Pew: ‘Mosque Debate Tops Coverage, But Not News Interest’

The Pew Research Center has posted a new media study showing that most Americans are not interested to hear about the NYC Islamic community center, but would rather see coverage related to the BP oil spill.

While the media focused on the emotionally-charged debate over plans to build an Islamic mosque and cultural center near the World Trade Center site in New York City last week, the public continued to track the Gulf oil leak.

About a third of the public (34%) says they followed news about the oil leak more closely than other major stories, 15% say they followed news about the economy most closely and 13% say they focused most closely on the mosque debate, according to the latest weekly News Interest Index survey, conducted Aug 19-22 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press among 1,003 adults.

Another 9% say their top story was the withdrawal of the last U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

It is also not surprising that Republicans are more interested in this non-story about a mosque within a community center than are Democrats and independents.

This entire hate-fest was started up by conservatives and promoted by Republicans so it is no shock that the people they were trying to inspire bigotry came and delivered for them.

In my opinion this discussion over whether or not to move a house of worship is a false one. There is no discussion to have here whatsoever.

If you think a house of worship must move because of some bigoted comments from Newt Gingrich & others you are standing against the Constitution and against the very foundation of the United States.

Of course a person is free to hold this position, but there is no discussion to have on the topic until they amend their position to include throwing out the First Amendment as the first step to “stopping the American Jihad.” Since these ruthless, lying bigots only have emotional nonsense and hatred to spread there is no discussion resulting in anything productive that will take place.

The very fact that some liberals are entertaining this as a valid discussion is nothing less than disgusting to me.

Thankfully, it looks like (according to Pew) most people are viewing this as another non-story propped up by the media to take up space on slow news days and / or promote Republican racist ideology.

The O’Reilly Half-Apology for Tiller Murder

O’Reilly: “I would say we have covered this story passionately.”
O’Reilly: “Now if something happens to this Oklahoma rapist guy, they are going to try to blame us for it.”

Geraldo: “You mean like the Tiller thing.”

Geraldo: “If this guy [child rapist] was found on the side of the road I wouldn’t shed one tear.”

O’Reilly: “When someone does something like the person who killed Tiller and engages in vigilante violence they commit just as immoral an act as this rapist in Oklahoma.”

I finally agree with Bill O’Reilly on something and have lost a good deal of respect for Geraldo Rivera.

Bill O’Reilly brought this up as a chance to defend himself and I think he made his case well. I still think he engaged in irresponsible broadcasting in the past but not tonight.

Tonight the mantle of Irresponsible Broadcaster of FOX Cable News is: Geraldo Rivera.

I think he is pretty deluded to think that denouncing vigilantism and eluding to it in the same statement is anything but ironic and sad.

Passionate reporting is one thing, and making vague statements about people being killed or otherwise harmed is very possibly why someone like me might declare The O’Reilly Factor as inciting domestic terrorism.

I wouldn’t shed one tear if Mark Sanford is found on the side of the road.

Freedom of speech.

As if I care to defend rapists. I only seek to point out that vigilantes exactly as immoral as the ones they wish to kill.

And we only hear this little bit of sanity from Bill O’Reilly well after the fact he crusades against all liberals and against Dr. Tiller.

I still thank him for it. Let his minions absorb this deep into their minds.

That they are no more than child molesters when they go and ’save some babies’ with a gun.

 

 

Presumption of Innocence in the Media is Gone

I think the U.S. news media just got tired of the word “allegedly” in regards to OJ Simpson case in the 90’s and thereafter.
Now when anyone is up on charges or accused of anything above an exact threshold that they set, they are “insta-guilty!” in everything but the most stoic of sources in American culture.

I tend to think that “Blago” as we want to call him is not at all innocent of these charges but I wrote a piece of student-journalism regarding the whole issue without accusing him in innuendo or directly. It’s not exactly hard to presume innocence.

[Read “Government Corruption: What to Know to Protect Ourselves” on my Observing America weblog.]

It just drives up ratings / hits if you call him a “corruption king” or a “master of evil” or a “fraud miser.” Solid evidence be damned! Prosecutor opinions and partial pieces of a case leaked to the press be praised!

Yes, I heard the tape of him swearing every other word. And I saw all the FCC blocked out quotes, too. (Why do they even put things like that on TV when it’s more asterisk than English?)

But any one of us could have secret tapes made of us where we said crazy stuff we wouldn’t say in public. Now imagine taking the whole tape and cutting it into 5 seconds or one paragraph of juiciness.

See how anyone could be the media boogie-man by tomorrow regardless of how insane they actually are? Maybe you’re next on the list.

We hold court in this country for a reason.

So the court of public opinion doesn’t start ‘Blago Mobs’ in Illinois, in this case.

You tell me why it is a good idea to have a free media that freely assumes guilt of anyone facing charges they think are big enough to matter.

Not to mention that statute violations and ethical board decisions are often passed over or reported in brief and then unreferenced in later discussions because they do not stimulate enough ratings due to the ‘oh that’s boring’ and the ‘give me a real scandal’ attitudes.

What other media watchdogs are barking, I wonder?