If you took a quick look at the right wing media (and of course the rest of the MSM which parrots and copies Fox) in the last few days, you would see a myriad of stories about the failed terrorist bombing attempt in Times Square. The stories seem to primarily bash President Obama for inexplicable reasons (I mean, 50 hours from attempted bombing to capture seems impressive to me, but you know Dick Cheney was Superman and would have done it in 5 minutes, I guess). The rest of stories focus on the would be terrorist Faisal Shazad, and his connections to terrorists located in Pakistan.But the right wing seems to be upset that more stories don't simply blame Islam itself for the attack. For the most part, the same sorts of bogus narratives the right always traffics in are present: President Obama refuses to condemn the attack (false), the media refuses to say the terrorist is Muslim (false), and the rights of the accused are more important than the rights of "real Americans" (false).
Here are a few things the right wing (and, for the most part, the rest of the media, too) ignores: Mr. Shazad is an American citizen. Despite the crime he is accused of, he gets the same presumption of innocence as every other American. A naturalized citizen is the same as any other type of citizen. Naturalized citizens do not have less rights. American terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, was read his rights upon arrest, given a trial, found guilty, and subsequently executed. And his attack was successful. No one in Congress tried to pass any laws revoking his citizenship (like Joe LIEberman is trying to do now) and recommending he be locked away without trial and (presumably) tortured.
The only differences between the McVeigh case and Shazad are the religion of the attackers and their skin color. Is the right wing in this country really saying that if you're white and Christian and commit a crime, you get due process, but if you're brown and Muslim, you don't? Just wondering.
But more interesting than that is the fact that the person who first notified the police about the SUV that contained the bomb is himself a Muslim immigrant. “I didn’t see the car pull up or notice the driver because I was busy with customers. But when I looked up I saw that smoke appeared to be coming from the car. This would have been around 6.30pm. I thought I should call 911, but my English is not very good and I had no credit left on my phone, so I walked over to Lance, who has the T-shirt stall next to mine, and told him. He said we shouldn’t call 911. Immediately he alerted a police officer near by,” said Mr Aliou Niasse, who is originally from Senegal and who has been a vendor in Times Square for about eight years.
So, while the right wants to focus on bashing President Obama, Muslims, naturalized citizens, and immigrants, what about some praise for the guy who told the police about the SUV in the first place?! But that would require ditching the wingnut narrative that all immigrants are criminals, so forget that, right?
17 comments:
Other than maybe FAR right-wing hate groups, please cite for me where the political right has said they hate immigrants, especially those of color. Further where have they said that all immigrants are criminals?
You are painting with awfully broad strokes there, Dave.
For the record, Lieberman is egregiously wrong.
This alleged TERRORIST is an American citizen and deserving of all his Constitutional Rights accordingly.
That being said, he should be charged to the fullest extent of the law, including with treason, and if convicted of the crimes, he should be punished accordingly.
Lastly, sir, your characterization of the media is hilariously inaccurate.
Further where have they said that all immigrants are criminals?
You've never heard of Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh? Hell, even that commenter, Lisa, said pretty much that exact thing.
I agree he should be charged with everything the Justice Dept. can think of, and spend a lot of time in prison. I have no sympathy for him.
But, I did decide to watch a little Fox News yesterday (I took anti-nausea medicine beforehand, don't worry) and it had no less than four people on air that argued that 1) a naturalized citizen does not have the same rights as a natural born one AND 2) that mirandizing this US citizen shows Obama does not "get it" that we're at war. This was only in about 90 mins. I can only imagine what else was said when I stopped watching.
My characterization of the media is based on my own observations. It is no less truthful than when you claim the media is liberal. It isn't, but that doesn't stop the right from making the claim over and over.
I could cite hundreds - even thousands - of instances of right wing bias in the MSM, but you'll just keep on with the silly liberal bias claim no matter what I say.
What is the difference between the FAR right and the "not far" right. The GOP has so moved so far to the right over the last 20 years, that it is virtually impossible to see where the fringe ends and the "mainstream" begins. Anyone who dared work with a Dem or entertained the notion of bi-partisanship has been drummed out of the party. Sounds like a distinction without a difference.
