Friday, March 30, 2012

Who's Telling You What to Think?

An interesting article from about slanted bias in the media. This follows this post about the agendas that media frequently have.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Who's Telling You What to Think?

Printer-friendly version

Some people accept the news they read in newspapers and watch on television as the gospel truth. Is such trust in our mass media justified? Do you really know who's telling you what to think-and why?

Consider for a moment what might happen if someone you knew who died in the 1950s or '60s, perhaps your mother or grandmother, suddenly came to life and sat down with you to watch some of today's evening television shows. What would she see? What would she think?
Imagine letting her take your favorite chair and handle the remote control. Since you probably receive TV programming from a cable or satellite company, listen to her shocked disbelief as she hears the profanity and crudity spew forth. Notice her face as she hears the actors and actresses blurt out vulgarities with an ease and indifference the likes of which she would have never heard only a few decades earlier.
You might well find yourself on the defensive, trying to explain why modern television programming so openly promotes casual sexual encounters, gratuitous violence and foul language. She might question why you would voluntarily allow such crudeness to enter the sanctity of your home. She might ask why you feel no sense of alarm at the filth and vulgarity you allow into your children's minds. She might urge you to "turn that trash off"-and she'd be right on the mark.

Spiral to depravity

Steve Allen, the longtime actor, comedian and songwriter who died in 2000, wrote thoughtfully and perceptively about the depraved vortex of television programming in his book Vulgarians at the Gate: Trash TV and Raunch Radio .
"There has always been a market for vulgarity and licentiousness," he observed, "but at present it is undeniable that motion pictures, theater, television, radio, the recording industry, and, to a lesser degree, journalism are enthusiastic participants in the general collapse of standards and behavior.
"Some people may find it hard to believe that television was a morally admirable medium as recently as the 1950s. With a few exceptions it was largely administered by gentlemen and ladies, and although it was, from the first, apparent that inferior cultural merchandise was likely to become quite popular, given the notorious imperfections of human nature itself, television programming in general at least consisted of fare that could be watched by the entire family . . . It is clear that the medium has changed . . . Corporate America, granting exceptions, has not only largely given up its former admirable participation in the maintenance of society's general sanity but has joined those who would undermine it . . ." (2001, pp. 32-34, emphasis added).
For those who believe in character and high moral standards, some obvious questions come to mind: Where have we gone wrong? Why have we gone wrong? What, if anything, can be done about our self-initiated spiral into media-induced depravity?
What messages are those who spoon-feed us through the media presuming to tell us? What do they want us to think?
Today's mass media-radio, television, movies, audio and video recordings, books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet-shape our perception of reality. But how accurate is that perception? Is it true? Sometimes media moguls would like us to believe that our perception-a perception they carefully craft and provide- is reality.
But it's important for us to differentiate between viewpoints that arise from standards that are healthy for us and based on a moral foundation and those that are rooted in amoral thinking. As the Bible cautions us in Proverbs 4:23: "Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts" (Today's English Version).

News slanted to tell you what to think

The New York Times , with the largest weekly circulation in the country, is the most influential newspaper in the United States if not the world. But more than just a newspaper it is also a news organization. It owns more than 20 regional newspapers and even network-television affiliate stations across the country. Each issue of the International Herald Tribune (the international newspaper published primarily for American travelers and expatriates) is published in conjunction with The New York Times and The Washington Post , including a selection of articles and editorials from both of those papers.
The Times 'reach, however, is far more vast and influential than even these facts would indicate. The New York Times Syndicate and its news service, which distribute the paper's opinion pieces and news articles, reaches more than 2,000 other media clients in 50 countries on five continents. No matter where you are in the world, glance through your local or regional newspaper and odds are you'll find articles, editorials and opinions generated by the staff of The New York Times.
That wouldn't be a problem if the Times -and other newspapers and news organizations, for that matter-did their job of simply reporting the news. The danger is when they selectively report the news or slant it to promote their social agenda (see "Why This Death Didn't Count," page 6).
Journalist William Proctor wrote an illuminating book titled The Gospel According to The New York Times. Mr. Proctor examines the profound effects the paper has on America and the world, playing a major role in shaping our thinking and values.
The New York Times, he writes, is a welldesigned belief system that touches every aspect of your life. "In effect, you are being exposed to a gospel, but one that is a far cry from the traditional good news of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather, this gospel is rooted in a kind of secular theology that purports to convey infallible social, moral, and political truth -a truth that the paper fervently promotes with all the zeal of the fieriest proselytizer" (2000, pp. 11-12, emphasis added).

Journalism to reshape

Mr. Proctor shows how the Times carefully communicates, as its slogan puts it, "all the news that's fit to print."What Times editors feel is right for Americans will wind up as stories on the front page. Yet they are careful not to be too overt in their secular religious fervor. For example, they might place a story on the front page and then support it in the op-ed (opinioneditorial) pages. This practice can repeat itself on alternate days.
There is also the problem of skewing stories to fit the editors' personal beliefs and agendas. Mr. Proctor continues: "It's reasonable to assume that a decidedly slanted or partisan report about a new pill that induces abortions, coupled with proabortion editorials and op-ed columns, represents a journalistic package designed to nudge the reader into changing social policy positions and personal beliefs" (p. 36).
Citing examples, his book documents many of the ways journalists slant their reporting to subtly change the way readers think. To be fair, the Times is not the only media outlet that tries to reshape our values and morals. Still, its influence reaches farther than most (see "The Media's Alternative Gospel," page 7).
Mr. Proctor quotes the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to indict modern media distortions: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20).

