.@SkyNews journo rifles through #MH17 luggage, network apologizes after backlash

Unreal. A new low in modern journalism – via the WaPo:

A Sky News reporter drew criticism over the weekend when he rummaged on camera through a bag belonging to a victim of the MH17 air crash in Ukraine, even as he said he “probably shouldn’t be doing this, I suppose.”

It appeared to be a momentary lapse and the reporter, Colin Brazier, quickly put an item back in the bag after picking it up to display to viewers. Coming as foreign leaders were criticizing Ukraine separatists for piling up bodies of victims and going through personal belongings, the footage was not well received.

According to the Guardian, Sky News later apologized:

Huffington Post has documented the widespread outrage from both journalists and non-journos alike. Twitchy Team has more.

Here’s an image from the “news” segment, which you can watch at YouTube. I didn’t feel comfortable posting the video here.

Sky News

Sky News journalist Colin Brazier sifts through the luggage of dead MH-17 passenger.

Just an incredible, stunning lack of judgement, basic sensitivity and common decency, not to mention a total disregard for the feelings of the families of those killed in the crash. As the WaPo noted, even Brazier realized as he was doing it that it was wrong – but really, the whole segment was about sifting through the personal effects of dead passengers. Highly unseemly, to say the least.

I’m sure Sky News has heard quite an earful about this – if you haven’t let them know your thoughts, tag their Twitter account and let them know. And please rise above and express your thoughts respectfully, as hard as it may be to lash out over the completely inappropriate on-scene reporting of Brazier.

Think Progress, Salon promote stifling of dissent over climate change

Tolerance

Yep.

Not exactly a surprise that these two ultra-liberal sites are proponents of shutuppery, but worth documenting all the same, no matter whether it happens here at home – or abroad.  Headline from Think Progress:

To Improve Accuracy, BBC Tells Its Reporters To Stop Giving Air Time To Climate Deniers

Got that? “To improve accuracy” – as if the BBC has ever given a rip about accuracy (or dissent, for that matter).

Headline from Salon:

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal air time to climate deniers

Here are the headlines as they appeared on Memeorandum, just in case either site tries to change them:

dissent

How Salon celebrated, er, reported the news (bolded emphasis added by me):

Good news for viewers of BBC News: you’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much air time (as in, any air time) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.

Think Progress gurgled:

When news outlets introduce false balance into its climate change stories, its audience then thinks those stories are less pressing than they actually are, a factor which contributes to uncertainty surrounding the issue and, ultimately, apathy. A 2009 study from the American Psychological Association confirmed this, noting that “perceived or real uncertainty” on climate change can lead to both “systematic underestimation of risk” and “sufficient reason to act in self interest over that of the environment.”

The far leftists at Hullabaloo cheered, “Kudos to the BBC for doing the right thing” while noting, “[o]ne of the hardest lessons journalism has had to learn over the last couple of decades is that sometimes truth doesn’t require balance.”  The Huffington Post, meanwhile, seemed hopeful this was a practice that would commence stateside – in short order.  The last sentence from their piece titled “The BBC Is Fighting Its Addiction To False Climate Change Balance“:

There was no word from American networks as to whether or not they were going to institute the same kinds of practices — though, given their recent output on climate change, it would be wise not to hold your breath.

And here you thought liberals were all about tolerance, and diversity, and freedom of thought and expression …

Member of Team Clinton bans conservative news outlet from U of Ark archives

Bill and Hillary Clinton

All about image.

Disturbing:

A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet published revealing stories about Hillary Clinton based on documents available at the university library.

The ban came days after the Free Beacon ran a story about Clinton’s 1975 defense of a child rapist that drew from audio recordings available at the University of Arkansas library’s special collections archives.

However, the ban was not mentioned in a June 16 email to this reporter from Steve Voorhies, manager of media relations at the university.

“Congratulations on another fine mining expedition into the University of Arkansas Libraries archives,” Voorhies wrote.

“I appreciate you raising the profile of the University of Arkansas Libraries special collections,” Voorhies concluded his email, while asking for advanced notice prior to future stories.

