|Filed Under:||Media / Accuracy & Ethics|
|Posts on Regator:||1853|
|Posts / Week:||3.9|
|Archived Since:||April 26, 2008|
There are no major ideological differences between White House strategist Steve Bannon and French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen. But in the Washington Post, Bannon and his backers are “conservatives,” while Le Pen and her National Front are “far right.”
Murdoch has long made a practice of funneling large payments to influential politicians via HarperCollins book contracts, in what amounts to a system of legalized bribery.
In all of the fawning press coverage of George W. Bush's paintings of US veterans, one thing has been notably absent: Bush’s Iraqi victims.
Corporate advertisers, undeterred by O'Reilly's years of on-air racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, outright lying and hate-mongering, evidently decided that was a bridge too far.
Bret Stephens’ hiring highlights the radical asymmetry at work when considering what is and isn’t a fringe opinion. When one goes to the far right, there doesn’t seem to be a line that can’t be crossed, while anything slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton is nonexistent in the staff opinion section at the New York Times.
For the second time in as many years, Thomas Friedman has explicitly advocated that the United States use the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as a proxy force against Iran, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah.
It is difficult to share the concern of Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, that we will see increasingly dishonest public debates. Hiatt and his team at the editorial page have no qualms at all about making up nonsense when pushing their positions.
Of the top 100 US newspapers, 47 ran editorials on President Donald Trump’s Syria airstrikes last week: 39 in favor, seven ambiguous and only one opposed to the military attack.
Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers...Show More Summary
Note the assurance with which Zakaria insists that a military attack on a sovereign state, unauthorized by the United Nations and unjustifiable in terms of self-defense, signifies a new respect on Trump's part for "global norms" and "international rules."
FAIR has noted media’s use of vague or passive-voice framing to obfuscate police wrongdoing, but a recent example by Miami CBS affiliate WFOR stood out as an extreme case.
Despite the reality, the false conventional wisdom among Beltway politicians, pundits and press remained: Obama “did nothing” about Syria.
The last opinion column on the topic by a BDS supporter to appear in the New York Times was in January 2014. Since then, the Times has published seven opinion columns that took a clear position on BDS, all of them in opposition.
We tell folks to ignore all those incredibly rich people with vast amounts of money—the reason most people are not seeing rising living standards is the damn Baby Boomers who expect to get Social Security and Medicare, just because they paid for it.
USA Today's headline writer picks up on notes of reassurance in an article on a global warming disaster.
A new FAIR study finds that 45 percent of the reporters Spicer called on were from conservative outlets. Fifteen percent of questions came from journalists working under the Fox brand.
The Washington Post reports that a recent airstrike in Mosul "was potentially one of the worst US-led civilian bombings in 25 years." Yet leading news networks went out of their way to craft some of the most euphemistic headlines imaginable.
Former British Conservative MP Louise Mensch has become something of a celebrity of late in anti-Trump media. In the past two weeks, Mensch has appeared on MSNBC (3/11/17), the New York Times op-ed page (3/17/17) and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher (3/24/17) despite the fact that she routinely traffics in the most bizarre and unfounded conspiracy theories.
The Weekly Standard, lest we forget—as Rutenberg clearly has—was second to no publication in using shoddy journalism to sell a war that would leave countless hundreds of thousands dead.
The New York Times editorial board didn’t take a wave of civilians deaths as a reason to question the wisdom of America’s various “counter-terror,” nation-building and regime-change projects in the Middle East, but instead chose to browbeat Congress into rubber-stamping a war that’s been going on for almost three years.