American news media are deliberately reshaping war-on-terror terminology for propaganda purposes to prevent radical Muslims from being perceived in a negative light in the wake of the 9/11 attacks a decade ago.

American news media are deliberately reshaping war-on-terror terminology for  propaganda purposes to prevent radical Muslims from being perceived in a  negative light in the wake of the 9/11 attacks a decade ago.

That’s the claim of Pamela Geller, author of the just-released book, “Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

“A big part of the problem facing America today is the obfuscation and  disinformation fed to the American people as a daily diet of slow poison,” says  Geller, publisher of the popular

“Today the left is manipulating language to make Americans ignorant or  complacent about the Islamic threat.”

Read more: Leftist media employ devious, sinister tactic

Sarah Palin speaks to see and hear the video

Sarah Palin speaks

Clarice Feldman


Here is a part
of the statement
Sarah Palin issued today, something no one else in her
party (are you listening Governor Pawlenty ?) has had the wit or wisdom to say:

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and
praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled,
then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from
people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s
broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the
American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of
monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals
who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with
those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both
sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise
their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly
voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s
future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would
join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his
party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the
will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power
proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most
cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to
work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you
don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision.
If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But,
especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should
not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and
violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Clarice Feldman

Page Printed from:
January 12, 2011 – 10:13:37 AM CST


The peasants are revolting

The peasants are revolting

Rosslyn Smith

The national press corps is beginning to get a taste of the anger they have created among a large percentage of the American public over their treatment of Sarah Palin. It will take some longer than others to grasp the magnitude of the disaster they have created for their failing industry.


Joe Curl of the Washington Times reports  that angry crowds vigorously booed the media in Cedarbug, WI:


Hundreds of angry people in this small town outside Milwaukee taunted reporters and TV crews traveling with Sen. John McCain on Friday, chanting “Be fair!” and pointing fingers at a pack of journalists as they booed loudly.


Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer is not happy at the amount of attention her incredibly snide, error filled September 1 column A woman – but why this woman? has garnered.
A handful of people wrote to say that I had captured exactly their reaction to the Palin nomination. But the rest of the responses were vehement or venomous… And more than 316,000 people viewed the column on The Baltimore Sun Web site. That number — more than 100 times the attention I normally receive — actually frightened me.


Newsbusters‘ Warner Todd Huston notes


She was “actually frightened,” you people! Give me a break. What? Is she crying? There’s no crying in journalism.


He then dissects Reimer’s original bit of feminist snark before taking her and her colleagues to task over the clueless bubble they seem to occupy.  


To close my discussion with you, Reimer, I have to ask: don’t you see the hatred that you expressed for this woman? Don’t you see that your snide comments about her Down Syndrome child and your abhorrence with every American that votes Republican — which is half the electorate, by the way — just might raise a bit of ire out there? Can you really be so shocked that your spittle specked rage was met with a bit of resistance?
If not, well, you really aren’t as smart as you might like to imagine.


It may still be uncertain who will win this campaign, but it is clear who already has lost: the legacy media.

Stop the Presses!

Stop the Presses!
By Jamie Glazov | May 18, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Joseph Farah, founder and editor of, the largest independent news site on the Internet. He’s also the founder of WND Books, Whistleblower magazine and the G2 Bulletin online intelligence newsletter. He previously served as editor in chief of major-market daily newspapers including the Sacramento Union. He’s a syndicated columnist and his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, TV Guide and the Jerusalem Post. Farah has written or collaborated on more than a dozen books, including Rush Limbaugh’s 1994 No. 1 best seller “See, I Told You So.” His  previous book, “Taking America Back,” was first published in 2003 and again in paperback in 2005. 

He is the author of the new book, Stop the Presses!: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution.

Preview Image 

FP: Joseph Farah, welcome back to Frontpage Interview. 

Farah: Thank you.   

FP: What inspired you to write this book? 

Farah: About 30 years of news media experience! It occurred to me in the last few years that I am uniquely positioned as a veteran newsman from traditional media who transitioned into the new world of media as a successful entrepreneur. There are others, of course, who have done this, but none — I don’t believe — with the breadth of experience that I brought to the New Media.  

