OUR ‘CONSERVATIVE’ MEDIA ALSO APPEARS TO BE PART OF THE SWAMP…

It would seem that I now have fewer and fewer places to go in my attempt to avoid the ‘NeverTrumpers’ in my search for both useful and accurate information.  Those diehard folks who just can’t move beyond the fact that Donald Trump is now president.  Many of the websites that I once frequently visited, but these days rarely visit at all, have become as obsessed as the Democrats in their effort to undermine President Trump, and they seem to be hoping, albeit not quite as openly as the Democrats, for his impeachment.  I used to visit such sites as Newsmax nearly every day, but these days it’s not so much.  And also, where I was once a fairly regular viewer of Fox News, from the time I got home from work 6 to when I went to bed at 11, that too has tapered off considerably.  These days with Bret Baier having become someone who seems more than a little preoccupied with Trump, Martha MacCallum who seems to have taken the anti-Trump baton from Megyn Kelly, and those boobs on ‘The Five’, watching Fox has come to differ very little from watching CNN or MSNBC.  These days I’m down to watching Tucker Carlson at 8 and Hannity at 10. 

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t need to be hearing all good news, all of the time, when it comes to President Trump.  But what I do expect to hear and to read, at least when it comes to Fox and other supposedly ‘conservative’ media, is something that more closely resembles “fair and balanced” reporting.  I am well aware of the fact that there are going to be those times when the president does something or says or Tweets something, that will be called into question, and rightfully so.  But even with that being said, there are plenty of things that he has done, and that he continues to do, that should be reported on with the same level of intensity.  And that’s what seems to be missing, and what seems to be all the more noticeable on Fox.  We’re not used to seeing such totally one sided reporting coming from Fox.  And whether that might be because the network is now under new management or is because of something else, they might want to at least try to get back to their old way of doing business before folks decide that there’s simply no reason to watch anymore.  I mean if I want one-sided ‘news’ I can watch anyone.

But Fox News is far from being the only source for news and information that has had, up until recently, a more conservative slant.  Numerous websites as well as more than a few publications that in the past were reliably conservative seem to have come off the tracks, at least to some degree, when it comes to President Trump.  Which I might add, says far more about them then it does about the president.  I mean, were all of those years spent advocating for conservatism nothing more than a way of selling subscriptions?  And regarding all those websites claiming to be conservative, were they too only ‘conservative’ as a means of generating traffic to their site?  Look, I’m not going to even attempt to make the claim that President Trump is a some lifelong conservative, but what he has said he wants to do matches up fairly closely to what I, as a conservative, would like to see get done.  And it is these various publications, websites as well as many on Fox News that seem to be doing all that they can to undermine him to the greatest extent possible, making it that much more difficult for him to get those things done.

And it’s beginning to get so frustrating.  For instance, we all know there is nothing sinister going on here as far as there being some supposed involvement of Russia in the 2016 election.  And yet, because Hitlery lost an election that so many thought she had in the bag, that’s the claim and thus the American people continue to be subjected to what is little more than a temper tantrum at the expense of saving the country.  I mean, where was the outrage when Obama meddled in the Israeli election for the sole purpose of trying to bring about the defeat of Prime Minister Netanyahu?  The Democrats, as well as so many in our media, simply cannot bring themselves to admit the fact that the real reason Hitlery lost was because she was a terrible candidate, and she was the most corrupt individual to ever run.  But instead of doing a little soul searching, as a party, the Democrats somehow see it as being in their best interest, politically speaking, to pursue this ongoing Russian nonsense.  And it would seem that the majority of our so-calling conservative media is only too happy to provide them with what appears to be a growing amount of cover. 

In a way I’m kinda feeling like I’ve been somewhat abandoned here.  So, after having now been left to my own devices, I will embark on a journey the purpose of which will be to keep myself informed without having to rely upon those who seem far less interested in providing me with accurate information and far more interested in providing me with what is really nothing more than propaganda all in their effort to convince me that our duly elected president is something other than what he says he is.  Trust is a very important and valuable thing, and once it has been lost is nearly impossible to regain, ever.  And I have now come to a place where I no longer believe those who I once allowed the privilege of providing me the information on which I based a great deal of my more important decisions.  Therefore I can no longer afford to trust them.  It’s become painfully obvious that their interests are not my interests.  And it would appear that they too are part of the very same swamp that we sent Donald Trump to Washington to drain.  And they are now doing everything within their power to prevent him from doing just that. 

CREDIBILITY BECOMING A RARE COMMODITY…

Is it just me or does it seem that as the more crucial that elections become, the fewer places we have to turn in our attempt to gain for ourselves some level of useful information so that we can then make an educated decision when it comes to casting our vote?  Let’s face it, there is simply not enough time in a day to personally conduct the type of research that is both necessary and that would effectively cut out the middleman, aka anyone in the state-controlled media, in our effort to cast and intelligent vote.  And it only seems to be getting worse.

