Mainstream media’s limited reporting on the murder trial of Philadelphia abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell has been obvious.  You might think that CNN, the self-styled “Most Trusted Name in News," would pay more attention to a case involving over 250 criminal counts, including ones for first-degree murder. 

You’d be wrong.  Today, CNN’s Newsroom occupied six hours of air time.  The Gosnell trial was mentioned only twice.  Anchor Wolf Blitzer reported:

In Philadelphia, the 72-year-old abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell is awaiting his fate. He's accused of first degree murder for allegedly killing babies born alive during late term abortions. Jurors are now in their fifth day of deliberating after not reaching a verdict Friday. 

That was it.   Threee sentences.  On an earlier segment, anchor Ashleigh Banfield had a short discussion with CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin on how Gosnell’s jury “wanted some more definition to first-degree murder, third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and malice, and infanticide as well.”

BANFIELD: That's a tough case. You said it, a lot of paperwork, just in the jury forms and the number of charges. So five days, nothing, honestly. We should probably hunker down and you should get a hotel room for a long time. 

(LAUGHTER)

In contrast, CNN Newsroom today did eight stories on the Jodi Arias trial.  For those keeping count, Arias’s name was mentioned 44 times.  Gosnell’s twice.

Media bias?  What media bias?  Surely not at the “Most Trusted Name in News.”  

On CNN’s Situation Room today, anchor Wolf Blitzer spoke of the 1995-1996 Federal government shutdown:

BLITZER: Yes, I would be shocked if there were a government shutdown. The Republicans lived through that back in the '90s and it didn't exactly work out well for them. I would be shocked if they went down that road and the president went down that road right now. I'm sure they will work that out.

So how bad was the political fallout for Republicans?  That year the GOP nominated the uninspiring Sen. Bob Dole as their presidential nominee.  Despite such a lackluster top of the ticket, House losses were only in the single digits.  As former Speaker Newt Gingrich has noted “it was the first time in 68 years that Republicans were reelected to a House majority - and the first time that had ever happened with a Democrat winning the presidency.”  On the Senate side, the GOP picked up two seats.

Liberals routinely cite the shutdown as an example of why Republicans should do absolutely everything, including casting aside principle and embracing Obamanomics, to avoid a replay.  After all, the political damage to them was so terribly dreadful and liberals certainly wouldn’t want that to happen again.  Right, Wolf?

While some in the mainstream media harp on the purportedly horrendous effects of possible across-the-board spending cuts on March 1, there is also an effort to distance President Barack Obama from responsibility.  An example of this is on CNN, which has shown more than once today a report on the sequester by chief business correspondent Ali Velshi.  An excerpt:

VELSHI: The forced budget cuts were created during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. They were passed by Congress and signed by the White House.

So “the White House” signs bills into law?  That’s funny.   On August 2, 2011, the day the Budget Control Act became law, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer told his audience:

Happening now, President Obama signs a bill to raise the debt limit, avoiding an economic debt crisis for now.

At CNN, when an economic debt crisis is avoided, it’s the achievement of President Obama.  But when the network’s Chicken Littles see the sky beginning to fall, simply “the White House” may be partially responsible.  

Chicago hasn’t had a Republican mayor in over 80 years.  Democrats have controlled the Illinois governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature for more than a decade, with Democrats ruling the Illinois House for 28 of the last 30 years.  No matter, Chicago violence is the fault of Republicans.  We learned that this morning on CNN Newsroom when anchor Carol Costello asked her “Talk Back” guests about Retired Lt. General Russel Honore’s suggestion to use National Guard troops to curb murders in Chicago.  Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman astutely pinpointed the reason for Chicago’s carnage:

And let's be very clear about what's happening in Washington today and why it's undermining the city of Chicago, because there's a mindset now in our government, in Washington, from the Republican members of Congress, that sequestration is an acceptable way of doing business, that we can in fact engage in these massive irresponsible cuts that no one thinks is a logical approach to budgeting. 

And that undermines law enforcement in our cities; it undermines so many education opportunities for our younger people and it does in fact -- in fact create an impoverished class of our society that leads to abuse, leads to violence and leads to more Chicagos. 

