Hillarysworld

buffaloboy · Moderator

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy (9-5-09 Washington Examiner)

Calico · Moderator

buffaloboy wrote:

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
by Byron York

Who says there's no media bias?

9-4-09 11:30 AM EDT
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

9/5/09 UPDATE: The New York Times, ABC and NBC hold the line

After the Jones controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, the Washington Post published a story, "White House Says Little on Embattled Jones," on page A-3 of its Saturday edition. But the New York Times remained silent on the story.

Likewise, on Friday night the "CBS Evening News" reported the Jones matter, but ABC's "World News" and "NBC Nightly News" again failed to report the story.

9/6/09 Update
The New York Times finally breaks its silence, after the Jones resignation is announced after midnight.

There have only been "crickets" chirping from the msm.

After the Van Jones resignation, they are having to address it, but they are spinning it to look as if the "Republican Right" caused it . . . I suppose mainly because of what Van Jones called them in that speech.

Funny, I actually tuned into NBC tonight (just to see what they were saying) and I actually thought to myself that they could have "actors" instead of "real people" being interviewed . . . that is how mistrusting I am of them now. And, they had the usual "green" segment to push the "green" agenda. Predictable.

buffaloboy · Moderator

Here's a good round-up of coverage from Ed Driscoll with a ton of links in it:

Van Goes Under The Bus — Updated

Hillarysmygirl16 · Administrator

I want to hear what Roland Martin thinks of the Obama administration throwing Jones under the bus because he held a grudge against Bill Clinton for years for throwing Lani Grainier under the bus.

ssmith · Platinum

ya know how that everything has a purpose.. most of us dems, recent ex-dems, indies never saw the bias agn conservatives... I now I never saw it or believed it... UNTIL.. we saw it against Hillary... we saw the MSM cover for the illegible fraud... we saw MSM lie for the illegible fraud... and they continue to do so today...

the thing with the Van Jones story is not only has the Undemocratic Party been destroyed or being destroyed slowing by the radicalism of the fraud.... the MSM is dying.. and fast.. just a couple of years ago, I trusted all these MSM.. now? NO TRUST IN THEM.. NOT ONE BIT.. they are just an extenstion of the Obama administration and the undemocratic Party.. and I suspect there are millions like me who have lost ALL trust in the MSM..

Calico · Moderator

buffaloboy wrote:

Here's a good round-up of coverage from Ed Driscoll with a ton of links in it:

Van Goes Under The Bus — Updated

Excellent coverage . . . Thanks for posting.

Everyone needs to start focusing on what msm is NOT doing in reporting. This could be another Achilles heel. The facts clearly state the opposite of what msm are reporting. The facts are out there on the Internet for all to see for themselves. Facts can not be disputed.