Media Helps HBO While Nicolle Wallace 'Squirms'

Sunday morning, Zeke Miller, a writer who works for Ben Smith at Buzzfeed, (re) tweeted the following:

Uncanny Valley! RT @TPM: McCain-Palin adviser: Game Change was "true enough to make me squirm" http://bit.ly/y5y2D7

The article he links to is from the left-wing site, TPM, or "Talking Points Memo." The actual headline for the piece is titled "Nicolle Wallace: Game Change Film 'True Enough To Make Me Squirm'." So, TPM tweets out a link excluding the name of the "McCain - Palin adviser" then on their site, don't explain to readers who Nicolle Wallace is, or what role she played as one of the primary sources that the 'Game Change' book authors and screenwriter used to create their fiction. Of course Nicolle Wallace is going to say that the movie 'Game Change' was "true enough." Many of the lies they tell are lies SHE told them!

Tony Lee caught what they were doing on Twitter and responded:

See what MSM does there? "McCain/Palin Adviser" instead of "Nicolle Wallace" and idiots who tweet w/o reading just RT headline. #WeSeeYall

Yes we do.

ABC News is even worse in their reporting about the Wallace appearance. They don't explain who Wallace is, that she has a history of having no credibility, or that she is one of the main people responsible for the lies told by HBO in an effort to cover her own tail.

Now, the reference to the words "Uncanny Valley" in Miller's tweet relates to a "movie review" he wrote last week for Ben Smith's Buzzfeed. Miller's piece is a good example of what the left's little helpers in the MSM have done to promote and lend credibility to HBO's smear-u-drama. He wrote:

The first thing you need to know about “Game Change” is that the acting is great — so great, in fact, that Americans who followed the 2008 presidential campaign may have trouble watching it.

Such wishful thinking from Zeke. The acting in 'Game Change' by Julianne Moore was atrocious. The accent is totally wrong, her mannerisms were off, she clenches her teeth during the entire movie, and the personalty of the character she's trying to emulate isn't that of Governor Palin. If anyone thinks the character played by Julianne Moore bares any resemblance to the governor, they have no clue who she is, and obviously haven't spent any effort trying to learn.

Miller continues:

Though the acting is remarkably close to life, the plot is stylized. Game Change is an epic tragedy, with Schmidt as the classical hero.

And there's Schmidt's payoff for telling the screenwriter what he wanted to hear. The Steve Schmidt character (played by Woody Harrelson), is portrayed as a level-headed, dedicated, overall good guy who's only mistake was bringing Governor Palin into the campaign.

In 2008, Politico described Schmidt as a "bald and barrel-chested operative known for his aggressive brand of political combat." During the same year, the New York Times wrote an article about Schmidt which described him as having a "street-brawling style of politics." They wrote:

Mr. Schmidt, a thick tower of man with a shaved head who can go from jovial to belligerent in an instant.

Michael Scherer referred to Schmidt as the "Lord of Outrage." And Meg Stapleton, who also worked on the 2008 campaign trail with Governor Pain, described Steve Schmidt as "abusive," "abrasive," and stated that he is "nothing short of a world class bully.” Hardly the mild-mannered, grapefruit-eating "hero" that HBO attempts to depict in their movie.

While Miller won't go as far as HBO is laying all of the blame on Governor Palin for the 2008 loss, he ends his "review" by writing:

The worst thing about this film may be being forced to come to grips with the fact that it isn’t exactly fiction.

No, the worst thing about this movie is that it is fiction being sold as truth to the American public by HBO, and the MSM. It's classic propaganda.

Zeke Miller is not alone. He's one of many in the media who have been trying to aid HBO in selling this garbage as "reality" to the public. The press is doing back-flips to get you to believe that HBO has credibility and that this movie is accurate. They don't dare tell their readers and viewers anything about the source of HBO's information. They repeat the line put out by the entertainment company that 'Game Change' portrays Palin in a "sympathetic" light, and that the film is "balanced" because Danny Strong lifted one line out of 'Going Rogue.' It's nonsense. The media is carrying water for their fellow-travelers in the entertainment industry. They don't care about the truth. They want people to believe that the person in that movie is the real Governor Palin. They need her to be some sort of monster, not who she really is because her success and her true character prove their entire world-view, wrong.

John Daly: The Media Can’t Bring Themselves to Detach Palin from Giffords

John Daly posted an article on BernardGoldberg.com last night, about the ridiculous trick that the media keeps trying to fool their audience with by linking Governor Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Daly calls out those in the press who once again, tried to assign blame to Governor Palin, as if she had anything to do with the violent actions of the crackpot who committed the crime. He wrote:

Now, it’s lame enough when the media speculates on influences to murderers based on who authored the books that sat on their shelves at home, or who sang the songs they enjoyed listening to. But this was far more of a stretch. At the time the Palin connection was being suggested, the media knew practically nothing about the shooter. They had absolutely no idea of his political leanings. They had no idea if he even had access to the internet, let alone had ever visited the website of Palin’s political action committee.