That’s right.  It’s the GOP’s “mindset” that’s to blame.  Yet sequestration can’t be responsible for the 506 Chicago murders last year, when condemning Republicans for his own proposal was still a gleam in Barack Obama’s eye. 

Anchor Costello allowed Zimmerman’s absurd charge to go by with nothing but a weak “I don't think you can leave Democrats out of that one.”  How’s that for setting the record straight for those low information voters CNN caters to? 

No Republican need lend a hand in undermining the city of Chicago.  Its uninterrupted Democrat control is doing just that. 

After CNN televised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Congressional testimony on the Benghazi attack, on the 5 pm segment of The Situation Room Wolf Blitzer provided some analysis, including an interview with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  Then Blitzer announced there was breaking news.  He turned to CNN national correspondent Jim Acosta, who reported that Beyonce had - hold onto your remote here - lip-synced "The Star Spangled Banner" at President Obama's inauguration Monday:

BLITZER: All right. We've got some breaking news coming in on Beyonce and the lip-sync scandal that's being called. Definitive information now being learned by Jim Acosta. 

Jim, what are you learning? 

JIM ACOSTA, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we can tell you that inaugural official who asked not to be identified told me just a short time ago that pop star Beyonce lip-synced her performance on Inauguration Day, saying, quote, "She did not sing live." 

 That official told CNN a prerecording of the artist's rendition of the national anthem was played instead. So what was heard by spectators and viewers was the sound of that recording, according to this official.

Acosta provided more details, with Blitzer interjecting observations such as "Say what you will, though, she does have a beautiful voice" as well as "And she wasn't lip-synching somebody else's voice. This was her voice, her own recording."  Ending the report with a promise that Acosta would "have much more" on the story in the next hour, Blitzer then teased:

The stars partied late into the night with the president and the first lady. And an exclusive White House after-party up next. You won't want to miss what went on behind closed doors.

Benghazi, Schmenghazi, CNN knows what's genuinely important to its viewers.  Why waste time airing stale criticisms of the Obama administration's bumbling on Benghazi when there's real news to report?  Stop the presses at "The Most Trusted Name in News."       

On Sunday's CNN Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz spoke of President Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the
Democratic National Convention:

Bob Cusack, Obama gave a pretty good speech overall. The media acted like it was terrible. And it seems to me that perhaps we have set a standard for him that (if) he doesn't he doesn't hit the stratosphere, he has somehow failed.

The media acted like it was terrible?  Kurtz must not have been watching CNN immediately after Obama's speech.  Observed CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer: "Anderson, he clearly still has that oratorical skill that he's always had over these many years." CNN chief national correspondent John King opined: "I think a very smart, well-crafted speech, both strategically and tactically."  CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said, ". . .I thought it was a very strong speech."

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper noted: "Although it certainly wasn't a speech full of soaring rhetoric like some of his speeches four years ago. Some of it comparing sort of to a State of the Union almost in terms of kind of going down a checklist."

Saying that a speech isn't filled with soaring rhetoric isn't the same as saying it's terrible.

Kurtz need not be concerned that if Obama "doesn't hit the stratosphere, he has somehow failed" in the eyes of the mainstream media.  He's always been their hero and will continue to be.  At least until Election Day.     

On Friday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Ashleigh Banfield didn't begin her program with news that unemployment in 44 states has worsened, a story that CNN's Web site reported.  No, she devoted the first 12 minutes of her program to a real burning issue:  Mitt Romney's tax returns.

She spoke of President Barack Obama's offer to accept five years of GOP candidate Mitt Romney's tax returns and demand no more.  The offer is as big a joke as Vice President Joe Biden, yet Banfield discussed it with CNN political
editor Paul Steinhauser and Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston.  Banfield injected her own theory:

BANFIELD: OK. What's critical here and I was getting the political side of this with Paul Steinhauser, these five years that the Democrats are offering in return of letting go of the demand for 10.

Within the five years, falls the year 2009 and that was the year the Obama administration granted a first-of-its-kind amnesty to wealthy Americans, promising not to publicize their names or go after them with felonies if they'd been hiding money offshore, if they just came forward and paid a big penalty and paid some of the back taxes.

