All the News That’s Fit to Print

I have met people who believe that we are visited by UFO’s. And I have met people who deny that there is a Leftwing media bias.

The difference between the two is that life could possibly exist on other planets, sufficiently advanced to be able to cross the interstellar void, so that the UFO believers have some basis, no matter how tenuous, to give their belief system some partial and tenuous relation to reality.

The other belief system has none. Did you read about the shooting in Colorado in the news today?

….take a look at the Denver Post’s extraordinary behavior this week after the shooting at Colorado’s Arapahoe High School. In the original story on the event, a student at the school describes his disgraced classmate as “a very opinionated Socialist”; in an updated version of the Post’s story, the shooter was not a socialist, but merely “very opinionated.” Why?

This is not the first time, nor the second, nor the third.

Nice, concise list compiled by I reprint it here as a teaching aid to those who cannot see the pro-Left bias in the media.

· Sept 2009: census-taker Bill Sparkman found hanged in rural Kentucky. Media speculated it was Tea Party. (He killed himself.)
· Feb 2010: Joe Stack flies small plane into an IRS building. Anti-tax TP rhetoric blamed. (He quoted from the Communist Manifesto. Several media outlets simply scrubbed Stack’s quotation from the Communist Manifesto out of their publications of his suicide screed.)
· Feb 2010: Amy Bishop shoots colleagues at University of Alabama faculty meeting. Gun-loving Tea Party suspected. (She was an Obama voter. Dr. Amy Bishop turned out to be a potential serial killer after scrutiny revealed the unusual shotgun killing of her brother decades earlier. She was also a registered Democrat suffering from suicidal thoughts related to her failure to obtain tenure.)
· March 2010: John Patrick Bedell shot two Pentagon security. A right-wing extremist, media asked? (A registered Democrat and 9/11 Truther. To this very day, if you type “John Patrick Bedell” into Google, the very first autofill suggestion is “John Patrick Bedell tea party.” That’s not deliberate malice from Google. The predictive search is based on how often a word or phrase was searched. In other words, folks were so desperate to find out if Bedell was a tea partier, they taught Google to watch for it.)
· May 2010: massive Times Square car bomb found. Bloomberg speculates it’s someone upset about ACA. (Actually, plain vanilla jihadist scum. Mayor Bloomberg, without any information about the bomber at all, decided to speculate that it was someone upset about the new healthcare law. And nobody thought to question him on that.)
· August 2010: Amid GZM debate, Muslim cabbie stabbed in NYC. Media speculates: a RWNJ? (Actually, a Lefty art student off his meds. Even better: the Lefty art student off his meds had actually done some work for the PR firm hired to promote the Ground Zero Mosque.)
· Sept 2010: James Lee takes hostages at Discovery Chan HQ. Media speculates: climate change denier? (An environmentalist who hates humans. Lee was a particularly toxic example of leftwing nutbaggery. He was once convicted for smuggling illegal aliens into the United States. He wrote in his manifesto that he wanted to save the planet by “stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”)
· Dec 2010: Clay Duke shoots at FL school board. Mike Malloy blames Glenn Beck. (Actually, Media Matters among his fav sites.)
· Jan 2011: Jared Lee Loughner shoots up campaign event of Rep. Giffords. Media: TP rhetoric is to blame. (An apolitical conspiracy theorist.)
· July 2012: James Holmes shoots up theater in Aurora, CO. Brian Ross suggests he’s a TPer on live TV. (Just another unmedicated nutter.)
· Aug 2012: Floyd Lee Corkins shoots up @FRCdc based on @SPLCenter’s “target list.” Media: [crickets]. h/t @JammieWF (This was the case of the media that didn’t bark. A politically-motivated shooting in the media’s own backyard. They grudgingly covered the shooting itself, but were curiously quiet about Corkins’ motive in targeting FRC, which he explicitly said was based on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s target list.)
· April 2013: Tsarnaev bros bomb Boston Marathon. Media suggests RWNJ commemorating “Patriot’s Day.” (Actually, just more jihadist scum…. that should have been “Obama-voting jihadist scum.” Good point. The Tsarnaev’s had the whole profile of modern American mass killers: jihadists, leftists, nutters.)
· Oct. 2013: Media retroactively blames right wing for JFK assassination, calling the State of Texas a bastion of rightwing hate. (Actually, Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist defector.)