Because sadly, it’s these days that it seems there are fewer and fewer of those who can actually be trusted.  Everyone now seems to have their own agenda. And now another of those who has seen his credibility shrivel over the years is Fox News focus group guru, Frank Luntz.  Now I will admit that when Frank first appeared on the scene I was quite impressed with his schtick.  But all that I’ve seen taking place since that time is a rather impressive increase in the size of the man’s ego.  An affliction that now seems to have infected many over at Fox News.

Why I even bring this up is the fact that it has now been 12 days since the first Republican presidential debate was broadcast on the Fox News Channel.  It was immediately following that event on the network’s ‘The Kelly File’, that pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group on location there in Cleveland, the site of the debate.  According to the participants of this particular focus group, real estate mogul Donald Trump, the frontrunner of the race, fared pretty poorly, but they gave a mixed response as to who was the strongest in the debate.

Many of the respondents taking part in Frank little group gave favorable reactions to Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson as well as to Marco Rubio.  Luntz even went so far as to highlight Huckabee as having received the most favorable reaction of the debate based on his real-time dial response from the focus group during the live event. “Bad news for Donald Trump. Great news for Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee,” Luntz said in assessing the reactions of his focus group panel to the August 6 debate.

However, it would appear that those respondents of Frank’s turned out not to be a very accurate indicator of how the public seems to be reacting to the Republican field nearly two weeks after the debate.  Because, you see, according to an average of a bucket of post-debate polls calculated by Real Clear Politics, Trump, at 22 percent, still holds a commanding double-digit lead in the very crowded field over Jeb Bush, at 10.7 percent.  So I’d be curious to know how it is that old Frank might explain that?  How is it that his group could have been so out of touch?

Because of those that performed well in Luntz’s focus group, only Carson remains in the top tier coming in at 9.7 percent.  Meanwhile, Rubio and Cruz are in the middle of the pack, at 7.3 percent each respectively, and Huckabee, seemingly a favorite of Frank’s, has seen a 2.5 percent drop in polling since the debate.  So I’m kind of wondering what criteria it was that Frank might have used in putting his little focus group together.  And was he, perhaps, trying to skew the out toward a certain candidate or certain candidates?  Just sayin’.

For whatever reason Luntz has been particularly critical of Trump from the very beginning of his presidential campaign.  According to a report from Hadas Gold and Ken Vogel in Tuesday’s Politico, Luntz has been outspoken about Trump’s candidacy, deeming it, and the insurgent candidacy of Democrat hopeful Bernie Sanders, a self-professed Socialist, to be a “big ‘f—- you’ to the elites in America,” but prefacing it as not being helpful to finding solutions to the country’s difficulties.  Seem to me that Frank is as out of touch as was his little focus group.   

On a broader note, I’m not quite sure, exactly, what it is that is currently underway over there at Fox News.  But one thing I do know for certain, and it is that these days I’m watching a lot less of the network than I used to, primarily because with each night it becomes all the more obvious that their success has gone straight to their head.  And the success that they have now seems to have bred a certain level of arrogance that, I think, tends to turn people off.  And it is an emotion that old Frank himself seems to have fallen victim to.  

CHRIS WALLACE BELONGS OVER ON MSNBC, NOT ON FOX NEWS...

Wallace is as nutty as his old man was. Less a journalist and more a propagandist. Just another clown who has a rather high opinion of himself, but who's really dumb as a brick

'THE DONALD' TAKES A SHOT AT CNN'S DISMAL RATINGS...

SO, HOW FAR IN THE TANK IS THE MEDIA FOR OBAMA? JUST WATCH...

WHO EVEN WATCHES IDIOTS LIKE THIS GUY, UYGUR?

Even more lunacy on display.  This supposed journalist comes completely unhinged and when presented with the truth.  It would be funny if our economic situation wasn't so serious and the conditions, in general, in this country weren't so dire.

MOST FOLKS STILL DON'T TRUST THE MEDIA….

Now if I was a betting man, I'd be willing to bet that most Americans, or at least most sane Americans, are of the opinion that they just don't feel as if they can actually trust many of the "enlightened" characters, those faux journalists, who comprise today's "mainstream" media. And low and behold out comes a new little poll from those folks over at Gallup that pretty much bares that out. You see, according to the poll, to which I refer, a majority of Americans do not have much confidence that today's mass media actually has the desire to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 44% of Americans who, for whatever bizarre reason, do have a great deal or fair amount of trust are pretty significantly outnumbered by the 55% of us who say that they have little or no trust in the ability our state-controlled media to accurately report the news. And that number remains among the most negative views Gallup has measured. When you look at those who are essentially the faces of today's media conglomerate that really should come as no surprise.

