Tag Archives: new-york-times

Are Both Parties Equally Vulnerable in November, Like the New York Times Says? Hardly

New York Times reporters Jeff Zeleny and Megan Thee-Brenan examined the findings of the latest CBS/New York Times poll. As November elections approach, things look pretty bleak for Democrats and President Obama especially, who earned a record low approval rating and bad marks on his handling of the economy. But Zeleny whispered a little between-round encouragement into the ear of the battered Democrats, suggesting both sides were equally vulnerable in Thursday’s front page ” Poll Finds Hazards and Opportunities for Both Parties .” The original online headline, “Poll Suggests Big Opening for G.O.P. Going Into Midterms,” was far more accurate. Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of voters in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and Americans are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama’s leadership. But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power. The poll represents a snapshot of the country’s political mood as the campaign pivots from primary contests that have revealed deep divisions among Republicans into the general election, where the parties deliver their competing arguments to a wider audience. The findings suggest that there are opportunities and vulnerabilities for both parties as they proceed into the final seven weeks of the campaign. But the Times (albeit burying the news at the end of the last sentence of paragraph seven) apparently thinks at least one house of Congress may fall into Republican hands. Voters have a darker view of Congressional Republicans than of Democrats, with 63 percent disapproving of Democrats and 73 percent disapproving of Republicans. But with less than two months remaining until Election Day, there are few signs that Democrats have made gains persuading Americans that they should keep control of Congress. Not until paragraph 18 did the Times mention Obama’s record low approval rating, of 45 approval-disapproval. The paper didn’t mention it’s Obama’s lowest-ever approval rating in a New York Times poll (the last joint Times/CBS poll, in June, had Obama 47 approval-disapproval). The president’s overall job approval rating is 45 percent, with 47 percent disapproving. On the economy, his rating is worse, with 41 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. When asked whether Mr. Obama has a clear plan for solving the nation’s problems, 57 percent responded that he did not, yet twice as many give him more credit than Republicans for having a plan. The Times pushed for higher taxes in a short sidebar article by Megan Thee-Brenan, ” Support for Higher Tax on Wealthiest .” Amid heated debate in Washington over the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, there is strong support for the Obama administration’s proposal to allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire at the end of the year. However, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds the public does not expect that to happen if the Republicans win control of Congress in November. The poll found that 53 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on households earning $250,000 or more is a good idea, and 38 percent say it is a bad idea. But she didn’t mention that that’s less support then the last time the Times polled that question. Back in February, 62% thought it was a good idea, 31% a bad idea. That spread has since narrowed to 53. That was Question 63; you can read a .PDF version of the Times’ latest poll here .

The rest is here:
Are Both Parties Equally Vulnerable in November, Like the New York Times Says? Hardly

NYT: ‘Defeating Tea Party Nominees Imperative to Avoid National Embarrassment’

The panic over a looming conservative takeover of Congress in November is becoming palpable in today’s liberal media. Take Thursday’s editorial in the New York Times for example: For both parties and certainly the broad swath of independent voters, defeating this new crop of Tea Party nominees has become imperative to avoid the sense of national embarrassment from each divisive and offensive utterance, each wacky policy proposal.   Yep. According to the Gray Lady, defeating Tea Party nominees is imperative to avoid national embarrassment.  But that’s just the beginning: [F]or voters of all stripes, Tuesday’s primaries should illuminate the growling face of a new fringe in American politics – and provide the incentive for level-headed voters to become enthusiastic about the midterm election. Republican leaders have to decide if they want the tiny fraction of furious voters who have showed up at the primary polls to steer them into the swamp for years ahead. They have a chance to repudiate the worst of the Tea Party crowd and show that they can govern without appealing to the basest political instincts. So far, they have preferred to greedily capitalize on the nuclear energy in the land without considering its destructive effects. Democrats, especially beleaguered incumbents and the White House, need to counter the toxic message of the Tea Party so voters have an alternative. Not surprisingly, the Times went on to lambaste Delaware’s Republican nominee for Senate Christine O’Donnell and New York’s Republican nominee for governor Carl Paladino. As such, with Obama and the Democrats plummeting in the polls, the unemployment rate at 9.6 percent and likely climbing, and the Party that has been in power for approaching four years having absolutely nothing positive to run on, the Gray Lady has decided to run its own attack ad disguised as an editorial. It sure is going to be an interesting roughly six-plus weeks heading up to Election Day.