And despite the concept of targeting districts being used for decades by numerous political strategists (often accompanied with visual representations off cross-hairs, targets, and bulls-eyes), its metaphorical context was selectively disregarded by many in the mainstream media for the purpose of creating a link to Palin. In their well-documented disdain for the former Alaska governor, many despicably went ahead and suggested that she could have been some sort of spiritual accomplice to the shooter.

In the end of course, Loughner was found to be a complete nut-case who former friends actually described as a “liberal” who regularly welled up in anger at the sight of George W. Bush. His longstanding, dangerous fixation on Congresswoman Giffords predated the Tea Party and Sarah Palin’s introduction onto the national scene. Palin was of no influence on him, nor was any coherent political ideology.

One would have thought that the revelation would have put to rest the reckless and politically-motivated media assault on Palin, but as we’ve found out over the last two weeks, it didn’t.

On November 15th, ABC ran a widely praised special on Giffords’ inspirational recovery. The special featured the congresswoman’s grueling rehabilitation and the strength of her marriage. Gabrielle Giffords’ story was a testament to the human spirit, but host, Diane Sawyer chose to cap off the program with these final comments: “After she [Giffords] voted for healthcare, she faced people in her district calling her a traitor, booing her in townhalls. Someone even fired a gun into her office door. And you may remember Sarah Palin targeted her district with an ad that had a gunsight on it.”

Unbelievable. What relevance did any of that have to what happened to Giffords? Did ABC decide that Giffords’ amazing story of triumph after tragedy couldn’t stand on its own? Did they feel the need to concoct a few more villains? A few more hurdles? The answer is no. They just saw another opportunity to take a few political cheap shots (while they had the attention of a large audience) at the supporters of an ideology they abhor.

But it didn’t end there. On November 23rd, Piers Morgan brought up Palin again in a CNN interview with Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.

“Sarah Palin doesn’t come out of this very well, I don’t think, because there was a woman who at the time had been putting these cross hair things on her website and stuff, including Gabby”, said Morgan. “And in her haste to take responsibility didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, do anything.”

When Kelly confirmed that he and his wife were indeed not contacted by Palin, Morgan responded, “I find that extraordinary.”

Extraordinary? Really? Is it customary for someone falsely accused of a crime to reach out to the victim? If anyone owed the Giffords an apology, wouldn’t it be those in the media who used the horrific tragedy to fuel a witch-hunt against those they see as their political opponents?

Sarah Palin didn’t contact the Giffords for the same reason that I didn’t, Piers Morgan didn’t, and hundreds of millions of other Americans didn’t: We didn’t know her or her family. We kept them in our thoughts and prayers instead. Any notion that it would have been responsible for Palin to contact them is absurd. If she had, fine. But she had no moral responsibility to do so. She had no more to do with the Arizona shootings than the very people who unjustly yanked her into the story in the first place.

You can read the entire piece here.

Taking a Look at ABC's Sloppy Coverage of Governor Palin's Interviews

Recently, ABC News has descended into the sort of sloppy journalism usually reserved for the entertainment section of any media institution. That stands to reason considering that they have been assigning an entertainment writer to cover political news.

That entertainment reporter, Sheila Marikar (apparently also a writer for ABC's The Note, which bills itself as being "Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet") has been the designated reporter covering Governor Palin's recent Fox News interviews. Her awful reporting skills became apparent last week, after she wrote a piece on the governor's interviews with Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren. Marikar started her piece (emphasis added):

In a pair of conservative talk show appearances Wednesday night, Sarah Palin defended presidential contender Newt Gingrich's criticism of fellow Republican Paul Ryan's Medicare plan by reiterating her frustration with the “leftist lame-stream media."

Um, no she did not.

What Governor Palin said in regards to Newt Gingrich during those interviews was:

On Hannity:

I do believe that Newt Gingrich is terribly wrong on his assessment of Representative Ryan's plan. It is good fiscally sound and courageous plan. And it's not all just about Medicare, we have to make sure that we are understanding that Ryan's budget is a big difference as opposed to the Obama budget, which of course have has us on the road to bankruptcy.

On Greta:

Well, I think that the media -- that we all have a right to ask Speaker Gingrich, what in the heck did you mean that Paul Ryan's budget plan is radical or social engineering? No, what is radical is not proposing a plan to counter Obama's budget plan that has us on the road to bankruptcy.

[...]