So, give me a bit of a feel for this amnesty program and how successful it's been and what about -- what would have happened to you if you didn't take advantage of it?

And later:

BANFIELD: But I do want to ask you, if there is something back after 2009, say, before we have the 2011 and -- or, excuse me, '10 and '11 returns of the Romneys, if there is something with regard to amnesty, does it actually show up and what does it mean about the person that took advantage of the amnesty?

Amnesty? Felonies?  Hiding money offshore?  Sounds like Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid might be moonlighting as a writer for the news readers at CNN.  Banfield used the word "amnesty" nine times, not that she's accusing Romney of anything:

BANFIELD: All right, so, I want to let you know and I'm going to repeat this again. We do not know anything about whether the Romneys have taken any advantage of any kind of amnesty program.

There have been three offerings of the amnesty program, 2009, 2010 and 2011. No, 2009, 2001, 2012. So, we do not know and that is extraordinarily important.

She then noted that "we" asked the Romney campaign about the 2009 amnesty program, but hadn't received a response.  In her painstaking effort to be totally fair, though, she acknowledged the question had only been asked "within the last couple of hours."  Banfield didn't mention if they had asked Romney if he's stopped beating his wife, but she may have.

Obviously, Obama can't run on his record.  His only hope is to divert attention from his epic failures.  The Ashleigh Banfields of the mainstream media are more than happy to lend a hand.  

On CNN Newsroom this morning, anchor Carol Costello reported on "Nuns on the Bus:"

COSTELLO: Normally, you see nuns working in their closely knit communities and religious orders. But a group of nuns in the United States, they are hitting the road. There are taking a bus on nine- state tour.

They are protesting the Ryan budget cuts they say will hurt the poor the most. The nuns are in Milwaukee today and that's where Ted Rowlands is. So the nuns are jumping into the political fray.

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, they -- Carol, say, along with their bus, they want to just get their message out and what they are doing is defending the poor.

He then continued with a flattering account, noting "there's no doubt that these ladies have the energy to get their message out."   At the end of it, Costello couldn't restrain herself:

COSTELLO: You go, girls. Ted Rowlands, many thanks.

If these nuns were traveling across the country in support of the the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, we know Costello would not be cheering them on with "You go, girls."  But since the nuns are liberals attacking modest GOP efforts to control Federal spending, they qualify.  The election is already heating up, and it looks like Costello feels less need to inhibit her
approval.  

On Friday's edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, the host was upfront in her enthusiasm for President Obama's immigration announcement, even including sound effects and grimacing when she spoke of "Republicans hissing like an angry cat cornered by the neighborhood dog." (video here):

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next, the president makes an MVP-like political move that leaves Republicans flat footed. But is it the best policy for our country?

Mentioning two other stories, she resumed:

Let's go OUTFRONT.

OUTFRONT tonight. Backed into a corner. It's an awful noise, whenever you hear it. Love them or not, Republicans are the cats today. That's the sign of the Republicans hissing like an angry cat cornered by the neighborhood dog. Why? The president's order. Allowing immigrants under the age of 30 to stay in this country with two-year work visas. Those visas can be
renewed unlimited times.

And later:

And the most pathetic part about the story today is that Republicans, the cats hissing in the corner, only have themselves to blame. They gave the president the upper hand.

After an Obama film clip:

BURNETT: All right, well, Republicans have kept the Democrat's version of the Dream Act on hold for a few years.

Contrary to Burnett's implication, Republicans were not alone in their opposition to the DREAM Act immigration bill.  In December of 2010, five Democratic senators joined Republicans in opposition.  Yet another Democratic senator opted
to go to a holiday party rather than vote on the bill.

Good news for Obama and accomplices isn't easy to come by these days.  Spoilsports persist in examining his record on unemployment, deficits, foreclosures, the nation's credit rating, etc.  So when Erin can gush about "an MVP-like political move"by Obama, she will.  Then again, with her program contributing to CNN's ratings collapse, maybe she's just auditioning for a gig on ESPN.      

