Tag Archives: establishment

NYT’s Kate Zernike Warns of ‘Drive for Ideological Purity’ Among ‘Far to the Right’ Tea Party Candidates

New York Times ” Tea Party” correspondent Kate Zernike again insisted that the main victims of Tea Party enthusiasm will be, not Democrats, but mainstream Republicans, in Thursday’s ” G.O.P. Gets a Partner, But Who Will Lead? ” It’s basically a snapshot of the growing conflict between Sen. Jim DeMint, who has pushed conservative Tea Party candidates, and Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose job it is to elect Republicans. A photo caption over a picture of DeMint reads: “Senator Jim DeMint has embraced the ideological purity that characterize many candidates with Tea Patty backing.” If ever there was proof that the Tea Party and the Republican Party do not necessarily go hand in hand, it is Christine O’Donnell’s victory over the establishment in the Republican Senate primary in Delaware. So what happens now, with the primary season ending, and the Tea Party having defined it? Does the Tea Party remake the G.O.P. in its image, staging a “hostile takeover,” as Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, the libertarian advocacy group, urged activists rallying outside the Capitol last weekend to do? Or will the Republican Party co-opt the Tea Party, as Trent Lott, a former leader of the Senate Republicans, said it must? The embodiment of this question might be Senator Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who has made himself and his Senate Conservatives Fund a kind of Tea Party Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Sitting at the intersection of the Republican Party and the Tea Party, Mr. DeMint could be a model for how the two might co-exist — or an example of how the drive for ideological purity could turn the Republicans into a niche party. How “far to the right” are these Tea Partiers, you may ask. Zernike is eager to tell: Even some of the primaries that Tea Party candidates lost suggest how much the Tea Party sentiment has already pushed Republicans to the right. In Tuesday’s Republican primary in New Hampshire, for example, two Tea Party candidates in the Second Congressional District lost to Charlie Bass, a former congressman swept out in the Democratic wave of 2006. Mr. Bass was once known as the classic New England moderate. But to win the nomination this year, he campaigned far to the right — so far that The Concord Monitor editorialized, “It will take such a long way back to the middle that he’d better pack a lunch.” Democrats are certainly counting on the Republicans’ taking a very long trip to a very remote region of the right.

The rest is here:
NYT’s Kate Zernike Warns of ‘Drive for Ideological Purity’ Among ‘Far to the Right’ Tea Party Candidates

Randi Rhodes Crudely Mocks Christine O’Donnell’s Prim Sexuality: ‘Hymen Check!’

Liberal talk radio host Randi Rhodes rejoiced on Wednesday over victorious Tea Party candidates Carl Palladino (“a seriously creepy, creepy guy”) and Christine O’Donnell (“you’ve got the anti-masturbation paranoid creationist lawyer where we could pick up a seat”). But Rhodes decided to go scabrously nasty and personal against O’Donnell, complete with flagrant virginity mockery:   By the way, Christine O’Donnell. It comes to my attention, uh, Deb tells me that Christine O’Donnell is not married….she’s an unmarried woman. Hymen check! [plays popping noise] She’d better be a virgin! Right? With all this vitriol about sex and sexual thoughts and lust and not masturbating and it’s wrong and what am I doing in the room… I know she had a boyfriend. I know she did because her then-boyfriend — then campaign manager — purchased her house when her house was in foreclosure for her! Uh, do you think he did it with lust in his heart? Uh, I don’t know what his motivation was to overpay for the house. But he overpaid by about $35,000 to get campaign manager, who is buying her house today – so, I would like to, you know, make sure she says who she says she is, and that the package of what you are buying is undamaged! Sounds kind of fundamentalist Islamic, doesn’t it? It’s probably too much to expect this will cost Rhodes the kind of trouble she received for denouncing Hillary Clinton as a “big f—ing whore.” That outburst cost her the Air America gig, before it sunk. Would Rhodes appreciate what an opposition-research team could report on her personal life? Like many liberals, Rhodes rejoiced in the disapproval of Karl Rove, and then she turned around and mocked how Rove helped get that “draft-dodging drunk ex-coke freak” George W. Bush elected president twice: Karl Rove does not like Christine O’Donnell; I don’t know what the deal is. I’m not sure why this uh would be; but he really hates her. I mean, he’s on the air giving everybody everything what they need to actually say congratulations to uh you know Senator Chris uh, uh, uh — I just blanked out on his name. Chris — Coons! Seriously, I mean, Senator Coons, you know, is a gimme now because the Republicans are eating their own! And uh, frankly, Karl Rove is leading the charge. She wasn’t counting on the establishment in the general election for sure; but I mean, the way things are going, you can’t count anybody. You know, it’s going to be like a blowout. They don’t feel that she is fit for office. Karl Rove doesn’t feel she is fit! Remember,  Karl Rove got a draft-dodging drunk ex-coke freak who couldn’t put a sentence together with a flashlight and two hands on a sunny day with a map. Couldn’t figure out Iraq was not Saudi Arabia, OK? He got him elected twice! Rhodes dismissed all the conservative Republican women running for office as Palinesque opportunists who were only interested in cashing in: They are all little Sarah Palin wanna-bes. They’re all opportunists. None of them have character, or sincerity, or truthfulness. None of them have the kind of fortitude to stand up against the lobbyists . They’re going to go in there and they are and make millions of dollars! And some of them will go in there and be one-termers and embarrass their party. But then they’ll go over to K Street and they’re set for life! Set for life! These women are opportunists; and the only reason they are being embraced by factions of America, which doesn’t like Americans, is because people are frustrated. And the only thing that the Republican Party and the Tea Party has offered is the acknowledgement that you are frustrated.