See the original post here:
NYT: ‘Defeating Tea Party Nominees Imperative to Avoid National Embarrassment’

The NY Times Splashes in the Shallow End with Meghan McCain, Brave Republican Rebel, Ugg Boot Wearer

Meghan McCain got star treatment on the front of the Sunday Styles section hyping “Dirty Sexy Politics,” her thin little account of her father’s 2008 presidential campaign. Frequent Times contributor Liesl Schillinger’s 2,600-word profile (” The Rebel “) of the 25-year-old daughter of Sen. John McCain  reads like a parody at times, so over-the-top is the praise for what sounds like an incredibly shallow read. Of course, McCain is the Times’s favorite kind of Republican, a surprisingly uninformed “progressive” whose arguments won’t convince anyone except shilling Schillingers. On a sweltering 109-degree August day, driving past election signs (John McCain, J. D. Hayworth, Ben Quayle) and cacti (saguaro), I pulled into a roadside mini-mall, hoping it was the right one. Entering a barnlike Mexican restaurant called Blanco, I scanned the bright blue banquettes for Meghan McCain. Ms. McCain, the 25-year-old politics and pop-culture columnist for The Daily Beast and daughter of Senator John McCain, is also the author of the just-published “Dirty Sexy Politics,” a frank, dishy and often scathing chronicle of her experiences during the 2008 presidential campaign. Her book is not only a front-row view of one of the most historic elections in recent American history, it is, as she told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” a “coming-of-age story.” It’s hard to see the point of this paragraph: …in a corner booth, I at last spotted a fresh-faced woman with straight unfoofy hair and next to no makeup. Dressed in a black T-shirt with an eagle on it, cutoffs and black flip-flops with crystal peace-sign charms (from a friend’s boutique), she resembled the sunny girls I used to drive to lunch with in high school in Oklahoma (where we, too, had wide-open spaces and abundant Mexican restaurant options at our disposal). Some of the puffery come off as ridiculous: But I figured that, after three years as a highly visible blogger, writer, Twitter user (she has 86,000 followers) and speaker on college campuses, Ms. McCain had learned to control how she comes across. …. Her own book would make as gripping a read for vacationers on South Padre Island as it would for students at midterms or for politicos on the eve of midterm elections. But “Dirty Sexy Politics” is no young-adult memoir; it’s a strongly-worded political platform from which Ms. McCain attacks today’s moribund, inflexible Republican Party (“all the old dudes,” is one way she puts it) and clamors for change. We eventually get a hint why the Times is promoting McCain and her book so avidly: Throughout the book, she lays out her vision of a moderate, inclusive Republican Party that could win over young people like herself who have come of age with interactive social media and care about small government, defense, the environment and gay rights . It infuriates her when rigid Republicans accuse her of being a Republican In Name Only, a RINO. “I cannot stand the word RINO, because I think it’s an easy way to belittle someone who’s flexible with the kind of world we live in,” she said. “I’m pro-life, but I’m pro birth control. I am also pro being realistic about the kind of world we live in.” She supports marriage equality for gay Americans, she added, because, “I have friends who are gay, and I’d like to go to their weddings.” …. ….her progressive views have angered traditionalists within the Republican Party. In March 2009, she wrote a column in The Daily Beast that accused Ann Coulter, the conservative American political commentator and writer, of perpetuating “negative stereotypes about Republicans,” and called her “offensive, radical, insulting and confusing.” “I object to people who use politics as entertainment,” she told me. The column provoked Laura Ingraham, the conservative commentator and radio show host, to deride Ms. McCain on her show as “plus-sized.” Apparently it’s perfectly fine to insult Ann Coulter as “offensive and radical,” but commenting on McCain’s weight is an offense good for several overwrought paragraphs. Schillinger went on and on about it. But in Arizona, Ms. McCain admitted that she finds attacks on her looks hard to take. “It’s very harsh,” she said. “I’m of the belief that you should never say anything bad about a woman’s appearance, ever. It’s nothing I would