CNN’s Don Lemon Finally Admits the Truth about the Media and Barack Obama, “As a Journalist, You Weigh How Much You Should Criticize the President Because He’s Black.”

WOW, finally some truth from the liberal MSM admitting there is a bias for Barack Obama.

CNN’s Don Lemon admitted that “as a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.” Really, the color of one’s skin determines whether you should criticize Barack Obama, or not? It’s not bad or failed policy? So by the converse, it id AOK to criticize a white president? Lemon went on to say, “then you have to do it, because you are a journalist.” Um, since when have the journalist of America truly criticized Barack Obama? Am I missing something? Never has a president got more of a pass from the media ever. Had Obama been criticized and vetted as a candidate by the media, he would never have been elected president. But the MSM was all too consumed with have a black man elected. Had the MSM criticized and thoroughly reported on the failures and scandals from Obama’s first term like the economy, disastrous job growth, out of control debt and the truth of Obamacare, he would never have been reelected in 2012. However, they were more concerned with no criticizing a black man.

Wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So how come the media can’t seem to abide by the words of MLK?

Just a heads up, how do you think the MSM is going to cover Hillary Clinton, the potential first female president? I think we already know the answer.

“As a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.”

Transcript from Real Clear Politics:

DON LEMON: But, Jake, he is the African-American president. He’s an African-American president. He’s a president of all people but, again, he has a responsibility as president to help everyone but he is a black man.

And as I said, he understands the issues that we as African-Americans face more than any other president that we have had. You know, we used to call Bill Clinton the first black president, but I mean, in reality, we know that — we know that was just sort of fun.

But, yes, I think he has more of a freedom. And his — listen, in his first term he didn’t do that much about, you know, gay rights, about gay marriage, whatever, and it started happening in the second term. I said in the beginning that that issue would be a second term issue.

He had to prove himself in the beginning. He had probably more criticism than most presidents because when you are the first of anything, there is a bigger responsibility put on you. He’s a spectacle in a way.

Everyone is being looking to hit him and everyone is looking to punch him, and I understand that, and as a journalist you weigh how much you should criticize the president, because he’s black, what have you, but then you have to do it because ultimately you’re a journalist. Journalists have to, black people have to, white people, Hispanic. We all must hold him to this because, as he said, it is an issue for the country, not just for one demographic.

EXIT QUESTION: President Barack Obama has proved himself? Really? Proved himself to be what, a socialist, authoritarian, imperial president hell-bent on destroying the United States and shredding the US Constitution?

“Piers Morgan Live” Soon to be Piers Morgan Canceled … CNN Gives Low Ratings Show the Axe … Get Ready for his Kicking & Screaming

CNN is giving ‘Piers Morgan Live’ given the boot … Piers Morgan, Not-So Live.

As reported at The Politico, CNN is canceling Piers Morgan’s low rated 9pm show. The 3 year experience to replace Larry King Live has crashed and burned badly with a prime time show that got consistently low ratings. CNN stated that the show could end as early as next month. It probably could not happen soon enough as “Piers Morgan Live” is simply unwatchable. So who will be next up for CNN to take on Megyn Kelly on Fox News and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC at 9PM? Some seem to think Bill Weir. All we know for now is that Piers Morgan is out … good riddance to bad rubbish!

The below video is exhibit 1 of the reason why Piers Morgan’s show has been canceled. Guests Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes own Morgan in the gun debate so much so at the very end the CNN host winds up in a snit … “It makes me sick”. Actually Piers, your show made many more sick and the reason why no one watched it0 One last thing … Bu-bye!!!

CNN President Jeff Zucker has decided to bring an end to Piers Morgan’s low-rated primetime show, network sources told POLITICO on Sunday. “Piers Morgan Live” could end as early as next month, though Morgan may stay with the network in another role.

Morgan, a former British tabloid editor, replaced Larry King in the 9 p.m. hour three years ago, prior to Zucker’s tenure as president. His show earned consistently low ratings, registering as few as 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 year-old demographic earlier this week.

“CNN confirms that Piers Morgan Live is ending,” Allison Gollust, head of CNN communications, told POLITICO on Sunday after an earlier version of this post was published. “The date of the final program is still to be determined.”

Earlier on Sunday, Morgan told The New York Times that the show had “run its course” and that he and Zucker “have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.” Sources who spoke to POLITICO said the decision to end the show was Zucker’s.

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday,  February 20, 2014:

Check out the unbelievable, consistent low ratings of Piers Morgan. It is hard to believe they stuck with him this long. The funny part is I have watched more shows of American Greed on CNBC than Piers.

CNN_Piers Morgan ratings

As The Other McCain opines, this is the “first smart move that network has made in years.” I could not agree more. The money line comes from The Guardian that emphasize the following comments from the New York Times article that Morgan was a square peg in a round hole. Really, after all this time CNN finally figured out that a liberal Brit going against the United States Constitution and the First Amendment was a bad thing? God figure.

“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” Morgan told the New York Times, which first broke news of the CNN decision on Sunday.

“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.”

LOL, remember when Piers Morgan told CBS News during his book tour that, “I will be taken out of CNN kicking and screaming. I absolutely love it. It’s a fantastic network. It’s a great news place to be.”

Freedom of the Press? Not in an Obama World … The FCC Wants to Grill Reporters, Editors & News Station Owners About How They Decide Which Stories to Run

WHEN WILL THE TYRANNY STOP WITH THIS OUT OF CONTROL IMPERIALISTIC PRESIDENT?