Continued here:
Randi Rhodes Crudely Mocks Christine O’Donnell’s Prim Sexuality: ‘Hymen Check!’

GZM Developer, Imam Have Tax, Financial Issues; Will National Media Care?

This past weekend, intrepid journalists at the New York Post and NorthJersey.com released information they unearthed about proposed Ground Zero Mosque “organizer” Sharif El-Gamal and frontman Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, respectively, that the wire services, the New York Times and the national TV networks would likely have run with by now had the items related to a major church or synagogue. But since the news has to do with what has turned into the PC crowd’s cause celebre and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s personal pet project, you may not see the stories covered anywhere else. The arguably more important story of the two concerns the tax problems of Mr. El-Gamal (pictured above via the Post) and his company, because they directly related to the GZM’s property. The story by Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein went up early Sunday morning: Mosque big owes 224G tax The mosque developers are tax deadbeats. Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show. El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department. The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel. … Before any building can go forward, the developers also must get approval from the MTA because the 2 and 3 subway lines run under a portion of the Park Place property, The Post has learned. … El-Gamal’s spokesperson insisted to The Post that the taxes had been paid and that the “subway lines do not pose a problem.” The Post revealed this month that El-Gamal owned only half the site. The news about Imam Rauf (picture above is an AP file photo) comes from Peter J. Sampson and Jean Rimbach at NewsJersey.com (“Ground Zero Imam has history of tenant troubles; N.J. apartments in need of repair”). In addition to the problems noted in the headline, it seems that Rauf has experience squeezing money out of the political system: The Muslim cleric at the center of the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero is also a New Jersey landlord who got more than $2 million in public financing to renovate low-income apartments and has been beset for years by tenant complaints and financial problems. Imam Feisal A. Rauf won support for his Hudson County projects from powerful politicians, among them Robert C. Janiszewski, the disgraced former county executive. He also was awarded grants from Union City when U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez was mayor. … Rauf forged ties with Fred Daibes, the prominent waterfront developer and bank chairman. Additionally, Rauf is a onetime business ally of a Daibes associate who sued the imam for alleged mortgage fraud. The 2008 suit was quietly settled in June. The revelations about Rauf, who lives in North Bergen, add another dimension to the public profile of a man both lauded as a builder of bridges between diverse religions and cultures and vilified as being insensitive to the survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack by proposing a mosque near the World Trade Center site. … Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water. Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City — a longtime tenant of Rauf’s — said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.” She finds it hard to believe Rauf’s going to build a world-class Islamic community center, with fitness facilities, auditorium, restaurant, library, culinary school and art studios, as well as a Sept. 11 memorial and space for Muslim prayer services. “He can’t even repair the bells in the hallway. He doesn’t take care of his properties. But he’s going to take care of a mosque?” The biggest tax involved in all of this may be on the establishment press’s cover-up mechanisms. So far, they’re holding. As of shortly after midnight Eastern Time, three stories at the Associated Press time-stamped with Monday’s or Sunday’s date that mentioned the Ground Zero Mosque, which the AP refers to as the “Park51 project” ( here , here , and here ) had no reference to either gentleman’s difficulties. The New York Times also had nothing beyond the AP items just noted. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View post:
GZM Developer, Imam Have Tax, Financial Issues; Will National Media Care?

