. And all the round-tables have at least two Obama apologists for their “fair and balanced” coverage. And Shepherd Smith? When he’s not gazing into a mirror, I imagine him gazing at glossy, signed 8×10s of The One.
And yet, it’s just not enough.
Barack Obama makes himself look like a silly man fighting Fox. People who actually watch all the networks know that a roomful of Depression-affected hookers couldn’t give the President more attention than the current press corps. So his quibbling rings hollow.
And why do the rest of the press care about this cat fight? Well, it reveals their own bias, for one. By obsessing over Fox News, President Obama, by default acknowledges the rest of the press serves him and serves him well. While that’s the truth, the Press would prefer that it not be so overtly acknowledged. It’s embarrassing. Still, he does love us….sigh.
The press should be more embarrassed. So should the President of the United States. But they’re not. They’re just a little piqued that other people are seeing the love affair so obviously. They thought they were keeping a secret! Turns out, the joke’s on both of them. Everyone sees the “special relationship” between the press and Obama. Everyone.
People seek a bit of fairness. That’s why Fox News is doing so well.
H/T Memeorandum
More On Rush & Race
Saturday, October 17th, 2009Rush defended himself, as expected, handily in his Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday. Here’s a bit:
The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.
When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media’s coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL’s “high standard.” High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.
The double-standard, the lies, and the collusion of the media should cause all fair-minded to pause.
A fellow blogger here this weekend said to me, “Why are people still watching the news? They lie.” Well, it is difficult for people to believe that all the networks shape the narrative, push a point of view and outright deceive their viewers. Even when people poll noting the bias, it’s another thing to fully believe it.
Rush is just one very visible American who got slammed by the new power brokers. It’s not much of a stretch that any average American could be next.
Shocker: Conservatives Not Racist
Friday, October 16th, 2009Gather a bunch of white good-old Georgia boys in a room and ask them questions. Wait how long it takes til they bring up race and blame black people.
It won’t happen. Even if James Carville really, really, really hopes it would happen:
Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.
So, will the media let it go? Doubtful.
New York Times Decides They Better Cover All The News–Even The P.U. Stinky Kind UPDATED
Monday, September 28th, 2009Glynnis MacNicol of Mediate notes the New York Time’s editor Bill Keller sudden fascination with all the news that’s fit to print–not just the part of the news that helps Democrats feel good about themselves. Well, this will be a real education:
Which is a major problem. You may not like Glenn Beck, you may think he is a nut job. You may think what he does is not journalism, you may think that in a perfect world of objective, reasoned, researched news reporting he should not have a place. But you ignore him at your own peril. Actually, there is the argument to be made that the Times ignores him at everyone’s peril — it is their job, after all, to watch and report on things the rest of us may not have the stomach for or any interest in. They are supposed to be watching Fox News so that other people don’t have to, not the other way around.
According to Hoyt the Times has recognized this and assigned an editor to watch Fox(!) along with a bunch of other sites they don’t normally like to sully themselves with “to brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.” Ha! They should just read Mediaite more. Alas, managing editor Bill Keller “declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.” Good luck with that.
So, the New York Times is assigning someone to watch Fox. Heavens to Betsy! What radical thing will the Time’s do next?
The irritating thing, of course, is that they’ll watch Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and think nothing because they agree with them. These yapping fools make sense to the NYT editors, but the the number of people watching MSNBC would indicate that their views are hardly representative of mainstream American views. Meanwhile, Beck and Fox in general, make huge numbers and the network even has a slight liberal tilt (don’t all news organizations?). And still, the New York Times has ignored them.
We’ll see how this endeavor goes. The NYT’s should be ashamed by the stories they’ve missed and the bias that causes them to ignore a whole segment of the reading public.
UPDATED:
Ann Althouse is hilarious while excoriating the Time’s. She calls bullshit:
So you’re assigning somebody to get the clues you’ve been too lame to pick up, and yet you don’t want people to be able to send him clues because — you’ve got to be kidding! — he’d get too much email. Who with any level of connectedness has not learned to deal with a ton of email?! Come on. I want to just yell “bullshit!,” but I’ll spell it out. I get 100s of email messages every day, and it’s not even my job to pick up clues. I deal with it, and it’s not even that hard. You have an email address that is different from the one you use with people you know and trust, and you scan the first lines as they appear in the inbox. From that alone, you can see what’s going on, and you can choose to click through to whatever you want and spend as little as half a second reading it if you are any good. Damn, if your clue-getter isn’t able to do that, you might as well give up and write more stories about what middle-aged moms in Park Slope are saying about popsicles and iPhones.
And as for the desire to avoid excoriation in the blogosphere… have a nice day.
More here.
President Obam Changed Speech To Schoolkids And The Press Helped Him
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009Ace is talking about the buried lede from the Washington Post:
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
So, what is more troublesome? The scrubbing? No, that’s good. The speech was rife with b.s. as it was…it could have been worse. No, it’s the cozy relationship the White House has with the press–like the Washington Post.
Please. Using Huffington Post and bloggers and pundits as a shield. Really, now. Why doesn’t the Washington Post just come out with it and explain why they were so helpful to the President during the Education talk debate?
