From Today's Paper: The Media Tilt

  1. Share
3 2

Here are a few headlines in today’s paper:

Palestinians go on stabbing spree”, page 5, small article

If this were Israelis that had gone on a stabbing spree, coverage would have conveyed outrage, negative remarks, and may have even generated calls for political action against Israel. As it was written, there was nothing about the Israeli victims, but a mention that the mayor of Jerusalem (Jewish) was now carrying an assault rifle in Arab areas and that Israeli troops had shot two Palistinians.

Obama sorry for attack, promises probe”, page 3

If this had been a red president, the bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital by US forces, killing 12 staff and 10 patients, would have been major news, filled with disgust and outrage, photos of the dead and wounded, negative military verbiage, and calls for accountability that would have been laid at the foot of the Commander-in-Chief. It probably would have gotten legs and become a firestorm in the media. But, as it is, it will remain a minor story and fade away, passed off by a blue promise to undertake a probe.

Ivy League professor calls Carson a ‘coon’”, couldn't find this in any paper...reported by Fox News only

This is about as blatant a racial slur as you can get. It was uttered by University of Pennsylvania’s religious studies professor Anthea Butler, who is black. She wrote: “If only there was a ‘coon of the year’ award…” and referred to Ben Carson and his remark that he thought people who wanted to fly the confederate flag on their private property should be allowed to do so. Professor Butler has boasted in the past about being able to say whatever she wants because she is tenured, but tenured or not, no one would doubt that if this had been a professor of any color and had made this remark about Obama…oh my! She would be canned in a second and now sitting at home looking for a job.

School of Mines is sued by grad”, page B4

This is an interesting story. The Colorado School of Mines was raising money for it's new athletic facility and donations above a certain amount would get you one of 130 personalized plaques in the locker room. Michael Lucas, former School of Mines football player, wanted to help out and chose to personalize his plaque with two references--not the verses--just the references to Col 3:23 and Micah 5:9. The school refused it on the grounds of separation of church and state. Plaques that were approved were “Give ‘Em Hell!” and “Take your whiskey clear”. A lawyer stated that people might feel excluded if certain religious messages were allowed. That position only goes one way, I guess, for there are those who are offended by profanity and those who don’t drink. We live in a give-and-take world and one has to learn to not go around with a chip on your shoulder…unless, of course, the chip is the right kind of chip…a blue chip...against Christianity or absolute truth or conservative values. Then the chip is sacred and will be upheld in court.

But, don’t be disheartened, Remnant! We are left for such a time as this. This is to be expected from our blue media because we have abandoned it. 

Sit up, speak up, go into journalism!




Community tags

This content has 0 tags that match your profile.


To view comments or leave a comment, login or sign up.

