Hat/Tip to Paul Bond at The Hollywood Reporter.
Investigative Journalist, Sharyl Attkisson left CBS after her bosses lost their appetite for any story that would hurt, or even show the Obama Administration in a bad light. In this interview, she talks about an unknown government agency hacking into her computer, her bosses choice to bury her stories, their penchant for labeling any analyst they didn’t agree with as Conservative Analysts and all others as just Analysts, the trend from the MSM’s desire to air stories negative to Republican administrations to their fear of doing so to the Obama administration, and finally of the fact that Barack Obama does indeed have an Enemies’ List.
Here is her full interview with THR.
THR reached out for a response from CBS News, but the organization declined to comment.
Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?
The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.
Did he believe you?
He appeared to.
Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?
God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.
Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?
I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.
Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?
Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.
So what did you do about it?
It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.
Did they conclude anything yet?
Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.
CBS executives suspect that the government hacked your computer, and CBS computers, but there’s been no accountability? CBS just dropped the matter?
As far as I know, although what they told me was they wanted to heavily pursue it and find out who was responsible. I discovered on my own they have a computer security specialist working for CBS. … But nobody ever questioned me, came to my house, checked the security of my system, asked me for more information, or followed up with me.
Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?
The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.
And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?
The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.
So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?
I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.
And who do you suspect is on that list?
Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.
Do you have sources who told you the names on that list? Is Rush Limbaugh on that list, for example?
Another reporter told me — I can’t remember who — that they thought he was on some sort of target list, but I don’t know that to be the case. I have someone who told me the existence of a list but not the names on it.
You’re being accused of being a partisan right-winger. Have you reported negative stories about conservatives?
Most of my reporting has not been political in nature. Some of the stories that were politicized, I don’t consider political stories, but they were made out to be by people who obviously didn’t want them reported, and I would put Fast and Furious and Benghazi in that category. But other stories include the one I won an investigative Emmy Award for last year, which was a series of stories from the time I went undercover to investigate freshmen Republican fundraising. I also did a story that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow complimented in a seven-minute-long segment, exposing Congressman Steven Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, and his possible and allegedly fraudulent charity, which was followed shortly thereafter by his resignation from Congress.
Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?
Not my reporter colleagues.
But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?
Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.
Who were the ones discouraging it?
Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.
You’ve said they did this because of liberal bias?
I’m not sure I’ve ever said that. But I think there was a complex list of reasons why a lot of stories did and didn’t make it on the air the last couple of years. But in a general sense, I noticed a tendency to avoid stories that would draw pushback form people they didn’t want to have pushback from, whether it’s corporations, advertisers or politicians.
Has CBS ever cared about pushback from politicians before, or only under this administration?
I don’t know how these same people would have acted under a different administration. They came in shortly after the Obama administration [began].
Do you think CBS was unlikely to run negative stories about President George W. Bush for fear of pushback?
They might have been just as likely to be fearful of stories that drew controversy or pushback from corporate entities, charities, politicians, whatever the special interest might be.
Since when has CBS ever been afraid to air controversial political stories? It ran those memos claiming Bush was trying to avoid the Vietnam War. That wasn’t controversial?
CBS is hundreds of people, and they’ve changed over the years. It’s not a monolithic organization that has one viewpoint, and that’s why for everything you try to put into a box there are exceptions. For example, they assigned me to cover Benghazi, that wasn’t my idea. And they were very enthusiastic about the story for a period of time. Why they changed on that, I tried to figure out many times and I can’t say; I can only say what my experiences were.
You must have a theory as to why, right?
They simply didn’t want stories on any controversies, whether that involved corporations, advertisers, charities or other special interests. They were not impossible to get on the air, but very difficult. So we just concluded that there was not the same appetite as there had been in the past.
You’re acting like it was a monetary decision on the part of CBS, like it didn’t want to risk its advertising. But these were government stories we’re talking about.
No, I’m trying to explain to you it wasn’t just government stories, although that’s what the media tended to focus on.
OK then, name the corporations that wanted to kill your stories.
I don’t think any corporations killed my stories. I said CBS had a tendency, in the last couple years especially, to appear to want to avoid controversies or stories that they felt would get pushback from certain corporations and politicians and special interests and charities.
Can you tell me the names of these corporations, charities and politicians?
I hate to tick them off because I feel like the story should be told in some context for legal reasons, but I think that you can pull some ideas from the book.
Does CBS go after liberal policies that are failing with as much gusto as they do conservative policies that are failing?
Well, whether something’s failing is a matter of somebody’s opinion. But I would say, as Lisa Myers has observed, as USA Today has observed, the media in general has been less enthusiastic about government accountability under the Obama administration. And I concur with those observations.
Why is that the case?
In my view, trying to avoid the pushback, and the fallout, and the headaches that come with doing stories on whatever the topic may be that the powers-that-be don’t like.
So, in journalism today, it works to bully the reporters and they’ll lay off? “Speak truth to power” — that saying from the 1960s — that doesn’t apply to journalism anymore?
Reporters want to, as you say, “speak truth to power,” but it’s harder to get those types of stories past the gatekeepers.
So what good is CBS News if it’s just going to bow down to the bullies who tell them to shut up?
Those were your words, but I think they do a great job on some controversies and investigations. 60 Minutes still does some great work. So I’m not saying there aren’t very good journalists and work being done, but on the whole, as many other journalists have observed recently and publicly, the media is not as good at holding the powers that be accountable, for whatever reason.