Press: Give Up The Pretense, Wait You Kinda Have…
Monday, September 14th, 2009I’m waiting for the public announcement by CNN saying that they want to clarify their editorial perspective and that they’re biased to the left. Wouldn’t that be freeing for everyone? Stop the pretending to be objective and just clearly state a bias. It’s not like they’re even attempting to report unfavorable Obama news.
Imagine biased press conferences. On the one side, the conservative press people. On the other side, the liberal. The President could go back and forth between the sides and people could see the difference between the questions. They could decide who to listen to. They could decide who is fair.
They would also see 80% of the press line up on one side which is why the press has numbers like what Don Surber reports: Only 19% of people believe the press is fair.
So, they’re already considered biased. Why not make the covert overt and be done with it?
Levi Johnson Living The American Dream: Sleeping His Way To Fame
Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009As a way into liberal prominence goes, nothing quite beats screwing literally, or metaphorically, a conservative to achieve fame. Levi Johnson has done both. He is, literally, a fame whore.
Vanity Fair will be giving him valuable pages in the next edition. I have not given him any space because he is a complete knob.
However, because he now has been given the national stage, his statements from the national stage need to be examined. I am not going to do it, but I suggest you go over to Conservatives4Palin.com to see Levi’s lies debunked. Here’s one such debunking:
For example, here’s some of the things Levi was saying about the Palins earlier this year:
“They’re good people,” he said. “They don’t push me, you know. They kind of — they don’t really tell us what to do, they don’t tell us, you know, they’re good people. So I like ‘em.”
And:
“They always treated me like a son. I mean they were — they were real nice to me. And I thought of her as like my second mother. You know, Todd was always, you know, a great guy and helped me out with a lot of things. So I mean they welcomed me.”
Quite a difference from what he’s saying now. After Rex and Tank convinced Levi that the truth doesn’t sell, they’ve resorted to complete fabrications intending to create scandals that they can profit from. The more outrageous the stories they come up with are, the more publicity opportunities they all get. In the latest example, they’ve concocted a story that is so laughable, it’s difficult to imagine anyone reading it can keep a straight face:
” Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him. That way, she said, Bristol and I didn’t have to worry about anything. Sarah kept mentioning this plan. She was nagging—she wouldn’t give up. She would say, “So, are you gonna let me adopt him?” We both kept telling her we were definitely not going to let her adopt the baby. I think Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good, and she didn’t want people to know that her 17-year-old daughter was going to have a kid.”
Go read the whole thing. At first, I kinda felt sorry for this kid being dragged into the limelight. Now, it’s patently obvious that he knows that making money will only come by milking his five minutes of fame. As long as he provides Palin-damaging fodder for the press, he’ll have a platform.
Levi Johnson should just go away, but he won’t. He has too much to gain by staying in the spotlight. But more than that, the press so hates Sarah Palin that they’ll use this boy up in service to their political desires.
Sarah Palin remains the biggest threat to liberals which is why guys like Levi Johnson remain in the press.
White House Pentagon Profiling Reporters
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Well, it doesn’t look like the Pentagon was telling journalists what to write, they just did ops research on the journalists to chart and graph what they write and predict future favorable/unfavorable behavior.
I’ve had mixed feelings about embedding reporters. However, with Al Qaeda and the Taliban as enemies, getting reporting would be nigh to impossible because they like killing reporters [Daniel Pearl]. So, it seemed like a possible necessity.
Anyway, the White House has “profiled reporters” too, I’d guess. No one more masterfully manipulates them individually and collectively than Barack Obama. So, he’s either got an internal computer deciding who to call on when, or he’s got an Axelrod with a bulging file filled with research on individual reporters–who to use for which story, when to allow a certain person to ask a question, etc. Nothing is left to chance with these people.
Only Helen Thomas has had the sense thus far to see how she’s been managed and manipulated, but she has a very long history to draw upon.
As to the Pentagon. It would seem to me, that doing background checks on reporters would seem wise. And then, one thing leads to another. As long as reporters weren’t told, at gunpoint, what to write, it seems like no big deal. Besides, reporters are independent-minded and above these sorts of head games, right? These are the people, who with straight faces, claim to be objective. So any sort of influence by the military would be negligible, right?
I mean, they’re not influenced by President Obama.
Podcast 33: Media Bias & Malpractice With Dan Gainor
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, Townhall, and Newsbusters joined me to discuss the media’s bias–both covert and overt–and how it shapes public opinion. It does work. The media does shape opinion, even though most news organizations have moved to a British model of journalism. The difference is that a Brit journalist will admit his bias, whereas an American journalist likes to view himself as objective. His delusion makes him more dangerous.
Below, you’ll see some links to some other podcasts. I’d like to draw your attention to Steve Schippert of National Review Online Threat’s Watch. His show is a must for anyone wanting to stay informed about world events. He lays out what is happening strategically with North Korea. I highly recommend listening to his show.
Melissa’s show can also be found on RFC Radio every Monday and Wednesday night at 10:00 pm Eastern.
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
– Also, don’t forget to check out our other shows on Take That! –
*** click here to grab the latest Steve Schippert Show ***
*** click here to grab the latest Brass Balls Radio Episode ***
*** click here to grab the latest Raisin’ Hale show ***
