« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Is This A Subtle Bias At Reuters?

In a story about the White House in damage control mode over the President’s rather stupid remarks on the Supreme Court, Reuters reports the following:

“What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history,” Carney told reporters during a White House briefing dominated by the topic.

and

The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, qualified the remark a day later by stressing he meant action by the Court on a matter of commerce, a legal distinction that cut little ice with his critics.

and

“Since the 1930s the Supreme Court has without exception deferred to Congress when it comes to Congress’s authority to pass legislation to regulate matters of national economic importance such as health care, 80 years,” Carney said.

What Reuters did not bother to report is that, in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a piece of legislation that passed with a bipartisan majority via the commerce clause just 17 years ago.

In referencing Carney’s spin twice and the President’s explanation, would it not have been worthwhile for the news organization to actually point out the undisputed fact that both Barack Obama and Jay Carney are wrong?

Heck, even NBC took time away from doctoring 911 tapes to point out that fact. You would think Reuters would actually, after three times broadcasting the White House spin, simply report an actual fact in contradiction to the spin.

COMMENTS

  • davesinsanantonio

    NT

  • elizaliza

    Obama qualified his remarks to say that he was talking about “action by the Court on a matter of COMMERCE”.
    In short, of course Scotus can say a law is unconstitutional, but it hasn’t happened on a commerce law in 80 years, and whats more Bush DID TOO complain about Scotus, even one that was handpicked by him. Eer that handpicked him. (sorry, that stuff back then was really confusing). Bush said that SCOTUS should back the heck off regarding Gitmo etc.

    We should just be glad Obama was dumb enough to not finance his Obumneycare via taxes, or to sell it as “Medicare for all” Cos that would have never been challenged. Dems aren’t as smart as they think they are.

    Look at them now, they can’t even make clear to Joe Public that Pre-existing Conditions and Health Care for all American Kids will go down the drain with the mandate!
    How politically dumb can you be, if you can’t even do that???

    That’s why we will win with Romeny, our weakest link.

  • http://libertyYes.cooperusa.net libertyyes

    In the 1980′s, I worked for Reuters in NYC. I remember the pride the news team had in its craft: they always had 2 sources for every fact, they strove for and won “beats”, they wanted to be the most objective news organization in the world.

    How mch has changed , especially since the merger with Thompson! Their reporters frequently appear on news opinion shows, usually representing the left, or the “extreme center”.

    It appears they no longer like being isolated from the MSM, and have decided to join in. They have clearly abandoned objectivity.

    RIP Reuters News.

  • AceInTX

    It is blatant, naked and unashamed bias at Reuters

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Enough concern trolling.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    My first VA ban.

  • Wayne

    (which I am not), it would seem that the President would understand the Commerce Clause better. Or, it may be that he understands it all to well which requires him to refute it’s intent.

    It’s clear to me that Madison didn’t believe there was a need to insert language that would limit government overreach in the commerce clause because the Constitution is all about defining the limits of government and protecting the rights of the individual. The commerce clause has been used in nearly every case to erode the protection of individual rights.

    Now we have a behemoth so large and uncontrollable, that it will take more than the 2012 election to avoid the looming and inevitable financial “adjustment” about to rock this nation.

  • papayapicker

    is based on a German pronunciation to get “royters”. I Personally think somewhere along the way it is now misspelled. The original German was “R?ters” (translated Rueters and pronounced “rooters”).

  • Scope

    have fun with all the libs up there. LOL Coming from CA you should feel like you won the lottery though.

  • Jack_Savage

    I am thinking NOVA, looking at Scope’s comment.

    BTW, I may have originated the term “concern troll”. I’ll do a Nexis search and copyright claim.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • westcoastpatriette

    Liberals believe their own lies and persist in furthering the lies by repeating them over and over. I don’t think Obama misunderstands the Commerce Clause. He twists its meaning on purpose to achieve the transformation of America that he has his sights set on.

    Remember Pelosi’s infamous disbelief when questioned on the Constitutionality of Obamacare? “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

    Unfortunately, the Courts erosion of the true meaning of the Commerce clause has just made it easier for the left to ignore its limited purpose and erode our liberties even further. And if the Supremes fail to strike down Obamacare, federalism as the founders intended, will be dead.

  • Locked and Loaded

    dredging up the [redacted].

  • renl57

    United States v. Lopez (1995) was about a law that had invoked the Commerce Clause as its rationale.

    And the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

    True, that was the first time since the New Deal that the Supreme Court had put any limits on the use of the Commerce Clause.

    But now that it’s on the books, it’s a precedent.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Local not so much.

    Opposite of what I had in Riverside county CA.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m happy with what I see so far.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s a huge step up.

  • johnt

    that mandates health insurance, penalties attached for the stubborn?
    That also allows for the de facto takeover and control of health insurance companies, that establishes panels that rule on coverage and cost & practice on a national level, that aquires total control over 1/6th of the national economy?
    Helluva Clause that. But if da guvmint does that, where’s the Commerce?

  • renl57

    Jeffrey Toobin–a left-wing legal analyst on CNN who has strongly criticized the Supremes for even considering the constitutionality of ObamaCare–just gave the game away today:

    He said he had ?devoted? his career to trying prove [sic] that the line between law and politics is essentially nonexistent when it comes to divisive issues such as cases related to abortion and affirmative action.