“I expect there is more you will find in coming months,” he said.

Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen informed editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti in a June 17 letter that the library had “officially suspended” the Free Beacon‘s research privileges.

That’s not even the half of it. Make sure to read the whole thing. The lengths the Clinton Protection Racket will go through to try to protect Bill and Hillary – especially Hillary, at this point, boggles the mind. Deeply disturbing. What else are they trying to hide?  You can bet this won’t be the last time the Beacon shines a light on them.

And to their credit, the Free Beacon isn’t backing down – as can be seen from their front page which has several huge Clinton stories  “above the fold” this morning.  Their response to Allen can be read here. Bravo.

ICYMI: Chris Matthews … defends the Tea Party?

Chris Matthews

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

So, yeah. Like this kinda sorta happened last week in the aftermath of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning GOP primary loss. Other sites caught onto it quickly but yours truly did not – better late than never:

Transcript, via Politico’s Dylan Byers:

This looking down our noses at tea party people has got to stop. They have a message. They’re as American as any liberal is. And they’re really angry about the failure of our system. I was over covering Eastern Europe when the wall came down. You know what people didn’t like? It wasn’t the philosophy of communism they didn’t like — it was the complete corruption of it, the failure of it to deliver to working people. That’s what this system is doing right now: We can’t control the deficit, we can’t control the debt, we can’t control the border. What good is government good at?”

Yeah, this is the same guy who, along with his fellow MSNBC talk show hosts, has … well, looked down his nose at the Tea Party for years, even at some points disgustingly comparing them to the Nazis. Has he had a change of heart? Seen the light? Turned over a new leaf? Who knows, but the softening towards the Tea Party apparently rubbed off on Matthews’ MSNBC colleague Chuck Todd, too:

Chuck Todd, NBC’s political director also took notice and said, “It is going to be difficult to pass amnesty legislation when the economy is leaving many American workers behind. American workers who are not insulated from the economic downturn are not going to want a flood of cheap labor pouring into the country who are going to compete with them for the few jobs that are available and lower their wages.”

Tony Lee of Breibart said in reference to Matthews and Todd’s comments, “It took Messrs, Matthews, and Todd five years to understand the disconnect between American workers and a permanent political class far removed from their economic troubles and a mainstream media that helps insulate those in “Boomtown” or “This Town.”

And my guess is that Matthews, Todd, and other liberal elites at MSNBC will get back to their usual Tea Party bashfest in short order, and that it’ll take them another five years to acknowledge anything else positive about the Tea Party. It’s just the way they roll. After all, they’ve got at least 10 viewers who they want to keep happy …

QOTD: Cosmo doubles down on the fail in response to “icky” self-defense comment

Women friends toasting with shots at a bar

Ladies, please be safe.
Image via HuffPo.

In case you were thinking that Cosmopolitan magazine was going to dial it down a notch or two in the aftermath of the outrage and disbelief over comments one of their managers made in response to Miss USA’s remarks on self defense in the context of campus rapes, think again. Cosmo sex editor Anna Breslaw stomped her feet and churned out this head-scratcher:

During the question-and-answer portion of the Miss USA pageant, 24-year-old Miss Nevada Nia Sanchez, who took home the crown, said she believed some colleges might sweep campus rape under the rug to prevent bad press. Sanchez, a fourth degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, added, “more awareness [of the issue] is very important so that women can learn to protect themselves … You need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. That’s something we need to start to implement for a lot of women.” 

[…]

Self defense isn’t icky, and anyone with a fifth-grade reading comprehension level can understand that’s not what Elisa was saying.  

Actually, yeah – it was:

I get that the college sexual assault problem can’t be solved in 30 secs but still icky to pretend like self defense is the answer. ” – Elisa Benson

Can’t get much more plain that that.  And as I noted in my prior piece on this issue, she was far from the only one.