Naturalism usurps morality

What is the basis for so much of the media's upside-down thinking? A pseudoscience known as naturalism forms part of it.
Phillip Johnson, author and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has written several revealing books on the uncritical acceptance of evolution in modern society, replacing creationism and belief in the Bible (among them Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, 1998, and The Wedge of Truth, 2000). As Dr. Johnson puts it, naturalism is a philosophy that substitutes unintelligent nature for an intelligent God.
His analysis of naturalism is straightforward: "This philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. If God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them.
"This philosophy controls academic work not only in science but in all fields, including law, literature and psychology. It is promulgated throughout the educational system and the mainstream media, and government backs it" ( The Wedge of Truth , pp. 13-14, emphasis added).
The media live by this no-God doctrine -if not deliberately, certainly by effect. This is one reason that science reporting in the mass media is overwhelmingly proevolution in its fundamental premises.
What happens when a society progressively abandons its belief in God? Can it self-destruct? The words of Abraham Lincoln in 1837, before his becoming American president, warn of the danger we have brought on ourselves: "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide" (emphasis added).
Although astonishingly farsighted, even the reputable Abraham Lincoln likely could not have foreseen the enormous stakes behind the self-absorption, hedonism and self-destruction that are outgrowths of naturalism and the modern media.

Behind the scenes

Who-or what-is ultimately behind these circumstances and trends in our mass media? Who is trying to tell you-and your family-what to think?
The Bible reveals the reality of an enormously powerful presence hard at work behind the scenes trying to influence every man, woman and child on earth to a different way of thinking-a way of thinking built on a foundation of lies.
The apostle Paul calls this unseen force "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Other verses refer to him as "the dragon, that serpent of old, . . . the Devil and Satan" (Revelation 20:2).
The apostle John tells us how successful Satan the devil has been in his manipulative, deceptive work. He writes that "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" and that this evil being "deceives the whole world" (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9, emphasis added throughout).
Of course, Satan doesn't present his ways as they really are-harmful and destructive. (This is spelled out in greater detail in our free booklets Why Does God Allow Suffering? and Is There Really a Devil? ) Instead, the devil "transforms himself into an angel [messenger] of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).
In other words, Satan presents his ways as enlightened and wise when in truth they are the opposite. He cleverly appeals to our human nature, which is hostile to God (Romans 8:7) and, for the most part, concerned only with itself (Galatians 5:19).
In reality, Satan wants to permanently shipwreck the future God has planned for you. This is a fact. When you come to know the big picture of the spiritual forces at work on earth, such knowledge will sober you. Mankind stands in Satan's way. By virtue of the fact that we are alive, we threaten his position and power.
Satan was once an "anointed cherub," a kind of superangel serving at the very throne of God (Ezekiel 28:14). But he rebelled, and God cast him down to earth. When the devil realized he could not overthrow God and take over the universe, he became "Apollyon," meaning "the destroyer" (Revelation 9:11)-the enemy of God and all God's creation, especially humanity (1 Peter 5:8).
Since God will not allow Satan to destroy mankind directly (compare Job 1-2), Satan has concocted devious ways to influence us to destroy ourselves. He inspires men to lead nations into war, hoping to kill off thousands and millions. Short of war, but even more devastating, he has deceived humanity into substituting the false god of science as mankind's savior.
False religions, naturalism, the theory of evolution and related belief systems have kept humanity in darkness for centuries. Satan reasons that, if he can't kill mankind off wholesale, then he will work at keeping mankind deceived. Paul tells us the devil has successfully "blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4, New International Version).
These are the big stakes in the battle our arch-adversary is desperate to win. He is determined to keep human beings confused, filled with harmful and distorted biases and separated from God, cut off from right knowledge.
Paul elsewhere calls Satan "the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:2, New Revised Standard Version). Writing many centuries before the advent of television and radio, Paul showed that the devil transmits what we might call a spiritual broadcast of moods and attitudes to which human minds are tuned.
Of course, as the god of this age, influencing human minds everywhere, he is also the ruler and manipulator at work behind the scenes in the world's electronic broadcasts and other media sources, using them to promote choices and behavior that are directly contrary to our Creator's instructions. But we are not helpless before the devil. With God's help, we can resist these negative spiritual forces (James 4:7).