The majority of Americans, that is 60 percent of us, also continue to perceive some level of bias in how the news is presented, with 47% saying the media is too liberal and 13% saying it is too conservative, on par with what Gallup found just last year. The percentage of Americans who say the media is "just about right" edged up to 36% this year but remains in the range Gallup has found historically. Partisans, as I supposed it should be expected, continue to perceive the media very differently. Seventy-five percent of Republicans and conservatives say the media is too liberal. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, tend to lean more toward saying the media is "just about right," at 57% and 42%, respectively. And that little factoid alone, should tell you all that you really need to know. So-called moderates and independents diverge, however, with 50% of independents saying the media are too liberal and 50% of moderates saying they are just about right. Talk about a confused demographic.


So now we have further proof that Americans remain largely distrusting of the news media, with 55% saying they have little or no trust in the media to report the news free of any bias, and 60% perceiving bias one way or the other. These views are largely steady compared with last year, even as the media landscape continues to change. In a report released Thursday, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found record-high negativity toward the media on 9 of 12 core measures it tracks. These measures may help explain some of the underlying negativity, though Gallup does not find sharp changes in overall views of the media this year compared with last. The types of media one consumes likely play a role in one's overall perceptions, and Gallup is planning more research in this area. Sadly, there are very few places, today, where people can go to get the unvarnished truth when it comes to searching out useful information. There seems to be very little interest coming from those who should care the most, in simply putting out information free of any influence. Everyone seems to feel the need to put their own unique spin on things.


I do think it very safe to say that the media took a pretty major credability hit when it attempted, and some would argue succeeded, to influence how many Americans came to perceive Barry "Almighty." They did exert a great deal of pressure in their attempt to sell Barry to the people, going to great lengths to keep well under wraps many items of interests that may have served to adversely effect the opinion people would have when looking more closely at Barry. The many questionable associations from his past, his obviously radical preacher of 20 years, his actions as a "community agitator," plus his records as far as a birth certificate and college records were all keep covered by a shroud of secrecy with questioners being told they were simply not relevant. But when deciding who it is that will be the next leader of your country, as we have now found out after the fact, there is nothing that should be considered as not being relevant. Because, I also think it fair to say, that if more people had possessed just a bit more knowledge about the man they were voting for, much of what has happened over the course of the 3 years would have been averted. But they didn't, and they haven't been.

***FLASH*** NEW POLL SHOWS MEDIA PERCEIVED AS UNETHICAL, BIASED TOWARD DEMOCRATS...

DUH! Like any of us really needed a poll to inform us of this little well-known factoid. The only way that you could be in any way oblivious to something that is so very obvious, the being the fact that today's state controlled media complex has now officially morphed into what is now nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party is to be dumb as a brick. No offense to bricks everywhere. So it is then that I'm afraid that journalists everywhere who may be in need of an ego boost regarding their chosen profession as being some lofty endeavor for the good of all mankind, won’t like their reflection in this latest poll from The Hill about how they are perceived by the general public. Because it's in the results of that poll that almost 70 percent of likely voters characterize the Fourth Estate as biased, and 57 percent contend that reporters are either very unethical, or at least somewhat so. Now there's a resounding endorsement for those who are supposed to be our stalwart defenders of the Republic. Not!

What’s more, the growing coziness between members of the press and the Democrats is becoming readily apparent to a growing number of people, with 46 percent of the 1,000 likely voters polled July 21 saying the media favor Democrats and make very few attempts to hide that fact. Another 22 percent detect a Republican tilt, and 28 percent say the media porridge is just right. And reporters are just too cozy with the politicians they cover, according to 44 percent of the poll participants, while 22 percent disagree. Men are much more inclined than women to cite what's been described as being the coochie-coo factor, with half of the male respondents saying they’re too close, compared with 38 percent of the female participants. I am curious though about who it is that sees a tilt toward the Republicans. Are these morons referring to Fox News, who for no other reason than that they have the nerve to present both sides of an issue and that somehow makes them right-wing ? So if I get this right, whenever you show even the slightest objectivity, that automatically makes you biased toward Republicans.


Regarding the level of ethics possessed by our fine press corps, only 39 percent of those taking part in the poll find the news media as being somewhat or very ethical, according to the Hill, which notes that the Pulse Opinion Research poll was taken as the now-shuttered News of the World phone-hacking scandal continued to unfold in the United Kingdom and U.S. politicians, primarily Democrats eager to take down Fox News, have called for an investigation of parent News Corp.’s actions here. The Hill’s analysis notes what it describes as “intriguing patterns” in the findings, in which centrists and liberals don’t use as broad a brush to paint the media, while conservatives take out their poison pens. Not sure what they're getting at there, but regardless, one-third of moderates say the media report appropriately on politicians, while only 17 percent of conservatives hold that same opinion. However, almost 40 percent of centrists detect a Democratic bias in the media, compared with only 19 percent toward Republicans. Again, just where is that anyone sees a bias in favor of Republicans?