Breslaw went on:

What is icky is the idea that we’d pour the entirety of our time, energy, and federal funding into training every 18-year-old girl in America to be jacked, gun-toting Lara Crofts rather than, oh, I don’t know, teaching boys not to rape or shaming college administrators for not taking sexual assault allegations seriously. 

What’s “icky” is Ms. Breslaw assuming that most people who did a double take at Ms. Benson’s remarks believe there’s only room for one solution.  Also “icky” is her implicit assumption that boys aren’t taught from a very early age to respect women. Disturbing is her obvious belief that if respect is taught then it automatically means that a young man won’t grow up and eventually hurt a woman.   We can and should drill it into the heads of every single one of them that respecting women is not optional, but that doesn’t mean on down the line he’s going to abide by that. 

Which is where self-defense comes into play.  Fortunately, Breslaw is on board with women learning self-defense. Sorta:

Self-defense is a fantastic thing for every woman (or man) to have under their belt — in fact, experts say would-be attackers are often deterred by the confident manner in which women educated in self-defense carry themselves — but this limited view of campus sexual assault prevention perpetuates dangerous myths about sexual assault and shames victims for not adequately “preparing” to defend themselves against rape. It’s the same mentality as blaming sexual assault victims for wearing provocative clothing and therefore “brought it upon themselves,” rather than blaming their attackers for the actual assault. 

Do me a favor and please re-read the bolded part of the above paragraph.  Then digest it.  Self-defense “perpetuates myths about sexual assault” and …. “shames victims” for not preparing to defend themselves?? SAY WHAT? She actually thinks promoting self-defense is the equivalent to those who snidely say “but she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it”?   And it “shames” women who have been victims of sexual assault? In what  universe does Ms. Breslaw reside?  One wonders if she’d say that exact thing to victims of sexual assault who take up self-defense training and who tour and give speeches promoting that very thing as a very useful tool in preventing an attacker from doing a woman harm?? Good grief!

She says she believes all this but yet wants you to think that she harbors a “big tent” approach to the issue combating violence against women that includes incorporating self-defense into the mix? I don’t think so.  Here’s the shorter version of Breslaw’s ridiculous argument:  ‘Let’s not emphasize self-defense because we don’t want to risk hurting the feelings of women who have already become victims. In fact, let’s put the onus for trying to stop future assaults entirely on “society” rather than try to educate women on how to better protect themselves.’  Maybe that “solution” would work flawlessly in Breslaw’s Feminist Utopia but here in the real world, the reality is that there are bad people out there and no matter how much we try and communicate that it’s not ok to hurt women, those who want to WILL.

Rape is more of a crime of opportunity than it is some guy hiding in an alleyway waiting for you to walk by. With increasing frequency, a rapist is more likely to be someone you know or are otherwise somewhat acquainted with, perhaps casually, than not.    Either way, it’s best to be prepared for any situation.  Travel in groups.  Hold tight to your beverage of choice at all times.  Don’t binge drink. Do not walk to your car alone at night.  Lock your car doors and windows – and the doors and windows to your house.  Do NOT answer the front door if you don’t know who the person is or if they just make you uncomfortable.   Do not get into a car with a man you don’t know.  Do not be free-flowing with personal information about yourself (such as where you live and your phone number) with guys who you’re just getting to know.  The list goes on and on.

It goes without saying but I’ll repeat it anyway: You could do all of the above and then some and still end up a victim of a sexual assault – and if it does happen, it is imperative that you understand that it is/was NOT your fault. Unfortunately, there is no “fool-proof” way of avoiding the possibility of something happening to you.  But you’ll lessen the chances of it happening if you take precautions.  We tell young kids they can’t walk half a block to the store alone because someone might snatch them.  We instruct teenagers to run away if someone they don’t know approaches them in a vehicle. These are common sense precautions that no one ever thinks twice about. Why would anyone on earth hesitate to make sure women are given the vital tips they need in order to try and avoid becoming a victim of a violent crime, in addition to continuing to educate young men that they must respect women?