I have to agree with Dave on how far the political spectrum has shifted to portray extremes by the right wing pundits/media types. I believe this has been a concentrated effort. If not coordinated, it has been determined that this strategy works, and it has been widely used over time to get millions of people to bypass their critical thinking skills and to reach their conclusions and make their opinions based on the fear and anger the pundits encourage, rather than basing these things on reason.
What used to be consided "moderate" or "centrist" is now considered "liberal" or even "socialist". Run of the mill conservatives are now thought of as moderates (the conservative values of 20 years ago are now derided as "not conservative enough", and to be a right winger today, you just about have to embrace stuff that would have been considered really "far right" twenty years ago.
All these people trying to out-conservative each other turns the whole thing into a sort of self-parody. I wonder how much farther to the right the GOP will be in another 20 years, if it hasn't entirely imploded by then?
And re. the media, it isn't liberal. It's corporate. But that line is sure to fall on deaf ears. But guess who owns the media? I always thought the person who owned the printing press got to control what was printed. If the wealthy people who control the media think the president is going to raise their taxes, guess what kind of biases we will see in the news? And because the bottom line is what the MSM is concerned about, we see all kinds of stuff that isn't news portrayed as news (a classic recent example being "Balloon Boy") because they know if it has some sensationalism to it, people will watch.
And in today's climate, with the right wingers thinking that anything that isn't right wing is automatically "liberal", then anything in the media that isn't FOX or similar is also therefore automatically "liberal". Again, critical thinking skills are being bypassed in many cases when it comes to the tired old saw about the nefarious "liberal media" It's time to retire that one.
Amen, brother!
Well, I will not waste time arguing the points on this one for umpteenth time. We will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to the blatantly left-wing bent of the majority of the state-run media outlets.
Mr. Snave, I also contest your assertion that the right has moved more to the right in the last 20 years.
Just look at the caliber of our presidential nominees on the right since Reagan left office.
Bush Sr. was decidely left of Reagan and his economic policies and raising of taxes show this.
Dole was a moderate at best, and although a nice enough guy, he was hardly a right-wing firebrand.
Bush Jr. expanded spending, particularly in government, and gave the country the biggest entitlement program with prescription drugs in a generation. He would qualify as an old school Democrat back in the '50's.
McCain regularly thumbed his nose at the right wing of the GOP and proudly brandished the title of "maverick" for doing so. He also would have made a great old school Democrat.
Until the advent of the Tea Party in very recent times came into being to restore limited constitutional government, the right has definitely been moving leftward. The people might not have shifted leftward as much, hence their taking the country back now.
Our politicians supposedly representing us over the past twenty years proves your assertion to be inaccurate though, my friend.
Yes, but since Reagan the taxes for corporations and the wealthiest 1-2% have shrunk to nearly nothing, while our infrastructure is crumbling. That's pretty conservative. And you're ignoring the social conservatives influence in politics. The shift to the far right is not just in terms of economics.
Extremists like Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, and other right wing Christian organizations dominate all discussion of religion and morals nowadays. Their brand of hatred masked as religion is considered mainstream today by the media despite the fact they represent maybe 15-20% of American views.
Frankly, I considered becoming a Republican at one point, but I simply cannot, in good conscience, do it because of the religious right's pervasive influence on the party. I can't support the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance agenda that those groups promote.
And as for your baseless contention about the "blatantly left-wing bent of the majority of the state-run media outlets," when have you provided anything besides your opinion as "proof."
Well, I take that back. Once, you did cite a 1992 (!!) poll that claimed reporters were Democrats. Naturally, a poll like that is suspect (how many were asked, what polling methods were used, what other questions were asked, how can voting records/registration be obtained without consent of the parties - and it's nearly 20 years old) But, what about the editors and executives at the media corporations? They are the ones who make the decisions anyway.
But keep clinging to the notion of the "liberal media." After all, I'm sure you still cling to trickle down economics, even though that is a proven failure.
and trickle up is even worse unless . It's being proven every day as jobs continue to disappear and the stock market contiunues to drop.
Utopia is coming Dave You will have your wish soon. Don't forget to give yourself a big kick in the a~~~!
Don't say you haven't been warned.
Poor Contessa Brewer was frustrated that the TS bomber was a Muslim.
Yeah, except the market has been on an upward trajectory for the last year, unemployment is dropping, and consumer spending is at the highest level in three years. The economy is finally being dug out of the hole you Republicans left it in.