So here we have yet another poll telling us something that just about all of us already knew. And this perception that most people have is far from being anything that's new. But even though the major players in the state controlled media complex are well aware of the fact of how they are viewed by a growing number of Americans, and have been for some time, they continue to live in a weird form of denial. Far from doing anything to alter that perception, over time they seem to have become even more determined in their biased approach to the "news." Today's media has essentially degenerated to the point where they no longer fill any sort of a useful function or purpose. They might as well being the payroll of the DNC. And I'm sure some of them most likely are. It's just a very sad state of affairs that those who comprise what used to be referred as the "mainstream" media are now considered to be so far out of the "mainstream" as to make them no longer a reliable source of useful information. They have done, and continue to do, a great disservice to the American people. And for what, exactly?

IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, DESTROY 'EM...

Such is the mantra of the Democrat Party and today's state-controlled media complex. And it is once more that our "news" media is proving itself to be nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. In doing so, our state controlled media moguls have unleashed their hounds in an effort to dig up whatever dirt that may be out there on potential Republican presidential candidates. In this case it's Gov. Rick Perry. But according to all that I've read, if Texas Gov. Rick Perry does decide to run for president, his team is more than prepared for any re-airing of the old unsubstantiated rumors about his personal life that have circulated on and off for years in the Lone Star State. Today's media, and the majority of those who are proud to be a part of it, have essentially gotten to the point where they now serve no useful purpose. They've become so obvious in the bias and so flagrant in the making of their baseless accusations that they have become nothing more than a caricature of their former selves. Nobody with even half a brain is listening anymore. Tune into any news show on CNN, MSNBC or even the majot networks and all you hear is a neverending diatribe again anyone of opposing opinion. I'm sure everyone remembers how Barry's re-election team took what can only be described it perceived as pre-emptive action against Gov. Christ Christi when, because of recent polling data, they thought he might be throwing his hat into the presidential campaign ring. Are they now attempting the same thing regarding Gov. Perry?

The crusted-over rumors involving Gov. Perry, which have been laying dormant for some time were, I'm sure, still lingering in the minds of some who were in attendance at a dinner hosted just last week by the Manhattan County GOP, where Perry gave the keynote speech. Rumors, which by the way, have never been proven to be anything other than rumors. That despite the fact that there has been repeated reviews by any number of media outlets, both credible and not so credible, all in the hope of coming up with something, anything, that could be used to disparage the governor if he were ever to decide to seek higher office. These rumors were all addressed by the governor himself in a lengthy American-Statesman story back in 2004. However, the story as well as the rumors, without a doubt, are sure to see new life if he does decide to run. I'm sure there will be numerous new attempts by Barry hit squad in the media to breath new life back into them all in an attempt to tarnish an individual who is a very viable candidate and one that poses a serious threat to Barry "Almighty." The claims, which had made the rounds for months by the time the story was written, included rumors that Perry and his wife Anita had split, and that the governor was gay. I could be wrong, but Gov. Perry doesn't strike me as someone who is gay. I think to make such a claim is quite a stretch. It just goes to show you the sick mentality of those on the Left and that all the stops are sure to pulled out in an effort to tear down any potential rival of Barry's.


In its own inimitable fashion, it was a usual cast of low lifes within the state Democratic Party in Texas that first seized upon the rumors seven long years ago, or so the American-Statesman reported, which prompted the governor to finally address them himself as being nothing more than a very "obvious, orchestrated effort" launched by political foes. It's the only way Democrats know how to play, they live in the sewer and wish to drag everyone down there with them. The rumors spread for two months, were posted on various websites and were vetted by numerous national outlets, all of which turned up absolutely nothing. Big surprise there! But Team Perry, when asked about how it's prepared to handle them when they most certainly re-emerge if the governor decides to run, said it remains "false and misleading." "As you may know, Rick and Anita Perry first met in grade school, went on their first date together in 1966, have been lovingly married since 1982 and are parents to two grown children," said top Perry strategist Dave Carney. "This kind of nameless, faceless smear campaign is run against the Perry family in seemingly every campaign, with no basis, truth or success." But that's not going to stop any smear campaign that most assuredly will spring forth from a patently dishonest state controlled media as it will undoubtedly continue to repeat the same old and disproven accusations.


"Texas politics is a full contact support, live hand grenades and all; unfortunately there are always going to be some people who feel the need to spread false and misleading rumors to advance their own political agenda," Mr. Carney said. "He is the most tested, most researched potential candidate or candidate on our side," Carney added to POLITICO. "We ran in a race against an opponent run by (David) Axelrod in 1998, we ran a campaign that reported spend $80 million against us in 2002, we have run against two Texas trial lawyers in 06 and 10 and the head of the Texas Trial Lawyer Association has spent millions of his own money to destroy the Perry’s. All of it for naught." Hey, I think we all know that that's how the Democrats play, dirty. They know they can never win on the issues, so for them it's always the politics of personal destruction that is their weapon of choice. It's all that they have. And as long as enough of the American people buy into this form of gutter politics nothing is going to change. People are going to have to come to realize that those who claim to be journalists long ago lost any semblence of objectivity. They have lost sight of what their role is. They no longer provide accurate and unvarnished information, instead they resort to the attempting to manipulate public opinion through the manufacturing of "facts" that supposedly bolster a very leftist agenda. Rumors, innuendo and accusations that have no basis in fact smear tactics are the rtactics they employ. And will continue to employ until the American people are finally fed up with it. Will that be in 2012. We can only hope. 

