I was thinking about the last week and realized that often the bias in the media is not about different points of view, but rather about different facts being reported. Here are a few examples:
1. Slate has a piece today explaining that the recent upsurge in the poll numbers for Marco Rubio doesn't exist. Now I know that Slate is a far left outlet, but it still shocks me when a media outlet just makes up phony facts. According to the Real Clear Politics average of major polls, Rubio went from an average of 5.3% and fifth place three weeks ago to an average of 10.5% and third place today. Rubio's support doubled and he moved up two places, but for Slate that obvious upsurge doesn't exist.
2. A few days ago, the New York Times published an article on its front page which explained that there is no proof that the Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Temple Mount is known to Moslems as the Noble Sanctuary and is the location of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosques. It is also the focus of most of the current unrest in Israel and the West Bank. The article, of course, was completely wrong. The remnants of the retaining walls for the Temple structures and the stairs to the Temple are still there in Jerusalem and no serious scholar doubts that it was located on the Temple Mount. The Times was actually publishing propaganda put out by some of the Palestinian groups which falsely claim that the Jews never actually lived in the region. A few days later, the Times issued a correction stating that the exact location of the Temple on top of the Temple Mount is unknown but there is no question that it was located there. In other words, the Times did a complete about face from the news article, but put that into a correction that no one saw.
3. Numerous articles have recently "explained" that the Select Committee on Benghazi is purely a political hit job on Hillary Clinton and that it has uncovered nothing new to date. That too is totally false. No one knew that Hillary used her own private unsecured email system until the committee uncovered that. But for the committee, no one would know that Hillary sent and received classified information, including some TOP SECRET stuff, on a system that was not approved for that purpose and which put our national secrets in danger of being hacked by foreign adversaries. Were it not for the committee, we would not have known that Hillary's email system was indeed the target of multiple hacks from China, Russia and Korea. But for the committee, we would not have known that Hillary ignored the directive of the White House by using Sidney Blumenthal as an adviser. We also would not have known that Hillary used her position as secretary of state to help Blumenthal get a lucrative contract with the Libyan rebels. One can only ponder how much more will come out when the committee finishes its work and reveals the results to the nation.
4. Some recent articles have stated that the USA is fighting on both sides in Syria. That one really throws me. There are basically five groups fighting in Syria: the Assad forces who are allied with the Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces; ISIS; the Sunni terrorist groups like those affiliated with al Qaeda; the Free Syrian Army which is a more moderate Sunni group; and the Kurds. To date, America has not done much, but there have been a few air strikes against ISIS and two against the Sunni terrorists groups. We have also supplied a tiny amount of training and weapons to the Free Syrian Army. That sure does not put us on both sides. America never supports the Assad group. America never supports the ISIS group. America never supports the Sunni terrorists. The Kurds and the Free Syrian Army do not fight each other, so there is no way for the USA to be on both sides. The reality is that the USA is not really involved in Syria, but that does not stop the reporting that we are somehow on multiple sides.
The sad thing about all these reports is that they undermine the ability of the American people to make rational decisions about how we ought to proceed. The media ought to, at least, be honest in its reporting. There are always going to be mistakes; that is not, however, what is at issue here. Intentional misrepresentation of the true facts is what is happening. It needs to be stamped out. It does a major disservice to the American people.
1. Slate has a piece today explaining that the recent upsurge in the poll numbers for Marco Rubio doesn't exist. Now I know that Slate is a far left outlet, but it still shocks me when a media outlet just makes up phony facts. According to the Real Clear Politics average of major polls, Rubio went from an average of 5.3% and fifth place three weeks ago to an average of 10.5% and third place today. Rubio's support doubled and he moved up two places, but for Slate that obvious upsurge doesn't exist.
2. A few days ago, the New York Times published an article on its front page which explained that there is no proof that the Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Temple Mount is known to Moslems as the Noble Sanctuary and is the location of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosques. It is also the focus of most of the current unrest in Israel and the West Bank. The article, of course, was completely wrong. The remnants of the retaining walls for the Temple structures and the stairs to the Temple are still there in Jerusalem and no serious scholar doubts that it was located on the Temple Mount. The Times was actually publishing propaganda put out by some of the Palestinian groups which falsely claim that the Jews never actually lived in the region. A few days later, the Times issued a correction stating that the exact location of the Temple on top of the Temple Mount is unknown but there is no question that it was located there. In other words, the Times did a complete about face from the news article, but put that into a correction that no one saw.
3. Numerous articles have recently "explained" that the Select Committee on Benghazi is purely a political hit job on Hillary Clinton and that it has uncovered nothing new to date. That too is totally false. No one knew that Hillary used her own private unsecured email system until the committee uncovered that. But for the committee, no one would know that Hillary sent and received classified information, including some TOP SECRET stuff, on a system that was not approved for that purpose and which put our national secrets in danger of being hacked by foreign adversaries. Were it not for the committee, we would not have known that Hillary's email system was indeed the target of multiple hacks from China, Russia and Korea. But for the committee, we would not have known that Hillary ignored the directive of the White House by using Sidney Blumenthal as an adviser. We also would not have known that Hillary used her position as secretary of state to help Blumenthal get a lucrative contract with the Libyan rebels. One can only ponder how much more will come out when the committee finishes its work and reveals the results to the nation.
4. Some recent articles have stated that the USA is fighting on both sides in Syria. That one really throws me. There are basically five groups fighting in Syria: the Assad forces who are allied with the Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces; ISIS; the Sunni terrorist groups like those affiliated with al Qaeda; the Free Syrian Army which is a more moderate Sunni group; and the Kurds. To date, America has not done much, but there have been a few air strikes against ISIS and two against the Sunni terrorists groups. We have also supplied a tiny amount of training and weapons to the Free Syrian Army. That sure does not put us on both sides. America never supports the Assad group. America never supports the ISIS group. America never supports the Sunni terrorists. The Kurds and the Free Syrian Army do not fight each other, so there is no way for the USA to be on both sides. The reality is that the USA is not really involved in Syria, but that does not stop the reporting that we are somehow on multiple sides.
The sad thing about all these reports is that they undermine the ability of the American people to make rational decisions about how we ought to proceed. The media ought to, at least, be honest in its reporting. There are always going to be mistakes; that is not, however, what is at issue here. Intentional misrepresentation of the true facts is what is happening. It needs to be stamped out. It does a major disservice to the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment