No MSM bias to see here... move along..

[otoc]

Speaking of the NY Slimes. A paper who welcomes with open arms the opines of an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Someone who has a different remembrance of those very same events... not so much.

The Op-Ed the New York Times Wouldn’t Run

An FBI informant's response to Bill Ayers' rewriting of history got the cold shoulder — but you can read it here.

miss this?

Reminds me of the old quiz show. Will the real Bill Ayers stand up please...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-op-...wouldnt-run/2/

[AeroSim]

Personally, having marched in neighboring Lakehurst and knowing clearly what mens rea means, the best Bill Ayers could have done in my economy is pick up litter on the Garden State Parkway...and Obama would not have had this issue.

[Dutchcedar]

Is it conclusive? It's pretty damning which was why CBS removed Rather and apologized as the NPR article stated.

Is it conclusive? At this time, it is up to Rather and his legal team to make that argument.

Pretty damning? Up to Rather? Its amazing that anyone who's seen the evidence would still, after all this time, pose the question of whether the evidence is conclusive or not.

Might want to have that "critical eye" of yours checked out.

[jimzinsocal]

http://patterico.com/2008/12/31/patt...n-review-2008/

[tucker]

http://patterico.com/2008/12/31/patt...n-review-2008/

Hey, it’s my favorite campaign poster…

[AMDScooter]

Predictably... the beeb tells less than 1/2 of the story..

BBC -- Subtle Indoctrination of the Inexperienced Viewer

Once again, the BBC fail to portray an accurate depiction of the intensification between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip.

In doing so, the BBC are subtly indoctrinating the minds of its viewers through implicit suggestion that Israel is the aggressor, almost randomly targeting Gaza. The BBC crucially fails to put the situation in historical context.

A brief example -- the BBC persistently refer to "Israel's attacks" on a "Palestinian militant group." First, Israel is responding to unfaltering attacks, amounting to more than 6,300 rockets and mortars on Israeli citizens, since Israel left Gaza in 2005. Second, the 'militant group' are Hamas. Not a militant group in terms of a unified national army, but, an internationally recognised terrorist organisation who have taken control of the Gaza strip. On Saturday, Hamas re-declared war on Israel and proclaimed their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Israel has been forced to respond so as to protect the lives of civilians, by way of targeting Hamas leaders through directed airstrikes and seeking to avoid danger to as many Palestinian and Israeli civilians as possible.

An innocent bystander relying on the BBC for information might have assumed that the BBC's lack of coverage in Gaza over recent months had been the result of a successful ceasefire. But, those who ventured beyond the BBC will be are aware this was unfortunately not the case. While a cease-fire officially existed between Israel and Hamas, for the past six months, it was in fact one-sided. Israel showed enormous restraint not to respond to the barrage of Hamas fired rockets from Gaza during that period. During the ceasefire, Hamas continued to expand its rocket range from 20 km to 40 km and as a result, can now target 2,500 Israeli civilians. In 2008 alone, more than 3000 rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza into Southern Israel. Recently, over 150 rockets were landing each day.

Our innocent viewer will assume that as soon as the ceasefire ended, Israel attacked Gaza. Indeed, the BBC report that Hamas blame Israel for the sea-change. This too, is untrue. Since the end of the Gaza ceasefire only 9 days ago, Hamas launched a further 190 rockets against Israeli civilians. Israel however, continued to show restraint and, as a gesture of good will, allowed approximately 90 trucks of medicine and goods including 500,000 litres of fuel and 200 tonnes of natural gas, into Gaza. At the same time, Israel continued talks with Egypt seeking to negotiate and secure peace.

The BBC fail to mention how Hamas have thanked Israel for a) uprooting over 9,000 Israeli civilians and removing all presence from Gaza in 2005 in an effort to achieve peace and, b) allowing the extra supplies on Friday. Since 2005, Hamas have launched more than 3,500 rockets and mortars into Israel and claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attempts in the region. In response to Friday's generosity, Hamas fired more than 40 rockets into Israeli cities and vowed to continue the attack against Israel, on Saturday. The result? Hamas threatens the lives of 250,000 Israelis who live in range of Gaza fired rockets. Israel has had to order residents in the south of the country to remain in bomb shelters while Israel attempts to secure the region.

BBC coverage of the events in Gaza portrays Israel as causing humanitarian crises by refusing supplies into Gaza. In reality, Israel was providing almost 4000 trucks of aid a month to Gaza, along with fuel and electricity despite the ongoing attacks on Israel. Abdel Shaafi, director the United Nations Development Programme in Gaza, has denied that there is a humanitarian crisis. In December, he told Canada's Globe and Mail, that, "This is not a humanitarian crisis... It's an economic crisis, a political crisis, but it's not a humanitarian crisis. People aren't starving."

So, how has Israel responded to Hamas's renewed promise and upsurge of rocket attacks? In response to the daily targeting and killing of its civilians, Israel has targeted terrorists and terrorist infrastructure only, seeking to avoid harming Palestinian civilians. Sadly, however, Hamas leaders deliberately hide in densely civilian areas -- putting Palestinian civilians at risk. By using Palestinians as human shields, Iran-backed terrorists are causing the loss of lives on both sides.

