Ever wonder just how bias journalism has become in America. There have been numerous BQI articles and posts on this topic and after each one I’m convinced that the most recent reporting was probably the most egregious example of liberal media bias. Well, once again we are reporting yet another example of how slanted and politically motivated liberal reporting has become (sorry for the redundancy)
This time last year the world was witnessing the Egyptian uprisings. Liberal media reported on the remarkable efforts of young Egyptians who had taken to the streets to protest the lack of freedom under the oppressive regime of President Hosni Mubarak. MSNBC and other Obama driven news outlets (o.k. bare with me for calling them news outlets) gleefully recounted how President Obama’s famous Egyptian speech served as the catalysis for what became the Arab Spring. I specifically remember the venerable Mika Brzezinski (you know Mika…the placement holder..ugh), of MSNBC, commenting that “…based on news reports and pictures coming from Egypt…things seemed to have gone pretty damn well.” (of course about the time that this statement was made people were being raped, assaulted and killed in the streets of Tahir Square) By all liberal accounts what was reported about the Egyptian uprising was couched in terms of a successful Obama foreign policy.
Today, one year later, we have liberal film makers reporting on the first anniversary of the Egyptian uprising. Needless to say, they present the conflict as a strike for democracy and freedom. Note the video clip here:
O.k. as Mika would say, there are issues with this report “…on so many levels.” First, it is noted how the directors, John Alpert and Matt O’ Neil painted what could only be described as a romantic picture of the uprising. This is how liberals look at the world. They see as their ultimate goal the creation of a utopian world so any movement or action that might remotely lead to such a state, will be presented by the media as a righteous and virtuous event; despite the clear examples of torture, rape and pillage by those engaged in the civil disorder. The fact of the matter is that the movement fits the liberal narrative that revolutions are always a good thing.
Second, it was also interesting to note the casual manner in which one of the directors described the family members of the Egyptian reporter who was the central theme of their documentary. The reporter, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, an Egyptian American was followed by directors Alper and O’Neil in making the documentary. In describing Mr. Kouddous’s background the director noted, in a rather casual matter of fact way, that one of Kouddous’s family members was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the Muslim Brotherhood that has been identified as extremist and whose ideology is to promote the ultimate destruction of the State of Israel. But it wasn’t just the directors who sought to paint a starry-eyed romantic picture of the Egyptian Arab Spring.
Mike Barnacle, a former Boston Globe newspaper reporter and now MSNBC analyst (o.k. I know that’s a stretch but he usually has something irrelevant to say), asked some rather penetrating (?) questions. With all of the turmoil still happening in Egypt Mike knew that what viewers really wanted to know was how the documentary was edited for distribution. That’s right…how did the directors edit so much information on the uprising in making the film? Didn’t Egypt just have an election and wasn’t there some really remarkable outcomes from those elections? Indeed there was but Mike felt strongly that we should know the technical machinations of film making and hence his inquiry.
In the one almost successful attempt at journalistic reporting Joe Scarborough asked the two directors about the difficult times now experienced in Egypt. Clearly Joe was attempting to put a real face on the ongoing Egyptian uprising, a face of a turbulent society mocked with riots and other acts of suppression by the ruling military powers. In fact, out of the recent Egyptian election we see that extreme radicals have garnered significant power in the new legislative body. A significant number of seats, about 45%, were won by the radical Muslim Brotherhood group and, although they won fewer seats, the extreme Salafist Nour Party won approximately 25% of the seats. These two groups are advocates of an Islamist theocracy based on Sharia Law. How, then, can we in the west praise the Egyptian movement when in the end we are likely to see a huge radical Islamist Sharia compliant country rise from the ashes of the Egyptian revolt; the same Sharia law that denies women so many rights and freedoms.
Notwithstanding Joe’s futile attempt to bring the discussion around to some sense of realism the directors would have none of it. When Joe mentioned that it was fantasy land to think that the ultimate outcome of the Arab Spring will be nations with Jeffersonian democracy the directors responded: “..It won’t be a Jeffersonian democracy but it will be an Egyptian democracy and no matter what it will be a step forward.” A step forward? In other words it does not matter that Egypt will end up as an Islamist state, the point is that they had a revolution for “freedom”. As is always the case with liberals, the outcomes of liberal actions or policies are immaterial. What matters to liberals and progressives are the good intentions behind the policies and in the case of Egypt, the motivations for the uprising; noble motivations that could have taken the country to nirvana. Based on the article below Egyptian Christians and Jews might hold a slightly different opinion of the Arab Spring.
Egyptian Salafi Leader: “Infidel” Christians Can’t Hold Power In Egypt, “They Can Be Dealt With Like The Jews Of Medina”…
The Jews of Medina were slaughtered by the “prophet” Mohammed.
(MEMRI) — Yassir Al-Burhami: Appointing infidels to positions of authority over Muslims is prohibited. Allah said: “Never will Allah grant the infidels a way [to triumph] over the Believers.”
We are not afraid of losing the elections or of not getting votes. We are not trying to ingratiate ourselves before the people.
Can the Christians of Egypt be compared to the Jews of Al-Medina? The case of the Jews of Al-Medina is one example of the relations between the Muslims and the infidels. The Muslims can implement any form of conduct used by the Prophet Muhammad. When the Prophet Muhammad was still in Mecca, he dealt with the infidels in a certain way, and when the Muslims are weak, they should deal with the infidels this way. “Refrain from action, pray, and pay the zakkat.”
In many infidel countries, such as occupied Palestine, we instruct Muslims to do just that. We are not telling the Muslims in Gaza to launch rockets every day, which would lead to the destruction of the entire country. We tell them to adhere to the truce.
When the Prophet Muhammad first arrived in Al-Medina, he signed a treaty with the Jews without forcing them to pay the jizya poll tax. This was necessary at the time, but when they breached the treaty, he fought them, and eventually, he imposed the jizya upon the People of the Book.
The Christians [of Egypt] can be dealt with like the Jews of Al-Medina. This is possible.
From Weasel Zippers
Finally, I had ended this article with the Weasel Zippers link above. However, since putting the finishing touches to this story I noticed yet another blatant bias series of stories.
No one would dispute the fact that NBC and MSNBC especially, are now in campaign mode for President Obama’s reelection. You may recall an article posted last week at BQI reporting that several personnel from the liberal media cabal recently met behind closed doors at the White House. The fact that no conservative outlets were represented means only one thing, they got their campaign marching orders for media reporting. Now we know exactly the content of those orders.
Since last week the liberal media air ways have been inundated with stories of an economy that is improving; how Obama’s favorable rating has jumped 8 points; how the mood of the country is shifting in favor of the President and his policies. O.k. all of this good news has happened with nothing having changed. Just like during the early years of the Bush # 2 presidency, when the economy was roaring, the media constantly harangued about how poor the economy was as the stock market soared and employment stood at 4.5 percent. With no ability to campaign on his record, Obama is completely depended on the media to fashion public opinion and perception in order to improve his chances of winning reelection. Sadly there are Americans, uninformed Americans, who will be influenced by these distortions, lies and untruths.