Not comfortably fitting the accepted narrative.

Ignored by the liberal media; exposed by Fox News; free speech supported by conservatives.

Weird, right?

//On May 26, Friday morning, Fox News called. It was Tucker Carlson’s producer. The show was going to run a segment on Evergreen that night. Did Bret want to be part of it? No, he didn’t want to. But he felt he needed to. Fox was, at that point, the only member of the national news media that had shown up. YouTube was on fire with videos that protesters had posted, but most journalists were staying away, presumably because the story didn’t fit comfortable, mainstream narratives.

Two notable things happened after Bret went on Fox. One was that a substantial minority of our colleagues at Evergreen called for a “disciplinary investigation” against him. Why? Apparently, people on the Left aren’t allowed to talk to those on the Right. It is against the rules. Prohibitions against talking to “the other side” widens the intellectual fissure opening up in our society. It creates the very silos we are warned against. By speaking to others, Bret was breaking rank, and so treated like a deserter, or traitor. One thing we know is that when you’re being told by your antagonists who you’re not supposed to talk to, it’s probably a good indicator of who you should be talking to.

The other thing that happened after Bret went on Fox was that well over 1,000 viewers wrote to him. A couple of emails came from white nationalists, people perhaps similar to the New Jersey man who later phoned in a threat to the college, which shut the campus down for two days. Another email was a nasty piece of anti-Semitic hatred. But the overwhelming majority were supportive and eloquent. The writers were from across all known fault lines — socioeconomic class, race, national origin, location on the political spectrum. There were letters from First Nations people, high school students and university faculty, Evergreen students and alums, a man building a school in Uganda. And the thing that unites them is their call to stand strong. They say: Do not back down. And: At this moment, I am so glad to have respect for someone with whom I might politically disagree.

Doesn’t that sound like an antidote to the polarization that has gripped the body politic? An ability to reach out across prejudice and talk to people? To respect those with whom we do not share identical core beliefs?//

Dr. Goebbels call your office.

We've reach the point where liberal media can't understand what news reporting is supposed to look like.

Clearly, they think that the purpose of news reporting is to be the propaganda arm of a political party.

Fox News Eats Its Own The GOP’s worst enemy is turning out to be the friendliest network.

Unlike the Kelly and Hannity chats, Chris Wallace’s recent interview with Marco Rubio was truly aggressive. He wouldn’t let up over Rubio’s abandonment of the Senate immigration bill for which he voted: “You bailed on comprehensive immigration reform. … Aren't leaders supposed to shape public opinion rather than just follow it? … Shouldn't you have campaigned for this?” He also busted Rubio for a “dramatic shift” in his foreign policy rhetoric, backing off his 2012 support for Iran negotiations and forgoing earlier assurances he was “not a saber-rattling person.”

And those barbs were just the warm-up for the three-minute raking over Iraq. As Wallace bore into Rubio’s varying responses, the unprepared Senate freshman dug himself into a hole by pleading semantic differences regarding questions about whether Iraq was a mistake and whether he’d have invaded knowing what we know now. Relentless, Wallace asked Rubio about seven times “Was it a mistake?” And he refused to let Rubio answer it with caveats, cutting him off with “I'm not asking you that.”

If Wallace were not working for Rupert Murdoch, the loaded questions, opinionated assertions and repeated interruptions would earn Wallace a lifetime membership in the Liberal Media Elite Club.

Reporters acting like reporters - shocking!

Another bit of culture-smog agitprop bites the dust...

...and is permanently entrenched in pop culture.

//#4. FOX Didn't Censor the "Only" Mention of Evolution on Cosmos//

Here's a little something to stretch your indignant scoff muscles:

gizmodo.com, mediaite.com
"Neil DeGrasse Tyson digitally replaced with Pat Robertson."

