Michele Bachmann, CNN and the Mainstream Mediia: Vicious Negative Ad Campaign

"AP Fact Check: Bachmann bomblets raise eyebrows"


Yes, the above AP/Yahoo News (boycott Yahoo) "News" headline was the subject of a blog article the Monday that Michele Bachmann officially announced from President in Waterloo, Iowa. Now you did not need me to tell you that the AP/mainstream media article was PURE PROPAGANDA--not even disguised as real "news'. "Bomblets?" "Raise eyebrows?" As the blog article said, the only "eyebrowss raised", outside of the mainstream media, were by people who could not believe how OBVIOUIS the mainstream media propaganda was getting< and how unimportant the alleged "bomblets" were (like John Wayne not really coming from Waterloo, Iowa, although his parents had lived there and although he did come from Iowa). You might have wondered why this blog made a point out of this one headline. Well, besides my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for a single honest, competent AP reporter--still unnsuccessful--I have this ability of FORESIGHT. I realized that this had all of the earmarks of one of those orchestrated media negative ad campaigns. Within about two days, I was PROVEN right by CNN--and not just by the obvious mainstream media concentration on the supposed "gaffes" of Michele Bachmann.


Hacker Boy (again hacking into this disgraceful blog in the interest of humanity): "Come off of it, Skip. Sure, the media has been sort of obvious in developing a narrative about Bachmann being a gaffe machine, and the media has previoiusly developed a narrative of calling Bachmann a "bomb thrower", but there is no way that headline you quoted could be that definitive in showing an orchestratged campaign by the mainstream media against Michele Bachmann."


Skiip: "Ah, Hacker Boy is so useful. It is true that an ordinary blog writer may not have realized just how important that particular AP headline would be in PROVING an orchestrated negative ad campaign against Michele Bachmann (even though we all know such a campagn has been taking place). But I am a professional at this. It was ot two days later that CNN proved my instincts to be right, and proved that CNN was a participant in this orchestrated campaign against Michele Bachmann."


Segue to early Wednesday afternoon, or thereabouts. Michele Bachmann is down in South Carolina. Bachmann does aspeech where she takes up the media narrative/storyline that Bachmann and Sarah Palin are in some kind of "feud". I have actually heard the word "catfight" used, IN THE MEDIA. Bachmann says--and I have no reason to doubt her--that she and Paln get along fine, and that there is no "feud". Bachmann goes on to say--absolutly accurately and not even a matter of opinion or doubt--that the media WANTS a "feud" between her and Palin, and are doing their best to instigate one. Bachmann then said (one of her best lines of the week): "What the media would like to see is a mud wrestling firght between me and Governor Palin." The crowd laughted. It was funny, and accurate. Only a mainstream media fool, or mainstream media person with a "narrative" hat he knows he must apply to Bachmann at all costs, would consture this to mean that Bachmann thinks the media would like to see a real "mud wrestling" fight between her and Palin, although Bachmann clearly used the FIGURATIVE image for humor.


Segue back to the CN "newsroom". The ancor was that handsome young black man who often ancors in the early afternoon/late morning (depending on time zone) on CNN. What do I care about is name? He is just another person pushing the CNN/mainstream media narrative/storyline. Actaully, he shows signs of somee intelligence, but being on CNN is obviusly destroying his mind, an whatever intelligence he may once have had. Well, he brought up that Bachmann appearance in South Carolina. Unless lyou have read and understood the beginning of this article, you will never guess HOW he brought it up.


"Michele Bachman appeared in South Carolina, and made one of those eyebrow raising comments that she seems to have a habit of making, saying that the media wants to see a mud wrestling match between her and Sarah Palin.'


No, I could never make this up. You simply cannot be more obviouis that you ae merely a PROPAGANDA network pusing a narrative, no matter what. Yes, this particular comment makes clear CNN makes people STUPID, as they try to push the party line. The crowd--those hicks--in South Carolina got it. CNN did not, because CNN had a story to tell, and did not want the obviious factgs to get in the way.


Notice, however, the language CNN used. Ye, although my quote may not be absolutely word for word (although almost), I did not change this phrase. CNN used "raising eyebrows" as a description of what Bachmann is doing with these supposed "off-the-wall" comments (problem being that this particular Bachmann comment was FUNNY, and an apt analysis of what the media is doing). No, "raising eyebrows" is NOT a very common description. Yet, the despicable AP used that very same description to describe Bachmann on the day she announces for President, and then CNN uses the sAME TERM to (even more inappropriately) describe Bachmann a day or two later.


Q.E.D. There is an ORCHESTRATED CAMPAIGN against Michele Bachmann by the mainstream media, using the same words and phrases over and over again. "Bomb thrower?" "Raising eyebrows?" That is the box/narrative in which the mainstream media has put Michele Bachmann. It does not matter what Bachmann says, or how infrequently she may make what might be considered exaggerated or mistaken comments, the mainstream media is going to put her in the box they hav e labeled for her.


