But were they Black?

by Rod Williams - There was an article in today's Tennessean, Nashville police: 6 people shot in separate altercations Saturday. The article reports that a total of six people were shot, but none killed, Saturday night in three separate incidents. One of the incidents occured at a Wafffle House on Lebanon pike when people sitting in a black Mercedes van were fired upon by people in a black sedan. No other details are given. In the other two incidents a bag of marijuana was found at the site of one of the incidents and the other is described as "a botched marijuana deal."  The streets where the later two incidents occurred are Hermosa Street and Claiborn Street.

Nowhere in the news article is the race or ethnicity of the victims listed. The addresses of the later two incidents are in predominantly Black neighborhoods. I am going to assume all of the perpetrators and victims of the three incidents were Black. Is it racist to make such an assumption?  Or, based on known data is that a reasonable assumption? 

I think the term "fake news" is overused but I do think there is valid reason not to trust the mainstream press. One has to read between the lines and make assumptions when reading the newspaper. It seems the press is as interested in concealing facts as revealing facts. The press goes out of its way to hide facts if those facts do not fit a political correctness agenda.  In this story, the reporter told me the color of the vehicles but not the people. Why? 

Top Stories

Democrats shut down the government. How is the fake media reporting it?

Democrats blocked a four-week budget extension Friday night resulting in a government shut down. The House passed the short-term funding bill on Thursday but the vote in the Senate was 50 to 49, but 60 votes were needed to break a Democratic filibuster. The stumbling block to reaching an agreement is that Democrats want permanent status for "dreamers," but no border wall, and Republicans and the President want a permanent status for dreamers and a border wall.  The vote Friday night was a vote to simply keep the government open for four more weeks while continuing to talk and trying to resolve differences. Democrats balked at the extension and filibustered. The Congress is meeting this weekend to continue trying to come to some agreement to pass the extension. If the government reopens by Monday, then most people will not even know it was closed, since most non-essential government services are usually closed on the weekend anyway.

It is going to be interesting to see how the media reports this.  Here is the report from AP.

Government shutdown begins and so does the finger-pointing

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans awoke Saturday to learn that quarreling politicians in Washington had failed to keep their government in business, halting all but the most essential operations and marring the anniversary of President Donald Trump's inauguration.

The three previous times the government was shut down, it was because a Democrat president would not give in to Republican demands; this time, a Republican president will not give in to Democrat demands.  The situations are essentially the same. Look at the above headline and story. Instead of blaming the shut down on Democrats as they would have if the parties were reversed they say Democrats will blame Republicans and Republicans will blame Democrats and both sides are to blame.  That is probably accurate, but that is not how they reported it when it was Republicans voting against raising the debt ceiling or voting against a continuing resolution that resulted in a government shut down. I would not complain about the way this is reported if that was the same way the media had reported other government shutdowns.

Here is a MSNBC headline and link to a story in 2013 following a government shutdown: Why Republicans shut down the government.   This is similar to how most of the media reported past shutdowns.

I have been critical of some of Trumps comments about the media.  He once said he would have the FCC pull a cable new outlet's license when in reality the FCC only licenses local stations, not TV networks.  He has also said some things that were denounced as attacks on the First Amendments. Sometimes things he has said may legitimately be interpreted has attacks on a free press.  I know Trump can be bellicose and crude and inaccurate.  He apparently says whatever comes into his mind without having it researched to see if it is accurate or evaluated to see if it is a wise thing to say.  He is like a normal person. I wish he was more measured and diplomatic and thoughtful. Nevertheless, his sentiment is right.  It is way passed the time to stop pretending that there is any such thing as media objectivity or media impartiality or journalistic integrity. The mainstream media might as well be a branch of the Democratic Party.

If this government shutdown last past this weekend, I expect the "Democratic Party media," the "fake media," the "drive-by media," to stop saying both sides are to blame and begin an attack on Republicans for shutting down the government. Truth and accuracy takes a back seat to political ideology for the fake media.

Top Stories

How will the media respond if the Democrats shut down the government?

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, is prepared to lead a filibuster against a temporary spending measure to keep the federal government funded for four more weeks. During past years when a Democrat president could not agree with Republican spending priorities and the result was a government shut down, the mainstream press almost universally described it as "the Republicans shut down the government." Now that the exact same circumstances exist but the shoe is on the other foot, will the main stream press described a government shutdown as, "the Democrats shut down the government."  If so, then they have at least a little journalistic integrity. If not, then they can forever fairly be referred to as "the drive-by media," "fake news media," and "the liberal media."