HAVE THOSE IN THE "MAINSTREAM" MEDIA EVER BEEN HONEST WITH US?

Since it was first brought into being, our American version of a "free press" has been constantly evolving, but unfortunately, not always in a manner that was necessarily for the better. And as time has passed, many of those who have come to comprise what is commonly referred to today as the "mainstream media," seem to have lost their way, so to speak. They have gotten to the point where they now approach their job in journalism less from the perspective of simply reporting the news to more of one where they have come to perceive themselves as now being the ones responsible for creating the news. Too many see their job as being one of influencing, or "educating," their viewers, or readers, regarding the "proper" position to be held on any particular issue. They have forgotten what their role is supposed to be in a free and open society. Too many in their profession have arrived at place where the need to tell the truth is now seen as being more of a character flaw and no longer viewed as necessarily being an admirable quality or positive trait. The truth is now judged to be whatever it is that they deem it to be, having now become something that is either expendable altogether or, at the very least, as something that can be harmlessly manipulated, if necessary, in order to get the story in, in time for the six o’clock news or the morning edition. Facts have become of a secondary or even tertiary importance to simply getting the story. Accuracy is no longer of any importance. Therefore, the truth is frequently sacrificed, or outright distorted, in order to promote a desired position or opinion. Fictionalized accounts are now passed off as late breaking news, slanderous accusations have now become commonplace and character assassination that is politically motivated is now pretty much the rule of the day. So how exactly did we come to be here? How did our "mainstream media" manage to sink so low?



To start with I guess, I do find myself wondering just what it is exactly, that motivates someone, especially in view of today’s journalistic environment, to choose to go into this field in the first place. Are they drawn to it because it is seen as a method that allows whatever exposure one may acquire to then serve as a platform from which to advocate some personal cause? Or, is it seen as a genuine opportunity for them to actually do some good, to work toward keeping an often distracted public, that is just as often starved for accurate information, informed regarding the important issues of the day without the usual biases being present. Sadly, many who are involved in the “mainstream media" today are, more often than not, individuals who have arrived on the job with a chip on their shoulder or an ax to grind, driven by some deep-seated grievance. And under normal circumstance this isn't the type of behavior that one should expect to see coming from those who consider themselves to be respectable and serious journalists. Today's “mainstream media" is made up of those whose stock and trade has become nothing more than incendiary vitriol directed at anyone whom they see as having an opposing viewpoint. Hence, it has gotten to the point where there is no longer any reason to tune into the nightly news, or grab the morning paper, because the whole scenario has become so adversarial. You, the viewer or reader, are now being subjected to an individual on a regular basis, who is trying to convince you that the only acceptable viewpoint or opinion is the one that they, or the “news” organization that they represent, hold. They are constantly trying to push their opinion onto the viewer, or reader, disguised in a “news” format. This, my friends, is nothing short of journalistic malpractice.


It just seems that in a day and age when there is so much disinformation which has as its source that which is still considered to be the "mainstream media," I fail to understand why someone who wishes to be a journalist in the truest sense, would wish to associate themselves with the present cadre of unseemly individuals who comprise most any major “news” organization. Because in truth, this little collective of zealots that forms today's “mainstream media" is not very well respected, or trusted, by a general public who generally feels that it is never being told the truth by any of these very same individuals. It's really a sad commentary on journalism today, that our so-called "free press" can no longer be relied upon to keep the public suitably informed regarding what the government frequently is so determined to force upon the people of this country. Yesterday's media has morphed into an apparatus today that is essentially nothing more than a government sponsored information bureau designed to exalt the benefits of an ever expanding government as well as very busily disguising the freedom killing agenda of a very progressive political party as well as an outright socialist president. There is no sense of reality in anything that we are constantly being told by those who we have always assumed were someone that we could trust to be honest with us. We were supposed to be able to trust them as being the watchdogs over our Republic, letting us know when those in government were trying to pull a fast one or were involved in any kind of monkey business. Instead, they treat such things as classified information or portray them as being something other than what that actually are. What might the motivations be for such deplorable actions taken by the vary ones relied upon as a source of unfettered information? It would seem that freedom of the press is under attack by the very ones whom you would think would be its most ardent defenders.