ever do.” McCain seemed desperate to sound transgressive: “I’m a 25-year-old woman with tattoos,” Ms. McCain said, waving her left hand to show the black cross on her wrist, “I just live my life very openly. I don’t think in this climate that I could get elected, either. I like to go to Vegas and I like to play blackjack with my friends. Can you do that if you’re a candidate? No. I rest my case.” She still resents Ms. Ingraham’s remark but added, “I should send her a fruit basket. It’s one of the best things that’s ever happened to my career. I don’t care if she disagrees with me.” Schillinger and McCain squeezed several more dramatic paragraphs over enchilada-gate, an evident “snub” by Laura Bush which was literarily enriched with deep observations about who was wearing what: It was in March 2008, two days after Mr. McCain had won four presidential primaries, clinching the Republican nomination. Mrs. Bush had invited Meghan and her mother to the White House for lunch. Meghan dressed to the hilt, in an elegant black Diane von Furstenberg dress, a capelet and Tory Burch peep-toe heels, her hair swept up in plaits. …. But when Mrs. Bush, in a sweater and slacks, greeted her and her mother, she told them there’d been a misunderstanding. The invitation only applied to Mrs. McCain. Meghan was sent to the White House mess. “I was given a doggie bag of enchiladas,” Ms. McCain writes. “Want to talk about feeling stupid and unwanted? Try carrying a take-out bag as you leave the White House in sparkly glitter heels and your hair braided in three huge cornrows.” “I hope Laura and Jenna Bush won’t be angry with me for dishing like this,” she writes. “But I use Taylor Swift as a model: If you don’t want her to write a song about you, don’t give her a reason.” Zing! But at Blanco, Ms. McCain excused the Bush diss: “I think that it was a long eight years for them,” she said. “They’re not ill-intentioned.” After two fawning quotes saying that she could (totally!) pull off a “Meghan McCain Show” on politics, Schillinger gushed about “the book’s other juicy secrets,” such as (gasp) campaign sex: There was the crazy sex among overworked “drones and journalists” blinded by “campaign goggles;” thefts of Mitt Romney signs by misbehaving McCainBlogettes ; and even a Xanax mishap that left Ms. McCain “knocked out like a corpse” on a campaign plane (she gives a “special shout-out” to Cynthia McFadden of ABC, “for not putting it on ‘Nightline’ “). Schillinger doesn’t spell out that it was McCain herself that stole the Romney campaign signs. For Ms. McCain, the political is inextricable from the personal. And whether she would like to see it this way or not, her father’s presidential loss also marked a new beginning for her. Since her book’s release last week, she has appeared on “The View,” “The Rachel Maddow Show,” “Fox & Friends” and “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.” “It was liberating to be able to tell my side of the story,” she told me in Scottsdale. But the new story she’s narrating is her own; she’s the front-runner in a race whose goal is still unknown, but whose progress is visible. Red State blogger Leon Wolf had some harsh but hilarious criticism of McCain and her book. Here’s some of the milder stuff. When I finished reading Dirty, Sexy Politics, I flipped to the acknowledgements section to find the name of the person who edited this travesty, so as to warn incompetent authors of the future away from utilizing this person’s services, but no such person was identified therein. Either this book had no editor, or the editor assigned to the original manuscript threw up his or her hands three pages in and decided to let the original stand as some sort of bizarre performance art, like Joaquin Phoenix’s appearance on Late Night with David Letterman. …. Meghan’s primary goal in writing Dirty, Sexy Politics appears to have been to show off her encyclopedic knowledge of who was wearing what clothes on what occasion. From all appearances, it is physically impossible for Meghan McCain to describe a given scene or occurrence without describing in detail what everyone in the room was wearing (and how their hair was done), most especially including herself. I stopped counting the number of times she informed me that she was wearing UGG boots on a given occasion at five. Dirty, Sexy Politics is 194 pages long; if you removed the descriptions of outfits and hairstyles so-and-so wore when such-and-such was going on, I doubt it would have scraped 120 pages.