For one thing, I was an eyewitness to the takeover of
America‘s newsrooms by radical activist special-interest pressure groups. That’s a story that has never been told before “Stop The Presses!” It is an important story.

Also, surviving in this new media environment for 10 years is an achievement few others can boast. Some amazing and exciting stories occurred along the way and only a book would provide the kind of forum needed to share those.  

Lastly, I wanted to make a point emphatically about the way journalists have lost their moral bearings, their sense of mission and their professional compass. Two of my favorite chapters in the book deal with the history of the free press and the long-forgotten purpose of the free press. American journalists desperately need to have a dialogue about this.  

FP: What do you think are some factors that account for journalists having lost their “moral bearings, their sense of mission and their professional compass”? 

Farah: 1.There is a lack of intelligent debate about these subjects within the industry. I’ve been trying to stimulate one for 25 years and I’m still awaiting my first invitation to speak to an industry group. 2. As much as the news media champions “diversity,” they don’t champion the one kind of pluralism that is actually meaningful — the philosophical kind, the ideological kind, the kind the permits those holding different worldviews clash and collaborate creatively. 3. For whatever reasons, the multinational corporations that control most of the news media tolerate and even feed the politically correct mind control laboratories that are today’s newsrooms. 4. Journalists are products of their education system. And that education system — from kindergarten through post-grad work — provides an exclusively morally relativistic worldview.    5. There’s been an active rejection of traditional American journalism because it is uniquely and historically positioned to serve as a watchdog on government — a mission uncomfortable for socialists and humanists. 

FP: Could you kindly tell us a bit about what made you a radical and then some of the key events and developments that turned you on the road toward leaving the Political Faith?  Farah: I was reared at a tumultuous time in American history — the 1960s. I was part of what David Horowitz termed “The Destructive Generation.” Sparked by my own opposition to the Vietnam War, my views grew more and more extreme, fed by the paranoia and lies of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Tom Hayden and their ilk. Seeing the aftermath of that war — the Killing Fields of Cambodia and the re-education camps of
Vietnam — awakened me to the evil to which I had been a small part. The abject rejection of that reality by the Fondas and the Haydens and the Kerrys demonstrated for me that these people had no conscience, had no sense of morality and were incapable of decency. From there, a spiritual conversion in my college years led slowly and surely to the development of a new worldview — a Christian worldview. As I point out in my new book, that worldview is not conservative. In fact, I think it’s quite radical — more in line with our American revolutionary heritage than with, say, George W. Bush.

FP: What makes the news media so biased?  

Farah: I should know, because I was attracted to the news media for the same reasons as most of my colleagues. I was inspired by Watergate — the idea of two lowly reporters for the Washington Post overthrowing a president of the
United States had great appeal to my generation. You might remember that journalism school enrolments hit an all-time high in 1973 and 1974, as a result of the scandal, the book by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and especially the movie version of “All the President’s Men” starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.


As you know, I am a “second thoughter.” I was not a “liberal” in those days. I was a radical. I wanted to change the world — and especially the
United States. That’s what that generation of reporters had in common. They didn’t join the press because they wanted to seek the truth. They joined the press because it seemed like a good way to subvert the establishment. It turned out they were right. And most of those who took those jobs back then are in positions of real power today. They ARE the establishment today. Most of them did not have second thoughts. They are still promoting the same old hackneyed socialist and humanist ideas they started with. 

FP: What is the press doing wrong? 


Farah: The main thing the press is doing wrong is ignoring or forgetting what is the central role of a free press in free society. That is to serve as a watchdog on government and other powerful institutions. That’s out main job — and of course it has little appeal to people who see government as the first solution for every problem both real and imagined.  

The free press was born in 
America, just as real freedom was in many ways. And it was birthed by founders who understood a free and vigorous press was needed as just one more device to check government power. That’s why they enshrined in the First Amendment special protections for the press that had really never been known previously in the history of the world.
 How can the press do its job right if the press doesn’t understand what its job is? Thirty years ago, if you went into the average newsroom and asked the veteran city editor about the central role of a free press in a free society, I think you’d have a pretty fair shot at getting the right answer. Today, no one in any major newsroom would provide this one correct answer. I doubt any one is teaching in journalism school. I bet it hasn’t been taught in a university since I stopped teaching journalism at UCLA in the 1980s. Today, if you asked journalists about the central role of a free press in a free society, you’d get all kinds of answers — seeking diversity, promoting tolerance, encouraging multiculturalism, breaking down gender barriers, saving the planet from greedy developers, protecting consumers from rapacious corporations, etc. Nobody is suspicious of government. Government is their friend. Government promotes their agenda. In effect, the establishment corporate press has become the lapdog of government — paving the way for more intrusion into what remains of our private lives. 