Knowing this information, our no-longer naive bystander might be confused. Why does the BBC portray Israel in a negative light for protecting her civilians? Beats me! USA President-elect, Barack Obama stated on a recent visit to Israel, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing." (Ravid, Barack 'Obama in Sderot: Nuclear Iran would be game-changing', Haaretz, July 23, 2008). No responsible government would watch in silence as its citizens were under constant attack.

Given the onslaught of rockets into Israel from Gaza, what is Israel to do to protect her citizens? What would Gordon Brown do if rockets were fired from Edinburgh onto Manchester, putting at risk the lives of innocent civilians living in Manchester on a daily basis? When will the terrorists, Hamas, stop the rocket fire so that both Israelis and Palestinians can have a better future?

[AMDScooter]

^^^ As noted.. the NYT follosw suit..

Why Does The New York Times Love Hamas? by Steve Emerson

The paper of record refuses to call them terrorists, extols the groups’ humanitarian efforts, and whitewashes its behavior during the now-broken ceasefire.

In the past week, the Fourth Estate’s Hamas cheerleaders have stripped away any pretense of being honest or neutral, with the New York Times continuing to take the side of the terrorist group in one of the most shameful journalistic episodes I have ever seen. In following the Times coverage for the past six months and checking external sources of information, one can see a clear pattern of propagandistic reporting favoring Hamas that selectively suppressed or willfully misrepresented information.

Even the Times knows it has a bias problem. Readers who detected it got a chilling confirmation of their suspicions in the December 13 column by Ombudsman Clark Hoyt. Addressing a public outcry over the paper’s failure to use the term “terrorist” for the attackers who executed some 170 people in Mumbai, India in late November (and mutilated the six Jews killed in the Chabad House—a fact never reported by the Times), Hoyt quoted several reporters and editors making extraordinary admissions that shed some light on the newspaper’s most recent dispatches from Gaza.

The next installment should be on Hezbollah’s eHarmony-style dating service for those terrorists too shy to walk up to female mujahid and ask her if she likes his AK-47.

Addressing the general guidelines for using the T-word, “Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief, said, “Our general view is that the word terrorist is politically loaded and overused.” But he said that sometimes, “when a person’s act has been examined and its intent and result clearly understood, we call him a terrorist.” (Never mind that Lashkar e-Taiba, the group behind the Mumbai attacks, has committed hundreds of terrorist attacks since 1996. How much more “studying” needs to be done?)

As for Hamas, the organization that controls Gaza, it has been sponsoring suicide bombers and launching rockets into Israel since 1987, killing and wounding thousands of Israelis (and Americans). But the Times has refused to call it a terrorist group because, according to deputy news editor Phil Corbett, the paper did not want to get into a situation where it might label a worker at a Hamas hospital a terrorist. So instead, it has given a blanket amnesty to all of Hamas—including its Izzadin Al Qassem military wing, which openly claims responsibility for carrying out terrorist atrocities.

This is a familiar ruse by Islamic terrorist groups (including the non-profit Islamic charities in the United States, which were shut down after 9/11): create humanitarian branches to distract from the true nature of their organizations. But has Ethan Bronner ever stepped inside one of these Hamas hospitals or schools? I have, several years ago, in Gaza, where I saw murals on the wall of Palestinians stabbing Israelis to death.

In the stories filed this past week, Gaza-based Times reporter Taghreed El-Khodary, has also fallen for another classic tactic of terrorist groups:, embedding their fighters and facilities in residential areas to incur more civilian casualties. El-Khodary’s dispatches have decried the “shocking” nature of the Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians, sidestepping the fact that Hamas purposely locates its infrastructure among civilians—in effect holding them hostage.

Despite the fact that Hamas has executed scores of rivals, smuggled in hundreds of tons of explosives and tens of thousands of weapons, killed local Christians and shut down their churches, and summarily executed “collaborators” (those who have been accused, mostly falsely, of working with the Israelis), the paper appears intent on humanizing the brutal regime in Gaza.

On October 20, 2008, for example, the Times painted a sweet portrait of Hamas fostering love, not war, through arranged marriages for members of Izzadin Al-Qassem (the terrorist squad that specializes in suicide bombings, although this fact was conveniently left out in the story). “Taking advantage of the pause in violence,” Taghreed El-Khodary wrote, “the Hamas leaders have turned to matchmaking, bringing together single fighters and widows, and providing dowries and wedding parties for the many here who cannot afford such trappings of matrimony.”

How touching. The next installment could be on Al Qaeda’s mixers for Gen-Y terrorists or Hezbollah’s eHarmony-style dating service for those terrorists too shy to walk up to female mujahid and ask her if she likes his AK-47. And by the way, those Hamas lovebirds were able to participate in an open-air wedding ceremony, because, the Times reported, Hamas “has been observing a truce with Israel since June, allowing its underground fighters to resurface but leaving them without much to do.” In fact, Hamas was routinely violating the truce, allowing scores of rockets to be fired into Israel, smuggling explosives, building underground tunnels and, as we now know, building tens of thousands of rockets and long-range missiles to target southern Israel.

