Mainstream Media Collapsing Rapidly

The network news in the Mainstream Media is drowning in a fetid pool of its own bile and bias. Speaking about Katie Couric's "ambush interview" of Sarah Palin, Don Imus called Couric "the little rodent." Well, as the graph below shows (with the yellow line), the little rodent is becoming more and more miniscule. Couric is paid a huge salary as a newsreader for attracting fewer and fewer people, and the same is true of her counterparts at ABC and NBC.

Why on earth would any American with an ounce of sense watch the network evening news? Edgar R. Murrow and Huntley/Brinkley are long gone, and they've been replaced by mental midgets with nasty dispositions and contempt for their own viewers. (See the Newsbusters analysis below.)

"Just When You Think the Big 3 Evening Newscasts Can't Sink Any Lower, They Do"

By Tom Blumer (in Newsbusters.com)

April 14, 2009

I could of course be commenting on the poor quality of the alleged journalism. But in this case I'm talking about their ratings, which is of course largely caused by said poor journalism.

Three weeks ago (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted that the Big 3 networks' evening newscasts' combined ratings had dropped about 17% since the collective high they achieved during the week of January 26, the first full week after Barack Obama's inauguration.

Make that 21%. In the 25-54 demographic, the drop has been 30%.

And it's not just a seasonality thing. The collective drop compared to last year is over 4%, continuing a long-term decline the nets surely hoped they might prevent if they could just get their guy elected to the White House. No dice, guys.

Here [above] is an updated week-by-week graph for each network since the first of the year, followed by some demographic and overall info (based on info found at the Evening News Ratings Category at Media Bistro's TV Newser):

Do you think any of them are wondering if they maybe, just maybe, should have started paying attention to that Tea Party thing a bit earlier than, say, tomorrow morning?

Biden's Lies About Wife's Death

As my previous column established, Joe Biden has a bad habit of telling lies in order to gain political support or public sympathy, or both. Biden's most disgusting falsehood is his story, repeated over many years, that his first wife and daughter were killed in 1972 in an auto accident caused by a truck driver, Mr. Curtis C. Dunn, who was impaired by alcohol. That story is a lie.

Last September, as the vice-presidential debate neared, I wrote about Biden as a chronic prevaricator and self-aborbed windbag. Right after the column appeared, I received the following note from Mr. Dunn's daughter, Pamela Hamill.

"Steve, Please research Joe Biden's false account of the 1972 accident that tragically took the lives of his first wife Neilia and baby daughter Amy. Vice President Biden says "A guy who drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch" killed them. This urban legend he has created has been accepted by the media as the truth. My father [Mr. Dunn] passed in 1999 and is not here to defend his honor.We have to be his voice and set the record straight. We are certainly not trying to equate Biden's loss to our father's heartache but this untruth is a character assassination.

"[However.] Can you imagine if Sarah Palin was vilifying an innocent man who cannot defend his honor? This is one gaffe the media is allowing him to get away with so far. I am currently speaking to CBS and Katie Couric about the false account she reported of 'drunk driver killing his wife and daughter' at the Democratic National Convention and again at the Inauguration. I am waiting to hear back from them as well as our Vice President. For the full story, google 'Inside Edition' + 'Pam Hamill.'

The most detailed story concerning the long-ago accident and Biden's lies about is the September 20, 2008, by Rachel Kipp, a reporter for The [Wilmington, DE] News-Journal. Kipp's article is detailed, but very worth reading. I've highlighted key parts.

No DUI in crash that killed Biden's 1st wife, but he's implied otherwise
By RACHEL KIPP
The News Journal

Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.

Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."

The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing.

"To see it coming from [Biden's] mouth, I just burst into tears," Dunn's daughter, Glasgow resident Pamela Hamill, 44, said Wednesday. "My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."

Biden spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that the senator "fully accepts the Dunn family's word that these rumors were false."

It's unclear who first suggested alcohol was a factor in the crash, but since Barack Obama tapped Biden to be his running mate on Aug. 23, The New York Times, National Public Radio and The Economist have run stories that characterized Dunn as a drunken driver.