FP: What is the impact of the new media? Farah: The impact of the new media is, to me, the most exciting thing that has happened since Gutenberg. The only possible antidote to the toxic effluence of what I call “the downstream media” was competition. But, prior to the advent of the Internet, competition was actually drying up. There were fewer voices, not more. Talk radio broadened what was previously a national non-debate. But the new media was really birthed in 1995 by Matt Drudge. The synergy that developed between a handful of Internet information sources — like WND and — and talk radio expanded the reach, the impact and the resources of both media exponentially. You miss the picture if you judge the new media on “reach” alone. WND’s reach is impressive with 8 million unique visitors. But that doesn’t even begin to describe the viral impact of WND because of the way it is used by talk-show hosts as show prep and the way TV producers consult with it daily like they do with only a handful of national newspapers. Now there’s the blogosphere and no one will ever get away with anything again. No mistake will go unnoticed by someone in the blogosphere. No inaccuracy can go uncorrected. No fraud will go unnoticed by one of the millions of self-deputized watchdogs. 

FP: What is your view of how the mainstream media has operated on
Iraq? The new media?

Farah: I think there is much good reporting going on in
Iraq. For instance, I constantly hear “conservatives” bashing the New York Times coverage of the war. In fact, some of the very best reporting done on this war — and still being done — is by John Burns of the New York Times. I don’t like what the editorial page of the New York Times has to say about the fight against Islamo-fascism, but we shouldn’t blame the most experienced and talented reporter in
Iraq for the sins of Pinch Sulzberger. On the other hand, I think there is jubilation in the newsrooms of the major TV networks whenever it appears the
U.S. is losing its grip in
Iraq. More than anything else, it’s the cacophony of the know-nothing pundits on war in
Iraq that has served to confuse the American people and provided cover for the treasonous initiatives of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. 

FP: What is the future of the new media? 

Farah: It is increasingly a future of video — not just text. In the future, you will be watching me deliver this cogent interview rather than reading the words on a computer screen.  

So get ready, Jamie. Lights, camera, action. 

FP: Am I going to be on camera with you too?


Joseph Farah, thank you for joining us today. 

Farah: It was my great pleasure and keep up the great, groundbreaking work at

Click Here to support

More evidence of media bias

More evidence of media bias

Ray Robison
Bernard Goldberg, renowned author and commentator on media bias (based on his 20+ years as a journalist) once wrote:

“Bias in the media isn’t just about what they cover; it’s also about what they don’t cover. Sherlock Holmes once solved a particularly thorny crime using as his key piece of evidence the dog that didn’t bark. It’s the same with the news media. What they don’t make noise about also tells us a lot about their preconceived notions and their biases.”

Well surely Bernie must be feeling vindicated this day. For if there is ever a perfect example of the silence of the media dogs it is in the story of Tina Richards. I recently wrote here about the mother of a Marine and her efforts to meet with Democrats to urge them to end the war.
Her tactics were not unlike Cindy Sheehan but instead aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whereas Sheehan focused her PR effort on President Bush. I wrote that first article as much to bench mark media reporting as to provide the content. I wanted all to note that Pelosi has her own Sheehan and let’s see were the media goes with it by way of comparison.
The result of my little experiment surprised even me, with my calloused eye towards the state of American journalism. Here is what is going on.
It appears Tina Richards has been released from the big-house after being arrested for her sit-in at the Speaker’s office and is continuing her activism. If you follow the desperately scant media reports on her you can find Richards’ own website.
There she posts her thoughts in writing and video. Currently, Richards is organizing a political action called “Swarm on Congress”. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out that this is basically an assault on the mechanisms of government to call attention to her cause. You might think a planned congressional sit-in by an aggrieved military mother might qualify as news as it did in Sheehan’s case.
How wrong you are!
I used Google News to check for references to Richards swarm (do it yourself “swarm on congress”).  As of the night of May 8th, 2007 there are two, just two media reports -neither of them from big-media – about what Tina Richards has organized for the week following Mother’s Day. Cindy Sheehan by comparison went down to the middle of Texas and parked herself in a patch of scrub grass next to a huge ranch and it was world news (even the name “Camp Casey” has entered our common lexicon thanks to media reinforcement). Richards and her supporters will park themselves in the halls and offices of the center of our democracy and the media response is, well….cough….cough.
The difference between Sheehan and Richards? One went after a Republican which pleases the liberal media bias, the other after a Democrat which must be covered up, lest the Democrats look bad. How much more obvious can it be that the American media is now hardly more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party?