You know what I thought after the whole Newt Gingrich thing in these last 24 hours, Greta, was, "Bless his heart" and every other good ol' boy's heart that's in that political game there in the Beltway. They don't really know any more than the rest of us. Greta, it was Newt Gingrich who told me in January of this year, Sarah Palin needs to slow down and really think through what it is that she has to say. Well, you know, he stumbles, too. We all stumble. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses.

Clearly the governor's statements were not an endorsement of Newt Gingrich's position on Paul Ryan's plan. Or at least whatever Newt's position was the day he stumbled, but I digress...

Keeping up with that sort of journalistic standard, Marikar "reported" on Sunday for ABC (emphasis added):

“Anyone who studies history, studies the old testament, studies geography understands that Israel now is surrounded by enemies at all times,” Palin said on Jeanine Pirro’s “Justice With Judge Jeanine.” “It should be now that America takes a stand in defending our enemies in Israel.”

That's quite the typo you've got there, Sheila.

She later changed it by replacing the word "enemies" with "friends" however, nowhere in the article does it mention that she made any changes from a previous version. Which it should have considering other news outlets, like the Israeli media site Ynet, used ABC as a reference to cover the interview. As of right now, Ynet's article still reads "enemies."

I'm sure the readers on Ynet can read the rest of the article and conclude that Governor Palin did not mean "enemies" but when placed in quotation marks like that, they may conclude that she said it. Worse, perhaps someone will only read that part of the article and conclude that the governor really meant that!

Do you see how sloppy journalism can effect people's perceptions? One poorly designated reporter writes up a couple of articles laden with mischaracterizations and misquotes, other reporters pick up the words and repeat them for readers all of over the world. This is how rumors and false perceptions begin. Although the press deeply resents that Governor Palin refers to them as the lamestream media, they are more than deserving of that title. In fact, they should thank her for being so kind.

ABC's John Berman Distorts Governor Palin's Statement on Oil

Tuesday evening, after Governor Palin released her statement concerning oil prices on Facebook, John Berman from ABC News filed this, somewhat ridiculous report:

Sarah Palin says 2012 “can’t come soon enough.” But for what? A dramatic run or the White House? Another reality show?

It's no mistake that Mr. Berman chose to begin his report that way. Before his readers are given a chance to take in the substance of what Governor Palin had written, this guy tries to cheapen her, and subsequently her message. Keep in mind that John Berman considers himself a "newsman," he's not an editorial writer.

So then, what is the relevance of bringing up a television show the governor recorded last summer to the current topic? None. It's merely a distraction and it is in no way covering the basic Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How of his story. Like so many reporters, perhaps John Berman forgot his job description.

Forced to actually cover his topic, Berman writes (emphasis mine):

Labeling President Obama as the “$4-per-gallon president," she asserts, “The evidence of the president’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see.”

She criticizes the drilling moratorium following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the proposed elimination of tax incentives for certain types of exploration, and what she calls his “anti-drilling regulatory policies.”

She disputes the notion that rising prices are related to the unrest in the Middle East, saying rather, “the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.”

Does this guy even know how to read? Governor Palin's statement actually read (emphasis mine):

The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

That is not 'disputing' the "notion" that high gas prices are "related" to the situation in the Middle East. What she is stating is that BEFORE tensions broke out all over that region, oil prices had gone up, in large part because of Obama's energy policies. She really lays out quite the case against the Obama administration for their role in helping to create the perfect storm that we as Americans are now facing with energy costs. She lists the president's drilling moratorium, his 2012 budget, and his anti-drilling regulatory policies as all being factors to the current $4 gas at the pump. All of these things were in place before the massive demonstrations in Tunisia or Tahrir Square.

Obama's policies restrict our country from drilling our own oil. Therefore, leaving us to depend on these highly unstable parts of the globe, which in times like these, can take an already uncertain economy and throw it into a tailspin.

Berman then adds this gem to his piece:

She makes no mention of nuclear energy, so much in the news following the disaster in Japan. But she continues a refrain that she has used in recent interview -- claiming that the president is actively working to “weaken” the country.

What car runs off of nuclear energy? The title of Governor Palin's note is "The $4-Per-Gallon President." Those would be gallons of gasoline, Mr. Berman.

Since Obama has taken office, oil prices are up 67%, unemployment has gone from 7.6% to 9.5%, and the administration keeps injecting uncertainty into the market with their programs and power grabs. The economy is struggling to rebound, and high oil prices could easily prevent it from doing so, thereby making us a weaker country. Also, being beholden to dictators and foreign regimes in volatile neighborhoods isn't exactly as sign of strength. So, yes... Obama is working to weaken the country.

Governor Palin posted a great statement regarding the Obama administration's failed energy policies. While covering the item, "newsman" John Berman not only failed at journalism, but he also seems to have flunked basic comprehension.