Not since the conversion of the Apostle Paul as he traveled the road to Damascus, have we witnessed such a pleasing switcheroo as some of what has happened to the London Times. It might not be much, but compared to the shame of American Big Media, the London Times deserves a bit of applause from Big Pink.
The London Times used to visit this website in order to throw dirt at us even as they accused us of throwing dirt (see HERE and HERE and HERE). The London Times was concerned about our unrelenting coverage of Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his ties to Obama. The London Times noted that we had taken up the scandal with gusto and [is] offering a Rezko for Dummies guide on its site.
Then a funny thing happened at the London Times. Even before Obama’s slumlord friend and bagman, Rezko, was convicted in federal court the London Times began to write some well researched and insightful articles about (surprise!) Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
Perhaps while rummaging through this website in January 2008, the London Times discovered that we were indeed onto a very important story from which American Big Media was protecting Obama. Regardless of how the London Times arrived at the decision to examine some of what we had been writing about since April 2007, the fact remains that the London Times published one of the most important articles regarding the relationship between Obama and Rezko (Obama Bagman Is Sent To Jail After Failing To Declare $3.5M Payment By British Tycoon).
The important London Times story, with so many clues and questions and opportunities for follow-up articles and investigations, was effectively ignored by American Big Media. Some dismissive mentions of the story were published but the startling connections to Iraqi friends of Saddam Hussein possibly financing the purchase of the Obama mansion were ignored as were all the other potentially very damaging questions raised by the article.
We were reminded of the “conversion” of the London Times (we are being very generous to the London Times because compared to the shameful American Big Media the London Times is doing a superlative job) to journalism by the latest article in the London Times to examine the Obama reality as opposed to Obama propaganda.
We examined the London Times article in Obama Halloween Family Values. The article was about Obama’s aunt living in Boston Public Housing and Obama hypocrisy. In our commentary we picked up on the possibility that Obama’s aunt is not only living in the United States illegally but also made an illegal contribution to her dastard nephew’s campaign. To our surprise the Associated Press did some follow-up and it is now clear that Obama’s aunt is indeed in the United States illegally and therefore her campaign contribution is also illegal, yet still in Barack’s coffers.
We do not believe that Obama’s aunt should be hounded. She appears to be a good woman.
But Governor Sarah Palin was trashed and investigated about her family. Joe – The Plumber was trashed and investigated about his family.
So why is Obama not being questioned about his aunt? How did she get into public housing? Does Obama think illegal immigrants should be allowed in public housing or not? How did she get into public housing with a standing deportation order? Considering how controversial the issue of illegal immigration has been why is Obama not being questioned about his aunt who was instructed four years ago by an immigration judge to leave the country? Does Obama think his aunt should be deported? Does Obama think his aunt should be allowed to stay? Why? Did lawyer Obama know his aunt was defying an administrative court order? Did Obama know his aunt was in the United States? If he did not know, why did he not know, she is family after all?
In August, the London Telegraph wrote an article (based on an article in the Italian Vanity Fair) about the discovery of an Obama brother living in a shantytown in Kenya – did Obama not make inquiries at all about his familiy after that article was published? Why is Obama not being asked about his family values? Why is millionaire Obama not helping his familiy financially yet he accepts hundreds of dollars from his poor aunt? Has his aunt’s illegal contribution been returned? Will it be returned? What measures does his campaign take to prevent such illegal contributions? When did Obama know, years ago or recently, that his aunt and uncle were living in the United States? When was the last time Obama spoke with his aunt/uncle? Should his aunt receive special treatment not afforded to the estimated 10 million other illegal immigrants in the United States? Why? Does Obama agree with the unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday’s election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors? Why? Any other lost or misplaced relatives? These are just a few questions we can think of, which American Big Media could and should ask instead of accepting perfunctory Obama campaign press releases.