I don't understand why you hate success so much.
Dave, the double standard of the media bias is there to see on a daily basis. Look back to favorable versus unfavorable stories in the NY Times, Washington Post etc on McCain and then compare them to Obama during the campaign. The results are amazing.
Let alone things like what happened in the Clinton administration versus the Bush administration.
Case in point, Clinton had a friend (and big donor) who owned a company, whose name I forget, be able to sell forbidden dual-use technology to the Chinese by changing the oversight on this technology from State and DOD to the commerce department. This technology helped improve China's ability to launch satellites. (of course just for communications, according to the Chinese) Hardly a peep was ever heard.
Cheney divests all of his stocks and interest in Haliburton long before coming to office and yet there are myriads of reports of how he influenced government to support his old company in the press.
Clinton comes into office and fires all of the sitting federal attorneys, as was his right, and not a word was said in the press.
Bush fires nine of them and the press cries political bias and wants an investigation.
If Condoleeza Rice has stolen classified documents and shoved them down her pants like Sandy Burger did as national security advisor, the press would have called for her removal and prosecution and rightfully so. No such thing was ever done other than a few token stories on Berger.
If Bush had attended a church for twenty years where white supremacy was preached, he never would have been elected, due to the press coverage.
Obama sits in Reverend Wright's church where black liberation theology is preached weekly and how the white man and Jew are evil, and it is paid scant attention in the press.
I can go on with big items like this all day long, Dave.
Rush often jokes, but there is truth to it, that if the world were to come to an end, the press would blame Republicans and the headlines would read, "GOP policies cause the world to end; women and poor hardest hit".
Take off your blinders and see, Splash.
As for Reagan, the facts of the economic recovery are there to see, if you would but look.
As for Obama, his improvement in unemployment lately is hugely because of the expansion of government jobs that the taxpayers will have to fund.
These are by and large not private sector jobs that add to our nation's GDP, rather they add to our nation's debt. If that is your idea of success, you need a new Funk & Wagnells, sir.
Blah blah blah. All bogus and highly subjective "examples" and ones that only tell the story from the conservative point of view. Your complaint is not about liberal bias, it is that the media does not report stories that match your point of view. You're not going to agree with everything you see on TV, yet you seem to feel that when is not presented your way, then it shows bias.
It was the NY Times that hounded Clinton about Whitewater and Paula Jones. They were merciless and covered every single GOP made up "scandal": Travelgate, Vince Foster's "murder", Juanita Broderick, and the list goes on and on.
In my view, the myriad of scandalous, unethical, and illegal behavior of the Bush Administration was completely ignored by the MSM. Ignored. It was liberal blogs that reported about the illegal firing of the US attorneys for political reasons. It was blogs that uncovered the Republican Party's tightly woven relationship between convicted fraud Jack Abramoff and people like Tom Delay and numerous high ranking Republicans. Where was the liberal media then?
How about the gushing coverage given to W over Iraq? The NY Times, Wash Post, and every network praised Bush for years and overlooked the obvious lies that went into the selling of that illegal war. Why have the NY Times and Wash. Post refused to call the Bush Admin torture program what it is...torture. Liberal bias? Ha.
Cheney did not divest from Halliburton. His holdings were put in a blind trust like all presidents and VPs. He made a shitload of money off the wars, and helped his friends make a mint.
Where were all the investigations of the massive fraud and illegality in Iraq? What about all the incompetent Bushies with no experience put in top positions in the Iraqi occupation government? No stories by the MSM.
Why were there no serious investigations into Bush higher ups instructing what went on at Abu Ghraib. That was not just a few bad apples, it was a coordinated torture campaign. But the MSM was so busy blowing Cheney, they couldn't even bother. It was blogs that uncovered that.
Give me an hour and I could cite a thousand more.
The media gushed over McCain the maverick (oh wait he's not a maverick now) and war hero. Repeated his every accusation about Obama without even checking. Sarah Palin did three interviews total that were not on right wing talk radio or Fox. Three!! No major candidate for office was ever allowed to get away with so little scrutiny. Her questions had to be submitted in advance for local interviews, yet the liberal media went right along with it. The woman doesn't even have a job, yet her every tweet is news for days! She is treated as though she is an expert on something. What is that exactly?
