Hour 2
WATCH: White House Press Sec RIPS mainstream media for suppressing Hunter Biden, Eric Swalwell stories
Black Lives Matter Opposes Pete Buttigieg for Transportation Secretary
Feinstein Canceled: San Francisco to Rename Elementary School
School may remove Lincoln’s name because he didn’t show ‘black lives mattered to him’
Mainstream news coverage does not reflect the political make-up of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Mainstream media is exceedingly likely to cover news through a partisan filter. So it‘s no surprise that liberals and conservatives are polarized when it comes to news sources they trust and utilize.
In 2019, Media Research Center analyzed 540 hours of news coverage on CNN and MSNBC over three randomly-selected weeks. The two networks conducted nearly the same number of interviews with members of Congress. In total, they interviewed 284 Democratic members of congress compared to just 40 Republican. MSNBC leaned even more to the left, as they interviewed 148 Democrats and only 11 republicans.
Both networks gave opposing questions to the Republicans but gave friendly questions to the Democrats. Meaning, they focused on Democratic talking points and agendas.
It’s common practice to ask a political interviewee to give an answer to the argument of the opposite side, but consistently asking Republicans to answer to Democratic talking points, while hardly ever asking Democrats to do the same thing, speaks to the fact that the networks are actually choosing sides.
Eric Merkley, a contributor to the American Politics and Policy website who specializes in public opinion and political communication, recently studied 400,000 news stories on economics published over three decades and found that the mainstream portrayed liberal politicians in a better light than their conservative colleagues.
The news stories were on unemployment and inflation between 1985 and 2013 from the Associated Press and a variety of mainstream newspapers, including the New York Times, USA Today, and those with histories of backing the Republican Party, such as the Dallas Morning News and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
He found that the tenor on economic news is more favorable during Democratic presidencies compared to Republican. He also found that only Republican administrations are treated with more negative coverage in response to short-term increases in unemployment or the inflation rate.
I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.
No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”
The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers. For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.
If you’re attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.
That sounds nice, but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague. What constitutes an attack? Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders? Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.
What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?
Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the USand her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones. Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?
I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under Clinton proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.
So why bring this up now? Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is dead. Because we may be heading for another war.
Tensions have been rising with Pakistan for years. The killing of Osama bin Laden only catapulted those tensions to the mainstream. During the aftermath of that operation, we clearly learned that Pakistan is no friend of the US. Yet, something far worse was kept from us.
A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.
Yep. Ambushed by the Pakistanis … ahem … allegedly.
Maj. Larry J. Bauguess lost his life in the attack.
This blatant act of war was covered up by both the Pakistanis and Washington. In fact, Pakistan has been well-known to retaliate for collateral damage by US forces with open attacks on US personnel.
Some will blame America for the incident, and say that Pakistan was just retaliating for their losses. An interesting point, albeit one that ignores Pakistan’s hindering our intelligence, and often openly helping the enemy against us.
Then there’s Iran. We know they are sending weapons across the border into Iraq to help kill Americans. There have even been clashes with US and Iranian military forces. Something that was also kept quiet, and has happened more than once.
Right about now someone will say that none of this would happen if we weren’t there to begin with, so we are still the aggressor. That’s about as intelligent as inviting someone over for dinner, and then calling them a burglar.
Am I calling for war with Pakistan or Iran? No.
Were those two incidents justification for war in my opinion? Yes.
I’m saddened that neither party has an option for president that touts legit military credentials. We have, after all, been at war for a decade with no truly experienced military veteran in the White House. Going forward, we may not have an option for peace either. It makes me wonder … how different things would be if a competent military commander were also sitting in the White House.