And that reason has nothing to do with political bias?
It’s a complex set of factors involving politics, relationships with corporations and advertisers and, at times, just the idea that they’d rather not have the headache of doing a story that they have to defend.
You seem to be going way out of your way not to label the media biased. But in your book you talk about how one of your bosses insisted on labeling conservative analysts but not labeling the liberal ones, and if they really didn’t like an analyst, they’d label him or her “right-wing.” So if that’s not bias, what is it?
I didn’t say that nobody is ever biased. I’m not trying to be cagey. It’s not one factor at play … I never told CBS when I wanted to leave that I thought anybody was liberally biased. I never argued that point. People kind of drew that conclusion because it served a certain narrative on both sides. It served the narrative of conservatives who were happy to feel like someone was spilling the family secret and it served the narrative of liberals who didn’t like some of my reporting and thought it could be explained away if I were a right-wing conservative. So everybody sort of adopted that line, and that’s something that I never said.
So whose rule was it at CBS that analysts who were conservative be labeled as such and analysts who are liberal not be labeled?
I’m not going to name her. And it was some time ago, but she did say after I brought it up, she’d think about it, and she agreed that what I brought up was a good point and she changed — at least with me — what she’d been doing.
And who at CBS got mad at you for going on Laura Ingraham’s radio show because Ingraham is right wing?
I don’t want to say her name, either.
It sounds like you criticize Obama officials by name but you won’t say names when you’re criticizing CBS. Why the double standard?
I said a lot of names in the book, and I have my reasons why. … I described it in the book as I wished to describe it.
Did anybody at CBS get mad when reporters went on liberal outlets, like MSNBC?
I can only speak for myself. I saw other reporters go on conservative and liberal outlets and I never heard that they received blowback. So I don’t know if it was just me. But in my experience, they did tell me to not go on the Laura Ingraham Show.
Just the Laura Ingraham Show or all conservative shows?
That’s a good question. At the time it was just, “Don’t ever go on her show again.” And then they denied other interview requests on both liberal and conservative outlets after that — a lot, but not all the time.
Are there any celebrities mentioned in your book?
Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. I traveled with them on a trip to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton. They were entertaining the troops. But first lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter were on a work trip and I was there covering it. I mention them briefly in light of the fact that I did the story that exposed that Mrs. Clinton’s account that we’d been fired at by snipers was not true. I mentioned that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow were on the plane with us.
Was there any pushback on your Hillary-Bosnia report?
No. That sort of highlights the changes that had occurred because that was a different executive producer who, as far as I know, is actually friendly with the Clintons but nonetheless was very gung-ho on the story because he was — like most journalists — able to get outside of his own friendships and belief systems and just be a newsman.
Who at CBS did you tender your resignation to?
The first time I tried to leave, a year before I left, I had my agent call CBS president David Rhodes.
What was your interaction with David Rhodes like?
Well, for most of my tenure at CBS he was very supportive. We met privately a lot about how he wanted my stories to get exposure.
When did that change?
As I tried to leave, there were some tense times. But it ended up cordial.
Why did you want to leave?
The bottom line is, the last couple of years it was clear for me that there was nothing meaningful left for me to do at CBS, and I just wanted to move on. They had plenty of talented reporters but, for what I did, investigative and original reporting, there was no appetite for that.
What are your politics personally?
I don’t talk about my politics, but I would say I’m like a lot of Americans. I’m mixed. I can honestly see two valid sides of a debate. That’s not to say I don’t have positions and thoughts on things, of course I do, but I don’t let those things get in the way of my work.
The primary issues in your book are Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the alleged green energy scandals and Obamacare. Which of those four needs further reporting?
Wow. There’s a great deal of reporting to be done on all of them. I can’t pick one. At CBS, I would have continued on all of them, if I was able to.
It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?
I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray.
You were accused by some at CBS of agenda-driven news stories against Obama. Has anyone at CBS ever accused a reporter of agenda-driven stories against Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush, or anyone prominent on the right?
When I did stories that clearly were not positive toward Republicans, I was never accused of being a crazy liberal or having an agenda. That only happened when I did stories that were perceived as being negative toward Democrats.
Did your executive producer, Patricia Shevlin, accuse you of not being supportive enough of green energy because of your stories about taxpayer money given to Solyndra before it went bankrupt?
She never told me that — that was her answer to another executive who raised the question: “Shouldn’t we be doing these stories on evening news?”
Why is that anecdote about Shevlin significant?
She is a well-known liberal ideologue who let that get in the way of her decisions and judgment. Whether people will say that to you or not, that was the consensus. That was discussed sometimes daily at CBS.
You also said somebody hacked your TV. How would you know? Why would someone want to hack someone’s TV?
I didn’t say that. What I said was the anomalies that were occurring in my house all seemed to be associated with my FiOS line. … I think that the work that they were doing to get into my computer system may have interfered with the other systems in the house.
The progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America is leading the charge against you, it seems.
Media Matters has acknowledged targeting me, yes. Not with a computer intrusion, just with trying to discredit the stories I did as much as possible.
Do you think they were paid to do so?
They said they weren’t, but the question has certainly crossed my mind.
Do you know of any occasions where Media Matters was given money earmarked to targeting somebody?
David Folkenflik of NPR told me they were paid to target Rush Limbaugh. He may have misspoken on that, because someone told me it may have been Glenn Beck. He gave me two instances in which they were paid to target. He also said that they were paid to target Fox News. I’m not sure if that’s correct. It was just another reporter relaying that information to me.