Right media, right advertising

Because God created us, He knows what makes us tick, how we best learn and what is mentally healthful for us. The world's media outlets aren't inherently good or evil; they are simply means of communicating information. However, the way they are used, and the content they carry, can be helpful and positive, neutral or enormously destructive.
Paul said we should be aware of conditions around us (1 Thessalonians 5:1-8). However, before you accept an important headline or story as gospel truth, question it and reserve judgment-and maybe even take time to research it if it pertains to an issue that is important to you. Compare it with other sources and perspectives on the same subject.
With some digging you may find other media sources, such as better-researched newspaper and magazine articles, that can supply you with a more-accurate perspective on the story. Some Internet sources, such as NewsMax or the Media Research Center, often cover stories ignored by most media outlets and present alternative perspectives on many major stories and situations.
Major TV networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, and major newspapers such as The New York Times , do present many stories that are unbiased. But, when it comes to stories that bear on moral values and ideology-and these are the most important stories-the major networks often present them with a liberal or ungodly spin that does not well serve their audiences. Fox News is currently the only conservativeleaning major television news network.
Of course, your best source for the unbiased truth as it relates to the world we live in is your Bible. It is the source that shapes the perspective of The Good News. This magazine's subtitle, A Magazine of Understanding, is there for good reason. Our primary purpose is to help you see major trends and events through the perspective of the Bible, helping you see them as God views them. It is our goal to make it the most biblically relevant and revealing publication on earth. But we encourage you to check the Bible references-to make sure we accurately present what God has to say.
Who is telling you what to think? It should be God's Word, not shortsighted and misguided human beings motivated by their social or moneymaking agendas. God alone possesses the wisdom we need to give us a clear perspective of what's going on around us in these dangerous times. Jesus, in praying to our heavenly Father, said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). He also says to us, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).
More and more, modern media direct us away from the truth of God and toward Satan's widespread deceptions. What can you do? You can turn to God in prayer and ask Him to open your eyes to His truth, to set you free from the subtle darkness that envelops "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4). God promises to answer those who sincerely set their hearts to find Him (Jeremiah 29:12-13).
You then need to allow God to instruct you-first through your own study of His Word, the Holy Bible. The publishers of The Good News offer biblically based media sources-such as this magazine, our Bible Study Course and booklets on many topics-to help you see and understand things from God's perspective. If you have a computer, we also urge you to become a regular follower of our Bible Reading Program on the Internet so you can learn even more by digging directly into God's Word.
With our individual cooperation, God can teach us what to think and do and how to avoid seduction by the dangerous messages of the modern mainstream media.
As you consider whether to accept the newspapers' or television news programs' gospel truth, or whether to view the violence and vulgarity on television and movie screens, or hear the seductive, suggestive lyrics of many songs, be sure to ask yourself who is telling you what to think- and whether you should listen. GN

Related Content


ABC's Reckless Zimmerman Video 'Exclusive' Reveals Nothing

Here is an interesting article from about the latest on the Trayvon Martin case. This follows this post about the Knoxville Horror case. This follows this prevous post about it or this post about a white person who was burned by a black gang from and this post about the Congressional Black Caucus that you can contact and you can read the very interesting book that is being shown HERE!

ABC's Reckless Zimmerman Video 'Exclusive' Reveals Nothing



ABC is hyping a grainy police surveillance video in an outrageous and reckless attempt to suggest that police and Zimmerman may be lying as regards events on the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

It is an egregious abuse of the network's influence and quest for attention from non-news, as death threats and demands for retaliation spread. Are we to believe that a widely distributed mugshot of Zimmerman suddenly doesn't exist just so ABC can tout an alleged video scoop?

Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman

It's ridiculous to believe that the low quality video reveals anything we didn't already know about events that night. Compare the mugshot to the weak video and judge for yourself.
According to reports, Zimmerman was attended to at the scene of the incident by paramedics. An investigation began, and there was no rush to take Zimmerman to a hospital, or simply to remove him before he was cleaned up somehow.

Already, the Martin family is saying this new video somehow reveals something we didn't know. True, there appears to be no blood on Zimmerman's shirt in the new video. He is pictured in a gray T-shirt. Yet in ABC's own report from March 13 on the fateful events of Feb. 26, ABC claimed Zimmerman was wearing a red "sweatshirt." While Zimmerman is wearing a red and black jacket in this new video, we have no idea if he may have taken off a sweatshirt at the scene.

If it was that jacket and not a sweatshirt Zimmerman was wearing at the time, again, the grainy quality of the video makes it impossible to determine if there was blood on it to some extent. All ABC has done here is overreach for a so-called scoop in a tragic story in which we don't yet know all the details. The new video sheds no real new light on what happens. It only agitates emotions surrounding the case while they are more than agitated enough already. ABC should be ashamed of its reckless highlighting of a non-story for the benefit of their network and no one else.

Fax & Tell Your Senator You Oppose The Rubio Amnesty Plan‏

A very interesting post from about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about Marco Rubio advancing a Hispanic Spanish language agenda. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about the new congressional districts in Texas being redrawn so that the new seats favor the Democratic party in a Republican state. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Fax & Tell Your Republican Senator You Oppose The Rubio Amnesty Plan

Tell Your Senator You Oppose The Rubio Amnesty Plan

This new fax has been posted in your Action Buffet based on your answers to the Interest Survey.

You can find this fax by proceeding to

According to the Hill, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is planning to introduce a DREAM Act amnesty:

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), the only Senate Republican of Hispanic heritage and a possible vice presidential pick, is working on an alternative version of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who came to the country at a young age and serve in the military or attend college.

The efforts have unnerved Democratic leaders, who are watching warily — Democrats see their advantage over Republicans among Hispanic voters as one of the party’s greatest strengths in November.

Danny Diaz, a Republican strategist who worked on Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign, said Republicans recognize they need to improve their image among Hispanic voters. “Hispanics are concerned with the economy first and foremost, but if they perceive a party and its candidates to be hostile to an issue like immigration reform, it disallows the conversation to move forward in any meaningful way,” he added. “Republicans have been hurt by the tone and tenor of the conversation. There’s no disputing that.”

Rubio entered the immigration debate earlier this month during an interview with Geraldo Rivera when he hinted at possible common ground for moving forward.

Rubio said the DREAM Act has “a series of problems” as now drafted.

“I do think there is another way to deal with this,” he said. “And I think that one of the debates that we need to begin to have is a difference between citizenship and legalization.

“You can legalize someone’s status in this country with a significant amount of certainty about their future without placing them on a path toward citizenship, and I think that is something that we can find consensus on,” he said.

Send a fax to your Republican U.S. Senator(s) and express concern with the article in the Hill. Tell him/her that any amnesty for illegal aliens is just plain wrong when 20 million Americans cannot find a full-time job and ask him/her to talk to Senator Rubio about this misguided attempt to help out illegal alien youths or gain votes for Republicans.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Should You Believe All the News You Hear?