Unlike Ms.  Breslaw, I don’t speak out of both sides of my mouth.  I really do believe we should do everything we can to prevent future assaults, not just by continuing to instill values at a young age to boys (and girls) that they should respect each other, but also by trying to ensure that women have every available tool at their disposal – both knowledge and physical power – to protect themselves.  Nothing “icky” or shameful about it. The phony, warped political correctness behind Breslaw’s “but we’re shaming victims by doing this!!” mentality only serves to create more victims of rape down the road. She might be ok with that, but I’m not.

Team Hillary to the NYT: Stop writing ‘negative’ stories about La Clinton

Hillary Clinton speaks in Gastonia, NC - 5/2/08. Photo taken by ST.

Hillary Clinton speaks in Gastonia, NC – 5/2/08. Photo taken by ST.

The Washington Free Beacon has an exclusive report on a ‘secret meeting’ between senior members of Team Clinton and the New York Times in which the Clintonistas told the Times to “back off” (via):

Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper’s Washington bureau, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper.

During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and should not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Neither the Times nor the Clinton camp would discuss on the record specifics. However, sources familiar with the meeting describe it as an attempt to brush back and even intimidate the staff of the Times. The sometimes fraught relationship between Clinton and the press has been well documented.

“We are not going to comment,” said a Times spokesperson when contacted by the Free Beacon.

Reines and another spokesperson for Clinton did not respond to requests for comment.

Newsbusters’ Tim Graham astutely points out:

Scott Whitlock also noted a puffy Chozick front-pager on how the Clintons would seek to reclaim “populist” (i.e. ultraliberal) ground on income inequality, so it’s not like the Clintons have a lot of complaining to do. But part of the Clintons maintaining their “inevitable” grip on the Democratic nomination clearly means keeping their partisan press operatives in line.

Absolutely.  It’s not like the New York Times treat La Clinton like they would your average Republican politico, and even “negative” stories (by the loosest of definitions) are far fairer on HillaryCo than anything you’d see about her opposition … unless the opposition’s name was Barack Obama, of course.

This is, as Graham noted, just a way for Hillary and her operatives to try and make sure her typical media allies don’t stray too far off course in the coming months as she gears up for a likely presidential announcement. It’s  all part of the massive Clinton media-machine, which will try and break reporters who don’t fall in lockstep with her PR agenda, and which will reward those who regurgitate the Approved Talking Points™.  

If you still had any doubts at this point as to whether or not she would run for President, this report should give you your answer: Yes.

Brutal: NY Daily News on #Bergdahl deal — “Surrender without honor”

**Posted by Phineas

NYDN cover

Mind you, this is from one of the liberal newspapers in New York City:

President Obama betrayed the highest obligation of his office — safeguarding national security — in trading five hard-core Taliban for the American serviceman who appears to have deserted in Afghanistan.

The five sworn enemies of the United States are now in the Gulf state of Qatar, where they are free to come and go as they like, beyond the watch of American agents. In just one year, they will be free to return to Afghanistan to fight there and stage terror attacks far beyond that country’s borders.

These facts were known to Obama when he made the deal, and yet he went ahead in irresponsible disregard for lives he has endangered. As the facts have emerged — and more surely will — it has become ever clearer that he lost his presidential compass in the Taliban swap.

In retrospect, his Rose Garden announcement that he was bringing home an American POW appears to have been a cynical act of theater.

In other words, a dog and pony show to distract from the VA fiasco. I can believe that.

Then, after dismissing Obama’s assurances about “keeping on eye” on these barbarians while they’re in Qatar, the NYDN delivers the killing blow:

Finally, Obama provided insight into the actual reason for the deal by placing it in the context of his drive to pull out of Afghanistan.

“This is what happens at the end of wars,” Obama said. “That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that’s been true of every combat situation — that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back.”

In other words, he wants out so badly that he accepted the Taliban’s terms, regardless of the threat to American security.

He is surrendering without honor.

Remember, this is from a major regional paper that’s generally on The One’s side. Can’t dismiss this one as “Faux News.”