Our “mainstream media" has long been on a slow downward slide ever since well before the time of Walter Cronkite, who, while we were always told that he was being honest with us, the truth of the matter is quite different. Old Walter was not being quite as honest as we were all lead to believe. On any number of occasions, when looking through the lens of today, we now know that he took unfair advantage of the trust that was placed in him by millions of Americans. The spiral downward has continued over time, with it picking up substantial speed until it finally got to the point were it pretty much simply crashed and burned under its own weight. Its demise was brought about by its own pathetic and obvious biased reporting throughout the 2008 presidential campaign. It was during that period that supposed serious journalists were heard exclaiming that they had thrills going up their legs at the mere sound of "their" candidate's voice. At the same time these very same "journalists" were very busy perpetrating what can only be described as outright deception and blatant fraud in relation to some pretty radical statements directly attributed to, as well as very questionable past associations of, again, "their" specific candidate of choice. So, if there were actually to be a headstone placed on the grave of our “mainstream media," the date recorded as being the date on which it was officially pronounced as being dead, that date would be November 4, 2008. Over time, those in the media have obviously lost sight of what was supposed to be their purpose in life. That being, to keep the American people informed, and to assist them in their vigilance and in the safeguarding of our liberties. In the end however, they would go on to become nothing short of accomplices in the robbing of the American people of many of the rights and liberties granted to them not by a man, but by God. And for that act alone, they shall never be forgiven. Trust is a very valuable commodity, and once it is lost it is very difficult, if not impossible to regain. But apparently, the lack of trust the presently exists in how a majority of Americans feel toward the “mainstream media" today, seems to be of very little consequence to those involved.


So what might the motive be for such an egregious act, especially by a group of people whose very existence is guaranteed by our Constitution? What made so many of these people relinquish their duty and move to the "Dark Side?" Did they just wake up one morning and say to themselves, "Screw the people, they don't know what's best for them, and I do." Is it all ego driven? Or, have they managed to get so caught up in their own over-inflated sense of importance that they have essentially lost sight of their proper place in the big scheme of things? I think it pretty safe to say that many of them seem to be guilty of having some rather drastically skewed priorities, thinking that it has now become their responsibility as "journalists," to attempt to sway or alter pubic opinion toward one side or the other of a particular issue. They are completely oblivious to the fact that their job is to "objectively inform" the public regarding both sides of any issue so that citizens can then go on to make an informed decision. What they fail to understand is that they are now on the receiving end of a "failure to communicate,” because more often then not they are simply no longer being listened to. And yet, they refuse to change their message. Their bias is as obvious as their message is inane. And I'm not sure just how many viewers or readers they are going to have to lose before they come to realize that fewer and fewer people are actually listening. Why would anyone want to listen to something that is so obviously nothing more than pure, unmitigated propaganda? Any semblance of objectivity that may have at one time existed amongst these people has long since dissipated. I have to wonder, have these people come to enjoy the fact that they're no longer relevant? I mean really, who really cares what any of these people think or have to say. Their opinions mean nothing. It's all pure pabulum.


With many cable "news" outlets from CNN to MSNBC now in the toilet, ratings wise, and routinely getting their butts handed to them by Fox News, wouldn't you think that they would eventually wise up just a little and start moving away from the same ludicrous crap disguised as "news" that they absolutely insist on peddling day in and day out ad nauseam? And now we have this pompous blowhard Piers Morgan, the curmudgeon from "America's Got Talent" replacing Larry King, and making some pretty outlandish claims about how he's going to whip his Fox News competition. This stiff is nothing more than just one more boring Brit. He'll be lucky if folks stay awake for an entire show. I can almost hear the snoring already. And the nightly newscasts put together by the three major networks are really no better. Here you have three bimbos, yes I'm including Brian Williams on my list of the bimbos, masquerading as journalists and doing nothing more than droning on incessantly as the read their nightly tripe from teleprompters. And they still expect to be taken seriously? Give me a break! And then you have that absolute moron over there on the Today Show, Matt Lauer. Just what the heck are his qualifications? And why does anyone even watch that drivel? Such is the evidence that clearly reveals the sad state of affairs of today's so-called “mainstream media." As a whole it has ceased being a reporter of news and is now nothing more than a fabricator of fiction. It has now deteriorated into what is nothing more than a propaganda generating, industrial type complex that remains at the disposal of the Democrat Party and Barry "Almighty." And anyone who thinks it is anything other than that is living in an absolute fantasy world.