The rainbow halo over President Barack Obama's head on Newsweek's cover isn't sufficient for some in the mainstream media.  Now the meme is shifting to the inevitability of his re-election.  Or so it would seem based on CNN's Your Money today.  Anchor Ali Velshi devoted his heavy intellectual resources to the subject after discussing Mitt Romney's opposition to the auto bailout:

VELSHI: Joining me now from Washington is, CNN's chief national correspondent John King. John, I have a thesis I want to run by you. Mitt Romney has already lost the election because of this.

Voters in Ohio, auto workers and union members are alienated by his stance on the bailout. You know, John, because you spend a lot of time in Ohio like I have. It is GM country in large part.

They will hand that state to President Obama and without Ohio, probably Romney doesn't get to the White House. What do you think?

King at least partially agreed with Velshi's thesis: "You're absolutely right about the last part, without Ohio Romney most likely doesn't get to the White House."  He went on to say that "Romney needs to get off this," meaning the topic of the auto bailout.  "Would have, could have, should have, this is not a winning argument for him," said King.

Would have, could have, should have might well qualify as an Obama campaign slogan.  Obama's successes were denied him by George W. Bush, Congressional Republicans, earthquakes, Fox News, tsunamis, the Arab Spring, ATMs. . . the list is endless.

The one thing he's got on his side are huge segments of the mainstream media.  Having assiduously labored to get Obama elected, they're not about to admit their complicity in his many failures.  The canonization, complete with rainbow halo, will continue.  If Americans can be persuaded that the election's already been decided and Obama will work his miracles for the next four years, so much the better.  It might tamper down GOP turnout.

President Barack Obama has apparently completed his evolution on gay marriage.   On CNN Newsroom's 3:00 pm segment today, anchor Brooke Baldwin spoke with chief national correspondent John King on the subject and he began by noting "we should say up front it's a bold, personal choice for the president to decide to do this publicly."  His analysis included what he perceives as possible risks:

Critically to me, Brooke, in this calculation, African-Americans and Latinos. Many Latinos who are Catholics. They go to
Catholic Church, where their priest tells them every Sunday homosexuality isn't just wrong, it's evil. That's what their priest tells them. It's evil.

A lot of African-American preachers in the Southern Baptist -- Southern churches across this country, but particularly in Virginia, North Carolina, states the president carried last time, say the same thing.

King should, if he can, document his sweeping assertion on what priests say "every Sunday."  Having attended more than a thousand Catholic Masses in my lifetime, I don't recall homosexuality being mentioned very often.  I'm pretty certain that if it were regularly condemned I'd recollect that.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in part: "tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered.'  They are contrary to the natural law."  It further states:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

King should apologize for his gross exaggeration of what takes place on Sundays in Catholic Churches, but perhaps he was just caught up in the moment.  He's clearly dazzled by Obama's "bold, personal choice:"

KING: And this is a -- this is a big risk by this president. And give me him credit for taking the risk. Many politicians duck from risks. . .

But not Barack the Bold, right, John?

On today's 3:00 pm edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Brooke Baldwin teased her next segment:

BALDWIN: Coming up next, House Republicans they want to cut billions of dollars in food stamps. We will talk about who exactly in terms of numbers this would impact and why my next guest calls this whole suggestion appalling -- back in 60 seconds.

Baldwin interviewed Edward Cooney, executive director of the Congressional Hunger Center.  She didn't note that, despite its official-sounding name, the center is just another 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization taking money from companies such as Walmart, Kraft, and Archer Daniel Midland, as well public funding for fellowships.  Nor that Cooney had worked at the Department of Agriculture during the Clinton administration.  Nor that Cooney has made political contributions to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ActBlue, which characterizes itself as "the online clearing house for Democratic action."

Given that, it was to be expected that Cooney is less than sympathetic to GOP efforts to reduce the skyrocketing costs of food stamps, also referred to as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program):

COONEY: I think I should also point out though that tomorrow morning, they're going to cut an additional $33 billion that has not gotten the press this other cut has. And they indicated that there will be no harm involved. No one will be hurt because these are technical cuts. I would just like to say to you if you hear that expression from Congress, no one will be
harmed, that's your first notice that you should be running for cover.

BALDWIN: Well, when you mentioned millions of people would be affected, I imagine in that millions we're talking millions of children.

