This morning I was on my way to a contract with WCRN AM 830 on the radio when at the top of the Hour CBS Radio news came on. During the short 3 minute segment there was a single line, which, in my mind, was an absolutely perfect illustration of the Bias of the media.
The report offered a single sentence saying: The Senate is expected to pass a bipartisan human trafficking bill paving the way for the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.
A person listening would never know that the Democrats in the senate spent weeks blocking that “Bipartisan” bill. A person listening to their radio would never know that Harry Reid company did all they could to kill that “bipartisan” bill. A CBS radio listener would never suspect that the ultra left abortion lobby that funds democrats were willing to sacrifice a bill to protect woman from sex trafficking in order to fund abortion.
Nope nothing to see here just bipartisan agreement, aren’t we all wonderful.
It’s when I hear things like this that I remember the days when I was less informed and used to fall for this kind of selective reporting and omission, and shudder.
The cadets, members and symbols of the heteronormative military-industrial imperialist hegemonic complex, had no choice,
“They were threatened with negative counseling statements and OERs if they didn’t participate. It was pretty much” do this or we’ll kill your career before it even starts.'”
To a Liberal’s mind, cadets in high heels are a boon:
First of all, they look ridiculous. Speaking as a woman who wears high heels, heels are not for everyone (including females).
The event, if you are to call it so, was symbolic. Wearing heels or not has absolutely nothing to do with sexual assault.
Forcing the military to disrespect their own code (this time, the dress code) is a win to a Leftist: It diminishes the participants.
It was a public event for all to scorn/mock/titter.
Then there’s the “awareness raising” aspect. Like Mark Steyn, I’ve had it with “awareness raising;” I regard it as a manipulative maneuver by those who lack solid facts to support their points. I expect Vladimir Putin’s awareness was raised one notch.
I blame the high command of the armed forces. There should be rampant resignations over Obama’s maladministration — instead, this cadre of careers throne-sniffers and apple-polishers just keep jockeying to see who can curry more of The Emperor’s kind favor.
I agree with Ace. However, to me, the most offensive part of this charade is that it’s a setback to women in the military. Courageous women have served our country in the military for decades, and this preposterous exercise reduced them to a stereotype of victimized girls in high heels.
It goes without saying that Alinsky would not consider wouldn’t consider hitting DaTipJar an example of noblesse oblige but if you want journalism that doesn’t come from that swarm mentality she belongs to I would ask you to hit DaTipJar and help me pay for it.
My goal is Twenty grand a year
That gets all the bills paid. If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.
Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.
That came to mind when I Noticed this piece at Glenn’s site talking about women not having children. It hit me that the premise is not entirely true, women are having children just not the women the media cares about
Women between the ages of 15 and 44 who attend religious services at least weekly have 1.42 children on average, compared with the 1.11 children of similar-age women who rarely or never attend services. More religious women said they also intend to have more kids (2.62 per woman) than nonreligious women (2.10 per woman), the survey found.
Religious mothers also have a larger share of the total births in the United States. Women who attend religious services represent only 51 percent of U.S. women ages 15-44, but account for 56 percent of births.
And the media’s favorite Pope is leading the charge to keep it up:
Pope Francis on Wednesday (Feb. 11) once again praised big families, telling a gathering in St. Peter’s Square that having more children is not “an irresponsible choice.”
He also said that opting not to have children at all is “a selfish choice.”
A society that “views children above all as a worry, a burden, a risk, is a depressed society,” Francis said.
Depressed? Gee that sounds an awful lot like the feminists that Stacy McCain has been writing about:
“Yes, she’s a ridiculous self-parody of feminist absurdity,” says the reader, “but how did she get that way? Why is Jess Zimmerman the particular kind of fool she is?”
It’s no coincidence that each year the pro-life marches contain more and more young people, particularly woman and their children brought up in religious homes, many educated in religious schools while not immune to the influences of the MSM culture are much more likely to hold the values that their parents hold dear.
The irony of all this? The cultural “leaders” noting the lack of children haven’t figured out that they are rapidly becoming a niche market and as we become a more streaming society and the gateways to culture and entertainment are less controlled by them their influence will drop even more.
The only question is, will I live long enough (mid 70’s or 80’s) to see it happen?
They MSM & their cultural allies are all Pauline Kael, they just don’t know it yet