Top Stories

Remember Dan Rather and the fake news hit job on George W. Bush? Rather visits Nashville.

Dan Rather

The Tennessean reports that Veteran Journalist Rather Visits Nashville During Book Tour, never, of course, mentioning the thing for which I most remember Dan Rather. I am not surprised. The mainstream media has a obvious liberal bias.  It is not very often one finds actual instances of fake news but the bias is revealed by what is not reported, by how much emphasis is given to a story and what is buried and what is conveniently forgotten.

In September 2004, two months before the presidential election, Dan Rather did a story alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard. As it turns out the story was based on forged documents that CBS never verified. When presented with the facts, Dan Rather defended his reporting and CBS for two weeks. He only relented when the evidence became overwhelming. To read accounts of the story follow this link and this link.

Rather than an objective reporter, Dan Rather was a partisan hack with an axe to grind. The George W. Bush hit piece was not the only incident of Dan Rather's advocacy journalism. Now, Dan Rather is being presented as the distinguished elder statesman of journalism and a person to be admired and one whose opinions matter.  Oh, well, what do you expect? I will not be buying his book. 

Top Stories

The Objective Media comic book

ABC (All bout Clinton). CNN (Clinton News Network). NBC (Nothing but Clinton). CBS (Clinton BS) and the corrupt biassed mainstream print media.

Top Stories

Al Gore sells Current TV to Al-Jazeera

Al Gores cable channel, Current TV, makes MSNBC look almost moderate. Al G has now sold it to Al J.

 LOS ANGELES (AP) — Al-Jazeera, the Pan-Arab news channel that struggled to win space on American cable television, has acquired Current TV, boosting its reach nearly ninefold to about 40 million homes. With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that cofounder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.

The former vice president confirmed the sale Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling." (link)

Top Stories

The Nashville Scene's hit job on Newt Gingrich's First Tuesday event

Newt Gingrich's appearance in Nashville yesterday was widely covered by local and national media. Most media factually reported the events of the day and if they had a bias they hid it. While most members of the working press may be liberal, most journalist try to adhere to a code of ethics and strive for at least a semblance of fairness, truthfulness and objectivity. Not the Scene's Jeff Woods.

The Nashville Scene's coverage of the First Tuesday Newt Gingrich event made no attempt at fairness or objectivity. It was a hit job. Even in opinion pieces, most writers do not resort to juvenile name calling. But that is standard fare for the Scene's Jeff Woods.

"A glittering galaxy of Tennessee's craziest Republicans came out to hear Newt Gingrich speak this afternoon in downtown Nashville," begins his article. "Robin Smith, Stacey Campfield, Mae Beavers, Tony Shipley, Jim Gotto and Lou Ann Zelnik were among the many wingnuts crammed into a room at the offices of the Waller Lansden lobbying/law firm for Gingrich's appearance." From there it gets worse.

He reports that Senator Stacy Campfield was "snubbed" at the event by not being introduced when other dignitaries were introduced. "Tim Skow, president of the GOP club hosting Gingrich, introduced a gang of elected officials," writes Woods, "but pointedly refused to acknowledge Campfield." "Is Campfield now an embarrassment even in this crowd?" he writes.

Why would Campfield be considered an embarrassment? Woods does not explain. I can guess it is because he is the sponsor of the so called "Don't say gay" bill which would prohibit teachers from discussing homosexuality in the classroom in the lower grades. This has sent some liberals off the deep end. I have not really given much thought to the issue but I certainly don't find that the bill makes Senator Campfield one who would be an embarrassment.

Even if one does not agree with some of the legislation that a particular elected official has sponsored, if other dignitaries of equal rank are being introduced, I don't know of any moderator who would purposely single out one person to fail to recognize. That violates protocol. That would simply be poor manners. It just isn't done.

I asked Tim Skow about the failure to recognize Campfield and he explained that it was simply an oversight. "Because you mentioned his comments, I wasted the time to look at what Mr. Woods wrote," said Tim. "Must admit, I roared with laughter at any suggestion of 'snubbing' of Senator Campfield. All I can say is consider the source of the comments.. and that I suspect Mr. Woods has fallen off his prescription medications again". 

Tim is being less outraged than I would be, but just "considering the source" is probably the best response to reporting like this. I know the Scene strives to be youthful and hip and "with it" and this is the kind of reporting you get when that is more important than fairness, truthfulness and objectivity.

