Showing posts with label vanjones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vanjones. Show all posts
Why the media hasn't been covering the ACORN and Van Jones stories
ACORN mediabias vanjonesPolitico has this discussion in the media on why they haven't been covering the ACORN and Van Jones stories.
Even Jon Stewart gets this:
On his radio show Tuesday, Scarborough debated the media’s coverage of ACORN and Van Jones with NBC chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, who said he believed these stories can be a “crutch” for conservatives looking to highlight instances of media bias.
“If the Christian Coalition, in 1995, had a sting operation carried on against it by a liberal group, I guarantee you it would have been front page, New York Times, the next day, “ Scarborough said, “and people like me would have been called out, people saying, ‘how could you ever, ever justify supporting a group that would teach people how to violate the tax code and promote prostitution.’”
Even Jon Stewart gets this:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
Van Jones is now unimportant
ACORN mediabias vanjonesOf course, "'over $80 million' in stimulus money was going to be under Jones’s control—given his innovative 'green jobs' approach that married civil rights with radical environmentalism."
As to tax dollars going to ACORN being a "Republican Obsession," see here.
Media coverage after Van Jones quit
mediabias vanjonesFrom Fox News:
Follow this link to see other discussions of the media coverage of Van Jones.
Van Jones may be gone from the Obama administration after a long list of questionable remarks and actions forced his resignation, but the former "green jobs" adviser still has the backing of some at The Los Angeles Times and other news outlets that refused to report the original controversy.
And the list of news outlets that ignored the story is a long and lofty one. While FOX News and a few talk radio hosts kept the public informed about Jones' record, most major news outlets, including The New York Times, CNN.com and MSNBC.com, remained silent until nearly the end, when Jones resigned.
Some news outlets and editorialists that lay low are still supporting Jones, including Judith Lewis, a Los Angeles journalist and environmental writer, who wrote in an opinion piece in the L.A. Times on Friday that "Jones' departure is a big loss."
"He should be judged not by a few missteps but by his long history of working toward a highly desirable but elusive goal: an environmental movement that crosses boundaries of place, skin color and class," Lewis wrote.
"The takedown of Van Jones was openly orchestrated by Americans for Prosperity, an Arizona-based conservative organization that rallies people who can barely afford to drive a car to the free clinic to press for offshore drilling and oppose health care reform," Lewis added.
The San Francisco Chronicle ran an editorial, called "Joe Wilson, Van Jones and the watermelon hypothesis," which claimed that FOX News commentator Glenn Beck used "fear of blacks" to stir outrage about Jones. . . .
Follow this link to see other discussions of the media coverage of Van Jones.
Lack of Media coverage about Van Jones case
mediabias ObamaAdministration vanjonesFrom Fox News:
Americans who rely on the network broadcasts or the nation's top newspapers for their news may have just learned about the weekend resignation of President Obama's "green jobs czar" or the firestorm of controversy that was set off weeks ago by the revelation of his past provocative statements.
Most of the major news outlets, like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS ignored the swelling heat surrounding former White House environmental adviser Van Jones and the videos surfacing of his controversial statements.
For weeks, conservative media led by FOX News commentator Glenn Beck has been criticizing Jones, a former self-avowed Marxist and anarchist, for his remarks and radical views, including his February denunciation of Republicans as "assholes" -- a statement that came to light on Wednesday.
Jones issued two apologies last week -- for his statement on Republicans and for signing a petition that suggested the U.S. government was involved in the Sept 11. terrorist attacks -- and the White House responded to the growing controversy on Friday. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Jones continued to work in the administration and asserted that the president didn't agree with his controversial statements.
Yet most of the media still didn't pay attention even after Gibbs' comment.
CBS News became the first of the three broadcast networks on Friday to note the controversy, but ABC's "World News" and "NBC Nightly News" again failed to report the story. After Jones' midnight resignation over the weekend, all three networks aired the story on their Sunday evening newscasts. The Washington Post offered its first story on Saturday yet The New York Times' print edition didn't publish its first story until Monday -- a story that appeared on the front page, under the fold.
Democratic strategist Julian Epstein defended the media, saying they strive to provide balanced reporting and that their "passing coverage" was similar to their reports on the controversy surrounding Sen. John McCain's religious adviser last year during his presidential bid.
"I think some of the media is guilty of not covering things that are occurring on the right," he told FOX News. "Other parts of the media are guilty of not covering things adequately that are occurring on the left. I think every news organization has to strive to be balanced on this."
The booming calls for Jones' resignation and questions over his ability to land such a position wasn't just coming from Republicans. Democrats and security experts weighed in, wondering how Jones could have passed thorough and lengthy background checks and still land the job. . . .
Minor Note: Jones' claim that he hadn't signed 9/11 conspiracy letter disputed
ObamaAdministration vanjonesFox News has this:
faced down his past again when it was discovered that he signed a 2004 statement calling on then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
Jones afterward issued a blanket apology for his past statements and said the petition does not reflect his views. An aide said Jones didn't carefully review the petition at the time.
But that claim was swiftly disputed by 911Truth.org. "He did agree with that statement and he did sign on to it," 911Truth.org spokesman Mike Berger told FOX News in a telephone interview from St. Louis on Friday. Berger said the group's "original board members individually confirmed all signatories that had signed on to the statement." . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
POPULER