The story that's been passed from Gizmodo to the Wire is that during the premiere episode of Cosmos, the gritty revamp of the classic science documentary series, a FOX affiliate in Oklahoma "accidentally" cut the only part about evolution in favor of a news promo about tween archery. While the station apologized for the screw-up, numerous headlines have questioned their true motive due to the state's anti-evolution background and the fact that the word "FOX" is involved. Here's the shameful clip:

The only hole in this theory? That wasn't the only mention of evolution in the show. Oh, and also, it's physically impossible to do -- network shows run on something called a dual network feed that automatically transmits shows to local broadcast affiliates. So, whoever accidentally interrupted the show had no idea they were about to throw down evolution theory unless they came from the future, in which case they probably had a pretty good reason to do it.

Years from now, we will be debunking this one.

But, hey, you know "skeptics."

Can't wait for the next Republican president to follow this precedent.

Oh, the outrage we will hear!!!!

Jay Carney won't call on Foxnew's Ed Henry:

Talk about your government shutdown. Conservatives would have enjoyed watching liberal TV reporters sputter if President Bush had completely skipped the first row of reporters and picked only friendly reporters, even writers for conservative blog sites. But the media elites would have thrown a major tantrum about censorship -- including Jay Carney in his tenure at Time magazine.

Put the shoe on the other foot, and the liberal media is pretty quiet. President Obama failed to call on TV reporters at his Wednesday press conference, even though he came to The Huffington Post for a shoe-shine question. Then Tommy Christopher at Mediaite pointed out White House press briefer Jay Carney aggressively ignored Ed Henry of Fox News twice at Friday’s briefing, so he walked out:

At Friday afternoon’s long-delayed briefing, Carney had gone through every TV reporter when Ed Henry began to ask his question. He got out “Jay…” before Carney called on The Chicago Tribune‘s [Obama fangirl] Christi Parsons, and as she asked her question, Henry could be seen shaking his head.

Henry tried again on the next question, and when Carney ignored him again, Henry smiled, got up, and walked out. While Fox News hasn’t always gotten a question at presidential press conferences, this was the first time in memory that a Fox News reporter wasn’t called on at a daily briefing.

Henry has sparred noticeably with Carney in recent weeks. This probably wouldn’t have happened to Henry if he’d stayed at CNN!

Obama’s shutdown of TV network reporters may be related to the recent tough questions for Carney from ABC’s Jonathan Karl. (Of course, then ABC won’t show any of that.) Brit Hume told Greta van Susteren that Obama can’t seem to handle tradition: “There’s a long tradition among network correspondents that cover the White House of asking presidents of both parties challenging questions. They may sympathize with the president, but they ask challenging questions. No network correspondents were called on today.”

sadly, I don’t think network reporters always ask challenging questions – not of Obama, and certainly not of Bill Clinton. They have more bravery with the press secretary, but once the Democratic leader’s on stage, it often goes soft.

Keith Olbermann has fans in al-Qaida.

A memo from Osama's compound shows that al-Qaida ranks the American media as its friends and foe the same way as non-liberals:

A letter dated October 2010 outlines a plan to get al-Qaida's message across in American media for the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and "how to exploit the media in general."

It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News, let her die in her anger.

It then launches into a full opinion on the state of the American media, saying that he used to think MSNBC was fair and neutral — BEFORE they fired Keith Olbermann.

I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit, but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists – Keith Olberman and Octavia Nasser the Lebanese.

CNN, Gadahn's letter reads, is No. 2 on the hit list. He said that it is in the tank for the U.S. government more than anyone else, "except for Fox News, of course." He shared much of the same opinion about CBS, but he did like "60 Minutes" and its "long broadcasting time." And ABC, he wrote, is "all right." He wrote that ABC is "interested in al-Qaida issues, particularly the journalist Brian Ross."

In conclusion, the letter said that there is no one single outlet to rely on for al-Qaida to get its message across. One, though, was definitely off the list.

"From the professional point of view, they are all on one level — except (Fox News) channel which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks neutrality too."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/osama-bin-laden-hates-fox-news-and-thinks-msnbc-is-not-neutral-because-they-fired-keith-olbermann-2012-5?op=1#ixzz1trHj1HqE

Leftist Media Bias confirmed by Leftists.