(David Folkenflik did not respond to a request for comment. Media Matters president Bradley Beychok told THR: “Media Matters has never taken a dime to target Sharyl Attkisson.”).
Do you think Media Matters has libeled you?
That’s a good question. I haven’t had a legal review of what they’ve said. I actually read little to zero of what they write. They have definitely said many, many, false things. But I’m not sure it qualifies as libel under the law.
They’re a media watchdog. They tell the truth about what the media is reporting, right?
I don’t think they have an obligation to, no. Anyone can say they’re a media watchdog and then give their opinions … most people understand it’s a propaganda blog. They are very close to the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests.
What does the press think of Media Matters?
Like anybody that reaches out to us, we may take under consideration an idea that they propose. But I never get asked about their conservative counterparts, such as Media Research Center or Accuracy in Media. In my experience, no one ever takes their criticism as if it is something legitimate to be answered, but when Media Matters says something, many people in the media almost treat them as a neutral journalism organization.
Is that biased?
That probably is the result of an unintentional bias.
As we’re talking, I got an email from Media Matters that says a video you released of your computer being hacked is probably just a stuck backspace key.
It’s what I would call a video anecdote, something that happened along the way. It has nothing to do with the forensic evidence and the analysis. It’s just something interesting, a punctuation mark of things that were happening. And, certainly, I expect Media Matters to say that the backspace key was held down.
What story were you working on when your backspace key started operating by itself?
I was preparing questions for my interview with Ambassador Thomas Pickering about Benghazi and the Accountability Review Board.
So of all the stories you did that were seen as negative against Obama, Benghazi was the one that really irritated them?
I think green energy got under their skin first, and the remote intrusions into my computer predated Benghazi.
From what you told me thus far, it sounds like you’re accusing CBS of cowardice more than liberal bias. Is that correct?
I haven’t used that word, ever. CBS is hundreds of people. It’s not a monolithic organization. That’s the hard part about trying to make a statement or draw conclusions. I would use the word “fearful,” rather than “cowardice.” Some people in the decision-making process, not necessarily reporters at the ground level, but some of those deciding what goes on television have become very fearful of the sponsors and would just prefer to avoid conflict and controversy, which means you’re not going to do a lot of original investigative reporting.
You mentioned your former boss David Rhodes. His brother is Ben Rhodes, a security adviser to the president. Is there at least an appearance of a conflict of interest there when he’s telling you to lay off Benghazi while his brother works for the president?
David didn’t tell me to lay off Benghazi, and I don’t really have an opinion of his relationship with his brother, and how that might have affected things.
Did anyone tell you to lay off Benghazi, or did they just stop using your stories on TV?
They started not using my stories. I don’t know what goes on in the decision-making process, but in general the shows’ producers and managing editors and so on would be the ones that decide what goes on the broadcasts and what doesn’t. I certainly had people joining me at CBS and pushing for stories to get on television that didn’t get on. And they were stopped, as far as I was concerned, somewhere in New York.
What reasons did they give you for not airing your stories?
They would just say — and they didn’t talk to me personally, this was to senior producers — they would just say things like, “There is no time on the show for it tonight,” “That’s a great story but maybe we’ll get to it tomorrow,” “Not today, but tell us when there are other developments, we’ll consider it again.”
Why would the administration blame the murders in Benghazi on a YouTube video if that was untrue?
Some of the information the administration is withholding from public release involves a meeting or meetings that occurred in which this was presumably discussed. So we can only wonder, but the body of evidence that’s come out in the two years since would lead a reasonable person to conclude they wanted to steer the public’s direction away from the idea that this was definitely an act of terror, technically on U.S. soil if it was U.S. property overseas. It occurred on the president’s watch, very close to an election, at a time when he had claimed Al Qaeda was on the run.
But that reason sounds fairly pathetic and unworthy of such a huge lie. Doesn’t it?
From whose viewpoint? I mean, it’s apparently important enough for them to deflect opinion, and I’m not sure if that is indeed why they did it, that’s just the best reason most of us can come up with, looking at the evidence that has come out since. Maybe there is a better reason why they did it, I don’t know. I have a feeling we won’t ever have the full story.
What news network do you think you’ll land with next?
I certainly haven’t decided I’ll ever work at another network or even necessarily work full-time again. When I decided to leave CBS, the discussion I had with my husband was, I have to be prepared to walk out and not work anywhere ever again, and we were fine with that.
Have you had offers?
Yes, but I don’t want to discuss them.
Media Matters and others say that you’re pushing a media-is-biased narrative to curry favor with conservatives.
Anyone who knows much of anything about me knows that I don’t curry favor with people. Period.
Being targeted, allegedly, by the Obama administration, and your stories allegedly being shunned at CBS — were those ultimately good things for you?
I don’t think those were pleasant things, but where I sit today I would say, “Fine, I’m exactly where I ought to be.” And I will tell you, before all this stuff happened, I did hope to, and thought I would, work the rest of my career at CBS doing as much as I had been doing over most of the last 20 years. It didn’t work out that way, but I’m not sorrowful over it. … I think there is a cultural change in journalism that’s going on — a turn away from the kind of reporting that just holds the powers-that-be accountable. It’s not just a CBS thing.
The major news networks are just afraid of the powerful all of a sudden?
Well, when you put it that way, it makes it sound silly, and that’s what I’ve written about in the book. I don’t think there was a sudden switch.