Beyond Bias: When the Media Fabricates News

Beyond Bias: When the Media Fabricates News

By Steven Zak

A recent Gallup poll found that 56% of Americans think the media’s coverage of events in Iraq is inaccurate, nearly two thirds of those believing that the media portray the situation as worse than it is. A biased, always bad-news-baring mainstream media trying to discredit our war effort is a disgrace. But worse is the blatant manufacturing of news through editorials disguised as reports.
A case in point was the “reporting” in the Los Angeles Times on the execution of Saddam Hussein.
While even liberal bastions such as the New York Times and the Washington Post ran objective headlines — “Dictator Who Ruled Iraq with Violence is Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity,” and “Saddam Hussein is Put to Death,” respectively — the Los Angeles Times loaded its headline with editorial content: “Hussein Executed — And Iraq Braces.”
Hussein was indeed executed, but the idea that “Iraq Braces” is pregnant with anti-war innuendo. A less subtle headline might have read: “Hussein Executed — One More Bad Event In A Bad War.”
To back that up, the Times ran a second A-section story headlined: “Impact of Hussein’s death likely to be limited.” Not even characterized as “analysis,” this story “reported” that Hussein’s execution “seemed to be much less than the historic turning point many once had anticipated.” (As a former writing professor once counseled, beware the passive word “seemed.”)
The Times — perhaps following the example of the Iraq Study Group — cherry-picked its experts to offer but one point of view.
It quoted a former State Department official that the Hussein execution was “not what it might have been.”
And a spokesman for the U.S. Institute for Peace that “I just don’t see this as a big turning point.”
And someone from the Endowment for International Peace who called the execution a mere “sideshow.”
And, as a topper, “Mideast specialist” Juan Cole, the über-leftist University of Michigan history professor who has likened the state of Israel to a puppeteer with a fearsome “level of control over a branch of the United States government.” Cole warned that Hussein’s execution would likely provoke violence as, “To the Sunnis, it will look like just one more slap in the face.”    
Presenting a committed leftist like Juan Cole as an academic offering impartial scholarly analysis is bad enough. But the Times’ “report” offers not one alternative view.
Couldn’t find one?  The Times could have asked former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who called Saddam’s execution “a positive watershed.” Or military expert Ralph Peters, who characterized the hanging as “an important milestone.” (As opposed to the grim milestones the MSM endlessly “reports.”) One significant impact Hussein’s execution will have, Peters wrote, is that “no dictator will sleep quite as soundly now.”
The Times could also have included “man-in-the-street” opinions from Baghdad — like that of Suad Shakir, who, according to the Washington Post, said that “People will be relieved” by Saddam’s death. Or of a Baghdad barber who said of Saddam: “He does not deserve to be alive.”
But when you’re writing an editorial — including one in disguise as news — you seek authority in support of your view. 
Let’s concede that there’s reason for bad feelings in your gut over the execution of Saddam — and over Iraq generally. A video showing thugs of Iranian agent and terrorist Moqtada Sadr rebuking the former dictator as he stood on the gallows could make you wonder who we’re fighting for. So could this recent report about our Iraqi “allies”:

As politicians, religious leaders and other soldiers watched, five Iraqi soldiers bit the heads off live frogs while a sixth slit a live rabbit’s stomach and “ate its heart before tossing the carcass to his comrades to chew on.”

