What Media Bias ?

🤔

Newsweek Gets It Wrong: Obama Is The Real Wimp


It's time for the liberal mainstream media to get their story straight. Is Mitt Romney an arrogant, ruthless business tycoon or is he a wimpy, weenie mouse as this week's Newsweek cover alleges?

The magazine's cover story, "Romney: The Wimp Factor," asks the question: "Is he just too insecure to be president?" Using highbrow, intellectual words like "lame, annoying, whiny, a weenie, and a total bust," to describe the GOP presidential nominee, Newsweek's Michael Tomasky succeeds at one thing -- creating a disingenuous characterization of Romney that is far more fitting of President Barack Obama.

Take a look at some of the "lame" defenses, to borrow an adjective from Newsweek, which Tomasky uses to support his assertion.

Referring to Romney questioning whether Britain was prepared to host the Olympics, Tomasky writes, "It should be the easiest thing in the world for a presidential nominee: a trip to England... And yet, Mitt Romney managed to alienate just about every living Briton."

Ironically, though, it's Obama who has done just that a countless number of times in his first term. Here are just a few examples, among many: disposing of the Churchill bust given to the United States as a sign of solidarity after Sept. 11, 2001; labeling France as America's strongest ally; giving Queen Elizabeth II an iPod during his visit to Buckingham Palace; and presenting Prime Minister Cameron Brown with a compilation of 25 DVDs as his parting gift from the U.S. Don't worry. The Wizard of Oz was included.

And as if this is not enough, one need not forget his State Department's insult: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

So, forgive me, but when Tomasky asks, "What unintended offenses are going to tumble out of his [Romney's] mouth then, when he's representing our nation on the world stage," my answer is far fewer than Obama has uttered.

Tomasky goes on to write, "He's kind of lame, and he's really ... annoying. He keeps saying these ... things, these incredibly off-key things. Then he apologizes immediately-with all the sincerity of a hostage."

Instead of writing about Obama, who has made far more off-key statements in the last few weeks, he is talking about Romney and, in doing so, chooses to ignore the Obama administration's continual and more egregious series of gaffes.

In June, there was Obama's infamous assertion that "the private sector's doing fine;" that same day, Obama back-peddled, doing a complete 180, saying "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine." About a month later, under heavy criticism, Obama was forced to clarify his incredibly offensive remarks in Roanoke, Virginia: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." As far as apologies go, Obama has had more than his fair share.

Tomasky then suggests Romney is insecure and, as a result, must go around touting his wealth and bragging. "A good-looking guy doesn't have to walk around saying, 'Hey, look at me!' He knows everyone's looking," he writes.

I, for one, have never gotten a highfalutin, braggadocios vibe from Romney. In fact, no one has said "Hey, look at me!" louder than Obama, whose aides added plugs to the end of the presidential bios that suggested Obama's achievements have somehow expanded on almost every preceding president.

Let's not forget Obama's subtle assertion that he is our fourth best president. During an interview with 60 Minutes, Obama said: "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history." Hardly the words of a humble, secure president who doesn't "have to walk around saying, 'Hey, look at me!'"

Finally, Tomasky suggests, "There's another conservative yardstick on which Romney comes up short: he's too smart, as in clever or book-smart, to be a real Republican candidate." Not only is this highly offensive to Republicans, but I seem to recall the liberal mainstream media saying the same of Obama.

It was in Dana Milbank's Washington Post column that the "Obama's too smart for his own good" logic came into play. But now, apparently, it's Romney who's too smart for the Republican Party -- probably because they're too busy "cling[ing] to guns or religion," as Obama so astutely observed in the 2008 election.

Taken together, Obama fits with almost every premise Tomasky uses to justify the conclusion that Romney is a wimp.