View original post here:
The NY Times Splashes in the Shallow End with Meghan McCain, Brave Republican Rebel, Ugg Boot Wearer

Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

A new study by the Pew Research Center found that Barack Obama gets his highest approval ratings from people that watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, as well as from readers of the New York Times. The numbers are rather staggering, as 84 percent of regular viewers of MSNBC’s “Countdown” give the President high marks for his job performance. This compares to 80 percent for regular viewers of “The Rachel Maddow Show” and 79 percent for regular readers of the Times. But that’s just one of the interesting findings in the Pew survey released Sunday: Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices . Only about one-in-four (26%) Americans say they read a newspaper in print yesterday, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. Meanwhile, online newspaper readership continues to grow and is offsetting some of the overall decline in readership. This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006. Overall, cable news continues to play a significant role in peoples’ news habits – 39% say they regularly get news from a cable channel. But the proportions saying they regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have slipped substantially from two years ago, during the presidential election. The partisan divide in cable news is stunning if not shocking: Only Fox News has maintained its audience size, and this is because of the increasing number of Republicans who regularly get news there. Four-in-ten Republicans (40%) now say they regularly watch Fox News, up from 36% two years ago and just 18% a decade ago. Just 12% of Republicans regularly watch CNN, and just 6% regularly watch MSNBC. As recently as 2002, Republicans were as likely to watch CNN (28%) as Fox News (25%). The share of Democrats who regularly watch CNN or Fox News has fallen from 2008. Interesting. So both Democrats and Republicans are reducing their viewership of CNN. Doesn’t say much for the supposedly must trusted name in news, does it? Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity are conservative – roughly twice the national average of 36%. And at the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Rachel Maddow have regular audiences that include nearly twice the proportion of liberals than in the public. News audiences also vary widely when it comes to opinions about current issues and topics. For instance, those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement make up disproportionately large proportions of the audiences for Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News opinion programs. This also is the case for supporters of the NRA (National Rifle Association). By contrast, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular New York Times readers, viewers of the Colbert Report and NPR listeners. Several ideologically divergent news audiences – including Wall Street Journal readers and viewers of the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck show – include larger-than-average percentages of self-described libertarians. Here’s where things really got interesting: Overall, the share of Americans who say keeping up with the news is something they enjoy a lot has dipped, from a consistent 52% in recent biennial news consumption surveys, including 2008, to 45% in 2010. The decline is linked to partisanship and ideology: in 2008 67% of liberal Democrats said they enjoyed the news a lot, compared with just 45% today. By contrast, about as many conservative Republicans say they enjoy keeping up with the news today as did so two years ago (57% now, 56% then). This has resulted in a switch in news enjoyment. Today, conservative Republicans enjoy keeping up with the news more than any other ideological and partisan group; just two years ago it was the liberal Democrats who held that distinction. How much of this is economic? After all, the news was far better when Pew last did this study in 2008. There certainly is less to “enjoy” today. On the other hand, that doesn’t explain the ideological divide. Maybe liberals liked things better when Bush and the Republicans were being blamed for all the problems in the world, and just can’t stand watching their politicians take any heat at all. By contrast, it seems conservatives enjoy keeping up with the news regardless of which Party is getting scrutinized. That says something, doesn’t it? Search engines are playing a substantially larger role in people’s news gathering habits – 33% regularly use search engines to get news on topics of interest, up from 19% in 2008. This is a predictable but yet concerning finding, for it makes it essential that search engines don’t have their own biases. As conservatives have pointed fingers at Google’s algorithms for years, the more people rely on search engines to guide them to news sources, the more impartial such engines better be, especially for the following reason: About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43% to 23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias. This makes search engine neutrality essential or conservatives are really going to have a hard time leveling the playing field. That said, we’ve saved the best for last: Among news audiences, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Keith Olbermann (84% approve) and Rachel Maddow (80%); his rating is nearly as high among regular readers of the New York Times (79%). Obama gets his lowest ratings among regular Sean Hannity viewers (7%) and Rush Limbaugh listeners (9%). So Obama gets his highest approval ratings from folks that watch Olbermann, Maddow, and read the New York Times. What does this say about the journalistic standards at MSNBC and the Gray Lady? After all, depending on which poll you look at, half or less of the nation currently approve of the job Obama is doing.  If Olbermann and Maddow watchers, along with Times readers, have such a drastically different view of the President than the rest of the nation, these entities must be doing a horrible job of reporting the news to their patrons.  Is there any greater example of the dangers of liberal media bias and the need to aggressively combat it? 