Sorry, Paine, your case is unconvincing. If the media had even attempted to investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, I might have been sympathetic, but sorry, they didn't.
Clinton lied about a BJ, Bush lied about a war. The media treated Clinton's crime as worse. That's not a liberal bias by any definition of the term.
the only job increases were in government. And if the economy is in an upward swing as you wish it were it goes in cycles and has not much to do with anything Obama did but what he can take credit for is the double dip recession we may see in 2011. OH and the health care cost rising and all those people that will lose their health care plans that he said wouldn't happen an the rationing and difficulty in the delivery of health care.
Oh please don't let me have to say I told you so but I fear I will.
Those are Sibelius' words not mine.
Congress lied,freedoms die.
You may want to write that down for future reference.
So, let me see if I understand correctly. When the economy gets better under Bush, it's because of his polices, but when it happens under Obama, it's just a cycle?
So, I suppose you'll tell me that the Bush economic collapse was just a cycle, too? Wasn't his fault, of course. But, wait, is there some way we could blame Obama for it? Sure, he wasn't president yet, but why should that little fact get it in the way of our Obama bashing?
Or maybe it wasn't Bush's fault at all. Maybe it was Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? Yeah, that's the ticket. Carter's 1979 omnibus spending bill must have been the reason for the collapse 19 years later. That makes sense, right?
Do you ever tire of creating double standards?
Do you think you righties will ever leave the "Blame Obama First" crowd and start seeing things with a little more objectivity? I mean, you sit silently for 8 years while W runs the country into the ground both economically and militarily, and the very day Obama is sworn in, you start blaming him for all of the failures of the last 8 years. Get your freakin' boot off his neck and let him fix what you guys broke!
Dave, I don't think I have the time or energy to waste on a point by point rebuttal of all of your silly "right-wing media bias" tripe, but I will address a few of the most egregious ones.
First, let it be said that by the media NOT reporting a serious story regarding Democrats is a form of bias, just as taking a less egregious Republican faux pas and making it into the next Watergate scandal is indicative of that same bias.
First it was NOT illegal for Bush to fire those nine attorneys anymore than it was illegal for Clinton to fire ALL OF THEM. That is a presidents perogative. They serve at his pleasure as they are appointed by his administration to the justice department, Splash.
I saw all sorts of media reporting, particularly in the New York Times on the lack of WMD's in Iraq, Jack Abramoff's ties, Abu Grahib, etc. I don't understand why you didn't see this.
Further, it was BLOGS that uncovered much of the lies on the left that the media didn't report or flat out lied about.
Remember Dan Rather on CBS news not verifying and then refusing to correct his lying when a BLOGGER discovered that his falsified letter damning Bush for avoiding service was a fake?
The media gushed over McCain until he became the GOP nominee precisely because he was a "maverick" that threw his party under the bus, thus feeding the liberal media their red meat.
Further, if Cheney did not divest himself of all his stocks as you suggest, that is highly illegal, and I am sure the media would have been responsible enough to dig until they could have come up with the evidence to put their arch-nemesis in prison for this.
God knows, that they trumped up allegations hoping they would catch Cheney as the culprit respsonsible for "letting out" Valerie Plames secret CIA identity.
When they couldn't catch Cheney or Rove, they managed to get Scooter Libby on some tangental perjury charge because of his lack of memory in testimony from years before.
And all of this when Patrick Fitzgerald KNEW WHERE THE LEAK CAME FROM BEFORE HIS SPECIAL INVESTIGATION EVEN STARTED.
The leak came from a State Dept official named Armitage, as I recall.
Hell, they nail, fine, and put in jail Cheney's chief of staff Libby, and yet Clinton suborned perjury, witheld subpoaened evidence, and ended up getting disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas by Judge Holloway for these things and there is hardly a blurb about it in the media.
Meanwhile the sigh was audible from the press when they couldn't nail Rove or Cheney and had to settle for poor ol Scooter. It practically ruined the media's pending orgasm, I suspect.
You are way off base on this one, Splash, but I am certain I am wasting time here as you won't ever see the truth. I guess I'll leave this one alone as an unwinnable battle despite truth being on my side, sir.
Cheney and Rove got off easy. They both should have been indicted.
ROFL....you are hopeless, my friend!
Post a Comment