Yet a week before Israel launched its most recent offensive in Gaza, on December 20, Ethan Bronner was still promoting the Hamas line that it had “imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets.” What he neglected to say is that those allegedly imprisoned were never jailed more than two days, and that more than 200 missiles were fired at Israel by Hamas during the truce.

In this same article Bronner places the blame for breaking the truce on “Israel’s decision in early November to destroy a tunnel Hamas had been digging near the border drove the cycle of violence to a much higher level.” In fact, if Bronner had read his own paper’s June 25 report, “Rockets Hit Israel, Breaking Hamas Truce”, he would have learned that “three Qassem rockets fired from Gaza on Tuesday struck the Israeli border town of Sderot….constituting the first serious breach of a five-day-old truce between Israel and Hamas.”

Another example of the Times downplaying Hamas’ evil nature occurred deep in a December 29 story by Bronner and El-Khodary. Although focused mostly on the Palestinians killed by Israeli bombs, it did make a relatively brief reference to the fact that “Hamas gunmen publicly shot suspected collaborators with Israel,” which the paper described somewhat nonchalantly as “internal bloodletting.” The Times said that five victims were taken out of their hospital beds and shot in the head—a chilling episode that should have been a stand-alone story about the thugs who rule Gaza. Moreover, calling these men “collaborators”—when, for all we know, they were simply political opponents of Hamas—conjures up self-justifying images of the French collaboration with the Nazis.

Throughout last week’s reporting by Bonner and El-Khodary, there were numerous references to two Palestinian children killed by an Israeli bombing raids, with the clear implication that Israel was recklessly attacking civilian areas. The paper never once blamed Hamas for intentionally using civilians as human shields. Even more telling of the Times’ bias: On December 26, 2008, the Jerusalem Post reported that, according to the Palestinian Health ministry, two Palestinian children, ages five and 12, were killed when Hamas rockets fell short of their Israeli targets. Yet the Times never once reported those deaths.

In its purported evenhanded approach to reporting the news from the Gaza front, the New York Times continues to betray the trust placed on journalists to give readers all the facts. And in this clear attempt to place the blame on one party alone—Israel—the Times is advancing the cause of Hamas. If the Times really wanted to present the truth, it would simply drop the pretense of being honest and simply register as a foreign agent of Hamas.

—Additional reporting by Linda Keay

[alpha_03]

Pretty damning? Up to Rather? Its amazing that anyone who's seen the evidence would still, after all this time, pose the question of whether the evidence is conclusive or not.

Might want to have that "critical eye" of yours checked out.

Hence the reason the University of Neb. politley, yet, with some force, said: No Thank you.

I concur.

[AMDScooter]

Apparently unable to find any real examples.... ABC turns to manufacturing some phony bigotry and such.

Wanna find some real bigotry and such? Might I suggest these brave souls take their camera crews to a Pro Palestinian rally dressed as a Jews.

Wanna find some real "ugly Americans"? Perhaps they can take their camera crews and hang out at one of the churches that the anti-prop 8 crowd is protesting dressed as Mormons.

Naww.... too real for them I'd imagine. Plus.. I doubt the savings they'd get from not having to hire actors would offset their medical costs.

ABC Special Searches for 'Ugly Americans'; Anti-immigrant Bigotry

[tucker]

I wasn’t sure where to put this one.

I think Palin makes some pretty good points.

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Shuster is such an obvious twit..




At least PBS's guy admits who he's in the tank for...

Tavis Smiley of PBS: 'We're All Working For Barack Obama'

[Enmore]

Predictably... the beeb tells less than 1/2 of the story..

BBC -- Subtle Indoctrination of the Inexperienced Viewer

No surprise there. Actually I find all the TV news channels over here churn out the same emotive, ill informed crap. I was watching ITN news a couple of days ago and nearly chucked the remote at the screen.

I also watched some Al Jazera from Gaza. They were trying to play up the lack of food angle, then kinda blew it by going inside a fully stocked supermarket to talk to some of clearly well fed shoppers. Then they filmed a line of people waiting to buy bread. Wow, how unusual in the Middle East where you have to buy it fresh as it doesn't keep. It's something you see in France each morning outside every bakery. So by the same reasoning, they must have food shortages too.

[AMDScooter]

^^^ I also like how they play up the Israel border being closed angle to support their "poor starving Palestinians/ Evil J00s" narrative. Last time I checked Egypt has a border with Gaza... and it's closed also. Wonder why that lil tidbit never makes the news..

Oh.. and about those bread lines in France.. I hear tell that's the J00's fault too..

[Enmore]

Death to all Juice!

I also like how they play up the Israel border being closed angle to support their "poor starving Palestinians/ Evil J00s" narrative. Last time I checked Egypt has a border with Gaza... and it's closed also. Wonder why that lil tidbit never makes the news..

Yes, I mentioned that here.

[Dutchcedar]

Death to all Juice!

I'm terribly slow. After seeing that on a rioters sign, all I could come up with was their having something against OJ, the knife wielder.

I'm now enlightened.