  1. Comment by The OFloinn:

    Dude, who ya gonna believe? Theory about who is supposed to do all these things? Or the lying facts?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      One of the mysteries of the Leftist faith is that reality is pliant and subjective, ergo facts are pliant. If facts are pliant, only theory can be trusted.

      It almost makes sense.

      • Comment by Ed Pie:

        Is that what they mean when they say “Reality has a liberal bias?”

        • Comment by Mary:

          Community-based reality certainly.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          Well, I think what they really mean is “‘Shut up!’ he observed.” Liberal beliefs exist to halt the thinking process in much the same way that liberal arguments exist to halt the discussion process.

          In both cases what they do is discredit the source. They will sneer, “You don’t believe Fox News, do you?” and “You don’t believe in Climate Scientists who fail to toe the line on the latest fashion Global Warming and/or Cooling hysteria, do you?” with the same sneer they employ when they sneer, “You don’t believe that reality is objective and can be understood by human reason, do you?”

          In each case, they either accept a source with no greater credentials than their own (why believe MSNBC rather than Fox?) or they support a concept that undermines their own (if reality is subjective, no statements are true, including the statement ‘all reality is subjective’).

    • Comment by The Deuce:

      …the lying facts

      I’ve cottoned recently to the practice of referring to them as “hatefacts” when pointing them out to horrified liberals. It makes it great fun.

  2. Comment by Foxfier:

    Somehow I hadn’t remembered there being that many.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I suspect you have a kind heart, and cannot believe that there is this degree of dishonesty involved in the news.

      The news is not the problem. The people are the problem. The news could not sell their rubbish if the people did not crave to eat rubbish.

    • Comment by Stephen J.:

      It should in fairness be acknowledged that most of these attributions were speculations and/or guesses made in the absence of information, and usually admitted to be such either at the time or shortly afterwards. Once the (non-narrative) truth came out, it was generally reported, albeit in as non-emphatic and perfunctory a manner as one could get away with.

      It is still highly indicative of bias to look at what these supposed “expert opinions” go to as their first guess, of course. And were one to attribute to this group a conscious malevolence that, in all fairness, I do not generally think to be the case, then the choice of always blaming the people you want to blame first is always a tactically effective one simply because that’s what people will remember most, while shock is still heightening alertness and retention. (As Mark Twain noted, a lie — or in this case a speculation — can go halfway round the world before the truth can get its boots on.) But a lot of people will defensively assume that as long as they’re not deliberately reporting falsehoods, they’re not being “biased”, which is why these points are so hard to make.

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        Imagine if all the newspapers blamed the lawless and backward nature of the Negro for these crimes as speculations and/or guesses made in the absence of information, and usually admitted to be such either at the time or shortly afterwards. Would indeed this same lot of people defensively assume that as long as they’re not deliberately reporting falsehoods, the papers are not being “biased”?

        • Comment by Stephen J.:

          Oh, not at all, of course. But in that case, I suggest, the reaction would not be to the bias itself per se but to the conflict of that bias with their own, which they themselves cannot see because it is the filter and lens through which they see.

          That assumes, of course, that what is operating is a “sincere” bias, i.e. an honest and (so far as they can tell in their best state of knowledge) reasonably likely, but in each case incorrect, estimate about the criminals’ nature. If what is operating is a dishonest “bias” — i.e. a conscious deliberate attempt to affix public blame upon those one hopes to be guilty and away from those one hopes are not, as far as one can do so without being caught explicitly reporting false data; or a deliberate refusal to amend one’s assessment of likelihood in the wake of actual experience — then really “bias” is not the right word at all. “Propaganda” is more suited to the mark, as you’ve noted before.

        • Comment by Stephen J.:

          Most of the above might fairly be characterized as mere quibbling over semantics, it must be granted. I myself need no convincing of leftist bias in the press, unconscious or otherwise. I merely like to examine how such bias can arise and how people can be unaware of it.

          • Comment by John C Wright:

            I understood that. My suggestion is that the bias is as deliberate as the unawareness.