Copenhagen Dashed: AP Reports Lament That Bonn Talks ‘Slip Backward’ and ‘Stumble’

The past week has brought forth a couple of items from the Associated Press’s — and for the most part the establishment press’s — special corner of journalistic unreality. It is an area where human-caused global warming is still a given, and where that the nastiness known as ClimateGate that exposed the entire global warming enterprise as entirely unsupported by verifiable scientific data doesn’t exist. Maybe we should refer to that special corner as “The Climate Zone.” The reports each arrived via AP Writer Arthur Max. Mr. Max and conference attendees at climate negotiations in Bonn shouldn’t be mad about having the opportunity to spend in Germany’s capital city. After all, the temperatures there, based on the current report for Tuesday and plus the three forecasted days in the graphic at the top right (seen currently at Google ), are on track to be virtually identical to the city’s pleasant historical August average highs and lows of 73 and 54 degrees , respectively, for August. But despite the reasonably pleasant atmosphere (yeah, I know temps and climate aren’t the same, so back off already), Mr. Max’s August 6 and August 8 reports tell us that discussions between “rich” and “poor” countries have been quite frosty. Meanwhile, reactions from the the supporters of international statist expansion in the environmental movement who are on hand for the festivities have been quite heated. Overall, everyone, including the clumsy Mr. Max, is making mince meat of President Barack Obama’s claim, occasionally echoed in establishment press outlets at the time, to have accomplished anything meaningful at last December’s Copenhagen conference. First, here are the opening paragraphs from Max’s Friday missive : Climate talks appear to slip backward Global climate talks appeared to have slipped backward after five days of negotiations in Bonn, with rich and poor countries exchanging charges of reneging on agreements they made last year to contain greenhouse gases. Delegates complained that reversals in the talks put negotiations back by a year, even before minimal gains were scored at the Copenhagen summit last December. “It’s a little bit like a broken record,” said European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger. “It’s like a flashback,” agreed Raman Mehta, of the Action Aid environment group. “The discourse is the same level” as before Copenhagen. The sharp divide between rich and poor nations over how best to fight climate change – a clash that crippled the Copenhagen summit – remains, and bodes ill for any deal at the next climate convention in Cancun, Mexico, which begins in November. “At this point, I am very concerned,” said chief U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing. “Unfortunately, what we have seen over and over this week is that some countries are walking back from progress made in Copenhagen, and what was agreed there.” Fortunately or unfortunately (I’m going with the former), there really wasn’t much that “was agreed there,” despite Pershing’s posing, as Max revealed in his Sunday submission (bold is mine): Analysis: Climate talks stumble from Page 1 The new climate change treaty under negotiation for the past 2 1/2 years begins with a brief document called “A Shared Vision.” The problem is, there isn’t one. The latest round of talks that concluded Friday showed that the 194 negotiating countries have failed to even define a common target or method for curbing greenhouse gases – just one example of the ongoing divide among rich and poor nations. Talks began in 2007, with the aim of wrapping up a deal in Copenhagen last December. But that didn’t happen, despite the presence of 120 heads of state or government. It ended instead with a three-page statement of intentions brokered by President Barack Obama. Though less than expected, the Copenhagen Accord scored some breakthroughs. It boiled down the core elements of a deal to 12 carefully worded paragraphs, and it inscribed hard-fought compromises by the main protagonists, the U.S. and China. Details were to be filled in by the next major conference in Cancun, Mexico, starting in November. But the accord was never formally adopted. … The paper was merely “noted” by the conference, stripping it of any legal force. Now, much of the Copenhagen deal has been thrown open again. As readers can see, Mr. Max couldn’t stay consistent in his musings even in the space of five paragraphs. In the third paragraph above, he notes that a deal “didn’t happen.” But in the seventh, he says that “the Copenhagen deal has been thrown open again,” as if a deal really was done. What transpired in Copenhagen was not a “deal.” If “the paper” had no “legal force” and could only be “‘noted” by the conference,” it really didn’t rise even to the level of what most of us would consider a “memorandum of understanding.” In other words, there really never has been a “deal.” Then again, for journalists in “The Climate Zone” who have had years of practice presumptively insisting that human-caused global warming is settled science, when it’s not — not even the “warming” part, as one leading advocate admitted in one of the ClimateGate e-mails — making the leap from “no deal” to “deal” hardly causes them to break a sweat. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the rest here:
Copenhagen Dashed: AP Reports Lament That Bonn Talks ‘Slip Backward’ and ‘Stumble’