All in “a display of courage.”
You can pardon Americans for a lack of enthusiasm at the thought of blood and treasure spent on liberating barbarians.
But none of that excuses an agenda-driven media nor rehabilitates the self-inflicted damage to that media’s reputation.  
In a footnote: Four days after the Times’ report, the paper ran a small wire service story which contained this observation: In reaction to Hussein’s execution, Sunni Arabs “have taken to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations.”
So much for Juan Cole’s Mideast expertise.
Steven Zak is an attorney and writer in California. He has written for publications including the Atlantic Monthly, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Blabbermouth NYT: Help! Help! Help!

What the Islamists Have Learned.

 good one from Michael Novak: What the Islamists Have Learned.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists’ best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries—our band of brothers—wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write:

Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

Even though our own forces (for nearly two whole years now) can no longer afford to fight in a single operation lasting longer than a few hours, our martyr-brothers cannot be prevented from committing daily acts of destruction—the more stomach-turning the better—which demonstrate a ferocious will and a determination to destroy.

In such wars, my brothers, whichever party maintains the stronger will, along the most durable storyline, always wins.

What American journalists should be thankful for

Cheney Warns Iraq Terrorists Trying to Sway U.S. Election

Cheney Warns Iraq Terrorists Trying to Sway U.S. Election
Monday , October 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — Terrorist groups in Iraq are stepping up their efforts to spark more deadly sectarian violence as a way of influencing how Americans will vote on Nov. 7, Vice President Dick Cheney alleged Monday in a FOX News interview in which he warned Americans not to fall for suggestions the War on Terror is losing ground in Iraq.

“Whether it’s Al Qaeda or the other elements that are active in Iraq, they are betting on the proposition they can break the will of the American people. They think we won’t have the stomach for the fight long-term,” Cheney told FOX News’ Neil Cavuto.

Cheney added that terrorists are “very, very cognizant of our schedule if you will,” though “they specifically can’t beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have.”

Cheney said the terrorists, who are sophisticated in their use of the Internet and know how to manipulate public opinion, are trying to win the War on Terror by demoralizing the U.S. public.

“They know that the way they win is if they can, in fact, force America to withdraw on the basis that we aren’t going to stay and finish the job, their basic proposition that they can break the will of the American people. That’s what they believe. And that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said.

Cheney also was asked about comments he made last week on a North Dakota radio station in which he was asked whether he’d condone dunking a terror suspect in water if it would save lives — an interrogation torture technique known as waterboarding, which mimics drowning.

Cheney called it a “no-brainer.”

Critics pounced on the vice president for suggesting that he sanctioned waterboarding. The detainee interrogation bill signed by the president last week prohibits CIA‘s use torture, but does not list waterboarding in a list of banned activities.

Asked again by FOX News whether the use of waterboarding was an appropriate interrogation tool, Cheney sidestepped the question by saying he does not discuss specific methods.

On next week’s election, Cheney said that despite the polls and predictions to the contrary, Republicans will maintain control of both chambers of Congress.

He also offered a positive outlook on the economy despite the latest reports that show some weakness in the housing sector, reduced gross domestic product last quarter and other indicators, and said economic successes would be endangered if Democrats take control after Nov. 7.

Hammering home a GOP theme, Cheney said the most liberal Democrats would be in charge if the House majority changes. He cited Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who is in line to take the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House.

“Charlie has said there’s not a single one of the Bush tax cuts he thinks should be extended. And he could achieve that objective simply by not acting. Unless there’s an affirmative action by Congress, legislation passed to keep those rates low, those rates are going back up, and he’d have a massive tax increase,” Cheney said.

As for his own future, Cheney did not budge on his position that he will not run for president if he were nominated and would not serve if elected.

The vice president did offer support for his wife, Lynne Cheney, who took on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview last week that was supposed to be on the second lady’s latest book.

Referring to a network special earlier this month that showed terrorists attacking U.S. forces, Lynne Cheney asked the anchor why the network was “running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans.”

“Why are you running terrorist propaganda?” she asked.

Cheney said he didn’t encourage his wife to take a stand, but that he was proud of her.

“I thought it was great. We refer to it around the house as the ‘slapdown.’ And she was very tough, but she was very accurate and very aggressive … So she spoke her mind, and I thought it was perfectly appropriate,” Cheney said.