            They are both points of dogma in what is actually a cult belief system, a religion. Loyal members of a religion do not question the dogma, which they take as authoritative, but attempt to live in conformity to it. They are not concerned with facts because this is for them, a matter of faith. It is a matter of faith that Tea Party White Men are violent, and that Palestinian Terrorists are merely misunderstood.

            Do you think the bias is honest, that is to say, unconscious? Do you think the unawareness is honest?

            • Comment by Stephen J.:

              I think for many of the adherents it is, yes, simply through lack of contradictory real and personal experience; I think even for a lot of the promulgators, it is more a matter of unconscious assumptions skewing how they perceive the evidence than it is conscious dogmas skewing how they interpret and explain that evidence. But even a conscious bias can be “honest” provided it is at least admitted.

              I think the fatal trap into which the Western newsmedia have fallen is not just their nominal aspiration to “objectivity” but their momentary tragic conviction — dating, I speculate, from the Watergate and Vietnam era — that they had actually achieved it, as evidenced by their willingness to speak against what were ostensibly “their own interests”. Like the Party of the Soviet Union, once they proclaimed success in this endeavour (a proclamation that most of them, I really think, honestly believed at the time it was made) the one thing no one could dare admit was that they hadn’t really succeeded after all. Thus the errors of assumptions can be acknowledged from time to time, but the existence of conscious dogmas cannot, because the latter betrays that objectivity is no longer even being attempted. So the dishonesty comes in when one pretends one’s dogmas are only assumptions, for the sake of being able to go on using them.

              How many reporters, editors, producers and pundits are actually in this invidious position? Certainly not none of them; almost certainly not all of them. More than half of them? I don’t know. My own bias leads me to believe that more people are honestly wrong than dishonestly propagandistic, but I have no contradictory experience in an actual newsroom to challenge this, and must cede authority on that point to those who do.

      • Comment by dgarsys:

        I still remember the DC sniper and all the speculation – weeks of it if I recall – that it was an angry, white right-winger.

        It’s always interesting to see what they overlook or don’t speak of. Similar to how Christiane Amanpour doing reports on islam in the middle east, in an hour long special on Palestine, never REALLY points out they keep spending money on firing rockets instead of rebuilding the gardens that the israelis bombed (or why they were limey fired on in the first place…), or mentions that nearly every scene involving technology, especially every one that requires stable infrastructure (TV studio, etc.) is happening on the israeli side of the line. Sure – they mention where the studio/etc. is, but they never point out the pattern. Pointing this out would contradict much of the “israelis never let us do anything” attitude that was present from the interviews.

  3. Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

    Alas, this list is as useful as the various weather reports are for “Climate Change”. They are not denying bias, they are denying there is a “Left”…..

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      The Left is denying there is a Left? This is another example of the central principle of the Left, which is the Unreality Principle. One of the dogma of their faith is the dogma of Freethinking. The dogma says that every opinion a Leftist has gleaned from the authority of their opinion-makers and fashion-leaders is, in fact, a scientifically verifiable independent conclusion attained through the rigorous application of uninterrupted and personal rational thought, or, if it is a value judgment, independent intuition offered by the clarity and purity of their hearts. How this love of independent thinking can be reconciled with the soul-deadening cowardice and conformity of Lefty groupthink is a mystery of the faith.

      • Comment by Nate Winchester:

        Which reminds me, you finished Goldberg’s “Tyranny of Cliches” yet? It’s… pretty much what you just said in expanded book form.

      • Comment by The Deuce:

        I’ve noticed that, in general, the more frequently and emphatically someone declares the supremacy of reason as the sole guide to reality and morality, and their commitment to it in all things, the less they actually make use of it in any of their argumentation, or even know what it is.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          It is worse for we Houyhnhnms, who both declare and make use of the supremacy of reason as sole guide to reality and morality. We notice that the freethinkers are the least free of all imaginable beings. If a liberal says a criminal cannot be convicted of a crime on the grounds that the criminal’s upbringing and circumstances forces the man to commit the crime, on those same grounds, the liberal’s upbringing and circumstances programs the liberal to have no choice but to commit that saying, which means the saying cannot be found convincing.

