I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

The MSM are Democrat Operatives disguised as "journalists" whose job it is to protect Democrats at all costs and destroy Conservatives every opportunity.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama�s Deputy Press Secretary.

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama�s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

NBC General Counsel Kimberley D. Harris served as White House Deputy Counsel and Deputy Assistant to President Hussein Obama...

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser.
Susan Rice is the one who went on the Five Sunday talk shows blaming Benghazi on a video... A talking point put forth by Ben Rhodes Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.... See next:
Ben Rhodes is the guy responsible for floating out the video lie/narrative regarding Benghazi... No wonder CBS and the rest of the MSM didn't cover the story... Couldn't make Hussein Obama look incompetent, or worse, now could we. Oh, and by the way,

CBS News President David Rhodes just happens to be Ben Rhodes' brother.

Both CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, have siblings that not only worked at the White House for President Obama, but they worked at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi." The same agency from which General Flynn was just fired. Immagine that...Wonder who leaked the information?

CNBC vice president of communications Brian Steel worked in the Bill Clinton White House for Vice President Al Gore and held three different positions in the Clinton administration, including two in Clinton�s Department of Justice.

ABC News� George Stephanopoulos donated $75,000 to the Clintons personal �charity� was a top operative in Bill Clinton�s 1992 presidential campaign and then served as communications director of his White House.

ABC News Reporter Martha Raddatz, Obama at her wedding. She also took it upon herself to debate Trump instead of sticking to her roll as moderator during the Presidential debate. She should have recused herself as a "moderator".

Bias?, What bias?...





While archaic mediots still brag about how we're the bastian of free speech, it's THEY who are the grandest defenders of the state religion--the deity of jews, the cross of the holocaust, and the immaculate conception of "Israel".  While they brag that the first amendment right to free speech applies to them [which it does not], it's THEY who denigrate we the people, and in particular we the sovereigns [to whom free speech DOES apply], for slighting the state religion.  While vociferous about their bragging rights, it's THEY who cheer, at least silently in their cold hard black hearts, when men like Ernst Zungel and Germar Rudolf and David Irving are imprisoned for infringing on this state religion.  Their treachery knows no bounds, and their punishment will be in accord with "equal protection under the law".

Michael Tsarion has it right when he calls this bombardment of the American public with this state religion "satanic".  While this satanic religion continues to spread, having reached France now and almost Russia, you still don't have to travel very far to escape from it--a three day vacation to most parts of Mexico, a week in Russia or Ireland [the Republic of], or one DAY in Japan, where this satanic religion is still laughed at and pride in one's race sticks out like a sore thumb, is all it takes to restore the psyche of the self-respecting White man.  The problem is--coming back to the fold.

Many people experience this decompression and recompression of the state religion, but can't articulate what it is and just how adversely it affects them.  The sooner they understand that God's Law requires us to silence the state religion, once and for all, the sooner they'll quit apologizing for being White men, and the faster this putative Christian nation will recover from its current social pathology.

Our WHITE, CHRISTIAN, Founding Fathers spilt BLOODto protect this right, and we're not about to roll over and play dead while the jewsmedia proclaims from the rooftops that it applies only to them, and not to us.  The U.S. Constitution does NOT give jews a right not to be insulted as they claim, and they will NEVER gain that right.  Long before that happens, they will be exiled along with the niggers, as we will forever reserve the right to criticize and insult anyone, anything we choose, including their state religion.   This blood  covenant will be protected at all costs, no matter how much these alien enemy foreign agents whine and scream about it.



horizontal rule

It's doubtful that many Americans "hate" anyone in the media just because they think they're stupid.  So when a "reporter" starts out using a word that second grade girls use when somebody throws sand on them in a sand box, or feminists or "liberals" use whenever someone disagrees with them, it's difficult to take the rest of their writing seriously. Nonetheless, let's debunk the rest of your story, just for sport.

We all recognize that you're a member of the "free press" which is now engaged in a full press propaganda campaign against Afghanistan, just as you were when the US government was attempting to get peace loving Americans to go to war against Germany prior to WWII, so this will be taken into account in this critique.

It's not a fait accompli that that Osama Bin Ladin was behind 9-11, particularly since he denies that he was, and particularly since the "evidence" that he was exists only in the minds of the same people who brought us Waco and Ruby Ridge [read: they claim they have the proof but refuse to present it because it's classified, which is non-proof].  It's also not a fait accompli that bombing dirt farmers in Afghanistan into a stonier age will accomplish your objectives, much less will it endear us to the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world who could easily replace any "terrorists" we might manage to include in our massacre of Afghan civilians.  And regardless of the polls conducted by advocates with a heinous agenda, it's not a fait accompli that most Americans even agree with this silly strategy [read: mediots might accept this on blind faith, but most normal Americans don't].