Read this article:
Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

NYT’s Herbert: Obama and Dems Created Mess But GOP Would Be Worse

You can’t swing a dead cat these days without hitting some pathetically liberal media member claiming that despite how bad things are now they’d get worse if Republicans won in November. Exhibit A: New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s article Saturday. In it, he somewhat honestly told his readers about the misshaps of the President he personally helped get elected. Fair enough, but the conclusion – almost like a talking points memo from the very Party he unashamedly supports! – was that things would get a lot worse if Republicans took back Congress: People feel that the country is going to hell, that the system itself has broken down, and President Obama and the Democrats have been unable to assuage that awful feeling. The Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they have not effectively addressed the overwhelming concern of working men and women: an economy that is too weak to provide the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. With the nation losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month in early-2009, the president and his allies in Congress could have rallied the citizenry to participate in the difficult work of nation-building here at home. He could have called on everyone to share in the sacrifices that needed to be made, and he could have demanded much more from the financial and corporate elites who were being bailed out with the people’s money. Makes sense, right? Just wait: The Democrats are facing an election debacle because they did not respond adequately to their constituents’ most dire needs. The thing that is really weird is that a strengthened G.O.P. will undoubtedly make matters so much worse. Really? The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent when the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. It’s now 9.6 percent. Over 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. 7 million! And shills like Herbert have the gall to claim conditions would worsen if Republicans were back in power. Hey Mr. Herbert: how about proving your point with actual data rather than inflammatory rhetoric? I know, I know – that would be too much like journalism for a shill like this.

Read the original:
NYT’s Herbert: Obama and Dems Created Mess But GOP Would Be Worse

Everyone Welcome Back Manohla Dargis!

After a nearly two-and-a-half month hiatus, the gifted and beloved NY Times critic Manohla Dargis returns today with a pair of reviews, including a steadfastly tolerant glimpse at Joaquin Phoenix’s otherwise intolerable I’m Still Here : “Much of the movie involves Mr. Phoenix’s having, or more likely pantomiming, a meltdown, for which he puts on a really good show,” she notes, describing the star’s rejection of celebrity and rebirth as a rapper. “But the programmatic nature of his antics strongly suggests that he is self-consciously playing a role in a narrative, one that isn’t simply about him.” This calls for a toast! Coffee mugs up… [ NYT ]

Here is the original post:
Everyone Welcome Back Manohla Dargis!

Imam Rauf’s NYT Op-ed Completely Ignores Ground Zero Mosque Polls

The Imam in the middle of the Ground Zero mosque controversy finally spoke about the issue Wednesday by publishing a New York Times op-ed without once mentioning the overwhelming public opposition to the location of this Islamic center. Somewhat curiously, he didn’t even refer to last week’s poll by the Times finding two-thirds of New York city residents against the building of such a facility two blocks from where radical Islamists killed thousands of innocent people almost exactly nine years ago. But that didn’t stop Feisal Abdul Rauf from putting a happy face on an issue that has deeply saddened much of the nation he is also a citizen of: We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House. More important, we are doing so with the support of the downtown community, government at all levels and leaders from across the religious spectrum, who will be our partners. I am convinced that it is the right thing to do for many reasons. Yes, but not with the support of the very community this mosque would serve. Let me remind the Imam of what the very paper he wrote in Wednesday reported just five days prior: The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different site. Most strikingly, 38 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up question that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location. Weeks prior, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found similar opposition nationwide. How could a man claiming his “life’s work has been focused on building bridges between religious groups” not recognize in his call for unity the overwhelming opposition to this mosque from the very people he says he wants to build bridges between? Shouldn’t the beginning of such a process be to validate the existence of powerful resistance and concern? By ignorning the volume and intensity of these sentiments, the Imam was actually offending those that possess them. Instead, he continued to make his pitch like a salesman ignoring negative feedback from his prospects: Our broader mission – to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology – lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort. From the political conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians to the building of a community center in Lower Manhattan, Muslims and members of all faiths must work together if we are ever going to succeed in fostering understanding and peace. Great thoughts indeed, but you can only convert your opponents by recognizing their existence. By ignoring them, you run the risk of further alienating those you claim to be reaching out to. With this in mind, if Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal had any input to what Rauf wrote before it was published, one has to wonder if he suggested to the Imam that it might be a good idea to mention last Friday’s poll. He may have balanced this by referring to the Times own editorial the same day wherein the Gray Lady spoke in favor of the mosque despite the poll’s findings. After all, the absence of both suggests regardless of the optimistic title “Building on Faith,” either Rauf had little faith his readers could handle the truth or he is refusing to face it himself. Whichever the reality, it didn’t paint a picture of a religious figure trying to build bridges.  As a result, this op-ed might act to further the divide concerning this mosque rather than unify a nation with many remaining questions about its possible construction.