Now if you read this blog, you know tha tI do not believe in giant "conspiracy theories"--on 9/11, JFK, or almost anything else. What the mainstream media does is not that kind of "conspiracy". There is o "secret group" that got together and decided to smear Michele Bachmann in a certain way. But these are INCESTUOUS people. They talk to each other. More importantly, they only listen to each other. They pick up the same phrases from each other (no other explanation for this strange, multiple use of "raising eyebrows"). They think the same, and are complicit (knowingly) in orchestrated campaigns that require no "secret meeting". Yes, conservative talk radio will somethimes do the same thing, and Fox News (part of the mainstream media, really) will not only pick up common themes from each other, but will often pick up narratives from the mainstream media. The obvious point is that these HYPOCRITES (worst to ever walk the Earth, on tow legs or four) not only do it more obviously than anyone else, but DENY doing it. These people (mainstream media) deserve nothing but contempt. You should certainly never pay any heed to what they say--especailly as part of these orchestrated campagns like the one against Michele Bachmann.


One of the most outrageous areas of hypocrisy of the mainstream meida is their supposed attitude toward "negative ad". You know the line: "Negative ads are destroying politics in this country, because candidates are only trying to tear down each other with vicious ads instead of informing voters why they should vote FOR a certain candidate.". Say what? WHO are the primary sources of NEGATIVE ADS in the country today? Right. The mainstream meida. All of this talk about Michele Bachmann represent NEGATIVE ADS. Does the question of whether Michele Bachmann did not get her facts right on John Wayne (lol) have anything to do with why Abarack Obama should be reelected President, or even anything to do with what Michele Bachmann will do as President? Not a chance. And what about this "charge" that Michele Bachmann has taken public money (to which she was entitled), even though she is against Big Government? Again, that is nothing but a NEGATIVE AD. But that is all the mainstream media is interested in: NEGATIVE ADS. They are not interested in INFORMING people about how a Michele Bachmann Presidency would be different than a Barach Obama Presidency. Look at Newt Gingrich (who I would never vote for, but not because of negative ads by the media). ALL the mainstream media is interesteed in is Gingrich's staff problems and his wife's Tiffany account. NEGATIVE ADS. That is all that kind of thing is, and the mainstream media are the primary source of such matrial in today's world. That is why Obama does not have to do many negative ads himself. He has CNN (The Liar Network), and the rest of the mainstream media to do his negative ads for him. The very worst political action committee does not put out any more obvious negative ads than the mainstream media. They do not regard their "job" as to INFORM. They regard their job as to ATTACzK--negatively (generally limited to Republicans).


Yes, where are the stories about Michele Bachmann raising 5 children, and helping raise 23 foster children: the kind of POSITIVE "narrative" the media did so powerfully for Obama You now the kind of "puff' piece. The media is NOT embarrassed to do that kind of story for Obama, or anotehr Democrat. They ARE embarrassed to do that kind of story for Bachmann (r another Republican, unless it is a "media choice" Republican). What about the stories about Bachmann's struggle AS A WOMAN to live up to what might be regarded as her "womanly" duties, while still making it in a man's world. If a network did offer to do such a story for Bachmann, she would have to watch out for an AMBUSH. Propaganda for Obama is okay. Propaganda for Bachmann would get these people excommunicated from the club/religion.


No. The next time you see a negative ad from a politician or advocacy group on TV, compare that ad to what y9u see on TV every day. It is the SAME STUFF. The difference is that politicians and political groups are SUPPOSED to be ADVOCATING their point of view. Maybe they should not do it the way they do it. But look at the HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media!!!! They say they are not an "advocacy group". They say they are "objective journalists". Transparently, they lie.


This orchestrated negative ad cmapaign by the mainstream media against Michele Bachmann is gong to continue. And , yes, you can expect the same kind of thing agaainst other Republicans. Romney a "fli-flopper"? A negative ad. Romeny a Mormon, and manypeople don't lilke Mormons? A negative ad. Rick Perry a guy who said Texas might want to secede, as Texas reserved the "right" to do? A negative ad. Again, that is ALL the media is interested in: NEGATIVE ADS. That is artly becaue the media thnks that way. But it is mainly because the mainstream meida is an ADVOCACY GROUP, and does not want to have voters vote on the "merits". The voters might GET IT WRONG (from the mainstreammedia pont of view). No, even the mainstream media knows it cannot convince people that leftist Democrats are always right on the MERITS. But if you can SMEAR a candidate, you don't have to worry about the HRD job of proving you are right on the merits. That is why the mainstream media is ONLY interested in negative ads. It is too HARD to examine the merits of a candidate, even if the mainstream media were not the advocacy group that it is.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight, but good enough to know media negative ads when I see them, and to know the orchestrated, sexist campaign against Michele Bachmann for what it is),.