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

"If it were some part of a cause of the accident, there would have been a charge, simply because if you're driving under the influence and kill someone in the process -- whether it's the wife of a U.S. senator or anybody else -- there's going to be a charge," he said.

Herlihy said investigators discussed several possible causes for the crash, including that Biden's first wife, Neilia, turned her head and didn't see the oncoming truck as she exited the intersection of Limestone and Valley roads on Dec. 18, 1972.

Neither Biden's book nor his campaign Web site directly addresses the alcohol issue, but the senator has done so publicly on at least two occasions.

The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries."

Biden told a similar story when addressing an audience at the Bob Carpenter Center at the University of Delaware a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them," Biden said, according to a transcript archived on his Senate Web site.

Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Asked about Biden's accounts of the accident, Wade warned against writing anything that would "infer, paraphrase, or be anything less than precise on such a personal and tragic subject."

After the 1972 accident, Biden never sought any records from the time of the crash, nor did he seek any further investigation, Wade said.

"In remarks he made at the University of Iowa he said 'allegedly -- and I never pursued it.' " Wade wrote in an e-mail. [Steve comments: An who "allegedly" made such an accustation? Of course, the only one who did so was Biden himself.]

"Nor did he encourage reporting on it then or at any other time. He has never called it or thought of it as anything other than an 'accident.' His focus was his grief over the loss of his wife and daughter and his concern for the recovery of his sons."

News reports from 1972 said Neilia Hunter Biden pulled away from a stop sign at Limestone and Valley roads about 2:30 p.m. when the tractor-trailer driven by Dunn, which was coming down a hill on Limestone Road, hit the side of her station wagon. Dunn freed himself from the truck and was the first to reach the Biden car, according to a report by the The Evening Journal, a precursor to The News Journal.

Neilia Biden and 13-month-old daughter Naomi, whom the family called Amy, were declared dead at a hospital. Son Beau, now Delaware's attorney general, broke his leg, and son Hunter suffered head injuries. Joe Biden, who had been elected to his first term in the Senate just a month before, took his oath of office at the boys' bedside.

Two days after the crash, Herlihy, a neighbor of the Bidens in the late 1960s who still considers the senator "a friend," told the paper that there was no evidence that Dunn "was speeding, drinking or driving a truck with faulty brakes." No criminal charges related to the crash were ever filed against Dunn, who lived in North East, Md.

Hamill, one of seven children, was 8 years old at the time of the accident. She remembers her father watching news reports of the crash while wearing a sling to support a shoulder injury he suffered in the accident.

She said Dunn was always "solemn" around the Christmas holidays. Years later, when her brother planned to get married on Dec. 18, Dunn told the family "I don't celebrate on that day," Hamill said.

"We're not trying to equate Sen. Biden's loss to my father's heartache," Hamill said. "But we wanted it to be known that our father never forgot that tragic day."

Hamill said it wasn't until the Inside Edition report that she became aware that the Delaware senator had said alcohol played a role in the accident. Dunn did not consume any alcohol the day of the crash, Hamill said.

She said she immediately called Biden's office after being contacted by Inside Edition and is waiting for the senator's response.

"The family feels these statements are both hurtful and untrue and we didn't know where they originated from," Hamill said.

As Hamill watched a recording of the Inside Edition report Wednesday, she gasped when the clip of Biden's comments from Iowa came on screen.

After reading a News Journal account of Biden's 2001 speech at UD, Hamill sent Biden a letter on behalf of her father. The newspaper story included Biden's description of getting the call that his wife and daughter had died, but not his comments about Dunn.

Hamill said her note to the senator described how Dunn was affected by the accident.

Printed on the senator's letter head and dated Oct. 11, 2001, the response from Biden reads:

"I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge your thoughtful and heartfelt note," Biden wrote. "All that I can say is I am sorry for all of us and please know that neither I nor my sons feel any animosity whatsoever."

Link to story: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2008-09/msg00683.html.

Steve adds: The News Journal story tells the real story. However, the number of people who read is at most in the tens of thousands. With stories like those on CBS News, the number of people who hear and view ttem is well up in the millions.