Nobody was saying that the media was afraid of George W. Bush, now all of a sudden they are afraid of Barack Obama?
There were times when people said that — inside CBS, after Rathergate.
Were there some depressing days for you at CBS toward the end?
I was very disheartened when my producer and I would have great stories, and in some cases, whistleblowers we convinced to go out on a limb and tell their story, only to then have to go back to them and say nobody’s interested. So, we’ve had to do that more times in the past few years than I’ve had to do in the previous 30.
An Obama spokesman called you “unreasonable.” Are you?
I’m probably one of the most reasonable reporters out there. But their definition of unreasonable is when they answer a question, if it doesn’t make sense or if it contradicts other facts, I don’t just accept it and go away.
What haven’t I asked you about that you think is important to mention?
A couple people have told me that CBS News has started a whisper campaign to say that I’m paranoid, crazy and a liar?
Are you paranoid?
I’d like to think not. It’s just a good word they use to discredit and “controversialize” reporters and stories they don’t like.
Assuming this whisper campaign against you is true, who is orchestrating it?
I was told that Chris Isham, the bureau chief in Washington, was a part of it.
Hat/Tip to Kyle Smith at New York Post.
For over 6 years now most Americans have come to understand that the MSM (Main Stream Media) have been more than arbiters of the truth. They have been, in many cases complete shills for the current administration.
From giving Barack Obama softball questions, to gushing at his “greatness”, to actually ditching stories that they thought would hurt him, the MSM has been complicit in the degradation and, yes, socialization of this country.
You can think back to the editor of Newsweek, Evan Thomas calling Obama a “God” – “Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”
And lest we forget, it was Chris “Tingles” Matthews on CNN, after listening to an Obama speech, famously said of Obama, “The feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama speech, my. I felt this thrill going up my leg. I don’t have that too often.”
Well one reporter is not taking that messianic, worshiping path that presides over the dogma that Barack Hussein Obama can do no wrong.
Sharyl Attkisson was a long time reporter for CBS and she was a damned good one, at that. Not afraid to take on the big boys, step on a few toes or shed any partisan ideology to get to the truth of the story.
The trouble is, her bosses at CBS wouldn’t let her tell the entire scope of the stories, or they’d bury them on their website if they hurt the Obama administration.
Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”
Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”
That was when Sharyl was being nice.
Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.
And when ideology isn’t the problem, most of the big network news folks are afraid to upset the people who buy advertising on those networks.
In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.
Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).
And despite how bad the image of the MSM is, especially in the minds of those of us on the Right, Attkisson says that the reporters themselves aren’t the problem.
Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.
Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.
Does anyone remember Solyndra? Obama wanted to be the “Green Energy” President so bad, he squandered billions in hard-earned taxpayer money for what turned out to be a few measly photo ops and public speaking events.
Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’?” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”
Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.
A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm — your tax dollars sent to Korea! — at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin “hated the whole thing.”
On ObamaCare, Attkisson says that she’s not the only one who wants to tell the truth about that horrid law.
Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She’s the reporter who brought the public’s attention to the absurdly small number — six — who managed to sign up for it on day one.
“Many in the media,” she writes, “are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”
Once again, she says the problem is at the top of the networks – AND – at the top of the Obama White House.
One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’ brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.
You would think that the black eye CBS News got with Dan Rather’s pushing of poorly forged documents that tried to paint a picture of President George W. Bush as some sort of playboy, AWOL fighter pilot, they might learn a lesson and get back to hard news coverage. But, no.
Attkisson left CBS News in frustration earlier this year. In the book she cites the complete loss of interest in investigative stories at “CBS Evening News” under new host Scott Pelley and new executive producer Shevlin.
She notes that the program, which under previous hosts Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer largely gave her free rein, became so hostile to real reporting that investigative journalist Armen Keteyian and his producer Keith Summa asked for their unit to be taken off the program’s budget (so they could pitch stories to other CBS News programs), then Summa left the network entirely.
And speaking of those forged documents dredged up by Dan Rather…
Ignoring Attkisson proved damaging to CBS in other ways. When a senior producer she doesn’t identify came to her in 2004 bubbling about documents that supposedly showed then-President George W. Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam War, she took one look at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”
Asked to do a followup story on the documents, she flatly refused, citing an ethics clause in her contract. “And if you make me, I’ll have to call my lawyer,” she said. “Nobody ever said another word” to her about reporting on the documents…
One of her co-workers tried to warn her that she’d better look out for her own career.
After Pelley and Shevlin aired a report that wrongly tarnished reports by Attkisson (and Jonathan Karl of ABC News) on how the administration scrubbed its talking points of references to terrorism after Benghazi, and did so without mentioning that the author of some of the talking points, Ben Rhodes, was the brother of the president of CBS News, she says a colleague told her, “[CBS] is selling you down the river. They’ll gladly sacrifice your reputation to save their own. If you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody will.”
After reading the book, you won’t question whether CBS News or Attkisson is more trustworthy.
Read the full story here.
