She is pro life and must be destroyed !!!

 Here is the photo of Bachman causing the stir. Actually I have not ever seen a bad photo of her. To the right is the writer of the article and the one who picked out the photo. This is her file photo and quite frankly she looks hung over. I would retake that photo if I were her. But on to National Organization for Women (NOW) being shamed into making a lukewarm statement on her behalf. They have been criticized for remaining silent in the past as other conservative women have been routinely mocked.....Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman etc...... you can almost see their gritted teeth as they give the statement. They feel free to add that it is their goal to defeat Bachman but since she is of  their gender they need to squeak up when she is unfairly attacked. As one commenter stated, I thought they were to defend and uphold the rights of all women not just pro abortion women.  Another commenter made an excellent point...."

"NOW is a non-profit, tax- exempt membership organization working politically and legislatively to ... This status should be revoked. The tax payers are funding this organization that is a political operative of the democratic party. Please file a complaint with the IRS."

Just to be fair to all parties, I found a pix of Terry O'Neill. I never take a good pix myself so I am not commenting. She looks kind of angry but hey she is advocating for abortion....not a loving moment so let's give her a pass on that. I can almost hear her saying.... pro life women must be destroyed.... she kind of looks like the queen of rage.





Monday, the National Organization for Women (NOW) spoke out against Newsweek’s most recent cover, which features an extreme close-up of Michele Bachmann and the title “The Queen of Rage.”

“It’s sexist,” NOW president Terry O’Neill told TheDC. “Casting her in that expression and then adding ‘The Queen of Rage’ I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man – has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man.”
Who has ever called a man ‘The King of Rage?’ Basically what Newsweek magazine – and this is important, what Newsweek magazine, not a blog, Newsweek magazine – what they are saying of a woman who is a serious contender for President of the United States of America…They are basically casting her as a nut job,” O’Neill said. “The ‘Queen of Rage’ is something you apply to wrestlers or somebody who is crazy. They didn’t even do this to Howard Dean when he had his famous scream.” NOW is diametrically opposed to Bachmann on practically every political issue. Bachmann is pro-life, NOW is pro-choice. Bachmann wants to make significant cuts to entitlements, while NOW it pushing to protect Social Security and Medicare. The list is practically infinite. Nevertheless, NOW is rallying to her side for all women in politics.
“The main reason why we would stand up for Michele Bachmann and defend her against these kind of misogynistic attacks is we want women to run for office. Of course my job is to defeat Michele Bachmann and I intend to do so. But good women will not run for office if Newsweek magazine can do this to such a prominent politician and get away with it.”

Sure can't believe everything you read.....recent examples of inaccurate reporting...let the reader beware!

No wonder the social media has taken over from standard  journalism of the MSM. Perhaps it is not the speed,  but the content that edges them out. Not that social media cannot be inaccurate,  but trust of the MSM especially print media is  declining. These are some  reasons why...

While preparing Proliferations for Jill Stanek.com, it appeared that there are many stories of important issues being reported inaccurately due to laziness, carelessness or outright deceit. No wonder the rise of citizen journalists like Lila Rose who go out and use their media skills to produce videos to bring out the facts that papers will not print. 

Here are  four recent incidents of shoddy journalism. This is important to point out because not everyone is a news junkie and has the time and interest in digging to find the truth. Many are casual readers who take the story at face value...beware.

 The most egregious one is the excellent post by Jivin J pointing out that anyone can get a job at Newsweek. Jonathan Alter writes a story that proves the ineptness of his journalistic talents..as Jivin J points out a simple goggle search could have spared him  outrageous, inaccurate comments.
 
Second place goes to the Knoxville News Sentinel that Fletcher Armstrong gently chides  for not digging deeper. Actually he was way too easy on them. Again, just a few clicks of the mouse could have spared them from printing inaccuracies  that are publicly other places.

Third is the Tennessean which I regularly complain about,  but they do not hide that they are pro abortion. My latest complaint  came when Jessica Bliss wrote a piece that took talking points and a few comments from facebook and wrote an article passing it off as news when it should have been a paid ad for PP. 

Andy Birkley of the MN Independent comes in 4th ...only because I am letting him slide on the issue of ESCR and cloning which may be bit confusing but MN Citizens Concerned for Life rightly takes him to task for his lack of journalistic skills before  putting the article out.


These are just examples of the past few days......so readers beware! Don't assume fact checking is standard procedure. 

Jivin J is right: Jonathan Alter proves himself a fool

I agree with Jivin J's excellent post...does any reporter do fact checking anymore.??

Cross posted by Jivin J

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Alter proves himself a fool

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter embarrasses himself in his latest editorial on why prolifers should want to fund Planned Parenthood. Let's see how many basic and crucial facts Alter can get wrong in a 3-sentence paragraph:

Last month, the House of Representatives approved the Pence Amendment. The bill, sponsored by Indiana Representative Mike Pence, would prevent 830 Planned Parenthood health centers from distributing birth control and offering pregnancy tests, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, breast exams, and cancer screening, among other health services, unless the venerable family-planning organization refuses to discuss abortion as an option. Planned Parenthood doesn’t explicitly advocate abortion, but can help arrange for one if the woman so chooses.

He gets the Pence Amendment wrong (note to Alter - try Google once in a while). The legislation that passed would explicitly defund Planned Parenthood of all their federal funding regardless of whether they stop performing or discussing abortion. Alter apparently thinks another piece of legislation entitled the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act passed. The amount of federal tax dollars Planned Parenthood receives is around $100 million, not the $360 million in total government funding which Alter cites later.

Also, taking away their federal funds would not prevent them from "distributing birth control and offering pregnancy tests, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, breast exams, and cancer screening." Those are services they can still offer if they want to. Taking away their federal funds doesn't prohibit them from offering those services.

He then claims the largest abortion provider (more than 330,000 in 2009) in America doesn't advocate for abortion but simply arranges for them.

But abortion is the centerpiece of the debate. While funding for abortions constitutes only 3 percent of her budget, Richards says there’s no discussion inside the organization of jettisoning that portion of the operation in the name of maintaining federal funding. With the $500 cost of an abortion beyond the reach of poor women and with abortion clinics closing all over the country under pressure from anti-abortion activists, Planned Parenthood will stand on principle that women should have the full array of legal choices.

After talking to Cecile Richards, Alter seems to think that Planned Parenthood funds abortion as opposed to taking the $500 from women to provide abortions.

I'm always amazed how people who make a living writing can be so unbelievably lazy as Jonathan Alter. How could you not read the actual text of the Pence Amendment before writing a column on it?