Tomorrow: How CBS News and Katie Couric have helped perpeutate Biden's lies.

Biden Falsifies Wife's Death Circumstances

I've been writing on this blog about Joseph Biden's difficulty telling the truth, with a focus on what really happened in the Palin-Biden debate (short version: he told one lie after another).

In response, I got the following from Pamela Hamill. Who's she? The daughter of the truck driver who was involved in the 1972 accident that killed Biden's first wife and his young daughter, Naomi. It seems Biden has regularly falsified key circumstances in the event over the years.

Basically, he has said Hamill's father, Mr. Dunn, was impaired by alcohol, a charge that is not true. (At the bottom of this column, there's a link to the story that appeared last September in The [Wilmington, DE] News Observer.

Pamela left this comment on my earlier post: Joe Biden: A National Disgrace":

"Steve, Please research Joe Biden's false account of the 1972 accident that tragically took the lives of his first wife Neilia and baby daughter Amy.Vice President Biden says "A guy who drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch" killed them. This urban legend he has created has been accepted by the media as the truth. My father [Mr. Dunn] passed in 1999 and is not here to defend his honor.We have to be his voice and set the record straight."We are certainly not trying to equate Biden's loss to our father's heartache but this untruth is a character assassination.

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin was vilifying an innocent man who cannot defend his honor? This is one gaffe the media is allowing him to get away with so far. I am currently speaking to CBS and Katie Couric about the false account she reported of 'drunk driver killing his wife and daughter' at the Democratic National Convention and again at the Inauguration. I am waiting to hear back from them as well as our Vice President. For the full story, google 'Inside Edition' + 'Pam Hamill.'

Signed, Pamela Hamill

Note to Readers: For details on this story, please take a look at Rachel Kipp, The [Wilmington, DE] News Journal, "Joe Biden: Wrongly Blaming the Truck Driver."

Link to story: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2008-09/msg00683.html.

Reporter Rachel Kipp says:"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

I'll be talking with Pamela Hamill today (Monday) and will have more on this story tomorrow.

AP Lies About Sarah Palin

Following is a slightly modified version of a friend's commentary on the Associated Press' s bad reporting on Gov. Palin and its unwillingness to recognize the smear campaign -- an endless stream of lies -- against her.

Team Sarah member John Hopkins (a budding journalist) posted a blog lately re: an AP article in which correspondent Michael Gormley exonerates his organization from spreading lies about Palin, based on only ONE claim, that the media tried to say that Trig was really Bristol's son.Gormley claims that this was "only" the domain of bloggers, and clean, uncorrupted AP had nothing to do with that.

But the "blogger" (Markos Markos) who spread the story, on The Daily Kos, was a Newsweek columnist, and both CNN and MSNBC picked up that ball and ran with it. (Of the two, only MSNBC has issued a formal apology.)Still, Gormley's article is relentlessly mocking of Palin: "She messed up her first interviews, didn't show much of a grasp of the issues and, dontcha know, had a speech pattern that was widely mimicked. Sarah Palin? You betcha. But Caroline Kennedy also fits the bill."

How can he even compare the two?? Caroline Kennedy is, in actuality, a fine writer who has done two books on the Constitution. But she's never held elective office, never run a city, let alone a state. So, how can one say she and Sarah are "both" political incompetents?

Here's the link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_re_us/palin

Gormley, like so many journalists, dwells in a world where their primary goal isn't to provide verifiable information. Rather, they're driven mainly by a desire to curry favor with their peers, i.e., other self-styled "journalists." They're blissfully unaware of any America that exists outside America's biggest metropolitan areas.

And how did Palin "mess up her first interviews"?

Oh yes, I remember, She didn't know what Charles Gibson meant by "The Bush Doctrine," a term that media journalists made up and which has covered over time no less that FOUR so-called "Bush Doctrines." One possible definition of said "Doctrine" is to "kill them [terrorists] before they kill us," a view Gov. Palin certainly shares. Another Bush principle is to encourage the spread of democracy in the Middle East and Central Asia, which would also get Sarah's approval.

