Posts Tagged media bias
Zombia is well known for his revealing photo essays of leftist protests, and these are some of his best from San Fransisco. Very, very NSFW, but also very revealing, especially for people who want to label Tea Partiers as extremists. Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve waited a bit to comment on this, in part because I’ve had other things going on, and in part because I wanted to see what further developments came from it. And I think I’ve got enough of a picture of what happened.
First, a recap for anyone who hasn’t heard about this yet. At a recent debate in Kentucky between Rand Paul and his Democratic opponent Jack Conway, a woman was subdued and allegedly stomped in the head by Rand Paul supporters.
(I say allegedly because the video shows that she was stomped kinda on the shoulder, not the head. Not that this somehow makes it okay, but just mentioning it in the interest of accuracy, which as will soon be demonstrated, is important because the Left has ignored it. Accuracy, that is.)
The action itself, of course, seems pretty inexcusable. Some conservatives speculated that this woman and the people who attacked her were part of some kind of conspiracy and all in on it together, but that isn’t the case. Rand Paul immediately condemned the incident, and the person responsible for the stomping, a Rand election coordinator, was fired and banned from future events.
Okay, sounds good so far. There are supposedly criminal charges pending, Rand has disavowed the action, and we move on, right?
The “activist ” involved – a woman named Lauren Valle — claims that she was peacefully presenting her sign when she was recognized by Rand supporters, surrounded, and attacked. She did nothing, she says, but exercise her First Amendment rights, and those evil right-wingers viciously attacked her!
This, of course, became the narrative the Left was pushing – that the Right is violent and extreme, and will use violence to suppress free speech. Leftist shill and nutjob Chris Matthews almost immediately drew Nazi comparisons, invoking Brownshirted Republicans beating dissenters.
Classy, as always, Mr. Matthews.
So, we have Miss Valle’s version of the events:
Well just before the tape I was identified by the Rand Paul campaign because they’ve seen me around town at these events. And they realized they know me because of my work and they don’t support it. So they actually formed a blockade around me once they realized that I was there. And as Rand’s car pulls up they step in front of me and start to block me so I stepped off the curb to try and get around them and at that point they pursued me around the car, chased me around the car, and what you see in the video is when I’m in the front of the car and that’s when I’m pulled down and then my head is stomped on.
Well, it didn’t go down that way.
Says Donald Douglas:
More details at Red State. But honestly, she’s a young woman with a criminal history. And as we can see she’s obviously lying about being “chased around the car,” which is typical for leftists. And of course, commie idiots like Blue Texan and Scott Lemieux are simply suborning the dishonesty. It’s all plain as day.
Robert Stacy McCain, who has followed this story diligently, also opines:
The video shows MoveOn.org activist Lauren Valle lunging toward Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul’s vehicle, thrusting her sign through the vehicle’s open window.
Red State is quick to say, “You don’t stomp on a person’s head.” Indeed. But as Red State also says, “the idea that Valle was the victim of an angry mob . . . is demonstrably false. . . . She claims to have been an innocent bystander. She clearly was not.”
And the initial breaking report from Red State:
This video was sent to RedState by an anonymous witness at the event. It shows what Valle was doing when the Paul supporters grabbed her. No one chased her around the car. She was never in front of the car. As you can see in the video, Valle reached in the candidate’s window with her “RepubliCorp” sign and shoved it in his face. Several supporters in Paul shirts have her surrounded at that point, and a man in a suit is the first person to actually intervene physically. It’s hard to tell from the video, but it could be that the man in the suit was with Paul’s security staff.
Toward the end of the video, you see several Paul supporters asking a police officer to come intervene. It was Paul supporters who told Profitt to back off. It was Paul supporters who brought the police. Contrary to the growing narrative on the left, this video clearly shows that Valle was not the victim of a conspiracy to “take her out.”
Again, as the video clearly demonstrates, Valle was there to do more than simply “hold a sign,” and Paul supporters were not reacting to a mere dislike of her message.
As we noted at the beginning of the article, none of that is any excuse, nor even mitigating circumstances, when it comes to Profitt stomping on Valle’s head.
ISUB Vision has a video clip from Fox News discussing the incident:
So we get to the real matter here. Yes, it was wrong that Valle was attacked the way she was. But then again, we have to consider the fact that she was wearing a disguise, and she lunged at a conservative political candidate – twice, and once while shoving an object at him. And she responded by condemning right-wing violence.
I’ll say it. She was hoping to provoke this kind of response.