Continued here:
Imam Rauf’s NYT Op-ed Completely Ignores Ground Zero Mosque Polls

Profile in Bias: Four Years of Katie Couric’s Liberal Spin as ‘CBS Evening News’ Anchor

Tuesday marks the four-year anniversary of Katie Couric’s assumption of the anchor chair for the CBS Evening News on Tuesday, September 5, 2006. To commemorate the occasion, the Media Research Center has assembled Perking Up for Liberal Spin , a profile in bias of Couric’s top forty biased quotes from her four years at CBS.      Marking her one-year anniversary, a September 2007 MRC Media Reality Check, New Network, Same Old Biased Katie , noted: “In her first year at the helm of the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric has perpetuated the bias problem that eroded CBS’s credibility under Dan Rather.” The three years that followed were no exception, as Couric actively promoted liberal figures and causes, while disparaging conservatives. From cheering on Barack Obama’s campaign and presidential agenda to smearing Arizona’s immigration law or opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, she has maintained her long journalistic record of liberal slant. Couric’s biased reporting has not been a hit with the broadcast’s shrinking audience, during the week of August 16, 2010, the network news program tied it’s all-time ratings low , slipping below five million viewers. Here are some bias highlights of Couric behind the anchor desk: -Ground Zero Mosque = American Values “There is a debate to be had about the sensitivity of building this center so close to Ground Zero. But we can not let fear and rage tear down the towers of our core American values.” — Katie Couric on Ground Zero mosque for “Katie Couric’s Notebook” on Couric & Co. blog, August 23, 2010. -Shaking Pom-Poms for Obama “You’re so confident, Mr. President, and so focused. Is your confidence ever shaken? Do you ever wake up and say, ‘Damn, this is hard. Damn, I’m not going to get the things done I want to get done, and it’s just too politicized to really get accomplished the big things I want to accomplish’?” — Couric in an exchange with Obama shown on CBS’s The Early Show , July 22, 2009. [Video/audio (0:22): WMV | Mp3 ]                      -Arizona’s Immigration Law = Cops Gone Wild “Tonight, Arizona’s controversial new immigration law. Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they’re here illegally. It triggers demonstrations by both sides and a warning from President Obama.” — Couric at the top of the April 23, 2010 Evening News . [Video/audio (0:12): WMV | Mp3 ] -ObamaCare Can’t Come Soon Enough “Once again, we begin tonight with the battle over health care reform, but this time, we’re not starting at a town meeting. Tonight, we’re going to show you why many believe reform is desperately needed. These are just some of the tens of thousands of Americans who need health care but have no insurance or not enough of it, and they’re lining up at a free makeshift clinic in Los Angeles.” — Couric opening the August 13, 2009 Evening News .

Go here to see the original:
Profile in Bias: Four Years of Katie Couric’s Liberal Spin as ‘CBS Evening News’ Anchor

NYT Bemoans Republican’s Fake Candidates, Ignored Nearly Identical Democratic Ploy