An interesting article from about the agendas that media frequently have. This follows this post about Health Care attacks on Religion and Freedom.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Should You Believe All the News You Hear?

Printer-friendly version

Many people's outlook on current events, culture, society and the world is shaped by the news they read and hear. But how truthful is most reporting? Can you-and should you-believe everything you hear?

The credo of professional journalists is to report facts and events objectively. Yet several recent books document journalists slanting their reporting to favor their biases and further their prejudices, especially left-leaning agendas.
Longtime CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg realized how deep media bias can run as he reviewed a February 1996 story presented by fellow CBS reporter Eric Engberg. In his best-selling book Bias, Mr. Goldberg expressed his shock at the way Mr. Engberg's report poked fun at presidential candidate and Forbes -magazine publisher Steve Forbes' proposal for a flat tax rate.
"Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir good for everything that ails us,"Mr. Engberg began. He then proceeded to interview three supposed tax experts, all of whom opposed Mr. Forbes' proposal to overhaul the massive U.S. tax code. He then referred to the flat-tax idea as "wacky" and a "giant, untested idea" that should be "test[ed] out someplace-like Albania" (2002, pp. 16-18).
As Mr. Goldberg points out, Mr. Engberg could easily have found respected economists who supported Mr. Forbes'flat tax- especially since two Nobel-prize-winning economists and various conservative university economics professors were on record as supporting the idea.
Mr. Goldberg concludes: "From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS put it on the air? Well, news fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants - anything! Just keep calling until one of the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you'll be right down with your camera crew to interview him.
"If you find an expert who says, 'You know, I think that flat tax just might work and here's why . . .' you thank him, hang up, and find another expert. It's how journalists sneak their own personal views into stories in the guise of objective news reporting. Because the reporter can always say, 'Hey, I didn't say the flat tax stinks- the guy from that Washington think tank did!'" (ibid., p. 20).
Mr. Goldberg also notes that too many reporters, editors and columnists live in their own insular world, isolated from other views and sources of information. He cites the example of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment when Richard Nixon beat liberal candidate George McGovern in the 1972 U.S. presidential election. "How can that be?" she exclaimed. "Nobody I know voted for Nixon."Yet Mr. Nixon had carried 49 of the 50 states in a landslide election victory.

Slanted news reporting

William McGowan, former reporter for Newsweek and the BBC and a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal explains in his recent book Coloring the News that the news media's crusade for a favorite liberal cause-diversity- has corrupted American journalism by promoting homosexual rights, feminism, affirmative action, race and immigration over objective debate and honesty.
He recounts that in December 1992 he attended the Diversity Summit Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America. From that point forward, he notes, media coverage underwent a major and lasting change.
"The cause of diversity had become a crusade across the length and breadth of the American media, and would be a defining and dominating force in journalism in the decade to come. Almost every day after that 1992 meeting, one could hear echoes from it in newspaper stories and nightly network broadcasts. Diversity was the new religion, and anybody who wanted to be anybody in the news industry had to rally behind it" (2001, pp. 9-10).

From media darling to pariah

Another revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.
Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In it she explains that "what began so many years ago as a noble cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's people . . . who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive' point of view . . .
"There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group" (2001, p. 4).
The result is that "the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired [or] sued . . . Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down" (ibid., pp. 2-3).
Not surprisingly, all three books have been generally ignored in the mainstream media, even though Bias has become a best-seller in the United States.

Bias affects reporting

How do such media biases affect everyday reporting? One notable example involved coverage of the campaigns leading up to a recent national election. The major liberal candidate was consistently portrayed by the mainstream media as a deep thinker and intellectual heavyweight. The leading conservative candidate, on the other hand, was typically portrayed as something of an amiable dunce, a man generally incapable of speaking clearly and presenting ideas coherently.
Seldom compared by the media were details of the academic backgrounds of the two candidates. Both had graduated from Ivy League schools, one from Harvard, the other from Yale. However, from there the "smart" one went to Vanderbilt Divinity School, where, according to a biography and column in The Boston Globe "he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters" before dropping out. He then enrolled for a brief stint at Vanderbilt Law School before again dropping out and entering a lifetime of politics.
The other candidate, depicted as an intellectual featherweight, went on to earn an M.B.A. from Harvard, no insignificant accomplishment. He flew fighter jets in the National Guard. In spite of an impressive showing since assuming office and the most-sustained high approval ratings of any person occupying that office in history, reporters and columnists still occasionally snipe at President George W. Bush for his supposed lack of intelligence.