It would appear that Barack Obama wants to put government FCC monitors in America’s news rooms to determine why media outlets cover certain stories. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!  So now we are going to have government lackeys in news rooms to monitor and make sure that the media is covering the stories they want them to? Could Barack Obama and the Obama administration possible trample on the United States Constitution and Freedom of Speech any more?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As reported at Mediaite, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal bringing people’s attention to this study, saying “the government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.” And while participation is technically voluntary, ignoring them would not be a wise decision for any news outlet that wants an FCC license. We all know that the MSM is bias and pretty much in lockstep leans to the left, but it is not the governments job to interfere with what they report or how they report .  “Participation is voluntary—in theory,” supposedly; however, the FCC’s questions, queries and interrogations may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore as it is this very government agency that could put a media outlet out of business if they spitefully withhold an FCC license. But of course the Obama administration has never gone after or targeted a specific group of people who opposed him, have they … IRS-GATE!

AMERICA, THIS IS WHAT TYRANNY LOOKS LIKE! LET’S JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT … THIS IS ANTI-AMERICAN. WELCOME TO OBAMA’S USSRA.

FCC_video

click on pic to watch VIDEO, via Mediaite

An Obama administration plan that would get researchers into newsrooms across the country is sparking concern among congressional Republicans and conservative groups.

The purpose of the proposed Federal Communications Commission study is to “identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations,” according to the agency.

However, one agency commissioner, Ajit Pai, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday that the May 2013 proposal would allow researchers to “grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”

He also said he feared the study might stifle the freedom of the press.

Who is Obama kidding?

This is just heinous as Obama uses the death of Daniel Pearl to make it appear that he is for Freedom of the Press

“Reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

“reminded us that there are those who would go to any leangth in order to silence journalists …”

“A well informed citizenry that is able to make choices and hold governments accountable …”

Obama says, “Clear out the press so that we can take some questions”

FCC Research Study can be read HERE (pdf)

Questions that the FCC poses in the study to news managers and staffers, including the following. Honestly, what business is it of the federal government?

  • What is the news philosophy of the station?
  • How do you define critical information that the community needs?
  • Who decides which stories are covered?
  • Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?

Do we really wonder why, as opined by The Lonely Conservative, that the US has dropped to #46, just above Haiti, in press freedom in the world. Way to go Barack Obama!

Liberal Sports Commentator Bob Costas Does DNC Infomercial on “Redskins” Rant During Cowboy-Washington NFL Game

Thanks Bob Costas for that DNC infomercial … More liberal media bias.

As if following the lead of Barack Obama on suddenly making the name ‘Redskin’s’ the most important issue in America as we face a government shutdown, debt limit default, over-spending, jobless recovery, and record number of American on food stamps, NBC’s Bob Costas decided to provide us with some perils of wisdom to pressure the Washington Redskins into changing their name. Yup, during half-time of last nights Cowboys – Redskins game, Costas provided a free DNC commercial.

So, at halftime of the Sunday Night Football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington REDSKINS, Bob Costas decided to lay down some wisdom on America. He started out okay in his discussion of Obama’s new pet project, to pressure Washington into changing the name of the football team, but almost at the end when you were sufficiently sucked in, he threw out the bombshell…..the use of the term “Redskins” is indeed offensive … a nasty slur.

And there you have it. Just like Global Warming, um, I mean Climate Change, the debate about the term “Redskins” is now settled science. Expect for Washington to be changing their name very soon.

Just curious Bob, you have been a sports announcer for 30+ years, why is it all of a sudden that you decided to speak out against the name change? Oh that’s right, you got the talking points ok to do so from Barack Obama. Even though a majority of Americans, including Native Americans are against a name change. But Bob and Barack know better.

Political Correctness: AP Stylebook Revises Definition of ‘Islamist’ as AP Caves PC Pressures … Term “Islamist,” Will No Longer Be Used To Describe “Islamic Fighters, Militants, Extremists Or Radicals”

If it looks like an Islamist, walks like an Islamist and talks like an Islamist, geuess what AP … It’s an Islamist.

Remember when the journalist news used to be about reporting the news and not about worrying whether someone felt uncomfortable? Now the AP wants to redefine the enemy of the United States. How about a new definition for the AP … gutless, politically correct cowards?

This is yet another example why many have no trust or respect in the MSM. Just days after  dropping “illegal immigrant” from its influential stylebook, the Associated Press has revised its definition of another politically charged term, Islamist. The AP stated that it will no longer use the term ”Islamist” to describe  an Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals. Instead, the AP now defines an ”Islamist” as an “advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Of course this was a result of the cowards at AP succumbing to the pressures of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Yup, here is one of the Islamists that the AP refuses to define as an Islamic Fighters, Militants, Extremists Or Radicals

Following on the heels of the Tuesday decision by The Associated Press to discontinue use of the term “illegal immigrant,” the news agency on Thursday revised its stylebook entry for another politically charged term.   The term “Islamist,” the AP clarified in a Thursday afternoon alert to online stylebook subscribers, should not be used as “a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals.”

“Islamist” is frequently used as a label for conservative Islamic political movements, particularly Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the group’s Palestinian offshoot. It generally carries a negative connotation.

The AP first added the term to its stylebook in 2012. The definition initially read:

Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

Just how gutless and politically correct has the AP become? These folks are more worried about if they upset terrorists than they are in correctly and accurately reporting the news. If these jokers were around in the 1940′s I am guessing that they would have provided cute and flowery definitions for the term Nazi’s and fascists.

Sorry, but we will continue to use the term “Islamist” as it is meant to be and for effect we will add the term radical jihad Islamist fascist for effect.

Next Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

 
 
  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Close
E-mail It