Mr. Ahmadinejad Spoke at UN General Assembly

Click on picture to view video....









On Tuesday, September 23, in his speech at the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the Zionists (referring to Israel) of "murdering" the Palestinians, of controlling the international financial system, and of being "deceitful" in a "complex" and "furtive" manner. In his speech, he also said that "Today the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters."


I saw this first on Ynetnews.com, an Israeli news site. In her article, "Peres: Ahmadinejad's UN speech a shame," Dana Zimmerman cites Israeli President Peres' severe criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad's words. He, in turns, attacks Iran: "Tehran combines long range missiles and short range minds. It is pregnant with tragedies."

According to Mr. Peres,"Yesterday, on this very stage, the Iranian leader renewed the darkest anti-Semitic libel."

If you just read this article, you would definitely disagree with Mr. Ahmadinejad. You would even say that his words are terribly vicious, trying to brainwash some people. But in a dinner in New York on Thursday with around 200 people, he was making his point, that he was not against the Jews, but the Zionist party. According to Mr. Ahmadinejad, "Zionism is a political party that has nothing to do with Jewish people."

The interesting fact is that this was confirmed by Ynetnews 3 days later after his speech at UN.

I think everyone, including political leaders and journalists, have their own beliefs. Ahmadinejad might not have expressed his beliefs in the most appropriate way, and might not have clarified it during his speech that he wasn't against the Jews in general, but rather against the regime. It's hard to argue whether he was just expressing his views and beliefs, and what he really thinks is right and wrong; or he was trying to use propaganda to persuade people to believe the way he does. However, the job of the journalists is to report news correctly, not to interpret things in their own way, or using somebody else's words to tell their own views, because that person's interpretation may not be correct neither.

Local jobs available, but for whom?

Headline: Firms are hiring, but for some reason, nobody wants a job. 

In this case, it was the headline that was the red flag indicating that this article may be slanted toward the benefit of local manufacturing firms. I'd like to point out, that in no way am I the best headline writer, in fact, it is one of the journalistic duties I could improve on, however I must admit, this one made me squirm a bit. First off, the headline is way too long, granted the article was published online, I doubt it would fit nicely into a print edition of the Democrat and Chronicle. Secondly, "but for some reason" is sloppy, unnecessary to the content of the article and sends the message that Rochester locals must just be lazy, because why wouldn't they be running after these wonderful jobs? And lastly--and most importantly, "nobody wants a job," which is flat out an inaccurate assumption.

"Firms are hiring, there's plenty of room for advancement and the vast majority of positions require a two-year degree or less. And for some reason, nobody wants a job." 

This segment was written by the reporter, and in essence, all it adds up to is his opinion. What could have made it appropriate and useful to readers would be if the reporter listed examples of a few of the employment advancements that were available for employees and in what companies. Instead these two sentences sound as if they should be coming out of an employer's mouth, not the reporter covering the story. 

"'We would hire 20 people right now if we could find those who were qualified,' said Brian McMahon, vice president of MWI Inc., a graphite machining shop in Henrietta."

Bingo! So from what I could gather from this quotation and the remainder of the article is, yes--there are many jobs available, local jobs, but employers are looking for people who are specifically qualified for those positions. In other words, Rochester locals want jobs, they are looking for jobs, of course they are, but some may be running into walls if they don't have a two-year or four-year degree or do not meet the application requirements. So, instead of blaming Rochester locals for failing to seek these manufacturing positions, why not suggest how they can increase their chances of landing such jobs? Why not ask manufacturing employers those types of questions for the benefit of those people who are looking for jobs in Rochester? 

I should mention that the reporter provides a link to the companies (Optimum Business, which is only one company, so this was a little confusing) he consulted in doing the research for this story, which made the article much stronger, but I still think a little more detail in providing some application preparation should have been included, or at least considered. 

NBC sides with Biden

Palin vs. Biden: Did Debate Change Voter's Minds?

The mainstream media has been quick to point out VP candidate Sarah Palin's minimal experience and evasive answers to direct questions, especially those raised by CBS's Katie Couric. But after exceeding expectations during Thursday's vice presidential debate, Liberal news outlets had little to say about Palin's performance. Instead, they say Biden "restrained" himself to avoid seeming condescending or overly aggressive.

Friday morning, The Today's Show co-anchor Ann Curry asked Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill the following question:

"Do you think there was a double-standard at play here? Did Joe pull down his full game, and did that hurt him last night--and his ticket?"

Sen. McCaskill, an Obama supporter, responded with "I think he was being very careful. I think he was in a no-win situation. If he was too smart, he was condescending. If he was too nice, he was patronizing.

The idea that if Sen. Biden was "too smart," he'd come across as condescending is erroneous and presents a clear bias. Curry and McCaskill are diverting attention from Palin's performance and trying to provide an excuse to those who think Biden underperformed. Furthermore, this segment only provided a Democratic view point.

Political Analysis

Palin Delivers, But Doubts Linger
One debate will not erase doubts that have been building about Palin's capacity to serve as vice president

Dan Balz, a staff writer for the Washington Post, attempted to be a non-biased commentator or “analyst” on the debates last night. Unfortunately, like many journalists in the field today he just can’t keep his political sentiments to himself. While I tried to find an article extremely left-winged, the only news sources truly republican seemed to be those owned by Disney (ABC news), all other “big name” news sources are rooting for Obama. In the instance of this article, Palin Delivers, But Doubts Linger, one needn’t look further than the headline to realize what the overlying theme is…

“…Biden did all he could Thursday to make sure that would not happen. If Palin was the surprise, he was the steady and experienced voice.”