For decades these deniers have been pretending that they're not biased to the extreme leftward, even though everyone else knew it. And they sought to castigate anyone who would even suggest such a thing, accusing them of being either some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist or some right wing nut. But in 2008 America's "mainstream media" finally dropped any pretense of fairness and impartiality. Yes, the “mainstream media" has long been biased to the left. But that year was different. Because in 2008, the mask came off and the real face of the “mainstream media" was then revealed for all to see. And it sure wasn't very pretty. The Genie came fully out of the bottle and it isn't going back in. The good news though is that while the Old Media are rapidly on the decline (the New York Times Company is worth only half of what it was a year ago), the New Media in the form of talk radio, Internet news, bloggers, cable news (well, some cable news) and more, are growing exponentially in readership as well as in its ability to influence. People hungry for the truth are tuning in, going on line and subscribing to new media publications. It has often been said that no group in America is more responsible for making evil look good and good look evil than the “mainstream news" media. This issue of a migration, of sorts, from old to new, is something truly astounding. We are witnessing the slow, agonizing death of the Old Media taking place right before our very eyes, and the rapid growth of the New Media. It's the single most positive trend in America today. Because without a truly free press, it's really hard to have a free country.
www.werewatchingyou.net
www.theactionpage.com
www.theblaze.com
http://rightnetwork.com
http://senateconservativesfund.com
http://remembernovember.com

GERALDO RIVERA, A SYMBOL OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH TODAY'S MEDIA

Why is it, exactly, that Jerry Rivers, aka, Geraldo Rivera, is able to maintain any kind of a presence on anywhere near any credible news network? I keep asking myself, what purpose exactly does this guy or his current program on Fox News honestly serve? As near as I can figure, none. Zip, zero, zilch and nada. Unless of course, having him on allows Fox to further make the claim that their programming is in fact "Fair and Balanced". But then there's always Greta, another CNN reject, but that's a whole other story entirely. Let's be real here, this guy, Jerry, is nothing more than a product of a "Jerry Springer" type school of journalism and is someone who must have graduated at or near the top of his class. The most recent of his example regarding his brand of journalism comes in the form of "Geraldo At Large", which appears on Fox News, and is really nothing more than 60 minutes of him trying to portray himself as being some expert on just about any topic. Be that as it may, I tried once more to watch his show this past Sunday, or at least as much of it as I could stomach, because I was interested in the topic of conversation, which was Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally from earlier that day. But from quite early on you could very plainly see where it was that our good buddy Jerry was headed with it very shortly becoming quite obvious that Jerry is far from anything that would even remotely be considered a fan of Mr. Beck. But the real clincher, I suppose, was when he brought that raving racist Al "Bullhorn" Sharpton on to provide his commentary and opinion on Beck’s rally. After about 2 minutes I just couldn't take anymore of Sharpton’s blubbering and had to turn the channel to "The Three Stooges", who at least possess some degree of social redeeming qualities. Which is more than I can say about either Geraldo or Sharpton. These guys are nothing but frauds. I mean really, is there anyone anywhere out there who genuinely cares about what it is that Sharpton thinks or has to say about anything? And this is the caliber of individual that Jerry insists upon having come on his show allowing them ramble on about any number of topics to the point where I'm amazed that anybody even watches his “At Large” show. Maybe he's after the CNN crowd, I'm just not sure. I've tried to watch him on any number of occasions, but I just can't watch for much more than about 5-10 minutes. And if you ever watch his show, it seems that he always has many more guests of the liberal persuasion than those of the more conservative genre. And when he does have someone who tends to be of the more conservative flavor, he does nothing more than to go out of his way to belittle or ridicule them the entire show. And when they try to respond to his criticism, he just cuts them off and goes to a commercial. He always comes across, as liberals generally do, as someone who thinks that they’re just so darn much smarter than the rest of us common folk. It's all like watching some really, really bizarre reality show, one that ranks right up there with that stupid show about those morons living in New Jersey. You know the one with "Snookie" and the little band of mentally challenged misfits. And now it seems that Jerry is on the verge of celebrating 40 years of his being a "journalist". Come on, a "journalist"? Really? Geraldo? Here is a guy who has written a book detailing his sexual prowess by telling us about the thousands of women that he as supposedly slept with, who tried to present the opening of a mobster's vault as being an important news story and who had some squirrely "Maury Povich" type show on television for I don't know how many years. To come anywhere near calling this jerk a "journalist" is absolutely laughable. If he's a "journalist" then I guess that would make me a nuclear physicist.


