Edited for content

Media's presentations, omissions skew true face of the news

Last April, NBC News purposely altered audio of a 911 call to make Trayvon Martin’s shooter look blatantly racist.


This past week, its sister network MSNBC edited video of a Romney-Ryan rally to make it appear as if Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had to encourage a crowd to chant his name as well as vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s.

The video, as aired by MSNBC’s Morning Joe, was pretty much the opposite of the truth: The crowd, as others have reported even in liberal outlets, was actually chanting Romney’s name – and Romney was graciously encouraging them to add his running mate’s name.

Democratic pollster Pat Caddell recently said the media have made themselves “a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion ... the enemy of the American people.

“And it is a threat to the very future of this country if we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.”

Democrat commentator Kirsten Powers, speaking on the Obama administration’s oddly changing stories on who was behind the U.S. embassy attacks – and the media’s relative disinterest in the scandal – says: “In this case, lack of curiosity on the part of the American media very well may kill more Americans.” How? By letting the Obama administration off the hook vis-a-vis questions on security.

Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, notes Caddell, has more security than did slain ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

Retired newspaper publisher Sam Griffin of Bainbridge, Ga., writes of today’s mainstream media: “Through acts and omissions both subtle and overt, they continually tell us what is fact and what is not, what is important and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, who won and who lost in every instance of the political day – the aggregate effect of which is an attempt to create self-fulfilling prophecies.”

You have to wonder where some of these so-called journalists went to school – and whether their journalism teachers would stand by their former students’ decisions to purposely alter video in order to depict something that didn’t happen in order to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

Liberal media bias is one thing; it’s well-documented. But doctoring video and audio to distort the truth? And downplaying consistent lies by the administration about the nature of the attacks on our embassies – which, as Powers noted, might end up getting more people killed?

What journalism school teaches such things?

Former publisher Griffin opines, wistfully:

“The only real remedy is a less gullible and more truly informed, demanding public.

“Where can we get one of those?”



Sat, 01/20/2018 - 00:00

Editorial: A legend of the game