Mass-media alienation

Most media firms are, in fact, businesses that promote strong liberal biases. Such leanings reflect a warped worldview and lead them to assume their views are normal while the perspectives of those who disagree with them are abnormal. Significantly, several media corporations have been fast losing audiences, some say because of their profound bias.
Many Americans appear to be increasingly aware of the distorted diet the majority of media outlets feeds them in the name of news reporting. Columnist Jack Kelly's perception of modern mainstream media is telling:
"For people who are convinced we're awfully smart, we journalists can be pretty stupid. We've been driving away customers. In 1980, 75 percent of Americans routinely watched evening newscasts on ABC, NBC, or CBS. Last year only 43 percent did. In 1980, 67 percent of adults customarily read a daily newspaper. In 1999, only 57 percent did.
"Television news has lost 43 percent of its audience, newspapers 15 percent of ours. In other businesses, such losses would trigger massive changes. Heads would roll. If word spread McDonald's was using rat feces as filler in hamburgers, McDonald's market share would drop. Viewers and readers are deserting us in droves because they think our product is shallow and biased" ("Media Is Its Own Worst Enemy," Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2002).
But not all journalists remain loyal to liberal biases. Bernard Goldberg, cited above, is perhaps the most popular television journalist who has stood against media bias. Radio-talk-show hosts with countering views, such as Rush Limbaugh, have become nationally popular by riding a wave of dissent against the mainstream media's liberal biases, as have conservative-leaning commentators such as the Fox network's Bill O'Reilly. Fox has been built on mainstream media's abandonment of any vestige of unbiased objectivity. Fox's motto itself is revealing: "We report; you decide."
Today a sentiment grows that the very media outlets that rose to greatness during World War II through most of the last half of the 20th century have begun to engineer their own demise by failing to fulfill their promise of objectivity in reporting.
There also exists a growing belief that the owners of the vast majority of network news outlets are more interested in promoting entertainment personalities and products, along with issues and views popular in related fields, than in promoting and providing unbiased reporting. As a result,Western society often is informed only of news and issues that harmonize with the opinions of those who control the media. This approach leaves in its wake a distorted view of reality as its most disturbing consequence. GN

Related Content


Let us pause to remember Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, victims of a true hate crime

Here is an interesting article from about the Knoxville Horror case. This follows this post about the latest on the Trayvon Martin shooting case. This follows this prevous post about it or this post about a white person who was burned by a black gang from and this post about the Congressional Black Caucus that you can contact and you can read the very interesting book that is being shown HERE!

Let us pause to remember Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, victims of a true hate crime

As we continue to swirl in the media manufactured story involving the so-called racially motivated shooting of Trayvon Martin, let us pause to remember two victims of a genuine hate crime.
Channon Christian, 21, and Chris Newsom, 23, were a couple from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were both raped, tortured and murdered after being kidnapped by a gang of five black “youths” or “teens.”
This crime, which was far more heinous than even the most sensational version of the Trayvon Martin affair, received relatively little media coverage.
I was fortunate enough to be able to bring some notice to it during one of my appearances on CNN, which you can watch below.

This CNN clip will provide you with background information regarding the Christian/Newsom story. I am introduced at the 4:44 mark. The video has over 100,000 views.
Whites are murdered and menaced by blacks everyday, and virtually all of these instances go unreported.
While tragic, why is the media hell bent on stirring up such ant-White hatred (even though George Zimmerman is Hispanic) by using Trayvon Martin as their pawn?

Yes, Marco Rubio Definitely GOP Leadership's Point Man For Hispandering

A very interesting post from about Marco Rubio advancing a Hispanic Spanish language agenda. This follows this post about Dave Camp blocking E-Verify. This follows this post about Eric Cantor requesting legislation input. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about the new congressional districts in Texas being redrawn so that the new seats favor the Democratic party in a Republican state. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Yes, Marco Rubio Definitely GOP Leadership's Point Man For Hispandering

Rubio degenerates into Spanish around 1-38
Yesterday I posted Hispandering Alert! Rubio Designated GOP DREAM Act Flip-Flop Leader?

Today Larry Auster has produced proof that Rubio has indeed been designated Hispandering Point Man. Given the plum role of addressing the media outside the Supreme Court on the Obamacare case, a correspondent told Auster

...when Rubio finished in English, he immediately repeated it in Spanish. It floored me. Who in the hell is a standing United States senator speaking Spanish to?...No one even blinked.


There is no point trying to improve on Larry Auster in invective mode. He responded

I'm staggered. A U.S. senator giving a statement on national policy in the nation's capital, and then immediately giving the same statement in Spanish, as though this were bi-lingual Canada, where politicians make all their public statements in both English and French.

This totally alters my view of Rubio. It doesn't matter if he's good on some things. He stands for the Hispanicization of the United States. He stands for the idea that Spanish is a public language of this country, a language in which our politics is conducted along with English… A Republican party that nominates this man for national office has lost any claim to be standing for America.

Obviously the GOP Congressional leadership chose Rubio for this high profile speaking slot – and very probably encouraged him to speak Spanish. He has previously been cautious about demonstrating ethnic particularism.
So what do Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have to say about this? After all, they claim to support Official English.

Three years ago, discussing the (very considerable) political potential of Official English, Editor Peter Brimelow concluded that liberal objections stemmed from

The real issue: the left is instinctively opposed to any measure that might strengthen the unity and coherence of the American nation. That's why they're part of the Treason Lobby.

Apparently that goes for the Congressional Republican leadership too.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Links of Interest: Attacks on Religion and Freedom

An interesting article from about Health Care attacks on Religion and Freedom. This follows this post about celebrity single parents.. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Links of Interest: Attacks on Religion and Freedom


