You may have heard enough about the biased mainstream media, but here is something new and important. We are at the beginning of an important, well-conceived and powerful organized effort to bring down the mainstream media. It is sponsored by the media watchdog, Accuracy in Media (AIM), an organization that has been fighting the almost total leftist bias found in the mainstream media for about 40 years.
So one of my most fervent prayers has been answered. And the answer comes in a form that will finally wage an effective battle against one of America's most dangerous enemies, an enemy that threatens the very foundation of a free society, an enemy that is a more dangerous than the threat posed by Islamofascists terrorists and genocidal maniacs that now spread across the planet. We know how to fight the war on terror and have been successful in keeping the homeland safe since 9/11. But to this point, there has not been a good battle plan to do something about the mainstream media, which often seems to be wining its war against America.
The enemy I'm talking about is the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media that is destroying the foundation of democracy by giving Americans a false picture of the world and that even going so far, as The Times has done on more than one occasion, of putting national security secrets and their front-page. This same media most recently elected a president, by defrauding the public with a false view of the candidate. The treasonous, treacherous New York Times is only one piece of the mainstream media, but it is unfortunately the most influential and the most dangerous. So that's why AIM is taking aim at on the Times.
The first shots in the war against the New York Times comes with the announcement that AIM has launched a boycott of that newspaper, and has set up a website to carry it forward at www.boycottnyt.com. The website includes articles and commentary about the boycott of The Times and a petition, whose signers pledge to boycott The Times, both its print and online edition as well as its advertisers.
The case against The Times has been made many times, but the editor of the boycott site, Don Feder, makes the case again in crystal clear fashion, and he should convince any of the still unconvinced. Mr. Feder writes, "The Times has, over the course of decades, blatantly distorted the news to advance an ideological agenda. The Times' persistent bias is reflected in its double standard in coverage of liberals and conservatives, its misreporting of election news, the hidden assumptions that underlie news stories and in the palpable imbalance in commentary. While The Times is notorious for editorials thinly disguised as 'news coverage,' during a presidential election, the gangs really come out."
Mr. Feder also beautifully states the rationale for the boycott: "When a company manufacturers dangerously defective products, despite repeated warnings, consumer advocates have both a right and a duty to organize a boycott. The Times is manufacturing a product ('news coverage') which is both defective and dangerous. By boycotting the New York Times, we are refusing to do business with a company that is undermining our values, our society and our nation." The public not only has a right to boycott The Times, it has a duty to do so.
As a consumer reporter, I've spent over 30 years reporting on dangerous and defective products, but I've never reported on one that threatens to undermine our values, our society, and our nation, and I've never reported on any that in effect commits treason and acts to aid and comfort the enemies of America. This is certainly among the most deadly of consumer products. And we ought to view the times as a dangerous consumer product. It can't be recalled or otherwise controlled by a government agency, but it can be boycotted.
The boycott of the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media is long overdue, as the dangers they pose become ever more serious. Most observers of the media scene agree that the reporting of the mainstream media is getting worse all the time, and hit a new and unacceptable low during the 2008 election and its aftermath. Mr. Feder said, "As bad as the New York Times has been before, it's nothing compared to the way the paper has managed, manipulated and mangled coverage of the 2008 campaign." For example, during the campaign, Feder wrote, "Not a day goes by that The Times doesn't misrepresent John McCain, ridicule Sarah Palin, refuse to report a revelation that reflects badly on the Obama-Biden campaign, or rationalize Obama's radical past."
The studies of media coverage during the campaign prove media bias has unfairly influenced public opinion. For example, a Zogby poll found that 93.8 percent of voters knew Mrs. Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, while only 18.2 percent of voters knew that Sen. Biden withdrew from a previous presidential run because he had committed plagiarism during the campaign. Such evidence shows that the mainstream media sold anything thought to be unfavorable about Mrs. Palin and suppressed the unfavorables about Biden. The same for the top of the ticket.
A Pew study found that only 9 percent of voters think the media favored Sen. McCain. In contrast, 70 percent think the media favored Obama. A study from the Project on Excellence in Journalism found that in the six weeks after the nominating convention, there were four times as many negative stories about Sen. McCain as about Sen. Obama.
The Times and the mainstream media have long been in the journalistic sewer violating all the accepted principles of journalism. Back in 2003, Bob Kohn, meticulously documented the journalist failures of the Times in a book entitled Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted. A reader of that book would find it hard to imagine how the coverage could get more distorted and biased, but it has and not by a little bit, but massively.
Of course, if you've been following the campaign and the post-campaign coverage of the coming Obama-Biden administration, you don't need a study, a poll, or even much research to sense the distortions and bias that permeate most mainstream media coverage. You get the feeling they are not talking about a mere mortal, but instead are reporting on a Savior, a Messiah, a combination of Lincoln and Roosevelt even before his inauguration, the leader of Camelot (Bamelot), the leader of the O-Generation, a genius, and about every other bit of effusive praise some seemingly Obama-intoxicated journalist can come up with.
The gushing praise of Sen. Obama is so extreme that its authors sometimes admit their views are irrational but try to explain them as though they still have some rational basis. Consider this headline from a New York Magazine piece (Sept. 17, 2008) entitled "Obamaism." The subhead line reads, "It's a kind of religion. But one rooted in a deep faith in reason." The same author, in singing the praises of his Messiah, also insults most Americans. That view is captured on the magazine's cover headline, "The President of Us: The triumph of the Obama idea, and the peculiar feeling of being part of America again." This has the taint of the hate-America views of Michelle Obama who admitted for the first time she was proud of America because her husband was running for president. She also said America is a downright mean country. The author of this article in the New York Magazine on the Obamas writes, "But for those of us born since World War II, never in our adult lifetimes (as the next First Lady undoubtedly meant to say last winter) has any single event made us prouder of our country." He describes us now all in a "strange and glorious new Technicolor world." I think most Americans have always been proud of their country, and didn't need electing Obama to make us prouder. Americans felt America was always a glorious, Technicolor place, with or without some new president-elect. And we always felt we were part of America, even before Sen. Obama.