[Imagine if it was a Hillary or a McCain relative caught in a similar situation. It would be front page news in the New York Times, the subject of a rant by Olbermann on MSNBC, round the clock stakeouts at homes, and thrashing on the floor by Chris Matthews.]
* * *
The London Times has done some good work. But today, the glory goes to another British newspaper – The Guardian. Harold Evans, in almost a summary of all the articles we have published, hits American Big Media right between its willfully closed eyes:
It’s fitting that the cynicism “vote early and vote often” is commonly attributed to Chicago’s Democratic boss, mayor Richard Daley, who famously voted the graveyards in 1960 to help put John Kennedy in the White House. In this 2008 race, it’s the American media that have voted very early and often. They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago’s Democratic machine, Barack Obama.
Harold Evans gauges the problem as we have:
What’s troubling to anyone old-fashioned enough to care about standards in journalism is the news coverage in mainstream media. Forget the old notions of objectivity, fairness, thoroughness, and so on. The nastiest rumours on both sides haven’t been published, but the coverage has been slavishly on the side of “the one“.
It has not just been anti-Republican. It goes without saying that after eight years of George Bush’s macho blunders, the disenchantment of even the conservative outlets was bound to show. Researchers at the Project for Excellence in Journalism report that in the six weeks since the Republican convention, McCain, once the darling of the media, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. Meanwhile, Obama got twice as many positive stories as McCain. The website Politico has also acknowledged that it had loaded the dice against McCain: 100 stories were more favourable to Obama than McCain; 69 were the opposite.
As we did, Harold Evans takes Politico to the woodshed. And now Harold Evans is awarded honorary “HillaryIs44” status:
But the press bias towards Obama doesn’t represent a simple revulsion for the Republican party. It was on display in the Democratic primaries with the persecution of Hillary Clinton. Worst of all, in the primaries, the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was – a nasty smear – the media sedulously propagated it.
Clinton made the historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson. The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King, twisting her remarks to imply that “a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change”. This was one of a number of manipulations on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading Democratic historian, Princeton’s Sean Wilentz. Clinton came close to tears in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which many thought helped her to win an upset victory there. MSNBC television gave a platform to the Chicago congressmen, Jesse Jackson Jr, where he questioned her tears and claimed that she’d not shed any tears for the black victims of Katrina, and that she’d pay for that in the South Carolina primary, where 45% of the electorate would be African-Americans.
In fact, MSNBC ran a non-stop campaign for Obama propelled by the misogyny of its anchors, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and David Shuster. Chelsea Clinton joining Clinton’s campaign prompted Shuster to report she was “pimping” for her mother.
Harold Evans notes yet another technique of the ugly media manipulation:
In the Democratic primaries, there was a pattern on CNN where the short news videos of Clinton rarely let you hear what she was saying, but the short news videos of Obama let his words come through. I mentioned this to a CNN editor who said, “Oh, that’s our young video editors, they just find Obama more exciting.”
Harold Evans also addresses the delusions of the incense burners and Big Media protection of Obama:
The young and affluent liberals have been captivated by Obama’s charisma, the unstated notion that electing a black man will be absolution for the years of discrimination and prejudice, and the expectation that Obama’s undoubted appeal to the outside world will repair America’s image. All understandable, but these emotions have been allowed to swamp the commonplace imperatives of journalism: curiosity and scepticism.
All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama’s background. And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn’t investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. They wouldn’t explore Obama’s dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. They haven’t investigated Obama’s pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against “money in politics”, they’ve tolerated his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost). Now the LA Times refuses to release a possibly compromising video, which shows Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet, saying its promises to its source prevent it from doing so.
Harold Evans also notes how Big Media in 2000 did a great deal to elect George Bush by portraying Al Gore as a boastful liar.
Thank you Harold Evans for writing what American Big Media has not written.
Harold Evans, like Joe Biden, is issuing a warning to American voters.
American Big Media has failed to do its job and warn Americans about Barack Obama.