PJ Tatler points to the irony of a disloyal Fox employee who accepted money to act as a "mole" for the Gawker:

Here’s the post, most of which is typical liberal snark about Fox, Hannity, Romney etc. The Mole is a liberal malcontent, we get it. But right at the top of the piece, the “Mole” explains why they have stuck around working for the Fox News Channel for several years:

I always intended to keep my mouth shut. The plan was simple: get hired, keep my head down and my views to myself, work for a few months, build my resume, then eventually hop to a new job that didn’t make me cringe every morning when I looked in the mirror.

That was years ago. My cringe muscles have turned into crow’s feet. The ten resumes a month I was sending out dwindled into five, then two, then one, then zero. No one wants me. I’m blacklisted.

I work at Fox News Channel.

Now, why would having the Fox News Channel on one’s resume make it harder to find a job elsewhere in the mainstream media? It’s clearly not a two-way blocked street: Ed Henry is but one of the latest Fox hires to come from another cable network. He worked at CNN for years. Brit Hume came from ABC. Juan Williams came from NPR. It can’t be a case of competence, at least not if we’re going by NBC’s standards. Or ABC’s — they had to take a mulligan on their George Zimmerman surveillance video last week. It can’t be ratings or success, since Fox dominates the ratings among news channels and has for a long time, probably the Mole’s entire career.

The problem could be, of course, that the Mole has a crummy resume. Maybe they haven’t done anything or don’t have much to show for their efforts. Maybe they keep forgetting to spell check. Pencil and crayon tend to get a resume sent straight to the circular file. Maybe word has gotten out that they’re a pain to work with or something. Gawker doesn’t identify the Mole, of course, leaving us to assume little as factual, including whether they actually work for Fox.

But assuming that the Mole actually works for Fox — is the Mole’s lack of ability to get a job outside Fox evidence of liberal media bias? Doesn’t the Mole admit as much in noting that they have been “blacklisted” by potential employers?

Civility Watch/Liberal Fascism Watch.

FoxNews reporter describes hate of protestors against him:

you’ve been a viewer of the Fox News Channel over the past week and a half and have paid attention to its coverage of the standoff between Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Democratic members of the state Senate, you may have noticed the protest that has ensued in Madison, Wisc. has been less than hospitable to the cable news channel’s reporters.


On Saturday night’s broadcast of “Geraldo at Large,” Fox News correspondent Mike Tobin took some critical shots at protesters attempting to shout down and disrupt his broadcast. He told host Geraldo Rivera he has observed hate and an effort to shut out other viewpoints.

“One thing I think should make clear – the people coming after us from every live shot here, these people hate,” Tobin said. “These are people who don’t respect diverse viewpoints. In fact, they’re so afraid I’ll present a diverse viewpoint, that’s why they try to heckle me and shut down every live shot. They’ve made it clear, that what they want to make it harder for me to do my job. They are proud of that when they disrupt a live shot, when they really trample over the First Amendment rights or the First Amendment’s obligations of a reporter. Now, I am not saying that’s all of the people. Those are the people that come here and heckle and try to disrupt things. I look in their eyes – there is hate in their eyes. They don’t want to hear any kind of viewpoint that is different from their own. That’s why they do what they do.”

Rivera explained Tobin’s report was troubling, especially since Madison is the home of the University of Wisconsin, where one might think that in a university setting people would be more receptive to other points of view.

“And the sickest thing is many go to the University of Wisconsin there or are affiliated as teachers or some other positions with the university, supposedly a liberal bastion committed to the Bill of Rights and the United States,” Rivera said. “And yet, they are using bullying tactics on the one hand and then this gross interruptions of a reporter trying to do his job.”

Liberal fascism in Madison is not all that surprising.  I recall overhearing a conversation in a Madison bookstore a few blocks from the Capitol where the bookstore's owner explained that he listened to Radio Havana because "that was where the real truth could be heard."