The Times and the mainstream media, in my view, were responsible for electing Sen. Obama, as they served as his exclusive campaign managers, boot lickers, lapdogs, press agents, and propagandists. But that was just one part of their agenda. They also have a distinct anti-religion, anti-conservative, anti-Republican, anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-family, anti-patriotism, anti-small-government, anti-American, anti-Judeo-Christian values, anti-border security, anti-capitalist and anti-business agenda. They also have a politically correct stance, which runs against clear thinking and common sense. And finally, they have an isolationist ethic that is totally out of place in a world made ever smaller by advancing technology and engulfed in a worldwide war involving Islamo-fascist terrorism.
Different strains of this bias are documented at the boycott website. For example, you should read the article on The Times' anti-religion agenda, and the article on The Times' jihad against domestic oil production. Among the other excellent postings is a report on how The Times did not report how the terrorists and thugs seem to love Obama until after the election was over. And you should also read the report, "NY Times Delirious Over Obama's Election."
To give you a flavor, The Times held back the news that thugs such as Castro and terrorits such as Hamas were in love with Sen. Obama. Only after the election did they run a story about one of the terrorist fans of Sen. Obama. But then The Times also ran a story that Sen. Obama's election was a victory in the war against terrorism. Feder put that Times' nonsense away with a few master strokes:
"The Times thinks international terrorism suffered a staggering defeat because the voters elected a president who isn't white, thus confirming that America cares about the downtrodden - like Harvard-educated lawyers with seven-figure incomes.
"Never mind that Obama has multiple ties to radical Muslims, including his friend Rashid Khalidi. Forget that Sen. Obama said he would meet with the leaders of Iran and Syria without preconditions. Never mind that Sen. Obama intends to hand the terrorists a victory in Iraq.
"The New York Times wants us to believe that Obama's triumph is a setback for al-Qaida. Sure, and the election of a disciple of Saul Alinsky is a victory for the free market."
As I said at the outset, this is the beginning of an important movement. And I hope that AIM follows my suggestion to create a master plan that can be used to implement boycotts against mainstream media outlets all over the country. There should definitely be one organized to boycott the Philadelphia Inquirer, and there is a need for hundreds of other such boycotts all across the nation. There is already one effective boycott now in progress against the Los Angeles Times, the disgraceful wet coast version of The Times. I hope AIM serves up the format for a standard approach that can be used, and then coordinates all the efforts of these websites designed to boycott the mainstream media. Many others and I would be delighted to get involved in one or more of these efforts.
One thing you can do right away is sign the petition at www.boycott.nyt.com/boycott-the-new-york-times-petition. Also take a look at the boycott site and AIM's site at www.aim.org. Here is the language of the petition:
Whereas, the New York Times consistently and blatantly distorts the news to advance its leftist agenda.
Whereas, the New York Times promotes an anti-family, pro-big government, anti-faith, anti-American, politically-correct, isolationist ethic - in the guise of news coverage.
Whereas, the New York Times has spent decades maligning conservatives, misreporting campaign news (to favor the more liberal candidate), sneering at patriotism, denigrating America and undermining Judeo-Christian morality.
Whereas, many of the New York Times "news" stories contain hidden assumptions, among them - the rich aren't paying enough taxes, we need more government, abortion is a right, same-sex marriage is a matter of fairness, conservatives are heartless, man-made Global warming is an incontrovertible reality, gun-control is the most effective way to combat crime, foreign terrorism suspects are entitled to all of the due-process rights of American citizens, and negotiations are the best way to confront terrorist states.
Whereas, the influence of the New York Times extends far beyond the number of copies sold or visits to its website.
Whereas, the New York Times sets the agenda for the mainstream (establishment) media, and is widely copied by other media outlets.
Whereas The New York Times consistently violates journalistic ethics - including a duty to be accurate, impartial and balanced in news coverage.
Whereas The New York Times is impervious to change, and is deaf to valid criticism, despite the substantial decline in its revenues.
Whereas, the public has a First Amendment right to protest the foregoing in the form of a boycott and a duty to do so when media bias adversely affects the general welfare.
Therefore, the undersigned pledge to boycott the New York Times, both its print and online editions. Wherever possible, they will also refuse to patronize The Times' advertisers. Additionally, they will do their best to get out word of the boycott and to persuade the organizations with which they are affiliated to join the same.
After you sign the petition, join the battle against one of the premier enemies of America, the mainstream media. Here are a few things you can do:
1. Write a letter to The Times complaining about its biased journalism. You can get the e-mail address of various people at the Times on the boycott web site.
2. Call a talk show and complain about mainstream media bias. You might start with the great around-the-clock line-up on WNTP (990 AM) or some of the conservative hosts on (1210 AM).
3. Start reading some of the alternative media that will give you a picture of both sides of the issues. Two of the best magazines are the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Also start following some of the best websites such as townhall.com and hotair.com.
4. Extend the boycott beyond The Times. The obvious place for Philadelphia-area residents is the Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the worst examples of the mainstream media.
5. Go to some of the other media monitors such as mediaresearch.org. This is an excellent source of information on liberal media bias. It is headed by Brent Bozell. There are also two other valuable sites specializing in bias in reporting news from the Middle East - camera.org and honestreporting.com.
But get involved. If there was ever a time when eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, this is the moment. The U.S. and the free world face almost certain destruction if we go down the wrong path, and it will take an enormous amount of citizen input to keep us on the right path.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.