| Mainstream Media | Bias Revealed! |
|---|
| From the way these two phrases are juxtaposed, you'd almost think these two things were related, but they're not. The "Endorsement" is from the New York Times. Nowhere in the NYT Op Ed does it even mention Kerry's ideas on the economy. And seeking relevance from the other direction, we check the article lead ... is he campaigning in New Jersey? Oh, ... Xenia, Ohio. The headline deliberately gives the false impression that somewhere along the campaign trail Kerry gave an economic talk of such merit, that it won a major endorsement.... I'm thinking since they had to trick me to get me to think this, maybe Kerry's economic ideas don't actually have any merit, or maybe the New York Times doesn't actually constitute a major endorsement. But with these two phrases put together the way they are, if we didn't know any better (and weren't reading critically) we'd subconsciously record these "facts": 1) When Kerry talks economy people listen, 2) the New York Times endorsing a liberal candidate is somehow momentous or surprising, and 3) the reason the NYT endorsed Kerry is because of his ideas on the economy in general and because of this specific talk he gave that they're reporting on, in particular ... welcome to the world of spin! |
|
By Mark Egan Sun Oct 17, 8:33 PM ET | |
| XENIA, Ohio (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry attacked the economic record of President Bush on Saturday and the Senator from Massachusetts was later endorsed by the New York Times. | |
| The Times, in endorsing Kerry, characterized President Bush's presidency as "disastrous" and accused him of "turning the government over to the radical right." | Here's the radical left being a crybaby. |
|
| |
| "We are impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking," the Times said Sundays editions. "He is blessedly willing to reevaluate decisions when conditions change." | Check out the actual piece, it's really written that way! And notice the MASTERFUL spin on "flip-flop" in the last sentence! "He is blessedly willing to reevaluate decisions when conditions change."(!) That's really good. |
|
| |
| Kerry "has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent," the newspaper said. "He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core." | In an atmosphere where even Reuters/Zogby shows most Americans not thinking Kerry would necessarily be any improvement on Bush, the question of would Kerry be a good chief executive is swallowed up in the grandiose (conditional) supposition that he might be a great one! See how much they've suggested without really admitting what's on their mind? |
|
| |
| After "examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character," the Times said "we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president." | What he's done in the past (Anti-war activism / congressional voting record), his apparent priorities (getting elected no matter what needs to be said or promised), and his general character (reflected in the first two) are precisely what some say Kerry has going against him! |
| With just 17 days before the Nov. 2 presidential election, Kerry crossed Ohio on a bus in an effort to win a state crucial to both candidates. | |
|
| |
| "Mr. President, the millions of Americans who have lost jobs on your watch are not 'myths,' they are middle-class families -- and for four years, you've turned your back on them," Kerry told a town hall meeting at a high school. | The third person form of address is one that Kerry uses frequently; its intended to give the impression of teaching from a higher ground. The statement he makes, here, is only half the truth, though. There are jobs lost every day, and jobs gained (the other half of the truth). That's just the (any) economy, not related to who's the incumbent president at any particular time. A recent Heritage Foundation report refers to the figures for Bush: "Since January 2001, when President George W. Bush was sworn in, payroll jobs have declined by millions and recovered by millions, but still remain 900,000 jobs below their peak. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics) ... The payroll survey’s name says it all. What it doesn’t say is that payrolls provide a vast sample size, which some see as a sign of its unmatched accuracy. But the real question is whether its sample quality is clean, and in August, the BLS acknowledged that the survey has sample problems: it counts workers twice when they change jobs, which may account for between 400,000 and one million ... [jobs]. (See BLS, “Effects of Job Changing on Payroll Survey Employment Trends.”)" The amazing thing, for being only half the truth, and possibly inaccurate, is how often Kerry repeats this. Having adopted it as campaign rhetoric, Kerry and Edwards are the ones spreading the real myth! |
|
| |
| Kerry was referring to remarks this week by Treasury Secretary John Snow, who said, "Claims like the one that Bush will be the first president to end a term with fewer jobs than when he started are nothing more than 'myths."' | Our thanks to the reporter here for establishing that the above quote is Kerry campaign bias (i.e., deliberate obfuscation), rather than news media bias. Notice Kerry "redirects" to "Mr. President" in responding to the Treasury Secretary's remarks. Also, the purported myths are not people, but "claims" ... how convoluted is that? Kerry is using John Snow's remarks to do exactly what Snow's remarks are talking about; Kerry is reiterating the very claim that the Treasury Secretary says will prove to be a myth, in his remarks ... which Kerry cites to make the very point the citation has already said is wrong, before he even made it! If Kerry can master this form of self-refutation, we may be able to do away with debates altogether. |
| OHIO HIT HARD | |