Looking at my inbox this week shows several accumulated articles that point to further erosion of religious freedom and tolerance that should be noted.
First, Steve Myers and I did a BT Daily this morning highlighting the Obama administration's effort to dictate to religious bodies how they define health care benefits. The enacted health care legislation that begins next year says to churches and religious bodies they must provide benefites to employers for birth contral and abortion. The Catholic church is up in arms about this. This issue crosses religious lines and impacts all faiths. Former presidential candidate and Baptist minister, Mike Huckabee, is quoted as saying "we are all Catholics" over this issue.
I wouldn't use those words but at least on this issue we would all find common ground. Government legislation that tells a religious body they must provide funding for decisions that violate their belief is a serious breach of liberty. We discuss this in our video.
Then I saw an article in the Financial Times that describes Hungary's curtailing of official recognition for more than 300 denominations. Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government action has caused concern in both the EU and US. With no consultation of established churches Hungary enacted a law which acknowledges 14 "historical churches. Those recognized include, Catholic, Calvinist and at least three Jewish denominations. Those stripped of offical status include Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witness and local Church of England groups. Also no longer recognized are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Bahai groups.
These churchs can appeal their status but it is lengthy and culminates in Parliament, which involves in the end a political decision based on who holds the majority. Crisits say this violates basic ungarian law and is a serious infringment on religious liberty. Given Hungary's long history of struggle for liberty this action is surprising. Anything can happen when a majority hold power.
One final piece comes from California where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a California propositiont that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 had been voted on and passed by citizens in a recent election. This case deals with finer points of constituional law but it effectively opens a path to review by the United States Supreme Court. There, it promises to be decided by a narrow majority of only one vote. It will be interesting to watch.
This case represents actions by a court to define not only public morality but the institution of marriage, the building block of any stable society. It further opens the door to a redefining of marriage into something far beyond what the Bible clearly defines–a sacred union between a man and a woman. Its ramifications will be devastating for the nation.
Religious freedom, free from any intrusion by government, is a legal right in America, long defended in many cases. To circumvent basic tenets of this historic God-ordained right is serious. While these listed today may not prevent any of us from freedom of assembly according to our conscience they can represent the first steps toward intolerance and persecution, and even in a free society this must we vigilently watched.
The apostles James and John were threatened with punishment when they preached the truth of Christ's resurrection to the people of Jerusalem. When told to cease by the religious authoritties they gave an answer that echoes down to us today: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
There will be a day when many of us will have to make the same declaration. God give us the strength to follow in their footsteps.

Please pound Chairman Camp for blocking E-Verify‏

A very interesting post from aboutDave Camp blocking E-Verify. This follows this post about Eric Cantor requesting legislation input. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about the new congressional districts in Texas being redrawn so that the new seats favor the Democratic party in a Republican state. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Please pound Chairman Camp for blocking E-Verify

Over the next few days, Camp's office will be getting flooded with faxes from Republicans across the country.

Most of the texts will note that Rep. Camp (R-Mich.) is threatening to hurt Republican chances in this fall's elections because he is blocking an E-Verify bill from a vote on the floor of the House.

ACTION -- FAX CHAIRMAN CAMP: Republicans, please click to read, modify and send this fax to Chairman Camp.

We are running ads around the country blaming House Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) for refusing to allow a vote on a mandatory E-Verify bill. But Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor are telling people who call that Chairman Camp is the one who is blocking the bill.

The bill actually has already passed the House Judiciary Committee but has a section that requires a sign-off from the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee. The sign-off tends to be a formality. But Chairman Camp has not gotten around to doing it since the bill came over to him . . . IN SEPTEMBER!

We tend to think that Chairman Camp is doing just what Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor want by stonewalling. Your faxes will help Camp understand that Boehner and Cantor are now making him a national villain for unemployed Americans who would get jobs if the E-Verify bill could just be allowed to pass.

Thanks for sending a fax today.

-- ROY

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Impact: Celebrity Single Parents

An interesting article from about celebrity single parents. This follows this post about the high amount of crime in America. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Impact: Celebrity Single Parents

Printer-friendly version

What does God say about having children outside of marriage and becoming a single parent on a whim?

In 2008, 17 girls at the same high school in Gloucester, Massachusetts, got pregnant around the same time. Some blamed it on a pact between the girls; others blamed it on the rising trend of celebrity single parents (Russell Goldman and Elisa Roupenian, "17 Pregnancies a 'Coincidence,' Says Teen,", June 24, 2008). Whatever the motivation, the impact is extreme on the resulting babies and the fathers who now—married or not, job or not—bear the legal obligation to support the mother and child for years to come.
What does God say about having children outside of marriage and becoming a single parent on a whim?
God condemns sex outside of marriage in his law, whether adultery or premarital sex (Exodus 20:14; Galatians 5:19). He does this for our good and for the health of society. Strong, intact families help produce emotionally healthy and stable people.
Getting pregnant outside marriage by intent (or accident) is irresponsible and sinful. That new little life will have many struggles without the benefit of a mom and dad who are deeply in love, committed in marriage and anxiously awaiting his or her arrival to lovingly guide him or her through life.
Celebrity single parents have millions of dollars and a staff of nannies and assistants to help with the day-to-day realities of parenting. Entertainment magazines and websites are full of images of glamorous movie stars or other media idols having children out of wedlock or adopting cute babies from around the world. Their young lives seem ideal, but no one ever thinks of asking those children if they are really happy. Indeed, no amount of money can buy a happy family—which really comes through living according to laws God has laid down.
God expects us to behave responsibly and respectfully toward Him by obeying His law. In doing so, we will behave responsibly toward other people. Keep this in mind when sorting through the trends that surface in our society. If it breaks God's law, no matter how popular it might be, it's still wrong.

Related Content

The Perfect Support System

Trayvon Martin Lynch Mob Fury—Douse the Flames, Mr. President!

Here is an interesting article from about the latest on the Trayvon Martin shooting case. This follows this prevous post about it or this post about a white person who was burned by a black gang from and this post about the Congressional Black Caucus that you can contact and you can read the very interesting book that is being shown HERE!

Trayvon Martin Lynch Mob Fury—Douse the Flames, Mr. President!

Barack Obama's statement that the death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy that cries out for a more thorough investigation was the right and necessary thing to say.

But it fell far short of what was needed: a presidential call for a halt to the rhetoric that is stirring up racial rage and inflaming the nation. The incendiary language being deployed is both divisive and dangerous.