    ?These are essentially political decisions being made by individuals who wear black robes,? he said. ?I think the more we recognize that and the more we eliminate this artificial line ? this sort of idealistic but really meaningless line ? between law and politics the better because that?s the way I think the world works.?

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74864.html

    Toobin has clearly freaked out and is not thinking rationally. Otherwise he would realize that if there is no dividing line between law and politics, then how can he or any other liberal offer *legal* criticism of what the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are doing? They’re conservatives who are making a politically conservative decision, that’s all.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    I am reading again one of my favorite books, The Discovery of Freedom: Man’s Struggle Against Authority, by Rose Wilder Lane, published in 1943. The book is available online here. Rose Wilder Lane is the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, the author of the “Little House on the Prairie” series of books. I purchased Wilder’s book back in the 1980s either through Conservative Book Club or Laissez Faire Books. Two passages jumped out at me last night from the chapter Democracy in light of the current controversy over President Obama’s remarks about the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate.

    If Americans ever forget that American Government is not
    permitted to restrain or coerce any peaceful individual without
    his free consent, if Americans ever regard their use of
    their natural liberty as granted to them by the men in Washington
    or in the capitals of the States, then this third attempt
    to establish the exercise of human rights on earth is ended.
    This curbing of Government is our defence against the
    ancient tyranny that reigns in Europe today. This is the
    protection of every American’s life; it is his safety from the
    Gestapo, the Ogpu, the torturers, the firing squad, the revolver
    at the back of his neck in the cellar.

    P. 189.

    [The men who wrote the American constitutions (state and federal)] did not regard adult
    human beings as helpless children. They knew that all men
    are, by their nature, free. Weakening the Government, hampering
    the use of force in human aflairs, is the only way to
    permit individuals to use their natural freedom.

    . . .

    Perhaps it is tough on
    human beings, that no Authority exists to take care of them.
    But no such Authority does exist, or can exist. In the human
    world there is nothing but individual persons, born free. That’s
    the brutal fact. It is a tough job to be free. But six thousand
    years of trying to escape from freedom were tougher.

    Having divided Government into three parts, the revolutionists
    limited each one of the parts. The Federal Constitution,
    for example, forbids men in office to increase their own
    salaries. It forbids the President to adjourn Congress. It forbids
    him to make treaties, or even to appoint his own assistants,
    without the advice of the Congressmen and their consent.
    It
    forbids both the President and the Congressmen to interfere
    with the courts.
    It forbids the President and the Senators to
    appropriate money from the Federal Treasury. It forbids them
    to impose, collect, or spend taxes; only the members of the
    House of Representatives are permitted to do that, and they
    are subject to recall every two years. In short, a Constitution
    forbids. It exists to limit and restrain and check and hinder
    American Government.

    P. 200; bolding and italics added.

    It seems many Americans have forgotten much of this. I wonder if at least five of the Supreme Court justices have, too.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • Seedyrom

    unconstitutional. Its not as ideological as the drive by media think. Obama made a veiled threat and then some.

    So what will he do if he loses? We he cry foul and start more ideological rants or attempt to ignore the court ruling??? This man is so far off the constitution anything is possible.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Bias… maybe… just maybe… Subtle? Not so sure…

  • ihateliberals

    All the news agencies have pick sides and only report what favors their point of view or manipulate the news to fit their view. “and that’s the way it is”……….Walter Cronkite.

  • bk

    Well I suppose it can be called “subtle” compared to most of the USA MSM or the AP.

    Doesn’t Reuters claim to be unbiased mainly because they won’t refer to terrorists as “terrorists”? It must greatly pain them to not use that term when it comes to reporting on Israel.

  • elleno

    Saying the Reuters’ bias is subtle is like saying a sledge hammer is a subtle instrument for striking nails.

    Reuters is an extreme left wing organization that employs only left wing journalists and editors and structures stories to fit their left wing agenda.

    Recall that during the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon Reuters correspondents were Photoshopping the news and photographs to fit the ‘Hezbollah good – Israel bad’ agenda that they have.

    I wrote to Reuters both in the US and the UK and asked what their policy was concerning the doctoring of news. After five tries I finally got a saccharine reply stating that no, never, impossible – they never tamper with the news even though the reportage photos of the fighting were unequivocally shown to be doctored.

    My conclusion is that they simply don’t see their own bias. The only way forward with them is for us, readers and viewers, to demand that news services not use the Reuters service and like the left threaten to boycott advertisers associated with Reuters news.

  • uselogic

    in comparison to their reportage on the Iraqi conflict.

  • funwithknives

    Injuring someone’s self-esteem can be grounds for a suit. {BaZinGA!!}

    In a more serious vein, thanks for RWL’s excerpts. Historical Examples of what has been obvious to participating Americans are always welcomed, right.. over… HERE! {and these were so very eloquent…}

  • funwithknives

    seen the download where the President of A P introduced Barry at the recent publisher’s confab? ( Very recent)

    The poor guy’s tongue was gettin’ ready to lick Barry’s Boots…..
    Truly was a disgusting display.{don’t therse ninnies ever consider cameras and video?

  • glockg22shoots40s

    typical liberal hogwash