          • Comment by The Deuce:

            It is worse for we Houyhnhnms, who both declare and make use of the supremacy of reason as sole guide to reality and morality.

            Well, yes, but we endeavor to demonstrate the supremacy of reason, and our commitment to it, primarily by actually using it. We’ll declare the supremacy of reason when it is challenged by Post-Modernists and deconstructionists claiming that truth is subjective, but our primary way of honoring it is by endeavoring to adhere to it.

            The “Freethinkers” are forced to constantly make conspicuously over-the-top paeans to “Reason” (and “Science” etc) to compensate for the fact that they don’t actually put it into practice. Nobody would ever guess that they were supposed to be uber-rational from their actual barbarian behavior and “argumentation” (such as it is), so they are forced to toot their own horn all the time about how “rational,” and “reality-based,” and “enlightened” they are, so that people will know. Heck, the very name “Freethinker” is itself an example of this.

            They love reason in the way that absence makes the heart grow fonder.

        • Comment by Mary:

          Well, of course. You can’t lightly USE sacred things.

      • Comment by The OFloinn:

        “Freethinking.” You Get What You Pay For.

  4. Comment by Sean Michael:

    My scorn and contempt for practically all liberals and the left is so deep that the only sources I trust for news these days is NATIONAL REVIEW (printed and online), and Fox News. Altho I will sometimes read an issue of the ECONOMIST.

    Sean M. Brooks

  5. Comment by Bobby Trosclair:

    It’s illuminating to review the statements by active shooters – workplace shooters, school shooters, campus shooters – and see how frequently the expression of atheist views are recorded. (An exception to this trend would be those active shooters who practice a jihadist version of Islam.) Given the higher rate of suicidal ideation, clinical depression, substance abuse, and so forth that various community health metastudies have correlated to a lack of belief (and conversely, the protective effect of religious faith on such behaviors), it would seem that the gloom of utter disbelief and lack of moral grounding that produces, or derives from, an aggressive atheism, along with previously identified behaviors such as depression, mental illness, psychopathy, grievance formation, etc., should be considered as a behavioral risk factor.

  6. Comment by ChevalierdeJohnstone:

    It is important that we not duck responsibility here. Western culture, which used to be properly called Christendom, was at one time a bastion of reason and logic. True, many were not privy to the intellectual knowledge necessary to follow reasonable and logical argument, but they knew this, and respected those who could do so. The terms “civilized” and “barbaric” had real meaning, and nobody thought there was any such thing as a “noble savage” – even the savages.

    So that we now live in a culture decayed of reason and often void of logic cannot be solely the responsibility of those who peddle snake-oil secular simplicities in place of reason and logic and truth. It must be largely the responsibility of those blessed by reason and logic who squandered or frittered away this blessing, oblivious or uncaring as the tide of unreason crept closer. We may not be wrong to see in the schism and decay of Western Christendom the work of the Evil One, who through the pride of men brings about their downfall. With great humility must we abjure the comfortable fiction that it is through the action of some misled and human “they” that the present circumstances have come about, or that we can do nothing and thus bear no responsibility for the state of things.

    Some who know me from other comments will know that I am a great fan of the book of Isaiah. But in the story of Isaiah lies the great danger and evil of pride. Isaiah speaks of a remnant. Yet it is imperative that we recognize that the remnant does not choose itself; it is chosen by God. While I am a great believer and vocal supporter of traditionalist, or conservative, or localist, or whatever you want to call them cultural institutions, we must not hide behind them. If we erect walls of faith and tradition to keep out the liberal or secular pollution, we must remember the elementary strategic doctrine that castling is tactically defensive but strategically offensive. If we feel safe within our cultural subgroups we must then sally forth to carry the word to the world. Lists such as the one Mr. Wright has provided ought to spark in us not a vapid melancholy but a noble vigor; we ought to say, “How does it come that such obvious falsehoods are being peddled, and what am I doing to redress the situation?”

  7. Comment by Nate Winchester:

    Let’s add more! Barbara Walters admits that Obama was seen as the Messiah.

    Put not your trust in men ere you be ever disappointed.

    Leave a Reply