What more can be said about global warming? It has been called global cooling, and currently, the trend seems to be to call it climate change. However, I call it The Big Lie. However, the biggest of all the deceptions is that global warming causes cold and snow. And, in fact, global warming has caused our exceptionally cold winter here in the US. Because as we all know…
1. Freedom is slavery.
2. Peace is war.
3. Global Warming makes it cold.
As for the current storm, millions are digging out under what is over a foot of
snow global warming. In mnay areas of the south, hundreds of thousands are without power due to ice global warming falling trees and power lines. And, as predicted, the MSM is responding to calls to blame the cold, ice, and snow in global warming. MRC has more…
As a snow storm beared down on the east coast on Thursday, CBS This Morning sought to lay blame on global warming, with the headline on screen fretting: “Extreme Weather; Are These Kinds of Storms, Droughts Unprecedented?” Co-host Charlie Rose turned New York City College physics professor Michio Kaku and wondered: “What’s causing all this?”
Kaku proclaimed: “Well, the wacky weather could get even wackier. What we’re seeing is that the jet stream and the polar vortex are becoming unstable. Instability of historic proportions. We think it’s because of the gradual heating up of the North Pole. The North Pole is melting.” Rose interjected: “Global warming.”
Kaku continued: “That excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air….So that’s the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions.”
You can get over to the MRC and read the rest of the propaganda. This type of propaganda and blatant lying is all about convincing the low information voters that the world is going to end, and all they have to do to stop it is to give up all their freedom to the state.
Often times we hear that we’re too close to something to be able to be objective enough to evaluate it rationally. Now before I go much further, lets make sure that we all know who I’m speaking of.
I’m not talking about our main stream media, MSNBC, CNN or the plethora of far left websites, such as DailyKOS, HuffPo, etc… No, I’m talking about those that are closer to the center of the political spectrum. The folks that possibly bought into Hope & Change in ’08 and maybe sat home in ’12.
Back in ’08, candidate Obama sounded pretty centrist. He certainly talked a good game, and sounded to the run of the mill voter, or as Rush says, the low information voter, like he was the breath of fresh air they were looking for. Somebody who was charismatic enough to get people together and smart enough to surround himself with good advisers.
Unfortunately, we all know that was just smoke and mirrors by a narcissitic, America-loathing, socialist (I’m being generous on that label, btw) intent on residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. However, there are still folks out there who just can’t see the real Obama.
Enter Sir Hew Strachan, a prominent war historian and his credentials are, to say the least, impressive.
He is Chichele Professor of the History of War at All Souls College, Oxford. He was Professor of Modern History at the University of Glasgow from 1992 to 2000. Additionally, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Historical Society. He holds an honorary D.Univ from the University of Paisley. He was appointed a deputy lieutenant of Tweeddale in 2006. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Panel of the Royal Air Force Centre for Air Power Studies. In addition, he is on the Chief of the Defence Staff’s strategic advisory panel, the UK Defence Academy Advisory Board, and is an advisory fellow of the Barsanti Military History Center at the University of North Texas. He was on the council of the National Army Museum and is currently a trustee of the Imperial War Museum. He is a visiting professor of the Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy in Trondheim and in 2009 was the Sir Howard Kippenberger Professor at Victoria University Wellington.
So to say that he knows military strategy is quite the understatement.
In an interview with The Daily Beast, he said that President Obama’s strategic failures in Afghanistan and Syria have crippled America’s position on the world stage.
Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”
The extraordinary critique by a leading advisor to the United States’ closest military ally comes days after Obama was undermined by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who questioned the President’s foreign policy decisions and claimed he was deeply suspicious of the military.
He went on to say that Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of George W. Bush in that area. Strachan also cited President Obama’s “crazy” handling (or bumbling) of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military strategy and planning since 9/11.
“If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this. Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.
Strachan also spoke of President Obama’s “dithering” over intervention against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, saying it has empowered the Syrian ruler and simultaneously undermined America’s military reputation while destabilizing the Middle East.
“What he’s done in talking about Red Lines in relation to Syria has actually devalued the deterrent effect of American military capability and it seems to me that creates an unstable situation, because if he were act it would surprise everybody,” he said. “I think the other issue is that in starting and stopping with Assad, he’s left those who might be his natural allies in Syria with nowhere to go. He’s increased the likelihood that if there is a change of regime in Syria that it will be an Islamic fundamentalist one.”
Sir Strachan has a book coming out next month which examines the failure of modern politicians to use strategy to determine the proper course of military action. He states that the lessons learned at the end of the 20th century hurt us going into the 21st century.
“Using war did deliver. The wars were pretty short, the Falklands, First Gulf War, Kosovo, so people lulled themselves into an expectation that war was simply a continuation of policy and that it was successful. But it hasn’t been since 9/11,” he said.
But Strachan says that a good start at fixing this problem would be to allow military leaders to speak their minds. He was critical of how General McChrystal was forced to resign after that Rolling Stone interview, which revealed his and his staff’s comments about the politicians who were their bosses.
“The concern about the military speaking out shows a lack of democratic and political maturity. We’re not facing the danger of a military coup. The professional experts, who deal with war all the time, should be able to express their views all the time, openly and coherently, just as you would expect a doctor or a teacher to express their views coherently about how you run medical policy or teaching policy,” he said.
In fact, he can point to precedent on this. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill held daily strategy meeting with his chairman of the Chiefs of Staff back in World War II.
“The Churchill-Allan Brooke relationship was fraught at times but it worked because both were pretty frank with each other,” Strachan said. “Soldiers have a duty here as well—if they just say, ‘yes Mr. Prime Minister or Mr. President, we can give you exactly what you want,’ then they’re probably not being very honest.”
Now I know this isn’t any groundbreaking news to those of us who have delved into Obama’s past and had him pegged for a radical since way back in 2007. But the fact remains that it is heartening to hear somebody on the world stage who is forthright enough to be honestly critical of our president.