Chris Matthews Wrongly Predicts Bill O’Reilly Will do the Right Thing on the Shirley Sherrod Firing | Video Cafe

What a shame! Chris Matthews was on your side yesterday and you blew it Bill-o. added by: kennymotown

Michigan Says Enough To Fed: Takes Matters Into Own Hands As It Starts Using Own Currency…And Gold

Either in anticipation of QE2 which will cut the value of the dollar by another 50% once another $2 trillion in toxic crap becomes the “assets” backing the viability of the dollar, or just because they are sick of Fed policies, mid-Michigan has taken monetary matters into their own hands, and in one simple act, completely bypassed the destabilizing influence of the domestic currency printers. As ConnectMidMichigan reports, “New types of money are popping up across Mid-Michigan and supporters say, it’s not counterfeit, but rather a competing currency. Right now, you can buy a meal or visit a chiropractor without using actual U.S. legal tender.” The plan is so simple, it just may work – after all if one can’t get away from the Fed’s probing and pickpocketing long fingers, all one has to do is learn to live without its parasitic pieces of paper. And not just paper: “I sell three or four every single day and then I get one or two back a week,” said Dave Gillie, owner of Gillies Coney Island Restaurant in Genesee Township. Gillie also accepts silver, gold, copper and other precious metals to pay for food.” So yes, you can eat gold…. and load up your gas tank with it. More from CMM: “Do people have to accept dollars or money? No, they don’t,” Gillie said. “They can accept anything they want or they can refuse to accept anything.” He’s absolutely right. The U.S. Treasury Department says the Coinage Act of 1965 says “private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash, unless there is a state law which says otherwise.” hat allows gas stations to say they don’t accept 50- or $100 bills after a certain time of day in hopes of not getting robbed. A chiropractic office in Lapeer County’s Deerfield Township allows creativity when it comes to payment. “This establishment accepts any form of silver, gold, chicken, apple pie, if someone works it out with me,” said Jeff Kotchounian of Deerfield Chiropractic. “I’ve taken many things.” Jeff Kotchounian says he’s used this Ron Paul half troy ounce of silver to get $25 worth of gas from a local station. While the government and banks don’t accept them, many others do. So why is there interest in these competing currencies? Is it just novelty or is there something deeper? If the ruling kleptocrats, pardon, the Fed, demand on being such an intimate part of everyday life, and procuring all of the population’s real wealth and cash producing assets in the process, said population has a choice of either going with this sheepish approach, and meekly allowing the loaded gun to be parked at its temple, or do what Michigan, with its 99.9% real unemployment, has decided to do. added by: im1mjrpain

Journolisters’ Plot to Stifle 2008 Rev. Wright Coverage Merely Latest Example of Establishment Media Coordination

Earlier this morning, NB’s Tim Graham put up an excellent post on the Daily Caller’s revelations that members of the Journolist listserv group “Plotted to Bury the Jeremiah Wright Story in 2008.” Though perhaps more blatant, the Journolist effort is not the first example of acknowledged coordination on the part of key members of the establishment press. In fact, an arguably more influential example of media coordination was exposed during the summer of 2005. At the time, it was known to have gone back well over a decade. It could still be active. The arrangement’s exposure seems to have been inadvertent. It was noted in what came across as a bit of a puff piece in Editor & Publisher. The item has long since been archived, but I excerpted key paragraphs from it at my own blog in July 2005: When The New York Times on July 16 broke the story of a 2003 State Department memo that had become a key element in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, the paper scored a major exclusive. But when The Washington Post hit newsstands that very same Saturday, it had its own version of the same story. It even credited the Times for the same-day scoop. Welcome to life under the Washington Post-New York Times swap. As part of a secret arrangement formed more than 10 years ago, the Post and Times send each other copies of their next day’s front pages every night. The formal sharing began as a courtesy between Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former Times Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld in the early 1990s and has continued ever since. “It seemed logical, because for years we would always try to get a copy of each other’s papers as soon as they came out,” Downie tells E&P. “It made sense to both of us to make it simpler for everybody.” Lelyveld, who left the Times in 2001, declined comment. Mark Tapscott, who is now at the Washington Examiner but had his own blog at the time, noted that : In any other industry, this would be called “collusion” and the Times and Post editorial pages would be in high dudgeon, demanding anti-trust investigations by the Department of Justice. Imagine market-rigging companies in another industry “defending” their collusive practices in court by saying, “Your honor, it was simpler for everybody.”  Tapscott also reasonably wondered whether the cooperative arrangement went further. Given the lack of shame, absence of ethics, and the intensely agenda-driven nature of the Journolist campaign to stifle the legitimate debate about the relevance of Jeremiah Wright’s two-decade relationship with Barack Obama as his pastor, it’s reasonable to wonder if arrangements such as “the WaPo-NYT swap” remain onging, and, at this point, who else might be involved. Cross-posted in longer form at BizzyBlog.com .

