Accuracy in Media

to Matt Drudge, Jesse Jackson’s disparaging comments about Barack Obama have
become national news. Who benefits? Obama. It makes Obama look like a moderate,
compared to the disgraced, discredited and venomous Jackson. But this doesn’t mean, by any
stretch of the imagination, that Jackson, a failed black presidential
candidate, will cease to be a national black “leader” and spokesman. Remember
this is a “Reverend” who has survived the embarrassment of fathering a child
out of wedlock.

why would Fox News, which recorded and provided Jackson’s
private comments, want to make Jackson
look bad and Obama look good? Why did it take several days before the comments
were aired by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News? And who outside of the news
organization was made aware of the controversial remarks before they were put
on the air? Was the Obama campaign notified in advance and consulted about what
to do?

do know that Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch is already on the Obama bandwagon,
having declared the candidate a “rock star” and a winner with a good university
record. Murdoch’s New York Post endorsed Obama in the Democratic primaries,
after Murdoch, who had been supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, figured she
was a loser.

also know that Bill O’Reilly, in the middle of this controversy, has recently
been campaigning on the air for Obama to come on his show. He is even
conducting a poll of viewers to see how many think Obama will appear on the air
with him. Such pandering means that O’Reilly will steer clear of anything
really embarrassing to the candidate. After all, he wants the interview!

Cillizza of the Washington Post reported that Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report
had an item about Jackson’s
comments before they actually aired on the O’Reilly program. How did that
happen? Even stranger, Bill O’Reilly was quoted as saying
about Jackson,
“We are not out to embarrass him and we are not out to make him look bad. If we
were, we would have used what we had, which is more damaging than what you have

In addition to the troubling matter of why Fox News is
withholding these additional Jackson
remarks, the delay in airing some of them is also of concern. The Los Angeles
Times reported, “Fox News held the footage of Jackson’s remarks for three days before
showcasing it as an exclusive on its top-rated program. A network executive
said the delay was related to the holiday weekend as well as a desire to be
cautious about the controversial material.”

Could the deliberations have had something to do with the
political impact? The Obama campaign must have seen the remarks as a Godsend,
enabling the candidate to rise above Jesse Jackson-style politics. Did Fox News
see them the same way?

the mix comes another discredited and disgraced black politician, Al Sharpton,
who has been all over Fox News commenting on the “controversy.” Sharpton was on
Fox News this morning and on Hannity & Colmes last night. He might as well
sleep in the “green room” where guests get ready to go on the air. He was also
on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week talking about something else. That’s three
times in about a week and a half. Remember that Sharpton is the “Reverend” who
hyped black woman Tawana Brawley’s hoax about being raped by white men. Why is
he even on the air?

is useful to Fox News because he offers protection from left-wingers anxious to
brand the channel as too conservative and racist. That’s why O’Reilly honored
at a national conference after getting into trouble by cracking a
joke about black kids stealing hubcaps.

Drudge and Fox News highlight the Jackson
remarks, enabling Obama to put distance between himself and Jackson. Sharpton,
of course, must see the controversy as a way for him to upstage Jackson. It is a clever
gambit for all concerned.

Obama, it is another chapter in his “extreme makeover,” following his patriotic
speech and TV ad.

the same vein, the Washington Post has a Thursday front-page “analysis” story headlined, “Obama’s Ideology Proving Difficult to Pinpoint.” For reporter Dan
Balz, supposedly a veteran political analyst, Obama’s flip-flops do not prove
political expediency and a desire to fool voters, but raise “unanswered
important questions about his core principles and his presidential priorities.”

is laughable. Obama is the most far-left major party candidate ever to run for
the presidency. Yet Balz insists that serious questions remain “about who Obama
is ideologically.”

Post is one among many liberal (and conservative) papers which will never utter
the words “Frank Marshall Davis” when discussing Obama. Davis
was Obama’s Communist father-figure and mentor when Obama was being raised in Hawaii. On the American
Thinker website, Andrew Walden has filled in some of the other blanks about
Obama’s mysterious past. His article is titled, “What Barack Obama Learned From the Communist Party.” Don’t look for
any pick-up on the Drudge Report, Fox News, or the Post because this kind of
information makes Obama look bad.

does not mean that all of Obama’s views are communist or socialist, or that all
communists and socialists support him. Veteran Communist and Democratic Party
activist Alan Maki tells me that, despite announcing a Frank Marshall Davis
discussion group on an official Obama community blog website, he wants it known
far and wide that he doesn’t support the candidate and wouldn’t walk across the
street to vote for him. Maki, an organizer of casino workers in Minnesota, thinks Obama and
McCain are too close to Big Business, including the casino industry.

Obama changed his ideology, which was developed and based on a pattern of
associations ranging from Frank Marshall Davis to Marxists in college and the
Communist terrorists and socialists that launched his career in Chicago? That is a
question we should all want asked and answered. But in order to even get close
to asking and answering it, the media will have to ask Obama about Davis. Davis was so extreme that he denounced another
black author, Richard Wright, for “treason” for breaking with and exposing the
Communist Party USA. Those “news” outlets which continue to ignore the story
will expose themselves as being in Obama’s back pocket. 

further demonstrates his ignorance of the facts when he claims that “no
signature policy proposal is universally regarded as distinctive in defining
his politics or philosophy.” This is what the Obama campaign wants you to
believe. He ignores Obama’s Global Poverty Act, the $845 billion foreign aid
boondoggle that is possibly coming up for a full Senate vote. Our media have
been careful not to mention Obama’s sponsorship of the bill for the very reason
that it does in fact shed light on his ideological approach. Obama has
deliberately ignored it as well, even in a TV ad touting his alleged
legislative accomplishments. In effect, Obama is covering up his own record.
And the media go along with it.

you can bet that if it passes the Senate, the media will suddenly discover the
legislation and hail Obama for trying to eradicate global poverty. This is how
pro-Obama media bias works. Then the pressure will be intense on President Bush
to sign the bill. 

now, Obama is playing a clever game, using various media properties on the
right and left for the purpose of making himself look more moderate and

not be under any illusions about what is happening here.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.