I usually read the Scene. I like to keep up with the art and entertainment news, restaurant reviews, movie reviews and music industry news. In fact, I think they do a pretty good job of that coverage. When reading the Scene's coverage of news events however I do not expect facts. Facts might get in the way of attitude. The Nashville Scene is like The Rolling Stone with an underpaid and less talented staff. The Scene is to newspaper journalism what The Colbert Report is to television journalism. Consider the source.

Top Stories

Fair Play for Keith Olbermann

It looks like my next to favorite liberal to hate, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, is getting canned for partisan political activity. He has been suspended without pay. His offense is that he made political contributions to three Democratic candidates — Kentucky senate candidate Jack Conway who lost his election to Rand Paul and two Arizona House members.

His political contribution violated an NBC policy that states:

Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.

What a joke! Keith Olberman never had any standing as " an impartial journalist." I have never considered him impartial nor a serious journalist or a news reporter and I doubt anyone else has either. He is a spokesman for the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. He is an advocate for a particular point of view. He is no more an "impartial journalist" than is Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. When one watches Keith Olberman, one knows what one is watching, just as one knows what one is watching when one watches Rachel Maddow, my favorite liberal to hate.

These people are not mainstream. They don't even pretend to be mainstream. They are not deceiving anyone. They don't even pretend to be fair or impartial. Their nightly hours of TV broadcasting are nothing but liberal propaganda and left wing opinion. Why not let them contribute to the causes they believe in? What is the harm?

I am more concerned about the so-called serious journalist of the main stream media (liberal media? lame stream media? drive-by media?) who pretend to be fair and impartial than I am those who openly advocate leftist positions. I think I know the politics of people like Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. I would like to know who they contribute money to. It is time to let them come out of the closet. It is time to end this silly pretense that journalist are impartial observers. I would like to let everyone show their bias.

To allow Keith Olberman to have several hours a night to attack Republicans and promote Democrats and then fire him because he contributes money to Democrats is the height of hypocrisy. Keith Olberman deserves to keep his job.

Top Stories

Negroes, Colored People, Retarded People and political correctness.

Media Matters is a media watchdog group that watches the conservative end of the media, looking for outrageous utterances from Rush Limbaugh or inaccuracies on Fox News. I seldom think they have anything of substance to report but I subscribe to Media Matters so you want have to. The following from Media Matters is interesting.

Media Matters: The politically motivated selective-victimhood of Sarah Palin
From Media Matters

You've got to hand it to Fox News contributor Sarah Palin. After all, there aren't many people who can make news with a single Facebook post. Her status updates are like catnip for journalists and media types.The Wall Street Journal reported this week that, in a private meeting, Emanuel called plans by liberal groups to run ads targeting conservative Democrats "F-ing retarded."

Following news of the hurtful comment, Palin, the mother of a child with Down syndrome, took to Facebook to demand Emanuel's firing in a post she titled, "Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?"

The deservedly stern comments of an offended mother or the hypocritical nonsense of a political opportunist? First, it's worth noting that Emanuel has apologized for the comment at least twice now. It's also worth noting that just a few short weeks ago, Palin fretted that we were becoming a nation where we -- I'm guessing all the Joe the Plumbers out there -- couldn't use words that were "politically incorrect."

Far from consistent, Palin has exposed herself as someone who deploys selective-victimhood as a politically motivated weapon. How else can one explain her harsh rebuke of Emanuel and near silence when it comes to eerily similar language used by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh and her Fox News colleague Glenn Beck?

Last January, during an interview with Mary Lynn Rajskub, a star of Fox Broadcasting Co.'24, Beck laughed at the idea of artwork produced by children with Down syndrome, asking, "What do the paintings of the retarded children go for?"

Then there was the time right after the 2008 election when he went after Newsweek over a story on Palin that he found objectionable. Purporting to offer the magazine's view of the former governor, he played the role of an unnamed Newsweek staffer saying, "When it's really, truly about Sarah Palin and how stupid, she's practically retarded. Yes. I think that's appropriate word to use for Sarah Palin, retarded. I t hink that's an... if you would like a retarded person running the State of Alaska, just higgeldy-piggeldy."

So what did Palin, then the newly minted Fox News contributor, have to say about these comments during her first hour-long sit-down interview with Beck? Nothing. Nada. Crickets.

Responding to the controversy surrounding Palin and Emanuel, Limbaugh said liberals who complained about health care reform "are retards." Sure, El Rushbo went on to say that he was just using the term in "quoting Emanuel," but it wasn't the first time the language had appeared on his radio program. Almost a year ago, long before the Emanuel gaffe, while discussing the flu, Limbaugh appeared to mock those concerned with the use of such language, saying, "[a]nything you can do to stop it or to arrest it or to retard -- sorry -- to 'Special Olympic' its duration, then it -- you should do it."