Mrs. Valle is a professional activist and trouble-maker. Her criminal record speaks to her desire to stir trouble to gain publicity and push her radical agendas.
Miss Valle appears to be an itinerant all-purpose protester. Two years ago, while a student at Columbia University, she was the youngest of five Americans detained by Chinese officials after unfurling a “Free Tibet” banner at the Beijing Olympics. In May of this year, she was charged with felony trespassing in Louisiana when she and other Greenpeace activists illegally boarded a ship, unfurled a banner, and painted the ship with slogans, a protest evidently timed to coincide with an appearance in the area by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. (Their banner read: “Salazar Ban Arctic Drilling.”) Law enforcement officials said the Greenpeace group had been in the area for two weeks and “had been repeatedly warned not to hamper clean up operations and not to trespass.”
So what we have is a professional troublemaker/publicity hound who instigated a response that she and the Left could then use to demonize the Right. And it worked. Because if they were really worried about politically motivated violence at these kinds of events, they would have mentioned the other attack that occurred that night:
In a separate incident, according to the Kentucky Post, “a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery. The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report.
A woman in disguise lunges at a candidate while thrusting an object at him, and is subdued, and it is proof of inherent Right-wing violence. At the same event, a Left-winger stomps on the bandaged foot of a conservative woman, and nary a peep. Typical.
And don’t lecture us, Mr. Matthews, about people who “hire armies” in politics. Why don’t you ask some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters how Obama’s goon squads cheated in every caucus from Iowa to Texas?
Let’s see: Black Panthers wielding nightsticks at polling places, Kenneth Gladney beaten by union thugs, Bill Rice’s finger bitten off by MoveOn protesters . . . Hey, if you really want to argue that political violence is “right wing by its very nature,” Mr. Matthews, we could point to the riots in France and Greece. And what about the May Day riots in Santa Cruz, Calif.? But I guess if it’s OK to hang around with terrorists, all bets are off.
And golly, why isn’t this case of a Leftist choking a conservative counter-protester getting such wide coverage?
On October 19 outside the venue where a candidate debate was about to be held between Arizona’s Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her Republican challenger Jesse Kelly, a MoveOn.org-style, left-wing activist physically accosted a lone conservative that had the temerity to yell back and challenge the leftist’s outrageous claims.
Look at timestamp 4:38 for the action:
IUSB Vision recaps a piece from Big Journalism that addresses the blatant media bias in ignoring the fact that Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan has argued that he government has the power to ban books, while never retracting the false claim that Sarah Palin tried to ban books from the Wasilla library.
Now, take a look at these two collections of headlines. Notice that all the Palin headlines connect Palin directly to the charges of book-banning by discussing her “book banning efforts” even though there were no books banned and no lists made for possible bans. Then look at the Kagan headlines. You’ll notice they all link a Republican to a claim that Kagan wanted to ban books (with one saying that the charge of book-banning is just “talking points”). The way the Kagan headlines are written it makes it seem as if the charge of Kagan’s book-banning is just politics as usual, Republican charges made, just average, everyday Republican attacks. Yet the Palin headlines as much as say that Palin was banning books. With their headlines the Old Media convicted Palin in 2008 — yet today Kagan is nearly absolved of the charge.
Andrew Klavan comments on the cancellation of NBC’s long-standing powerhouse Law and Order, and credits a trend in the flavor in the show toward increasingly far-left ideology in the story lines.
O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan, who cites as proof the ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church.
He could have cited Law & Order too, NBC’s long running arrest-and-trial television show that has just been canceled after 21 years on the air. Many may not remember, but when the show began, it was not only excellent, it was also, if not conservative, at least complex in its worldview.
Why does that happen? Why did the same process overtake 24 as it is now undermining House and as it ultimately seems to destroy any show with half an ounce of conservative realism to it? Why does TV specifically seem a veritable laboratory of O’Sullivan’s Law in action?
Klavan presents some interesting ideas for why left-wing ideology tends to permeate television, and how this eventually causes the shows themselves to decline. Read the whole thing here.
Times editor Joe Klein has stated that opposing the Obama Administration is racist, and referring to the Administration as the “Obama Regime” (like the left did for 8 years with Bush) amounts to sedition. No, we’re not trying to stifle the free speech of our political opponents at all, are we, comrade?
David Gutmann at the American Spectator takes a look at the rhetoric coming from the right and compares it to the rhetoric that has come from the left, and concludes that the nastiest venom has consistently come from the left. Read the rest of this entry »