The ObamaCare hits just keep coming and coming! For the latest installment, CBS News reported that the Obama administration KNEW that millions will lose their employee based coverage, WHILE they were saying that you could keep it, PERIOD!
Anchor Norah O’Donnell teased the correspondent’s report by trumpeting how “employees [are] losing their current company health benefits because of the Affordable Care Act – Sharyl Attkisson investigates what the government knew was coming.” Minutes later, co-anchor Charlie Rose introduced the segment by noting that “CBS News is learning another promise by the government isn’t holding up. Some of those who get their insurance through work are losing their coverage.”
The CBS journalist continued that “the government estimated all along that millions of workers will be dropped from their employee insurance under the Affordable Care Act. And for some, it’s already happening.” Attkisson spent much of her report highlighting how Nancy Clark, a “New Hampshire small business owner”, and “Virginia Beach business owner” Betsy Atkinson, both had to “terminate” health coverage for their employees.
We’ve all been looking forward to this moment…the opportunity to see Barak Hussein Obama reduced to “Citizen Obama.” For your viewing enjoyment, here are several live feeds for tonight’s election coverage…
Youtube is handling the ABC/Yahoo News Feed…
Thanks for stopping here for your election night live feed!
Imagine, if you will, that our ambassador to Libya was killed.
Then, imagine that the administration blamed the attack on a “spontaneous protest” over a YouTube video that no one watched.
And, just to make it more interesting, let’s add that the Libyan government came out and said that it was a planned terrorist attack, and that they had warned the administration that it was coming…in advance of the attack.
Imagine that security, in Libya, or anywhere else, was not increased.
Imagine that the MSM played ball and used the death of our ambassador to Libya in order to attack Mitt Romney.
In the event that you thought it couldn’t get even more interesting, let’s tack on that American intelligence officials stated that they knew that it was a terrorist attack shortly thereafter, even while the administration continued to blame the aforementioned unpopular YouTube video.
ABC’s Jake Tapper’s Thursday report on World News stands alone as the only Big Three coverage so far of what The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reported on Wednesday – that U.S. intelligence officials had “strong indications” within a day that Islamist terrorists were behind the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi – not a mob enraged at a controversial Internet video.
By contrast, former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw tried to point the finger at Mitt Romney on Friday’s Today show for the media’s apparent lack of curiosity at the inconsistencies in the Obama administration’s narrative about the terrorist attack. Otherwise, NBC only aired two reports on the story since Wednesday – twice running the same Ann Curry interview of Libyan President Mohammed Magarief.
Tapper pointed out during his report that “the White House first suggested that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, the result of that anti-Muslim video inciting mobs throughout the region.” He emphasized the administration’s talking point by playing a clip from September 14, 2012 press briefing, where White House Press Secretary Jay Carney underlined that “these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.” When the ABC correspondent himself raised Benghazi, Carney continued by claiming that “we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack.”
The correspondent later added that “sources tell ABC News that intelligence officials on the ground immediately suspected the attack was not tied to the movie at all….Some administration sources tell ABC News they were concerned after the White House began pushing the line that they attack was spontaneous and not the work of terrorists.”
To me, it almost seems that this was a set up. At there very least, the administration knew that this was a pre-planned terror attack within a day or two of the event, if not before. But, they started a narrative, and the MSM dutifully went along, in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary. Then, even when half the planet knows that the administration lied, and is continuing to lie, the MSM still refuses to cover the cover-up. Of course, the cause should be obvious, as they actively participated in the cover up. In the end, this is what we have to expect from the MSM. We should expect them to lie, and if they manage to ever engage in random acts of journalism, we should then be pleasantly surprised.
This story, more than others, alarms me. Yes, the administration is knowingly telling lies about an event that cost the lives of several Americans, and the MSM is willingly helping them. That leads me to question if there is a limit for how far the MSM will go? If Americans were detained for no reason, would the MSM carry water for such a regime? If a war was started, also without cause, would the MSM make the case that it was justified? We already know, for example, that NBC isn’t above editing footage, or flat out making things up to deceive the sheeple, but is there a limit, or is this a leaderless propaganda machine that will lie for the bad guys, and smear the good guys?
Sadly, I think the answer is that there is no limit on what, or who, they will lie about.
“Hodgkins, I want the officer responsible for internal security in here on the double.”
“You’re the internal security officer.”
“Fast work, Hodgkins.” — Don Adams as Maxwell Smart
“… this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting.” — Jay Carney, Obama Press Secretary
No, the mayhem caused by the rampaging adherents of the perpetually outraged adherents of the ‘Religion of Peace’ can’t be the result of the policies of this administration. After all, hasn’t Barack Obama bowed and scraped incessantly to the Muslims of the world since the day of his misbegotten inauguration? Hasn’t he servilely tossed Israel under the bus and shipped billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars off to every radical Islamist standing on a fetid Middle Eastern corner with his dirty hand out? Hasn’t he turned our space agency into a outreach center for pouting Mohammedans? Hasn’t he blithely declared the Fort Hood murders committed by Muslim terrorist Major Nidal Malik Hasan to be merely a ‘crime of the workplace’? Hasn’t he sabotaged our combat troops in Afghanistan by devising the most restrictive Rules of Engagement ever imposed on a fighting force and then advertising their withdrawal date regardless of theater conditions? Hasn’t he facilitated the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood from the shores of Tripoli to the great pyramids of Egypt, even to the extent of unconstitutionally committing the United States military in support thereof? Hasn’t he said that the Muslim call to prayer is the ‘prettiest sound he ever heard’?