On Thursday, Limbaugh addressed his controversial comments and suggested that Palin wouldn't "denounce" him because she "knows I do this kind of" thing. Just four hours later, responding to a request for comment on Limbaugh's comments by Greg Sargent of Washington Post Co.'s The Plum Line blog, Palin's spokesperson provided a broad statement saying in part that use of the word constitutes "crude and demeaning name calling."

How long would Palin stand up to radio's reigning king of radical right-wing vitriol? Not long at all. The following day on his radio program, Limbaugh told listeners that a Palin representative had called him in a "panic" to explain her criticism. Heaven forbid she should offend Boss Limbaugh. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Palin offered then-Senator Hillary Clinton advice on dealing with the pervasive sexism Clinton faced in the media, saying essentially that she should stop whining. If Palin can't be consistent in her criticism, perhaps she should take her own advice.

I think Media Matters is right this time. There is gross hypocrisy on the left and the right when it comes to being offended. Since the left has made victimhood and being offended into an art form and a powerful weapon, the right has had to fight back with the same nonsense. It is unfortunate.

I really don't see what is so terrible about what Rahm Emmanule had to say. Insensitive? Yes. Impolite? Yes. And definitely with the use of the F-word, it was crude. But I do think Palin's making a big deal out of it is a little bit excessive. Actually, I don't know why "retarded" became such an offensive word. I think the preferred term now is "intellectually disabled." At one time, I think "retarded" became an acceptable word to replace "slow" and other terms we no longer use.

I also do not see what was so offensive about what Harry Reid said and his use of the word "Negro." The National Council of Negro Women and The Negro College Fund use the word. I know it is no longer a popular word and I don't use the term, but I am not sure when it became a slur. For that matter, I still don't know why the term "colored people" is offensive. The National Association of Colored People haven't changed their name. Can some one explain to me why "people of color" is a good term and "colored people" is a bad term?

I work in the non-profit housing sector and for many year we in the field here in Nashville had a loose association of people who routinely met to stay informed and to network. The name of the group was The Low Income Housing Forum. A few years ago we changed the name to The Affordable Housing Forum. Now, the term "affordable housing" is falling out of favor and people are using the term "work force housing." It all means the same thing. I guess it is time to change the name again. I think as soon as people discover what you really mean by use of word or term, it is time to change it.

I couple years ago I attended a conference on housing for people with mental illness (I am not sure "mental illness" is still an acceptable term). This conference was at one of our state park's conference centers. The buffet one night featured "crazy chicken," which was a choice of chicken cooked several different ways. One could have baked chicken or fired chicken or other chicken choices. Some attending the conference complained and had the leader of the conference write a letter complaining about the use of the term "crazy chicken."

I am not going to go out of my way to offend people but I think people should go out of their way not to be so sensitive. If I know someone finds the use of the word "retarded" offensive, I will avoid using it around them. Since I know many Blacks are offended by the use of the word "Negro" or "colored people" I won't use it. I will not however use the term "people of color." There are limits to how far I will go not to offend.

Top Stories

The White House Lap Dogs

Top Stories

The White House Fox Hunt

Top Stories

For a look at a real 'angry mob' see the G-20 protesters.

For months now, the main stream media has been repeating the Democrat's talking points of painting Town Hall protesters and Tea Party participants as "astroturffers" organized by the insurance industry, and as racist, and as part of "an angry mob." I don't think the American people are buying it. The only violence reported in connection with the Town Hall/Tea Party protest was cases in which the anti-Obama protesters were the victims of violence. There was the case where two SEIU union thugs beat up a Black conservative protester in St. Louis and the case where a MoveOn member bit off the finger of an opponent. Except for these two incidents the Anti-Omaba protest have been relatively orderly and peaceful.

At the 9-12 March on Washington, there were between 75,000 and two million people, depending on whose numbers you want to believe, and there were no arrest. That does not sound like an angry mob to me. I have attended some of the Tea Party events here in Nashville and never felt like I was part of an angry mob. There was no violence and no vandalism. The feeling was like that of a high school football pep rally. When a Tea Party comes to town, no one boards up their windows.

For a look at what a real angry mob looks like see Comparing the Tea Parties to the G20 protests - the violence, destruction and hypocrisy of the Left.

Top Stories