Go here to read the rest:
Journolisters’ Plot to Stifle 2008 Rev. Wright Coverage Merely Latest Example of Establishment Media Coordination

On DVD: When Mud Orgies and Full Monties Aren’t Enough

There are plenty of reasons to look back at the ’60s and envy its crazy natives, but Bob Levis’s notorious and rarely-seen Gold (1968) manifests a beaut: in those days, the rules that govern mass culture could be treated like toilet paper. Music and movies could not just toss out the rulebook but act as if it never existed, making up stuff as they went along with the copious assistance of very good dope, a ubiquitous and intoxicating sexual chaos, and a happy disdain for the establishment that’s never been equaled. (American youth since then has been mere sheep — sheep! )

See the original post here:
On DVD: When Mud Orgies and Full Monties Aren’t Enough

AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

Those looking for evidence that there a move afoot in the establishment press to lower the bar for whatever economic accomplishments might be accomplished during the Obama administration will be interested in how the Associated Press’s report on the government’s June jobs report defined “normal” unemployment. Perhaps it’s valid for reporters Jeannine Aversa and Christopher Rugaber to refer to 6% unemployment as “normal,” if by that they mean “typical non-recessionary” or “long-term average” unemployment. But I couldn’t help but remember that during the Bush 43 and Reagan years, unemployment rates just above and occasionally even below that level were described by wire service reporters and other journalists as “persistent unemployment” — i.e., decidedly not “normal.” I quickly found several AP and other reports from those eras that confirmed my recall of what is now a demonstrated double standard. Here is the opening sentence from the AP report , followed by the term-redefining paragraph: A second straight month of lackluster hiring by American businesses is sapping strength from the economic rebound. … Unemployment is expected to stay above 9 percent through the midterm elections in November. And the Fed predicts joblessness could still be as high as 7.5 percent two years from now. Normal is considered closer to 6 percent , and economists say it will probably take until the middle of this decade to achieve that. “Closer to 6%” seems to imply that “normal” is really “slightly above” that level.  It’s legitimate to question whether there has really been an economic rebound when people who are looking for work aren’t finding it and so many others have abandoned their quest. The truth is that the number of people reported as working according to the Establishment Survey in yesterday’s Employment Situation Report is lower than it was a year ago , when the recession as normal people define it ended. It’s also worth remembering, assisted by an updated version of the indispensable chart from Innocents Bystanders , that the administration predicted that its stimulus plan would return the economy to the AP’s new “normal” by the first quarter of 2012, three years earlier than “the middle of this decade”: Oops. Here are some previous examples of situations described by the establishment press as “persistent unemployment”: October 7, 2003 — Both an AP story and an item at USA Today on California’s recall election told readers that “Californians face an $8 billion state budget deficit, persistent unemployment and struggling schools.” The Golden State’s unemployment rate in September 2003 was 6.4% . June 13, 2003 — A Reuters report on consumer sentiment relayed that “Consumer sentiment deteriorated sharply in early June, suggesting persistent unemployment is taking its toll on Americans’ expectations for the economy’s future.” The national unemployment rate in May 2003 was 6.1% . April 4, 2004 — A Fox News item to which AP contributed claimed that “there is evidence that persistent unemployment, despite other signs of a recovering economy, is taking its toll on the president’s popularity.” On April 2, the government reported a national unemployment rate of 5.7% . Going back further, in a March 29, 1987 book review at the New York Times (“No Time for Radicals”), Michael Janeway wrote this of author Robert Lekachman: “Under Ronald Reagan, the author writes, no god but that of the marketplace is worshiped, yielding ‘privatization, militarization, persistent unemployment, de-unionization, middle-class shrinkage, and the triumph of plutocracy.’ Mr. Lekachman’s cases in point, when backed by fact and figure, make for an intelligently passionate brief against the Reagan Administration.” Janeway didn’t dispute the factual accuracy of Lekachman’s claim about “persistent unemployment, which at the time was 6.5% . Gosh, who knew that “normal” was only a half-point or less below that of “a mean society”? But what was once “persistent unemployment” is now “normal.” No double standard there (/sarcasm). Oh, wait a minute. Maybe the AP pair is subtly informing us that as long as the Obama administration is in power and Democrats control Congress, “persistent unemployment” will be “normal.” If so, guys, thanks for letting us know. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Read the rest here:
AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

