Media a fifth column against the GOP

An incident during the Republican convention this week demonstrates the "fifth column," which Republicans find arrayed against them. Most conservatives recognize this fifth column as the news media.

Having dominated the press and broadcast media for a generation now, they have successfully demonized Republicans and conservatism. For years they have stealthily manipulated and spun how events and individuals are covered. Sometimes, success breeds carelessness and the perpetrators fall out of the closet. Take David Chalian, for example. During a Monday night Internet broadcast by ABC and Yahoo, Chalian fell victim to the dreaded open microphone. Referring to Mitt and Ann Romney and the tropical storm Isaac, Chalian says, "They aren't concerned at all. They are happy to have a party when black people drown." Others with the "unbiased" collective laughed along with him.

Chalian was, until Wednesday, Yahoo! News Washington bureau chief.

According to the bio at the Georgetown University website (he is on the faculty there!), he directs coverage across all broadcast and digital platforms, previously served as the political editor for the PBS "NewsHour," managing editorial content regarding Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court.

Before that, he was political director for ABC News where he "... helped oversee the editorial content of all political news across ABC News' broadcasts and platforms."

He received an Emmy Award nomination as a member of the team that traveled to Alaska to produce the first television interview with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Hmmm.

That's quite a lot of control over what kind of perspective reaches the public. It's even more disconcerting if you consider that there is certainly more than one flea on Fido!

Decide for yourself whether Mr. Chalian was terminated because of his comment or because of the open microphone.




Sister_Ruby 2 years, 6 months ago

I began to become aware of this media bias and hypocrisy starting in the 1980's. Then it was much more subtle. Today it's blatant. And unforgiveable.

If you know your history, then you would know that a hundred years ago, all news was partisan (and it was all print of course). Just look at some newspaper titles that still exist today (The So-and-So Democrat, etc). These days we have federally mandated Consumer Nutritional Information notices on the foods we eat. We should mandate the same warnings for all Media broadcasts. We need to be informed even MORE about what we feed our heads than what we feed our bodies.


J.D._Sumner 2 years, 6 months ago

Journalists are living and breathing people too. Which means we have opinions, biases, prejudices, misgivIngs and concerns. The only difference is that when we are reporting the news, we are supposed to suppress these traits in the name of objectivity. Anyone who has ever asked a question shows some degree of bias simply by the nature of asking it.

There's a lot of talk about "the media" and politics but what most people mean are the "commentators". People like Cal Thomas, Cynthia Mckinney and Rush Limbaugh. These people often arent journalists in the sense of news reporting.Instead, they are paid opinonators. And since Guttenberg created the mass printing press, these people have had a place in the culture of this nation. Please understand that there is a difference between news and commentary.


waltspecht 2 years, 6 months ago

Now, I like most all of you down there at the Herald. That said, I think you had best maintain a low profile for a couple of weeks. I have heard that you first identified Luke as a Rattler. That may be taken as an act of disrespect. Remember the Bloods were the ones that killed the deaf boy in California because they took his hand sign language as an act of disrespect. Wonder what they will consider retribution for disrespecting the Local Gangs Leader? The Judge you might need now, certainly isn't involved in any Court.


Sister_Ruby 2 years, 6 months ago

J.D. most thinking people know the difference between news and commenary. I am referring to a 30-year "opening of my eyes" when TIME, Newsweek, the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS became more and more slanted "left" not only in their commentary (it says "opinion" right at the top of the page) but in their self-labeled "objective" reporting of the news. Most of the time it's quite subtle....nuances, composition, the questions you are left with at the end... but it's there. I no longer get my "news" from any of these sources. I go where I know where the news source stands.

Let me give a brief example from long ago. A news reporter was at an abortion clinic where there were Right To Life protestors barracaded across the street. There were Pro Choice counter-protestors. She wrote about one side that was "holding signs and chanting" while the other side was "clutching signs and screeching". Can you guess which descriptions were associated with which group?


gotanyfacts 2 years, 6 months ago

J.D. is right in pointing out that, because journalists are human, it is unavoidable that bias will creep into how questions are phrased as well as what questions are asked. That bias can be mitigated if there is a balance of opinion within the newsroom. Unfortunately, that balance does not exist. Surveys show that self identified liberals outnumber conservatives 4 to 1. While those identifying themselves as moderates make up the largest block, when questioned on specific opinions, most of the avowed “moderates" fall in line with the liberals.

Certainly, Thomas, McKinney, and Limbaugh and other "opinionators" present their "side" of an issue. I have read and heard news reports regularly identify those "conservative" or "right-winged" (add the modifiers arch, far and extreme) opinionators. Only rarely have I heard editorialists or commentators referred to as liberal. And who knows what it takes to be identified as "left-winged", much less "extreme, "arch", or "far, far, far..." (wink to Carlton).

The point is that within the news gathering and reporting community, liberals and pro-Democrat journalists dominate. They choose which stories to pursue, how much manpower and time to devote to "uncovering" facts, how the facts are presented (or not), how much verification is needed to "break news". There is little evidence to show a genuine effort to avoid letting their bias influence their reporting.

The liberal bias does exist in the news media. It distorts the public's perception of individuals and groups based primarily on their position within the political spectrum. It is a fact that will be on display, in full bloom, for the next two months. Republicans are aware of it and know it is allied with the Democrats. They have to deal with it.


Sister_Ruby 2 years, 6 months ago

WOW. Best thing I've read in months, gotanyfacts. Well done!!


1d2ec 2 years, 6 months ago

Last night One of comutators said he hope to find out who Romney is, I would like to know who Obama is and I can't seem to learn it from Major News.


QUIK 2 years, 5 months ago

Mr. Summers is on to something correctly. The journalists (commentators) are different from those reporting the news. For those that believe that one side views dominates is probably correct but that doesn't need to be a bad thing. An equal sided news group is almost impossible. CBS, NBC, CNN, or ABC won't sit down to deal out a balanced reporting, no more than FOX News with other news agencies that have their views. Just remember people truth doesn't need to dominate to be truth.


gotanyfacts 2 years, 5 months ago

Quik, did you have trouble coming up with "other news agencies" to go with Fox? You seem to admit that CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC will not be balanced and go on to suggest bias is not always bad. Do you feel that a lack of integrity is secondary when it results in confirmation of your viewpoint? In reporting the facts regarding the people who will run our nation, their values, policies, and associations, as well actions in office, bias is always bad. If the people do not have the truest understanding possible of those seeking office, how can we be confident that we will get what we voted for?

The image the Republicans have to battle is generated by the liberal Democrats and projected into the homes of Americans by the mainstream media. Whatever does not promote "Dems are good... Repubs are bad" is muddied, excused or totally ignored. Case in point- Recently Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said during an interview, “I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.” When contacted, Oren denied having said anything of the sort. Wasserman-Schultz when presented with Oren's response denied her words, “I didn’t say he said that. And unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. Not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me.” Unfortunately for Wasserman, the reporter had taped the interview! What happened then? CNN and Fox reported on the event. CBS, NBC, ABC... silence ( I leave out MSNBC because it is as much a news channel as the supermarket tabloids are newspapers).

Liberals and Democrats regularly display the negative characteristics they claim the Republicans have. Whether the Repubs are any different in their hearts is open for debate. But, one thing is for sure, they have an adversarial watchdog that will point out any blemish, real or imaginary. When it comes to the Dems, however, the watchdogs turn into Hollywood makeup artists. And what they can't cover up, they cut out of the scene.


Sign in to comment