And you shall
know the truth,
and the truth shall set you free.
John 8:32
With The
Whole Truth YOU
Can Make An
Informed Decision
Welcome To The
Tea Party Boycott
FOR
"The Whole
Truth" Committee
Web Page
Fellow Tea Party
members and citizens:
We are writing
to you about a heartfelt concern that we compatriots have. It concerns not only
the health and well-being of every person in this country, but the health and
well-being of every person in the world. It is important that all citizens act
now. That is why we have come to you to begin. As Good Citizens and people of
action who are willing to stand up and do what needs to be done to preserve this
Great Nation.
As we see it!
The problem is that citizens have always
thought they could rely on the news media for the truth. In the past that was
essentially true; however, with today’s news media that is false. Liberalism is
more than a point of view when it forces itself onto everyone by obscuring the
truth. Liberalism has filled the news media with those who want to “make a
difference” as they see fit; never mind the facts, or the truth, or the damage
to the country, or what the majority might want.
Our Great Nation
is in danger because the liberal news media is not presenting the “whole truth”
to our citizens. The omissions and half-truths they use are the same as lies.
If citizens are not truthfully and fully informed, they
are prevented from making the wise decisions that are necessary in a free and
democratic society.
The decisions we make do affect the whole world.
As examples of
the bias of which we speak, we offer - the liberal news media completely
ignoring and omitting the uncovered e-mails directing and admitting the juggling
of figures on global warming, and a chief global warming scientist admitting
that there has been no warming in the last fifteen years. Actually, since 2002
it has cooled slightly. They also ignore many other scientists who contradict
the evidence that they present. In this way, they are supporting man-made
global warming, Cap and Trade, and the socialist agenda that goes with it. They
refuse to tell “The Whole Truth” so that the citizens may decide.
Another example
- the liberal news media did not fully report on the
close relationships between Obama and Bill Ayers, Acorn, the Chicago underworld,
the Marxist professors, etc. How could the citizens make an educated decision on
the presidential election when the liberal news media did not present “The Whole
Truth”?
To be fully
informed on the news media bias, check on line with the
Pew Research Center, the
Media Research Center,
the Cybercast
News Service,
NewsBusters,
and Reason,
and we recommend Bernard Goldberg’s “A Slobbering Love Affair”. (Please scroll
down to read an excerpt.)
We further
recommend, for a fair and balanced look at the bias foisted by the liberal
biased media on a daily basis, that you tune in Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or
Fox News Network. If one does not look at both sides, one cannot understand how
harmful and wrong either side might be. Many do not look, and that is why we
ask you, the Good Citizen, to take a stand for The Whole Truth.
Our goal is to
demonstrate how un-American and anti- democratic this liberal biased news media
is and to ultimately convince the sponsors and the media of the harmfulness and
wrongfulness of what they are doing. We want to help them become good citizens
once again. May they never be satisfied with a half-truth or omission again!
We should never have to ask for The Whole Truth
from the news media, but when we did ask the news media, that was not enough. We
now ask that you join with us to bring The Whole Truth to the news through your
financial and social influence.
Please send e-mails and letters
etc., whenever you feel it is appropriate, but for our
purposes we urge you to assist by sending e-mails and letters to the appropriate sponsors
when and where and how we suggest. We ask this because we think we will be most
effective if we act in unison. After we expend all our politeness then we will
begin what we hope will be the largest and most effective boycott anyone has
ever seen. Not because we want to, but because in the news “The Whole Truth” is
that important.
We hope you feel
the importance of this as we do and are willing to go to great lengths with us
to right this unconscionable wrong. If you work for the Whole Truth and against
the liberal news media bias, you will have the appreciation of all the God
fearing, freedom-loving citizens of the United States of America.
If you wish to participate, please send an email to
newstruth@bloodofpatriots.org so we may contact
you with our action request. Please type our web address into your address book
so, when we send our e-mail, it will not be considered Spam.
Please e-mail
this to all Tea Party and 912 organizations and members, and other concerned
citizens. Everyone doing his part will make it work.
All we are
asking for is “The Whole Truth” in the news.
Thank You and
God Bless!
Sincerely,
“The Whole Truth” Committee
General Plan of Persuasion
Recruiting committed compatriots to help with this is so important!
1.
Beginning now, we should be writing to the
liberal news outlets of your choice, in your own words. Inform them that you
are upset with their one sided reporting and how harmful it has been to the USA.
(Do your research; show them that you are an intelligent, informed and concerned
citizen.) Be specific about past and present half-truths and omissions, and the
harm it causes the citizens. Tell them that is why you tune in Fox news and
your favorite talk show host, and why you’ll be writing to their sponsors to
tell them the same thing. Mention that you are a Tea Partier.
Do not threaten a boycott! Ask for a reply and a
commitment to correct these harmful mistakes of the past. Bless their efforts to
do the right thing. Require yourself to write at least one outlet
and one sponsor a week (more is better).