Note: Don Imus, who avoids political correctness, accurately characterized Charles Gibson as "a pretentious fool," and he labeled Katie Couric as "a little rodent." Gibson and Couric inhabit a liberal universe where they get paid millions of dollar for reading news reports mainly written by others.

But here's the shocker.

Google "AP stories about Sarah Palin, 9/1/08 - 11/4/08," and you pull up - ONLY FOUR STORIES - all of them relatively balanced. Gone are any stories about the vicious attacks, about Bristol, about the bogus "Troopergate," about Sarah (who's worn spectacles since age 10) supposedly wearning glasses to look more intellectual, about the wardrobe purchases, about her calling Africa a country, etc. etc. etc.

Gone, gone, gone. They never existed, don'tcha know?? WE never said them! WE'RE fair and honest journalists!!

Journalistic Integrity: Joe the Plumber

In general, the MSM doesn't like Sarah Palin. Why? Because she's one of us -- and not one of them.

Recently, John Roberts of CNN interviewed Joseph Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber"), who has written a book on his recent experiences. The media generally doesn't like "Joe's" book, apparently because he's critical of Sen. McCain (which confuses the media) and supportive of Gov. Palin. Of course, Joe has also been critical of the media, which may resent the fact that Joe revealed more about Obama's tax plan in five minutes than the self-proclaimed journalists did in five months.

In the interview, Joe criticized the media for coming after HIM rather than enquiring into Obama's positions. Basically, he suggested the media was a horde out to get anyone who might be critical of The Chosen One.

John Roberts was taken aback. In a major huff, he indicated that Joe, in this comments on the media, had "impugned [his] journalistic integrity."

I laughed when I heard that. John Roberts, a standard Washington/New York liberal, is to journalistic integrity as Hugh Hefner is to marital fidelity. In the campaign, he never resisted the opportunities either to fire zingers at McCain and Palin or to defend Obama and the hapless Biden. Apparently, that kind of political water-carrying is what Roberts regards as "integrity."

Joe the Plumber had penetrated the media sanctum, one reserved for human talking-points like Paul Begala, James Carville, and Donna Brazille. They all respect Robert's "journalistic integrity," although in truth they have no idea what the term means.

Joe the Plumber had seized an opportunity denied to most (of us) who would be critical of the press and their coverage of any political issue. In general, the media only wants people present who are one of them. That way they never need to answer any embarrassing questions.


When Katie Couric ("the little rodent," as Don Imus called her) asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, we all know the "correct" answer: "Well, Katie, I read the NY Times and the Wash Post regularly, along of course with Newsweek and Time and, from time to time, the London Economist and The Wall Street Journal."

In my case, the answer, a truthful one, I would have given Katie was: "I don't read any of them. Why should I? What would they have to tell me that I can't find out from the Internet and other sources?"

Katie Couric probably regards CBS News the way John Roberts does CNN, as an indispensable news source. However, very few people watch CBS News, they having detected that Edward R. Murrow is long gone.

But if CBS and CNN are really indispensable (like the auto industry and AIG), we might soon expect a government bailout to keep them afloat in a world that increasingly wishes they would sink to the bottom of the sea.

(Tomorrow: Should Republicans in the era of Obama really seek out Black votes?)

OBAMA & SOROS: AMERICAN NIGHTMARES

WELCOME TO MY MANY VISITORS FROM BRAZIL. IF YOU KEEP COMING, I PROMISE TO LEARN SOME PORTUGESE. WHEN IT COMES TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, WE HAVE A LOT TO LEARN FROM BRAZILIANS.

NEW COLUMN FOR FRIDAY UP AT 7 A.M. EASTERN TIME.

Michelle Obama says: Her husband has always had "a healthy ego."
Katie Couric asked her: "How do you keep it in check?"
My Answer: "Have him read this blog."

Over the next week, I'll be writing about Barack Obama, who he is, what he's done, and why his election as President would be bad for America. Recently, I noted that Obama -- in terms of finances -- is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, billionaire founder of Moveon.org and a full-time "Amerika-hater."