Balz definitely knows who he is voting for and finds it appropriate to be partial to one candidate. His selective use of vocabulary condones Palin and praises Biden. For instance, “Palin, who struggled with questions in televised interviews, came to Thursday's debate well briefed.”

Balz used the word struggle and well-briefed to belittle the Governor.


“Biden was direct, not verbose, and his answers came crisply in contrast to Obama's more studied and sometimes pausing style of speaking.”

The word crisp and direct evoke a sense of leadership and preparedness. Although Biden has spent more time in government than Palin, Balz does not mention that both are briefed beforehand.

This article appeared in The Washington Post Friday, October 3, 2008 on Page A01

Pick Up Lines: Pass or Fail?

I found this video on Forbes.com which is full of great lifestyle articles. I am sure we have all used a pick-up line at least once in our lives, especially males, as stereotyped in the video. This may seem like a biased argument, yet it is logical.
I watched the video with an open mind and found it to be quite funny. The best part is that I have heard at least two of the lines dropped by both males and females--either directed to me or my friends.

An interesting thing about this video is the title: "Striking Out: The Worst Pick-Up Lines," which contradicts the messages in the video. To be honest, I kind of liked the lines in a quirky, sappy romantic way. Therefore, they really cannot call these the worst ones because what if someone found their true love or life-long partner from one of these particular lines?

Also, how could they be the worst when clearly, from the video, a couple of the lines worked once or twice, hence "SUCCESS" pops up rather than "REJECTED." I would think that if this article was a ploy against pick-up lines than they would not include the success rate in the video.

The "actor" uses the same pick-up line: "Excuse me, you're legs must be tired because you've been running through my mind all day" twice until it works, which is not very fair. In fact, that's cheating. This is not trial and error or play till you win.

Another thing that makes this story quite slanted is the fact that the reporter performing this experiment is approaching mere strangers on the streets of Manhattan in the middle of what seems to be a work day. Obviously people are preoccupied with their daily routine and not interested in being picked up by a random "creepy" guy throwing out pick-up lines like candy to children. Not to mention, he sounds rehearsed!

Instead, they at least could have tested this at a club at night club when it is expected, then the results of whether these pick-up lines are worthy or not would be more accurate based on the right context of analysis. I enjoyed the subject and found it very creative and humorous, but I think there are those few things they could have done to make the story more believable or reliable!

P.S.--I apologize for all of the ads before the actual video begins.

Targeting Those on the Run,,,,

Everybody knows the talk show host Jon Stewart and the famous Daily Show. On his shows Sarah Palin Choice at the beginning of September, when the current VP runner on the GOP side Sarah Palin was first introduced, he severely attacks Palin for her ability to run the country along with McCain (supposedly if they win the election this coming November). Palin is not the only target of the episode, Senator McCain is the other subject of criticism.

The show would have been fine if it is pure criticism. But what is inappropriate about it is the use of offensive language and details against the governors, or frankly speaking, to debase them in front of the audience.

First he calls her McCain's third wife. In just one sentence, he apparently made it clear to the audience that he was intentionally making fun of the GOP President and VP runners.

Not only does he He also made a joke about Palin's glass frames, which is something totally irrelevant to the fact that she is running for VP.

Mr. Stewart takes into account distracting information regarding Senator McCain's age and health issues: "This 72 year old, 4 to 5 times faced cancer guy..."

He also verbally attack Palin in a very sarcastic way, judging her resume only appropriate for a "Northern exposure reunion show."

Palin may or may not be using her glasses as a tool to generate public attention, but Mr. Stewart makes it seem that way, that she is abusing her so-called stylish glass frames. He calls her "the sexy librarian?"
"For the first time in America, a woman has reached the highest levels of being used as a cheap political deploy."

The sad thing is that the audience find this amusing.

Fox News attacks Obama, so what's new?

Barack's Biggest Blunders: Charting the course of Obama's flip flops.

Since my first blog post for the Unbiased Tabloid was about Fox News, I was going to steer clear of the network for subsequent posts. I didn't want to give readers the idea that my criticism of Fox News resulted from my democratic affiliation. I will proclaim my support for Senator Barack Obama, so as to not give the impression that my blogs about media bias are in themselves biased. Full disclosure is paramount to overcoming media bias, a notion that Fox News rejects (publicly denying any right-wing reporting).

The decision to blog about Fox again came after I stumbled across one of the most blatant displays of political bias I've ever seen: a video segment on Hannity's America called Barack's Biggest Blunders: Charting the course of Obama's flip flops. The video features a number of examples in which Obama seems to contradict himself. These include his denouncement of Reverend Wright after refusing to "disown" him and his voting in favor of the FISA bill after stating his opposition to any bill that would provide such immunity for telecommunication companies. Some of the examples were valid. Others were just inaccurate attacks, such as Obama's vowing to expand Bush's faith based initiative, which gives tax dollars to religious groups that provide community service; Hannity said, "it's the same program that Liberals have complained about for years." The key word here is Liberals, not Obama. And still others were just ridiculous - I can't believe we're still talking about flag pins.

By this point, you may be saying to yourself, "Hannity's America is a talk show; opinions are permitted," and you're right. But where do you think the decisions about the contents of Fox programs come from? They come from the bigwigs, the top network executives who call for conservative coverage. Do you think they would ever allow such a segment about McCain?

The fact is Fox hires republicans so its right-wing viewpoint stays consistent. If you don't believe this just take a look at it's staff, which now includes former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Oh, and Huckabee has just been given his own news show.

And just to make one thing clear: I may be motivated to write about certain topics within media bias because I am a Democrat. But I do not criticize Fox because I am a Democrat. I do it because Fox is biased; thus, it misguides people's perceptions and attitudes about important issues.