Meanwhile, with our embassies and consulates, not to mention a few hapless fast food restaurants, under siege by both frenzied jihadists and Michelle Obama, the craven fifth columnists of the U.S. media (Journalists For Obama) castigate not the ineptness or willful malfeasance of the Appeaser-In-Chief or the psychoses of the rabid followers of Mohammed, but the entirely appropriate criticisms of Mitt Romney. It’s a bit different elsewhere:
“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check (Die Welt)
Obama and his dissembling enablers would have us believe that the pillagers of Islam have been motivated solely by an obscure film that denigrates its founder. However, the attacks in Cairo and Libya were timed to take place on the anniversary of 9/11. To imagine that this was sheer coincidence is to strain credulity past the breaking point. It’s to believe that the Holocaust never happened; that O.J. is still searching for the real killers; that Obama actually attends his intelligence briefings …
[…] What’s kept President Obama’s presidency intact for the past four years is the accomplices in the media. His every foible, mis-statement, radical policy, international blunder, executive order, and ties to Islamists either never appeared in print or were buried deep in the fold of page 59 of the New York Times.
Sound criticisms of the president were always declared to be “code words” for imbedded racism in the Republican Party.
There’s no place to hide today. There are more networks than ABC, CBS, and NBC. CNN is in the ratings tank. The internet minute-by-minute explodes with news information. Photos and videos make their way to our computer screens within minutes of the events happening. (It’s All Starting to Unravel for Obama)
A generation of official disregard for what by all evidence is the fundamental nature of Islam has not made a safer world; it’s created even more chaos. What America needs now is a president with a little less tolerance and a lot more artillery.
Original Post: Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then go Ahead
We’ve been looking at the selective outrage of the regressives as of late, as well as their (sadly successful) attempts to distract the national conversation away from Obama’s failures. However, their selectivity also extends to polls.
If you recall back to 2009, during the debate around HR 3200, CBS published the results of a poll, suggesting that 70% of Americans wanted a public opition. Needless to say, the MSM, lefty sites, and the regressive as a whole sang the virtues of this poll to the heavens themselves (or perhaps they were looking to the opposite direction of heaven). Then, once people looked at the poll’s internals, it was realized that Democrats were over-sampled over Republicans by an almost 2-1 margin. In other words, they cooked the books, cheated, and bamboozled. But, that poll was the gospel truth.
Fast forward to now, and polls have an entirely different meaning. CBS published the results of a poll, emulating the famous Reagan quote, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Unlike the answer to Reagan’s question, the question under Obama is apparently, “not so much,” as 80% of respondents either indicated, “worse off,” or “no change.” Since these results are not proclaiming the glorious-unicorn-farting-rainbows-epic-win of the Obama administration, it isn’t quite as “true” as the 2009 poll. Even Harry Reid thinks so!
(Kindly hit the link to see the video, it doesn’t seem to want to embed here.)
Wow, how times change!
As we all know, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the like are all “real, objective” news organizations, and that any other sources are evil. At least that is the narrative. Of course, the blogoshphere loves to catch the MSM in their bias, and there certainly is an abundance a source material there. But what happens when they caught selling merchandise featuring the current POTUS?
In fact, out of the 13 items for sale, seven are Obama-related, in addition to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s memoir, “True Compass.” The only CBS-related item is a DVD copy of “60 Minutes Presents — Obama: All Access – The Road to the White House.”
There is so much merchandise that a side bar on the site even has a separate “Barack Obama” tab for quick browsing:
The Blaze did contact CBS regarding this issue…
After several hours being bounced around through various departments, CBS directed The Blaze to a spokesman for CBS Interactive, the arm that manages the network’s online content.
So what’s the reason for the items?
In a statement, the spokesman said the merchandise posted for sale was a mistake by the store’s third-party provider and would be taken down:
“It has come to our attention that merchandise unrelated to CBS News was inadvertently made available by our third-party provider on the webpage that is located in the CBS Interactive online store. The items will be removed. We’d like to thank The Blaze for their vigilance in this important matter.”
Kindly follow the link back to the Blaze to see all of this in it’s glory.
Now, I decided to see if the CBS store had removed all of the Obama merchandise. So, at the time of this writing, here is the view of the CBS store if you search for “Barak Obama.”
Click the images to embiggen on my Photobucket
Just as a joke, I decided to see if they were “fair and balanced,” and searched for “George Bush.”
Nothing to see here, just keep moving…
I have to admit it, I LOVE doing these posts.
The MSM continues to lie, omit, attack, and spin, and more and more people are turning away. AND THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GET IT!
They’re out of excuses.
Summer’s over. It’s after Labor Day. The kids are back in school. People are back into their routines. The trouble for the Big 3 broadcast networks is that those routines don’t include watching their early-evening newscasts.
Beyond that, last week was a pivotal week in Campaign 2010, with key primaries in New York, Delaware, New Hampshire, and several other states. As far as I know, Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, and Katie Couric were firmly ensconced in their anchor chairs all week long.
With all that, the Big 3 Nets’ audience for the week was less than 20 million, almost 5% lower than the same week a year ago, when there were no key election races. The Big 3 are not recovering from what was an awful summer.