2.
We (the committee) will send a letter of
friendly persuasion to the CEO’s of the major sponsors calling on them to
exercise their duty as a corporate citizen to right the wrong that the liberal
media has done to all citizens.
3.
By the end of May,
if we have had no luck with being nice, we plan to select a sponsor to boycott.
At that time we will present our ideas on who, how, when, where, why. Any and
all suggestions will be considered. Please send them to the web site along with
any questions you might have.
4.
Evaluation of our actions and the results
will determine our next move.
God
bless you and this effort we make for our country.
God
bless the USA!
"A
Slobbering Love Affair"
By Bernard Goldberg
Regnery Publishing
Page 140
young in most cases to cover Bobby Kennedy and so I think they were star struck
by this Obama phenomenon."
Moreover, how did their fascination with the celebrity in chief play out during
the campaign?
"Let's face it," Cook said, "is there a Democratic and a liberal bias in the
media? Of course there is. But they also love a good story. And the first
African-American serious contender for the presidency was a great story. And a
lot of people in the media absolutely loved it. I think you can say that the
media had a finger, more than a finger, on the scale on the Democratic side."
The other journalist was Stuart Rothenberg who, like Charlie Cook, is an inside
the Beltway political junkie. "I agree completely," Rothenberg affirmed. "I'm
sure they [journalists] preferred Obama. They liked Obama. They're Democrats.
Obama got better treatment."
Yes, Rothenberg and Cook were only stating the obvious—that the mainstream
media wanted Obama to win. But then Rothenberg uttered a few more words that
spoke to just how corrupt journalism had become.
"But, you know," he said, "it is what it is. It's the nature of the political
environment.... Republicans ought to know that."
Then Cook chimed in, "As Stu said, it is what it is."
It is what it is?
Five little words that constitute the grownup version of one little
word that kids say when they don't give a crap: "Whatever."
But were these two guys really so jaded that they were willing to write off this
bias so dismissively? Were they really saying that Republicans have to
understand how corrupt journalism is in the real world, and they just have to suck it up?
I couldn't get those words out of my head. It is what it is. Rothenberg
and Cook, I figured, are the kind of people who are always thinking about
politics, the way most other people are always thinking about sex. I wouldn't be
surprised if they get turned on when someone calls them to leak the name of the
guy who will be appointed as the official procurer of staples and pencil
erasers in the West Wing. And yet these political mavens didn't understand what
any middle school social studies teacher grasps: that in a country like ours we
really do depend not just on a free press, but on a fair press.
But what really got me was how they just shrugged it off. It is what it is.
Conscientious people don't say that about any other kind of bias.
Conscientious people never said, "Sure, blacks have to sit in the back of the
bus, but hey, it is what it is."
No, nothing is quite the same as race in America, so my analogy goes just so
far. But I trust you get the point. It simply is not good enough to acknowledge
bias then wave it away with an indifferent; "It is what it is."
This is why the bias problem persists. Because journalists haven't had the guts
to stand up and say '"It is what it is' just won't cut it anymore."
But I'm not holding my breath that anything will change anytime
soon. After all, they are who they are.
Page 170
OBAMA'S MARGIN OF VICTORY: THE MEDIA -- How Barack Obama Could Not Have Won the
Democratic Nomination Without ABC, CBS, and NBC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It was the closest nomination contest in a generation, with just one-tenth of a
percentage point — 41,622 votes out of more than 35 million cast — separating
Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton when the Democratic primaries ended in June.
Obama's margin among elected delegates was almost as thin, just 51 to 48
percent.
But Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support
of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of
his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator
with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and
exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring
the controversies that could have threatened his campaign,
These are the key findings of the Media Research Center's exhaustive analysis of
ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every
soundbite, every mention— from his first appearance on a network broadcast in
May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of
1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks' coverage— particularly
prior to the formal start of Obama's presidential campaign— bordered on giddy
celebration of a political "rock star" rather than objective newsgathering.
MEDIA ACTIVISM: A CASE STUDY
KEY FINDINGS:
The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press
than bad—462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories
(just 5%) that were critical.
NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more
than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening
News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%),
compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC's World News was the least
slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama's favor (127 stories to
32, or 27% to 7%).
Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the
national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote
speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative
story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his
presidential campaign in early 2007.
The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama's
relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only
two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other
stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from
Obama's longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama's March 18
Page 172
While Obama's worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the
Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive
stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama's best
press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6—after
that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one
percent that were critical.
The networks minimized Obama's liberal ideology, only referring to him as a
"liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many
occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star," or
"superstar" during the same period.
In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered
favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an
on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28
(19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed
opinion.
Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media
cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party's nomination. But the
tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was
of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a
nationally-known figure with a near perfect media image. The protectiveness that
reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to
effective criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright
affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an
adversarial relationship. IF the media did not actually win the Democratic
nomination Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.