And to show just how little regard guys like Jerry really have when it comes to how race relations should be honestly and openly addressed or discussed, the very best they can continue to come up with is to roll out "Bullhorn" Sharpton time after time as if he actually has any credibility whatsoever when it comes to having honest discussions on the topic of race relations. It's beyond being ridiculous to have a racist comment on race. Sharpton is always one that can be counted to display just the right amount of feigned moral outrage. This outright bigot, thinly disguised as a supposed civil rights "leader", told thousands of people gathered at a "Reclaim the Dream" event that took place at a Washington high school on Saturday that people at "the other rally" want to disgrace the day but "we won't let them." Just what would lead old "Bullhorn" to make such an imbecilic statement as that, other than what is obviously his deep-seated sense of racism? Such a statement is just another clear indicator that Sharpton derives much pleasure in doing nothing more than to perpetuate his continuing attempts at stirring up as much hate and discontent between people of different races as he possibly can. And it is his possessing just such a mentality that should effectively disqualify him from being asked to present objective commentary regarding an issue that he very obviously cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be objective about. "Bullhorn" sees it as being his mission in life to stir up as much racial unrest, even hatred, as possible. For him it's nothing more than money in the bank. Therefore, if no evidence of racism exists, it must then be created with "journalists" like Jerry being only too happy to assist any way they can to guarantee the success of any such endeavor. And just so there is no doubt in anyone's mind about just how much of a racist "Bullhorn" is, he attempted to characterize the people attending the larger "Restoring Honor" rally, led by Glenn Beck, as being the very same people who once criticized African-Americans for marching for civil rights. This is the caliber of individual that the faux journalists like Jerry Rivers insist upon having on their TV shows, most of which have a minuscule viewing audience. And by the way, was "Bullhorn" also talking about the many African-Americans who showed up at Beck's rally? Or, was he just talking about all those mean old racist white folks? Every time "Bullhorn" opens his mouth he does nothing more than to put his ignorance on full display for everyone to see and still he is usually the first out sought out by those in the media for his great insight. And then of course we also have Mr. Benjamin Todd Jealous, another pathetic racist as well as the present leader of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) who is one more "expert" that fellas like Jerry repeatedly turn to for commentary on race relations in America. Jealous also criticized the Beck rally for having to tell the participants not to bring signs or guns. The NAACP president said it is time to remind the country that the majority of Americans believe in hope and justice. I would tell Mr. Jealous that from the video clips that I saw of Mr. Beck's rally, I would agree with that statement. As far as the signs and guns comment, I'm not sure how much truth there is to that, most likely not much, but if there is any truth in it at all, it might be something that should be better practiced by Mr. Jealous and his little cadre of racist followers. Bigots such as these guys really serve no useful purpose for anything or to anybody. And it is quite sad to see how the likes of such men are able to command such respect from and seem to have some degree of control over so many people. Where they could be doing so much good "for" so many, they choose instead to do so much damage "to" so many. And every time some clown like Jerry provides them a platform from which to spew their vitriol, nothing is accomplished other than the creating of one more needless opportunity for them to spread their special brand of bigotry.


Prior to the day of these competing rallies, there had been much concern, most likely stirred up by Jerry's fellow "journalists" of the state-run media, warning that there could be a likelihood of confrontations, and possibly even violence, breaking out between the two rallies. But good old "Bullhorn" Sharpton said that the participants in the "Reclaim the Dream" rally would not disgrace the anniversary by allowing themselves to be provoked. Provoked? Did anyone see the video clips from Beck's rally? Did any of those people appear to be looking for a confrontation? And what's really funny is Al "Bullhorn" Sharpton talking about anyone being provoked. Is this guy serious? That’s how this bum makes his living, by provoking! He's nothing more than a buffoon of the very highest order. And then earlier in the week, we had Martin Luther King, Jr.'s son, Martin Luther King III, defending Beck's right to hold a rally on the anniversary of his father's historic "I Have a Dream" speech. King wrote in the Washington Post that his father championed free speech. But, being unable to resist, he also wrote that the civil rights leader "rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry." Ok, so what was the purpose for throwing the last little accusatory comment in? The only source for any "hateful rhetoric and bigotry" visible anywhere during the entire day came not from the "Restoring Honor" rally but from the "Reclaim the Dream" rally from none other than “Bullhorn” Sharpton himself. Which is pretty much par for the course. I guess this moron failed to notice, or thought it not worth mentioning, that Rev. King's niece was an active participant in the "Restoring Honor" rally. And, from what I saw on the various news shows and on line, there was a healthy number of African-Americans in the "Restoring Honor" crowd. And so it is then that when speaking about Jerry, "Bullhorn" and any of the many similar type individuals, it is very easy to see that there is much truth in that old adage about "birds of a feather". It is characters like these who are absolutely toxic when it comes to being able to advance the cause of race relations in this country. They constantly work at creating scenarios which serve no other purpose other than to further aggravate things. Where they could be acting as the voice of reason, instead they resort to a pathetic level of behavior in their weak attempts at increasing their own personal stature among the weak-minded. What needs to be done here is that these individuals need to be shunned until the time comes that they are seen for what they really are. They are users, men who have no interest in anyone but themselves. They should not be listened to because they really have nothing constructive to say. They are nothing more than the equivalent of background noise. They have no interest in "Restoring Honor", because that defeats the whole purpose of their existence. Instead they wish to work at bringing the rest of down to their pathetic level. So, Geraldo Rivera a journalist? Hmm, I'm thinking not so much. His is but one more example that proves that journalism in America can now be officially declared as being very much dead. Reporters have become nothing more that activists and outright propagandists for the cause of the day, be it racism, Climate Change, terrorism, taxes, healthcare reform, the evils of oil, you name it. They have moved beyond merely reporting the news, they are now much too busy trying to create it.