Addressing the Sanford, Fla., incident, Black Muslim Minister Louis Farrakhan tweeted: "Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon, and very soon, the law of retaliation may ... be applied."

The New Black Panther Party has issued a "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster featuring the face of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, and printed up a flier saying Martin was "murdered in cold blood."

When Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad was asked if this could ignite an explosive situation that has already seen death threats drive Zimmerman and his father from their homes, Muhammad cursed and said Zimmerman "should be fearful for his life."

Demanding "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," the Black Panther leader offered $10,000 for Zimmerman's capture and called for 5,000 black men to run him down.

"If the government won't do the job, we'll do it," he warned.

Spike Lee helpfully tweeted Zimmerman's home address.

Friends say Zimmerman fears for his life. One man has already been arrested for threatening to kill Bill Lee, the Sanford police chief who has stepped down and turned the investigation over to the state, the Justice Department, the FBI and a special prosecutor.

Returning from Geneva, Jesse Jackson, too, headed for Sanford, saying: "Blacks are under attack. ... Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business." On arrival, Jackson said Trayvon Martin was a "kid shot down in cold blood by a vigilante."

Talk show host Joe Madison charged Zimmerman with a "hate crime." The Grio, a black news and opinion website, compares the killing of Trayvon Martin to the 1955 murder of Emmett Till in Mississippi.

Till, 14, had flirted with a white woman. Her husband and brother kidnapped, mutilated and murdered the boy and dumped his body into the Tallahatchie River. Emmett Till was lynched.

Trayvon Martin was shot by an overzealous Neighborhood Watch volunteer who grew suspicious of an unfamiliar black man or youth in a hoodie walking at night in the rain in a gated community he patrolled.

What appears to have happened is that, after alerting police to Martin's presence, Zimmerman followed him in his SUV—against the advice of the cops. Where the street ended, Zimmerman got out.

A fight ensued. According to two witnesses, Zimmerman was losing, flat on his back, screaming for help. It seems unlikely a 17-year-old football player like Martin, angry and in a fistfight, would be screaming for help.

Police say that when they got there, they found Martin dead and Zimmerman with a bloody nose, a cut on the back of his head and grass stains on the back of his shirt.

Did Zimmerman, on his back, losing the fight, fearing this black kid was a criminal who might beat him to death or grab his gun, fire in presumed self defense? Did Martin, who had a right to be enraged with this character following and hassling him, start the fight?

Would Zimmerman, who carried a legal firearm, start a fistfight with an athletic black youth who was reportedly 6 inches taller?

The scenario above appears to be the one upon which Sanford police relied when they declined to arrest Zimmerman. That Trayvon's body was taken to the morgue and identified as "John Doe" suggests that the police, too, concluded he was an intruder.

They were terribly wrong, as was Zimmerman. But to call this cold-blooded murder or an Emmett Till-type lynching appears, from the existing evidence, to be both demagogic and inflammatory.

Yet, there are questions that need answers.

Why, with a dead teenager, did the Sanford police not bring in Zimmerman and get his story on paper?

Some journalists contend there are racial slurs on the tapes of Zimmerman talking to the cops. Others hear no such thing.

Zimmerman's father calls the media portrayal of his son as a racist an injustice, and says his son has a Peruvian mother, is Spanish-speaking, grew up in a multiracial family and has many black friends.

And the clamor of the crowd—"Arrest him!"—raises a question.

Arrest him—for what?

If the Sanford police believe they have no case for murder or manslaughter or any felony, what do they charge him with, after they arrest him?

More critically, where is President Obama?

When Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot during a rampage by a crazed gunmen, Obama stepped in with a splendid address to cool the passions and call a halt to the false and fevered accusations of moral complicity in the monstrous crime of a lone killer.

Where is the Obama of Tucson now?

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from His most recent published book is Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World,reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts. His new book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? was released October 18, and is rocketing up the charts.

GOP Wouldn't Challenge Black Voter Fraud in 2008—Why Would It Challenge Trayvon Martin Lynch Mob Now?

Here is an interesting article from about the latest on the Trayvon Martin shooting case. This follows this prevous post about it or this post about a white person who was burned by a black gang from and this post about the Congressional Black Caucus that you can contact and you can read the very interesting book that is being shown HERE!

GOP Wouldn't Challenge Black Voter Fraud in 2008—Why Would It Challenge Trayvon Martin Lynch Mob Now?