| Kerry reeled off statistics to make his case -- Ohio has lost 173,000 Ohio manufacturing jobs since Bush took office in 2001; unemployment rates are higher and 1.3 million Ohio residents lack health insurance. | Nice choice of words here: "reeled off statistics" ... gives the impression it's not difficult; he knows his stuff. On the other hand it sounds almost so easy as to be flippant, given that I'm beginning to be suspicious that Kerry is choosing his numbers not because he believes them and wants to build a platform for his first term in office on them, but rather (no pun intended) for effect. We've already pointed out many times on this website that Kerry's statistics are flawed and/or only show part of the picture. |
|
| |
| A Labor Department (news - web sites) report earlier this month showed that Bush will go into the election with 821,000 fewer jobs in the country than when he took office. | ... wait for the next paragraph: |
|
| |
| However, 1.78 million jobs have been added in the past year, the report said. | ... parity in reporting here (the point I just made, above); savor the moment. This is a signal that even the press is beginning to believe that Kerry may not win. The ship may scuttle before leaving the shore, and the rats are streaming down the rigging, headed for dry land! |
|
| |
| Bush narrowly won Ohio in 2000. Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the only Democrat to win here in 50 years, and no Republican has ever been elected to the White House without carrying Ohio. Kerry has visited the state 20 times this year in an effort to break the deadlock in local polls, which like national surveys have swung back and forth between the two candidates. | Sounds a bit superstitious to me, maybe we should just hold the election in Ohio?! |
|
| |
| Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 44 percent in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll, released on Saturday. The poll had a 2.9 percentage point margin of error. | Remember when Kerry was three points ahead of Bush last Monday, before the final debate? It was front page! Now, when Bush is ahead in the same poll--by more--here it is buried in the middle of an article about Kerry winning a big endorsement. That's what we mean when we say: MEDIA BIAS! |
|
| |
| Focusing on pocketbook issues, the senator from Massachusetts lambasted Bush for not stemming the outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas and for giving tax breaks to millionaires and large companies at the expense of working Americans. | Yea, but he's not focusing on pocketbook issues, really. He calls your attention while he waves the hankie, so you don't notice him palming the quarter with the other hand. This is another one of those "half-truths" ... the same Heritage Foundation Report that there's a link to a little further up the page has a very interesting section (Section III.) about outsourcing. Only they call it: "III. Outsourcing and Insourcing" ... insourcing, the other half of the whole truth. Just to give you a teaser: "Forrester Research estimates 3.5 million outsourced jobs between 2000 and 2015." ... "Today, more than 5.4 million jobs in America are the result of insourcing" ... "Insourced jobs pay, on average, 19.1 percent more than the average job in the United States. (Source: Organization for International Investment)" In light of such facts, isn't it a bit disingenuous of Kerry to go around "lambasting ... for not stemming the outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas"? And as for the tax breaks for millionaires issue, today's piece in Drudge: "Heinz Kerry Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Most Taxpayers" ... on earnings over $5.07 million last year Kerry paid less than the fifteen percent rate reserved for people with taxable income in the range of $28,400 to $56,800 ... $5,000,000 has alot more zeroes, and in fairness such a person should expect to pay the 35% rate reserved for people earning over $155,000 (single or married filing singly) and $311,950 otherwise ... or else this whole indignant at tax cuts for the "rich" folks (making under 1/20th of what Kerry's wife made this year) just sounds a little bit hypocritical! |
|
| |
| Kerry has promised to roll back Bush's tax cut for people making more than $200,000 a year and has pledged not to raise taxes for less well off Americans. | As Bush consistently points out, people making $200,000 a year are often entrepreneurs and small business people; the people on the backs of whom this recovery is working! Sure that's more income than most of us see, but in the spectrum between the super-rich, and the super-poor, it's a middle-class. Look at the tax table, and you can see the intent. People with larger incomes should bear a greater share of the tax burden. The real tax reform that's needed is to take away the ability of the super-rich to avoid paying taxes, due to being able to afford the brightest minds to find them loopholes. Let's take away the loopholes for the super-rich, and leave everybody else with their tax break! |
|
| |
| He also criticized the handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and said Bush could have done more to avert a flu vaccine shortage caused by problems at a British manufacturer. | De rigeur he has to criticize the President's handling of the war in Iraq ... but this other thing: come on! It's a shipment of drugs. ... Maybe the President should have been there to supervise QC on this particular batch of drugs, and maybe he should have been hands on and called FedEx for a pickup, too. I think the President's got bigger fish to fry! |
|
| |
| Bush campaigned in another crucial state, Florida, and attacked Kerry's record on voting for certain tax increases in the U.S. Senate and on issues like gay marriage and abortion. Bush said Kerry had proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending, "and paying for it would require broad tax increases on small business and the middle class." | My opponent will wreck the economy vs. my opponent should have micromanaged a shipment of drugs. I guess we can see which side is arguing the issues! |
|
| |
| Kerry, who will campaign in Florida on Sunday and on Monday, dismissed Bush's comments as "scare tactics." | |