I noted that Soros is a supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organization centered in Gaza.One of my critics replied that I was part of "the Republican attack machine" in regard to Obama -- and that Soros merely wanted to "negotiate" with Hamas.

My response to him is as follows: "Negotiate" with Hamas about what? The morality of suicide bombings? The wisdom of firing Kastusha rockets into Israeli settlements? The seriousness of Hamas about its stated commitment to the destruction -- the annihilation -- of Israel? Or about the mass killings of members of the rival Fatah political group?

Go over to Moveon.org, the nation's largest hate-machine, and you will find out all you need about George Soros and his minions. They despise their country, the one that enabled someone like Soros to amass a fortune of roughtly $10 billion.

In my criticisms of Obama, I've noted that he was not only militantly pro-abortion, but also that he favored a form of infanticide. As Michael Barone, favorable in many ways to Obama's political skills, said in the curent edition of The Almanac of American Politics (p. 539): "He [Obama] voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who survived abortions."

Unfortunately, I'm not making this up, and, yes, I do attack Obama for refusing to support any limitations on abortion.Obama will talk a lot in his campaign about the importance of "our children." He won't indicate that he favors the destruction of our most vulnerable children, those gasping for air. I guess his commitment to "universal health care" doesn't apply to children who are victims of botched abortions.

How does this man sleep at night? Would he have advocated such a fate for his own beautiful children? You won't ever hear Tim Russert or Katie Couric asking such questions, but they should.

In all his empty rhetoric about bringing the country together and "reaching across the aisle" to Republicans, Obama neglects to mention that his political stands allow for no real compromises. Yes, he will occasionally work with Republicans on non-controversial issues, but on anything of true significance, he will function as a militant leftist.

When I noted that the non-partisan National Journal had designated Obama as the most liberal Senator, my critic replied that was only true of 2007. In the previous year, he has been "only" the 9th most liberal Senator. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess the point is that Obama is a militant Leftist only when he's running for President.

Obama is the first presidential candidate ever endorsed by Soros' Moveon.org. The three million members of that group comprise most of the 20% of the Democrats in national survey who indicate they want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq.

Obama's prescription for what we should do in Iraq is to have us flee as soon as possible, leaving the country to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and other sectarian fanatics.On the other hand, he apparently doesn't have a problem with having us invade Pakistan in search of al Qaeda leaders. In other words, his foreign policy is to desert one ally and alienate another. This is Soros-ism to a fault. It makes no sense, but it does produce standing ovations from the mindless Moveon types.

Honestly, I do wish I were making this stuff up, but I'm not. I wish Obama were the attractive candidate he sometimes he tries to convince us he is. But he's not.

Yes, I'm going to continue attacking Barack Obama. I will never, never make up any charges against him. He has a terrible record, one of extreme partisanship and dishonesty about his motives. An individual who favors denying medical care to injured infants is beneath contempt. That's not a gratuitous attack on Obama. Rather, it's just a call for him to practice some basic human decency.

The other day, before he attacked McCain, Obama said "John McCain is an American hero." What he should have said afterwards, but didn't, was "And I'm not." Like Soros, he's an American nightmare, and he must be defeated.

____________________________________________

OBAMA, CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES BACKING HUGE TAX INCREASE

Senator Obama's office today disseminated the following news release:

"Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act."

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.

Here's the link to the entire release: http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1/

The following is an assessment of the "Global Poverty Act" by Cliff Kincaid, director of Accuracy in Media (AIM) who, unlike Senator Obama, talks about the small matter of costs:

"A nice-sounding bill called the 'Global Poverty Act,' sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. "

Here's the link to the entire Kincaid article: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm

Steve says: Frankly, I wish Senator Obama had asked his billionaire friend and financial backer George Soros (worth about $10 billion) and the folks at Moveon.org to use their own vast resources to eliminate poverty throughout the world. It doesn't seem fair to saddle U.S. taxpayers, in a time of economic downturn, with the obligation. It seems likely that most of the $845 billion will go down the usual rathole that is the repository of much economic aid.