A month after the Trayvon Martin killing, protests continue to mount, spurred on by the White House and President Obama blatantly attempting to incite the Democratic Party base and demoralize that of the GOP.
At the same time, helpfully publicized by guerilla websites like Drudge, and my own SBPDL, the Left-wing narrative is unwinding with embarrassing speed—see for example, Trayvon Martin case: Martin was the aggressor, police sources say, by Rene Lynch, Chicago Tribune, March 26, 2012.
But that will do no good if the GOP leadership behaves with the cowardice that Senator John McCain displayed about challenging Democratic voter fraud in the 2008 election.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin has become the defining moment in the Obama Presidency. It’s becoming obvious that, as the 50 black teenagers shouted at the white Marshall family when they attacked their home in Akron, Ohio, after the 2009 July 4th weekend: “This is a black world.” [Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family, By Phil Trexler, Akron Beacon Journal, July 7, 2009]
(Not much seems to have been done about this—see follow-up stores from the same reporter: FBI asked to investigate attack on white family near Firestone Park, July 10, 2009 and Akron Attack Victims Frustrated With Police ResponseJuly 20, 2009.)
Obama did not go on record or call it a “soul searching” moment:
  • when The Detroit Free Press published a special investigative, multiple-part work (Living with Murder, November 12, 2011) that reported in 89 percent black Detroit, 3,313 lives have been taken since 2003?
Almost of all the black people murdered in America are killed by other black people. This is one of the primary reasons that cities with high populations of minorities have lower property values and a discernible lack of a business district: people are fearful of raising a family there. And they are right to be fearful.
Indeed, in a number of cities with impossible high rates of black-on-black crime, city leaders, police, officials, and members of the black community have appealed for extraordinary measures (even “martial law”) to stabilize the situation.
The Harrisburg Chapter of the NAACP is calling on Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell to suspend some civil liberties and impose martial law in the city to halt the wave of recent lawlessness.
Chapter President Stanley Lawson also called on Rendell to bring in the state National Guard for at least 30 days and to impose a curfew. In June, there have been at least 12 shootings, many of them in the daytime, including a man killed Wednesday at a busy city intersection during the lunch hour.
  • In Cleveland, Ohio, an emergency curfew was passed—to the objection of the ACLU over the racial connotations—because of black Flash Mobs attacking law-abiding citizens, the first step toward martial law being declared and freedom for everyone being eroded.
  • In Columbia, SC, an emergency curfew was passed after the beating of Carter Strange. The ACLU objected to the idea of a curfew because it would be primarily black people affected by the rule). [Columbia curfew proposal faces opposition]
  • In Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory Booker was forced to create a Safe City Task Force and suspend freedoms for everyone by implementing an emergency curfew.
  • In Indianapolis, because of the high numbers of shootings of black people by fellow black people at the 2010 Indiana black Expo, the 2011 version had hundreds of extra police and volunteers in a bid to keep the peace. But at what cost? Erika Smith, writing for the Indy Star, reported happily that no one was shot, but noted: “It looked like the government had declared martial law after the sun went down Friday.”
In Louisiana, State Rep. Austin Badon has stated that the National Guard should patrol New Orleans’ Bourbon Street again—not because of Hurricane Katrina looters, but because of high rates of black-on-black crime. The New York Times was appalled to find that the “killers and their victims are overwhelmingly young black men”. [New Orleans Struggles to Stem Homicides, By Campbell Robertson, December 7, 2011] black people cried foul when a new curfew was introduced in The Big Easy in early 2012, even though the law was enacted on their behalf.
Black on black killings have been on the rise in the Music City. The Washington D.C. based Violence Policy Center noted Nashville had 42 African American murders in 2008, with an even higher rate than Memphis in 2009. Nearly half the murder total can be pinpointed to the large public housing communities such as Napier and Tony Sudekum Homes.
Unlike Memphis where years of concerted effort by the city to pursue federal grants resulting in the abolishment of 5 infamous housing projects, Nashville has been slow in tearing down such violence-breeding enclaves
There’s a silver-lining to all this though: High rates of “urban” crime in St. Louis —invariably black-on-black—helps prepare Air Force trauma surgeons for the type of blunt wounds they’ll see in combat.
Similarly, high levels of black on black crime in Baltimore makes the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center an excellent place for training military doctors before they are deployed to conflict zones around the world.
It’s not polite to report on black-on-black crime. You might upset the black community.
Thus in 2010, the Buffalo News was attacked by the black community in the city after daring to publish a story that acknowledged high levels of black criminality:
Black community voices outrage over story on City Grill victims
By Harold McNeil, September 1, 2010
About 700 members of Buffalo's African-American community tonight shared their grievances with Buffalo News Editor Margaret Sullivan over an Aug. 22 article on the criminal backgrounds of victims of the shooting at the City Grill three weeks ago. [7 of 8 shooting victims had criminal past | Some suggest lifestyle, associations may have put them in harm's way February 19, 2011]
The forum, held in True Bethel Baptist Church, 907 E. Ferry St., was one that Sullivan had requested following negative reaction to the report.
Many in the crowd expressed outrage that the police records of the shooting victims were reported at all. They called the report a gross departure from how The News traditionally treats crime victims and that it was disrespectful to the victims, their families and the African-American community.
One of the most important, and overlooked, news items to come out of Wikileaks: the news that black Democrats in Philadelphia and Ohio engaged in voter fraud during the 2008 President of the United States election. Andrea Shea King of reported that
“2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain decided not to pursue legal action against the Democrats for engaging in voter fraud, believing that to do so would have thrown the country into civil unrest…” [Wikileaks reveals Democrat 2008 election crimes, March 5, 2012]
According to one leaked email on
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff's desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
But since Obama’s election, we’ve had nothing but “domestic violence” in communities across the country—with the rights of law-abiding citizens restricted due to the actions of, primarily, black males.
Looking at the landscape of the America in 2012, seeing how many cities require curfews to keep the peace, it is easy to discern the type of “civil unrest” McCain feared. [ Note: From our we-told-you-so files, see The Riots Next Time? Racial Violence Looms If Barack Obama Loses—Or Wins, By Matthew Richer on October 24, 2008]
Why does Obama demand “soul-searching” over the death of Trayvon Martin, when every day in America there are hundreds of incidents that should cause all of us to stop and think?
If the eventual GOP nominee is smart, he’ll make this moment—when Barack Obama interjected himself into a sub judice situation whose details are still emerging—decisive in the 2012 race for the White House.
He will demand that President Obama explain why all those murdered black people (forget white people) in Detroit and elsewhere—killed by other black people – aren’t worthy of a “soul searching” moment.
How about it, Mittens?
Ah, fuhgeddaboutit.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Captain America and Whiteness: The Dilemma of the Superhero.