Kayleigh McEnany is a writer and political activist who graduated from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and studied at Oxford University. She is the founder of www.RealReaganConservative.com. She writes every Tuesday for the International Business Times.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/368892/20120731/romney-newsweek-cover-wimp-obama.htm 



Now...is wearing a helmet while riding a girls bike wimpy?

http://sfist.com/2010/08/31/debra_saunders_slams_obama_for_spor.php 

Not the wimp tag again.

Didn't the liberals try that with George H. W. Bush?
Even though he ran against friggin Dukakis?
And was a decorated war veteran?

Result? The Gulf War where we kicked the sand jockeys asses in about one weeks time.

We don't need the lefties antagonizing another conservative president.

Newsweek Not Dead Yet, But Get Ready For Big Changes

If Newsweek ceases to exist as a print magazine sometime in the next year, don’t say Barry Diller didn’t warn you.

On IAC’s second-quarter earnings call, the chairman and controlling owner addressed the question of what will become of the Newsweek/Daily Beast now that his company has taken majority control over what was previously a joint venture. Without saying anything definitive, Diller suggested that the newsweekly could cut back or eliminate its physical edition as early the fourth quarter of this year.

“We’re examining all our options,” he said. “Our investment next year is going to be significantly less than it is this year.”

IAC doesn’t break out the Newsweek/Beast’s fiances, but published reports have consistently pegged its losses at around $30 million last year. (IAC officials have called that figure exaggerated.) While Diller said in December that the losses were moderating, a source with detailed knowledge of the business estimates it is now on course to lose as much as $35 million this year, with Newsweek accounting for more than $20 million of that. The magazine made some financial headway in the first quarter, largely thanks to an advertising-packed issue with a “Mad Men” theme, but gave up ground again in the second quarter, says the source.

With the losses piling up, the Harman family last week opted to cap its investment in Newsweek/Beast and hand over part of its 50% stake to IAC. Sidney Harman, an audio equipment mogul, bought Newsweek from the Washington Post Co. in 2010 and merged it with the Daily Beast later that year.

On the earnings call, Diller said it became clear shortly after Harman’s death in April 2011 that his family at some point would stop subsidizing the publication. With its rock-solid balance sheet, driven by accelerating revenues in its search and online dating businesses, IAC can afford to absorb on its own the losses that made the Harmans flinch. In the second quarter, its revenues were up 40%, to $681 million, its adjusted net income rose 29% to $81.3 million, and it announced plans to double the dividend it pays investors.

Still, Diller said the Newsweek/Beast’s losses are unacceptable, and he suggested a possible path to slashing them. “The [Newsweek] brand is good,” he said. “So what is the problem? The problem is in manufacturing and producing a weekly newsmagazine, and that has to be solved.”

“The transition to online from hard print will take place,” he said. “I’m not saying it will happen totally.”

While he stopped short of saying that Newsweek will shut down its print edition, it was clear Diller meant to at least float that possibility. Whatever the course of action, it will be decided upon by October, he said. “The plan is going to be different next year than it is this year,” he said. ‘I can’t tell you in what ways, but it’s going to be different.”

Even before Diller’s ominous comments, many at Newsweek/Beast were wondering whether Newsweek will survive in any form. While the magazine has an illustrious history and international recognition, the Daily Beast was Diller’s idea.


Ironically, what made the merger a failure may be what makes unwinding it so easy. Insiders say the promise of a hyper-efficient newsroom that would put out both a daily website and a weekly magazine with a shared staff was never really realized. Instead, each publication had its own editorial team with minimal overlap. Maintaining both brands made it harder to sell integrated ad packages across both ad and print.

With Newsweek losing far more money, ad sales manpower has been concentrated there, leaving the Daily Beast neglected. The source with knowledge of the business says it is on track to bring in less than $7 million in revenues this year. If that happens, it will again lose around $10 million.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/07/25/diller-newsweek-not-dead-yet-but-get-ready-for-big-changes/ 


It's no wonder the "magazine" is tanking...so is CNN...MSNBC partnership is now dissolved...the wheels are falling off at an alarming rate.