On Networks, ‘Controversial’ Law Means Conservative Law

Liberals may like to boast of fighting the establishment and taking on the status quo, but it’s conservative laws that are 30 times more likely to be deemed “controversial” – at least by the mainstream media. In the past five years, when ABC, CBS, or NBC news reporters claimed a law was “controversial,” they were most likely referring to legislation backed by the right. This analysis looked at 110 news transcripts dating back to 2005 where the term “controversial” fell within three words of the term “law.” Of these transcripts, 62 referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Of the 62 ideologically identifiable “controversial” laws, 60 were conservative and only two were liberal. Whether it was NBC’s “Today” on Jan. 2, 2008, referring to the “controversial new law in Arizona [where] businesses can be shut down if they intentionally hire illegal immigrants,” or ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Dec. 23, 2005, discussing the “extension of the Patriot Act just days before the controversial law was set to expire,” conservative policies seemed to be more hot-button issues for the media than liberal policies. Arizona’s illegal immigration reform act was by far the law most frequently described as “controversial” by the news networks. Though the Arizona law was passed just two months ago, it was described by networks as “controversial” in 56 percent of the liberal or conservative transcripts studied. But the “controversy” over the law is largely media-driven, according to Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dane said the media have often mischaracterized the Arizona law. “I would say that the media has focused on all the wrong aspects of [the immigration law]. The criticism of the bill has been far more extreme than anything that is in the bill,” he said. Despite media claims that the law is “controversial,” polls show that Americans are solidly in favor of theArizona policy. After referring to “Arizona’s controversial new immigration law,” Brian Williams of NBC “Nightly News” on May 26 went on to report that “In our new NBC News/MSNBC/Telemundo national poll on this issue, we found 61 percent of people support the Arizona law, 36 percent oppose it.” By comparison, the networks branded few liberal laws as controversial. The recent health care reform law, which 55 percent of likely voters would like to see  repealed , wasn’t labeled “controversial” once. Neither was the auto bailout package, which 53 percent of Americans believe  was a bad idea. The only two liberal laws described as controversial in the transcripts were Oregon’s assisted suicide policy, which ABC’s “World News Tonight,” called controversial on Oct. 5, 2005, and a California law requiring serial numbers on bullets, which ABC’s “World News Sunday” called controversial on Oct. 14, 2007. Other conservative laws deemed controversial by the media included No Child Left Behind, a law banning partial-birth abortion and a law allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Methodology: This study reviewed the transcripts of all 110 ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news transcripts, as well as NBC’s “Meet the Press” between June 1, 2005, and June 21, 2010, in which the term “controversial” was used within three words of “law.” Duplicate transcripts and those not referring to U.S. laws were excluded. Other transcripts were discarded for the following reasons: The term “controversial” did not modify the law or parts of the law referred to, or The transcript did not mention the name or a description of the law, or The law was called controversial by a guest or interviewee as opposed to a reporter, anchor, or host. The transcript referred to a law that was considered politically neutral (such as a driving regulation inConnecticutand laws banning certain dog breeds in various states). Of the 62 transcripts included in the final results of the study, all referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Sixty of the times reporters labeled a law controversial, it was a conservative policy and just two of the times it was a liberal policy.   Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by  clicking   here.

See the original post:
On Networks, ‘Controversial’ Law Means Conservative Law