They can’t even use the summer as an excuse anymore. The slide continues.
I have an idea. Why don’t they run more stories about Christine O’Donnell being a witch? That really pulled in the viewers!
I hate to gloat over the impending doom of the liberal MSM. Well, then again, yes I do! For the latest on the decline the MSM can’t hide, here’s this from News Busters.
But the Big Three networks won’t be able to avoid the fact that their ongoing decline reached a painful low last week of 18.82 million average viewers. Here is the graphic that appeared this morning at ABC’s lipstick-on-a-pig blog post:
I don’t know whether that’s an all-time low, but Kevin Allocca at Media Bistro, who hadn’t posted the full numbers as of the time of this post, has noted that one of those networks indeed scraped bottom last week:
Will they ever figure out that it’s their biased, poor, coverage that is killing them? All indications point to, “not a chance.”
I love doing these posts. I know I shouldn’t, but I must admit that the failure of the MSM brings out the dark side in my sense of humor. I guess you could call it the recognition of the irony that escapes the elites. They apparently have no idea why they are tanking. Frankly, I enjoy that considerably.
At any rate, that failure continues. In fact, it is accelerating. NewsBusters has the latest.
The big three nightly news broadcasts, NBC Nightly, CBS Evening and ABC World, lost a combined one million viewers in the second quarter of 2010, according to TVNewser.
These numbers are comparable to the first quarter, which saw Evening News and World News get their lowest average viewers ever, while NBC’s Winter Olympics coverage helped it get their highest average viewers since 2005. In the second quarter, NBC lost 440,000 viewers, ABC 260,000 and CBS 340,000. It was about this time last year that ABC and CBS’ news programs had their lowest ratings ever.
I wonder why they are losing all of their audience?
These numbers are not at all surprising in light of the public’s continued distrust of the old media. As Newsbusters’ Rich Noyes wrote of a Rasmussen poll released earlier this month, “Perhaps as a result, the poll finds an astonishing two-thirds of the public (66 percent) say they are angry with the media, ‘including 33 percent who are very angry’ with the press.”
This seems to be very consistent with the previous polling that shows people believe that the MSM tried to get Obama elected, and that majorities do not trust them.
And why are they losing their audience? It’s the bias! It’s the persistent ignorance of stories critical of the administration. It’s the refusal to cover any of Obama’s associations, or his background. It’s ignoring critics of the administration, or flat out attacking them. It’s the failure to report about illegal immigration, and that American citizens are dying because of it. It’s taking talking points directly from the White House, and openly admitting it. It’s the political ideology of most of the talking heads; still claiming that global warming is happening, even though it’s been discredited. It’s that most of the MSM are ideological “fellow travelers” with the left, and will view every story and event through that prism. And, being “progressives,” they will mockingly sneer at anyone with an opposing viewpoint.
Media folks will write these losses off as, “the market is changing.” That is at least partially true. However, there are parts of the old media that are growing, or at least losing at a much smaller rate. These sources are more conservative in their political tone. This will lead most reasonable people to conclude that it’s the ideology that is causing their failure.
In the end, if someone can spend 15 seconds on Google and find out that the MSM is lying through their teeth, why should they watch? Why watch, read, or listen to someone who is lying to you, and it can so easily be proven? Why would they watch someone that insults them? So,for the MSM, keep on lying. Tell yourselves that it’s the market that is changing. Hopefully, that will help you sleep at night, but it will NEVER cause people to watch.
Sorry to surprise the MSM, but none of their current strategies constitutes a successful formula. Contrary to what they might think, people do not enjoy tuning in for lies and distortions. They do not enjoy being insulted, and they do not agree with your ideology. If that is consider when they make their decisions, and they might survive. However, I don’t see them doing this. After all, they are the really smart people that know better than you do. They know that AGW is a fraud, but they’ll ignore that, and continue to preach the party line. They know that Cap and Trade will hurt you, but they think they know better. They know that ObamaCare is a pig, but you’re too stupid to manage your health care. They know that Obama is the chosen one, and you’re not quite smart enough to see it yourself. So, they will help lead us into the new age, and, all the while, covering up how much misery it will cause.
I don’t think anyone can question why the government wants to control media. In an environment where people can choose, their propaganda arm is failing. The solution? Shut down the competition!
Imagine if you will…A woman braves medical risk to have a child. The child grows up to be an Evangelical Christian, and an All-American quarterback that leads his team to two BSC Championships. It’s kind of a heartwarming story…right?
Well, not so, according to “several women’s groups.” You see, Focus on the Family plans on running a Super Bowl commercial featuring Tim Tebow’s story. But, the “several women’s groups,” in true “progressive” fashion, has taken it upon themselves to urge CBS not to run the ad. Of course, I’m forgetting that these groups are far smarter than myself, and they know more than anyone else that America doesn’t need to see that advertisement!
Here’s coverage of the situation from Newsbusters.
“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center.
Yeah, “brings Americans together,” unless they disgree with you, right?
… “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers,” the letter said.
OK, this paragraph is directly out of the “progressive” playbook. Insult your opponent with inflammatory terms so people will ignore the message, and pay attention to the smear. Then, threaten the boycott to insure that the message never get’s out. Well played, except we know the playbook, and more and more people are seeing through it.
Sadly, I think that CBS will cave and not run the ad.
The “progressives” aren’t interested in hearing other points of view. They don’t want you to hear them either. To gain and maintain control, all other points of view must be marginalized, censored, and punished.