What’s going on here, I think, is that even center-left outlets (1) are having trouble coloring this as anything other than a major “dereliction of duty” on the part of the president. They find themselves nodding in agreement with former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy at center-right PJM:

Is that the end of the matter? Not by a long shot. As I’ve also contended, the president’s failure to comply with a dubious statute is a mere footnote to his truly egregious offense: replenishing enemy forces at a time when the enemy is still conducting offensive terrorist operations against our armed forces. It would be difficult to fathom a more outrageous dereliction of duty by the commander-in-chief.

Moreover, if you want to fret over statutory violations, I would spend less time on the 30-day notice law and more on the federal criminal law that makes material support to terrorists a serious felony. The president has knowingly provided personnel—key, experienced, highly effective jihadists—to terrorist organizations that are still very much at war with the United States. That is material support to terrorism.

What Obama did was the equivalent of Eisenhower capturing senior North Korean and Chinese generals and then returning them while the fighting in Korea was still going on. If Ike were an idiot, that is, which he wasn’t.

In New York City, a metropolis that’s been the victim of catastrophic terrorism, even a paper as reliably liberal as the Daily News can’t help but scream “What in God’s name do you think you’re doing??”

If Team Unicorn expected any kudos for this “deal,” they must be gravely disappointed.

PS: Jim Geraghty, from whom I took the graphic, has an interesting article on impressions confirmed and disproved by the Bergdahl deal. Also via Jim, is Obama so sick of being president that he’s dropping hints he may resign if the Republicans win the Senate in November? Check this out:

Obama tells anxious Democrats that there is only so much he can do beyond fundraising and better implementing the health-care law. But he also has told allies that losing the Senate to Republicans would make his last two years in office unbearable . . .

“I don’t really care to be president without the Senate,” Obama said, according to attendees, signaling that he knew the health care debacle created resentment among Democrats and that he wanted to make amends.

As Allahpundit likes to say, “Hmmm….”

via Bryan Preston

Footnote:
(1) Other than MSNBC, which will be the network of Obama lickspittles until the End of Days.

UPDATE: At The Federalist, Robert Tracinski asks a darned fine question — “Why Are We Releasing Terrorists Who Kill Girls Because They Go To School?”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Hillary Clinton set to soon do a sit-down interview with Fox News?

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and  Vice President Joe Biden

The Washington Post reports an intriguing development:

Fox News Channel will do an interview with former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton next month on the heels of her memoir release date.

Fox News’s Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren will conduct a joint interview with Clinton on June 17, the network announced Thursday. It will come one week after the June 10 release of Clinton’s memoir, “Hard Choices.”

This is obviously a win for both Fox News and Team Clinton.  Fox News for managing to get a high profile potential 2016 presidential contender who perceives their network as overtly biased against the Obama administration, and Team Clinton for agreeing to sit down for an interview with the left’s most hated network – which should score her some major points with the Democrat base.

It should be noted that neither Baier nor Van Susteren are super-combative interviewers like a Bill O’Reilly would be, but they’re no pushovers, either.  This one should be very interesting.

Grab the popcorn!

Obama’s West Point speech criticized by three major newspaper editorials

Obama arrogance

And you’ll never believe why.  Via The Politico (hat tip):

Editorial boards at three major U.S. newspapers are criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point as incomplete and failing to recognize America’s international standing.

The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his “address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.”

Obama “provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years,” the Times wrote, “and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world.”

[…]

The Washington Post editorial said the president’s “binding of U.S. power places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II.”

“President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries,” the board said, attacking the president for resorting to rhetoric instead of adjusting policy.

The Post also said that Obama provided “scant comfort” to those concerned about his policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.

You read that correctly.  The New York Times and the Washington Post, two of the top news publications in the country – and two of Obama’s biggest supporters and defenders - are criticizing his lack of emphasis on American exceptionalism, a major problem conservatives pointed out about him well before he was elected.  Yes, I do believe hell may have actually frozen over.

The other paper, by the way, was the Wall Street Journal editorial page – frequent critics of the President on both the foreign and domestic front.  You can read the President’s full West Point speech here.