At the New York Times, Republican ploys to get ringer candidates on the ballot are front page news. Attempts by Democrats to do the same thing – on a larger scale – are not worth covering at all. “Republican Runs Street People on Green Ticket” blares the headline on the front page of today’s Times. Arizona GOP operative Steve May has recruited three “street people,” as the Gray Lady calls them, to run as Green Party candidates, which will likely siphon votes from Democrats running for the same seats. “The political establishment here views him as nothing more than a political dirty trick,” Times reporter Marc Lacey wrote of one of the street people. The paper’s new-found concern for political dirty tricks was nowhere to be seen, however, when a Democratic Party official ran 23 candidates on the specious “Tea Party” ticket in Michigan. The state Supreme Court recently ruled that The Tea Party cannot appear on the ballot in November. The Times helpfully offers the Democratic position on the controversy in Arizona: The Democratic Party is fuming over Mr. May’s tactics and those of at least two other Republicans who helped recruit candidates to the Green Party, which does not have the resources to put candidates on ballots around the state and thus creates the opportunity for write-in contenders like the Mill Rats to easily win primaries and get their names on the ballot for November. Complaints about spurious candidates have cropped up often before, though never involving an entire roster of candidates drawn from a group of street people. “It’s unbelievable. It’s not right. It’s deceitful,” said Jackie Thrasher, a former Democratic legislator in northwest Phoenix who lost re-election in 2008 after a Green Party candidate with possible links to the Republicans joined the race. “If these candidates were interested in the democratic process, they should connect with the party they are interested in. What’s happening here just doesn’t wash. It doesn’t pass the smell test.”… Besides the Mill Rat candidates, the Democrats smell a rat in other races, including one in which a roommate of a Republican legislator’s daughter ran as a Green Party candidate in a competitive contest for the State Senate. They cite a variety of state and federal election laws that the Republicans may have violated in putting forward “sham” candidates for the Green Party. Meanwhile, about 2000 miles away, Jason Bauer, a Democratic Party official in Oakland County, Michigan, resigned after being caught red-handed in his role stacking the ballot for his party in 23 races. His plan: to create a “Tea Party” – with no ties to any group associating with the tea party movement or any other conservative cause – to draw voters away from Republican candidates in those races. Jonathan Oosting reported at Mlive.com: The Oakland County Democratic Party says it has requested and accepted the resignation of operations director Jason Bauer in the wake of accusations he notarized campaign filings for a fake Tea Party candidate. “We are saddened by this situation, but cannot condone his alleged actions,” the OCDP said Sunday in a released statement. “For the sake of the organization, we must part ways effective immediately.” Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson, a Republican candidate for secretary of state, announced the allegations against Bauer on Friday, noting she had turned over documents to the county prosecutor and Michigan Attorney General’s office for further investigation. Was a crime committed? Well, the Detroit Free Press reminds us that “Misusing notary public designation is punishable by suspension or revocation of the notary status and a civil fine of up to $1,000.” Aaron Tyler, one of the 23 “Tea Party” candidates, said his name was filed without his knowledge. “I believe a fraud was committed,” he told the Free Press. Despite these facts, the New York Times has yet to run a single story on the Michigan controversy – a controversy that has already claimed the job of one Democratic Party official, and could, like the case in Arizona, lead to some form of legal action. Is the Times only concerned about “political dirty tricks” when Democrats stand to take the hit?

Continued here:
NYT Bemoans Republican’s Fake Candidates, Ignored Nearly Identical Democratic Ploy

NYT Calls New Yorkers ‘Appalling’ for Opposing Ground Zero Mosque

The New York Times Friday called many of its readers “appalling” for their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. As NewsBusters reported moments ago, the Times released a new poll Friday finding that 67 percent of New York City residents are against the proposed location for the Islamic center. At the same time, the Gray Lady, clearly not concerned about offending its dwindling number of patrons, chose to insult portions of its remaining readership with the following editorial : It has always been a myth that New York City, in all its dizzying globalness, is a utopia of humanistic harmony. The city has a bloody history of ethnic and class strife. The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are two pinnacles of American openness to the outsider. New Yorkers like to think they are a perfect fit with their city. Tolerance, however, isn’t the same as understanding, so it is appalling to see New Yorkers who could lead us all away from mosque madness, who should know better, playing to people’s worst instincts. That includes Carl Paladino and Rick Lazio, Republicans running for governor who have disgraced their state with histrionics about the mosque being a terrorist triumph. And Rudolph Giuliani, who cloaks his opposition to the mosque as “sensitivity” to 9/11 families without acknowledging that this conflates all prayerful Muslims with terrorists, a despicable conclusion. New Yorkers, like other Americans, have a way to go. That’s a heckuva way to treat your patrons as well as prospective customers. Is it any wonder this company’s stock is trading close to a 26-year low?

Excerpt from:
NYT Calls New Yorkers ‘Appalling’ for Opposing Ground Zero Mosque