Related Content

Ethical Nonsense from an AP Article
Jared Fogle, the advertising face of Subway, pled guilty to paying for sex with minors and for possessing child pornography. Both are a crime in this country not only because we find these actions to be unethical, but also because we find that it is in the best interest of our society to have those actions criminalized and subjected to the punishment of the state. Not all unethical actions are deemed to require criminalization. You may covet your neighbor’s goat or hate his children, both in violation of God’s ethical standards, but we have, historically, not codified any means to prosecute coveters or haters, nor do we deem laws of value against those who lust or those who are slothful and lazy, nor children who are disobedient, nor those who do not give to the poor, nor even those who blaspheme God…although there was a time when some states did that, wrongly, I think. When we do craft a law, therefore, it is, by necessity, based upon some ethical foundation. The laws that criminalize murder are based upon an ethic regarding the sanctity and rights of human life. The laws that criminalize theft are based upon an ethic regarding the rights to private property. And, the range of penalties for committing crimes varies based upon a sense as to the severity of the ethical breech. Spitting on a sidewalk in Wyoming may get you fined, but it won’t get you life in prison or the electric chair. You won’t serve 20 to 30 in the state penitentiary if your parking meter runs out while you shop for milk. For most of our nation’s history, with some minor disagreements along the way, this ethical sense has been fairly consistent. Until now. In the heart of the AP article about Fogle, in the true nature of blue journalism and its agenda, is a very interesting, if not unnerving, interview. A graduate student, Julie Carlton, sitting in a Subway in New York, made the startling comment that she was more upset with Chick-fil-A than the issue with Jared Fogle. Why? Because the president of Chick-fil-A affirmed a definition of family that did not include same-sex marriage. This is breath taking…and not simply because of the blue journalism that sets this out-of-place interview in the middle of an article about Fogle’s confession. It doesn’t belong there except for the agenda. But that isn’t what is strange. We see this everywhere in blue media. No, what is so breath taking is the front and center expression by Miss Carlton. Is it possible that we have gotten our ethical senses so wacky that we are offended more by someone who is expressing their religious opinion about the design of the family than an abuser who has paid to have sex with a child? Yes. If you haven’t noticed, then take notice. The ethic regarding sexuality is targeted for destruction. The objective is to achieve zero ethics when it comes to sexual issues, except for the crafting of laws against those who oppose such sexual liberation. Jack Phillips, the baker in Colorado, is one of several examples of how you may no longer be legally allowed to hold your religious convictions regarding human sexuality. We are going to be inundated with attempts to destroy all vestiges of biblical sexual morality. We are going to continue to see story after story of the transgendered, of homosexuals and homosexual couples, of homosexual adoptions, of gender fluidity, of bisexuality, of polyamorism, and even of pedophilia…all in positive and affirming coverage. Now, the last one may surprise you because you may be thinking, today, that laws regarding sex with minors are sacrosanct. They are not. They can’t be. Those who would want you to think that it would never happen may be the ones who want you to ignore the real consequences of moral relativism. We no longer appeal to a fixed, absolute moral standard in our political discussions. With that gone and Hollywood making it look “oh so beautiful”, public opinion can be quickly swayed. There are already numerous efforts to change the age of consent laws. The Netherlands recently lowered the age of sexual consent to 16. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), before it went underground, pushed these changes for years. In 2011, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) held a symposium to discuss possible changes in the definition of pedophilia. Some of the discussion and presenters were lobbying for a position that certain levels of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. Today, the APA firmly holds to pedophilia being pathological. But they held the same firm position on homosexuality leading up to their reversal in 1973…and the culture followed suit. In a society where relativism has buried itself deeply into our hearts, the unthinkable is thinkable. Given a heart-tugging Hollywood movie and a few favorable television shows, and we are on our way. Now, whether or not sex with minors becomes legal in my lifetime, which I believe it could unless something changes, the reality is that we have a plethora of evidence in our culture that we have now entered into an age of an ethical free-fall. The evidence is everywhere around us, from the Oval Office to an interview in a New York Subway. When a nation rejects God and absolute moral standards, then it is not long before it descends into moral and societal chaos. Along the way, those who hold to the notion of God and absolutes will increasingly become the criminal. Jared will be seen as following his heart and Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A will be viewed as the villain. But, this is why it is the perfect time for the Remnant to kneel and to stand:      To kneel…not before the golden statue of the king, but before the King of Kings…in personal and corporate confession and repentance.      To stand…for personal righteousness, though it may cost you your job, or more, and for righteousness in public policy. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. Galatians 6:9 Take heart, Remnant. It is for this time that we remain.
Court Rules: Baker Can't Say No; ACLU Calls it a Proud Day
A few miles up the road from me, in Lakewood, CO, a baker is fighting for what he believes is morally right. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2013. The gay couple, rather than respecting his beliefs, took him to the authorities, because this isn’t about getting a cake or flowers or photos, this is about forcing you to bow the knee or pay tribute. In this case, as well as the numerous ones flaring up around the country, the court is not only wrong, but it’s ruling is flawed. The argument is that Phillips “discriminated” against the couple and that he was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because he was “picking and choosing customers based upon their sexual orientation”. But this is in error. Phillips openly stated that he “has no problem serving gay people”. It is the purpose for the cake that violates his conscience, not the buyer. I suspect that even if his mother had asked him to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he would have said no because of his Biblical convictions. This isn’t discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. The ACLU lawyer stated “no one should be turned away from a shop or restaurant because of who they are or who they love.” This is a false argument, because, first, they weren’t “turned away” like someone in the past might have turned away an Indian, a black man, a Jew or an Irishman. Phillips said he would have been happy for them to order or buy anything else in the shop. They weren’t “turned away”, they were denied a specific request. And second, most importantly, they weren’t refused this request because of “who they were or who they love”. It had nothing to do with them, it had everything to do with what was on the cake and its purpose. If the gay couple had asked for a cake with "Happy Birthday" on it, he would have made it. If they had asked for "Congratulations, Graduate", he would have made that also. But when he is asked to use his God-given talents to produce or support that which he believes is morally wrong, he is bound, before God, to say no. If the gay couple had asked him to portray a gay sex act or if a black heterosexual couple had asked him to portray a heterosexual act, does he not have the right to refuse both on personal moral grounds? In the argument of our courts today, he is in violation of the law if he refuses either, for he would be considered discriminating against gays and blacks. Does anyone in their right mind think that a black couple who requested this would take the baker to court? Of course not. Just as I would not do so if I went to a baker requesting a cake for my pork luau, and the baker told me he was sorry, for he was Muslim, and he could not in good conscience, depict a pig. I would ask his forgiveness that I had requested this of him, thank him for his honesty, and then seek out another baker.  Now, if Phillips had stated that he wouldn’t serve gay people at all, then I wouldn’t be supporting him either, because, although I personally think he has a right to refuse service to anyone, I think it would be contrary to a Christian worldview to show partiality. There is a difference between “discrimination and partiality” and partiality is morally wrong. After the court ruling, the ACLU called it a “proud day”. No doubt there was “dancing in the streets” by some. But this is not a proud day. This is a solemn other headlines trumpet the power of the courts over a florist in Washington, a photographer in New Mexico, county clerks in Kentucky and Tennessee, and another baker in Oregon, who is facing a $135,000 fine because it, too, violated her religious beliefs to support a gay wedding. Some have lost their shops; others are faced with losing their jobs, paying huge fines, and some…going to jail. A proud day? I don’t think so. I remember seeing pictures of people celebrating in the streets after 9-11. Some thought that was a proud day too. It wasn’t. I pray I will never celebrate knowing that someone else is grieving or losing something precious to them. Our President did this after the Supreme Court Oberfeldt ruling when he lit up the White House with rainbow colors while a large part of the nation was grieving. That was not a proud day, either. It was an unbecoming, "in your face" by a President. Christians should never do this. I suppose one may rationalize it on the football field, but in real life, we should be a people of compassion...resolute for truth and righteousness, but always gracious in victory. The courts and blue media and academia and Hollywood and much of civil government are aggressively against us...and against a Biblical worldview. It will most likely get even more difficult for us in the days ahead. But, despite this…there remains a huge remnant in the land. Take heart, take hope, take winsome and gracious, but firm, action. Pray, Remnant, Tuesdays Noon Eastern, for Revival and Repentance.