OK, so if you want to insist, if we think you mediots are stupid for accepting such a ludicrous story about Afghanistan, and for omitting all references to the hundreds of other terrorist organizations who could just as easily have been behind 9-11, and for obscuring the connection between this war on Afghanistan and the oil pipeline across the country, and for telling us what we want in the types of questions asked by other reporters who aren't so sucked in by the mass hysteria, that we "hate" you, knock yourself out.  Go ahead and live and think like a mushroom.  Keep on promoting the mass hysteria about the "6 million jews who died in the Holocaust", while ignoring that there were only 600,000 jews in all of Germany then, and that we KNOW that 48 million Christians died even more horrible deaths.  But don't tell us that we don't want reporters asking the hard questions, because we demand that they DO ask them!

You personally should do your own investigation into the holocaust mythology so that you can confidently sort truth from fiction, because as it stands right now, the majority of Americans know that you're a far better propagandist than Goebbels ever hoped to be.

The Hard Line
Why Americans Hate The Media ... Again

By R. Cort Kirkwood
November 2, 2001

(AgapePress) - In one quick soundbite, David Westin, president of ABC News,
again demonstrated why Americans don't trust what they see on television or
read in papers, and why many believe journalists have no values, no
patriotism, and worse, no common sense.

Given that journalists most assuredly know this, you'd think they wouldn't
give voice to remarks that enrage just about everyone.

But alas, however much hope springs eternal in the average American's
breast, a journalist always proves his profession might be hopeless.

The Latest Outrage
Westin's remark came on Oct. 23 in a speech to a journalism class at
Columbia University, in answer to a fairly simple question: Was the
Pentagon a legitimate target for terrorists on Sept. 11?

It was a no-brainer, for anyone but a lawyer or a newsman. Said Westin: " I
actually don't have an opinion on that and it's important I not have an
opinion on that .... Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be,
and when we get into the job of what ought to be, I think we're not doing a
service to the American people."

Huh? Westin quickly apologized, but his wheedling won't help. Anyone who
saw the remarks on C-SPAN, or even reads them, will believe Westin meant
what he said.

They will always believe Westin and other journalists can't tell right from
wrong, or good from evil, and can't make intelligent judgments.

The Isaacson Debate
Happily, a memo from the chairman of CNN to his foreign correspondents
relieves some of the pain from Westin's kick in our shins. Walter Isaacson
told them to evaluate, carefully, the subtle messages they might send in
reporting on civilian casualties of American bombing in Afghanistan.

"We must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply
reporting from their vantage or perspective," he wrote. "We must talk about
how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have
harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent

Isaacson's point is well taken: Some reports, particularly interviews with
Taliban officials, will merely televise the regime's propaganda. Yet the
memo triggered an immediate salvo from other news executives, who should
know enough to shut up.

Said a honcho from CBS: "Our reporters are smart enough to know it always
has to be put in context."

Are they? Just this week a reporter from NBC, another network, admittedly,
asked the Taliban ambassador in Pakistan this kind of question: "How do you
respond to the American's government's allegation that ...."

But let's put Isaacson's point in historical context to grasp the import of
what he said.

Imagine a reporter asking Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels this:
"Now, Mr. Goebbels, the United States says Germany started this war, and is
actually enacting policies that are anti-Semitic. How do you answer that?"

Sounds like a Westin question.

The Point
It's precisely this kind of "reporting" that has wrecked the news media's
reputation with Americans, and this kind of "reporting" spawns from
Westin's creed, the mantra of amorality, which is chanted with bovine
inanity in journalism schools and newsrooms across the land.

Isaacson is right: Don't repeat the enemy's propaganda. A journalist
needn't sacrifice his impartiality and professional standards to make
intelligent judgments; nor must she ignore the difference between good and
evil to ask the tough questions and produce balanced work.

In short, you can't report "objectively" on Sept. 11 anymore than you can
report "objectively" on Auschwitz.

Westin and his cohorts better figure that out, lest they destroy what
little credibility the news media has left.

R. Cort Kirkwood is a syndicated columnist and managing editor of a daily
newspaper. He can be contacted at [email protected].
� 2001 AgapePress all rights reserved.