And you do have, as we talk millions, record numbers of people who are in the SNAP, the food stamp program. The numbers they began spiking -- when you look back here, they spiked during the great recession. Then you look from 2007 to today, we have seen the food stamp rolls go from 27
million to 47 million.

Doubtless the recession has had a significant impact on the number of recipients.  But the Department of Agriculture  itself
reported:

The historical relationship between unemployment and SNAP caseloads diverged in the middle of the decade, however. As the unemployment rate fell 1.4 percentage points between 2003 and 2007, SNAP caseloads increased
22 percent, or by 4.8 million participants.

The cost of food stamps has increased from under $18 billion in 2001 to $76 billion now.  As part of President Obama's stimulus, states received additional funding for signing up more participants.  Little wonder food-stamp expenditures have doubled in the past four years.  According to an Associated Press story on ABCNews's Web site:

Many of the immediate (GOP) cuts would return benefit levels to where they would be had Democrats not temporarily increased them in the stimulus measure.  Democrats themselves tapped the benefit increases in 2010 to pay for earlier legislation.

So the GOP's proposed reduction may not be as appalling as opponents contend.  Moreover, the Government Accountability Office states that in Fiscal Year 2011 SNAP had an improper payment rate of 3.8%, costing taxpayers an estimated $2.5 billion.  And that probably doesn't include lottery winners.

Baldwin could have alerted viewers to her guest's background so they could take that into account while hearing his views.  But perhaps that's too much to expect from the self-styled "Most Trusted Name in News."    

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed Rep. Allen West (R-FL) about several topics.  One was gay marriage (video here).  West said that it's a states' issue and he didn't want to be taken "down a rabbit hole to discuss things that really aren't that important.  This disturbed Phillips:

PHILLIPS: Wait, are you saying that gay marriage is not important?

WEST: I think if you poll the American people, Kyra, I don't think they'll bring up gay marriage as one of the top concerns."

He went on to speak about a troubled small business he'd recently visited and how the economy was affecting it.  The anchor wasn't satisfied:

PHILLIPS: I think no doubt people are concerned about jobs and the economy, but gay marriage is a big issue. You were military. Don't ask, don't tell ...

West returned to his theme of economic security.  Phillips was still not satisfied, becoming increasingly aggravated and pushed back once again, speaking of millions of gay Americans and states that have legalized gay marriage: "I'm just laying out the facts here."

West's assertion that most Americans are more interested in other issues appears to be supported by a survey
commissioned just last month by Phillips's own CNN.  The CNN/ORC Poll asked which issue is the most important facing the country today. "Policies toward gays, lesbians" was one of the selections, which were presented in random order.  The economy, the federal budget deficit, health care, Afghanistan and illegal immigration topped the results.  Only two percent of respondents thought policies toward gays and lesbians were the most important issue.

Yet over at CNN, Kyra Phillips insists it's right up there with major concerns of Americans.  She energetically works on advancing a liberal agenda.  Can Current TV be in her future?    

On yesterday's CNN Saturday Morning News, business correspondent Alison Kosik reported on Verizon Wireless's reversal of a day-old plan to charge some customers a $2 bill-paying fee.  Citing recent about-faces by Bank of America and Netflix,
Kosik concluded:

Now, there's no direct connection here, but I can't help but believe that the outrage that we witnessed in the Occupy movement around the country has encouraged consumers to band together and protest what they see as unfair.

The Verizon Wireless fee fight is another example of the growing power of U.S. consumers, especially when they take their case to the internet.

Like others in the mainstream media, Kosik seems determined to credit the Occupy movement with some positive accomplishment regardless of reality.  Forget all the crimes, disturbances, threats, and associated costs emanating from the
malcontents with no discernable agenda other than taking someone else's money.  Their motives are pure and, although the media can't identify a direct connection between their often contemptible behavior and consumer empowerment,
people like Kosik will say she believes there is one.

Guess what, Alison?  Consumers hold the upper hand in a free market.  It's been that way for years.  Look at what happened to the Ford Edsel in the 50s, Studebakers in the 60s, Betamax in the 70s, New Coke in the 80s, the McDonalds Arch Deluxe in the 90s, and HD DVDs in the last decade.

They're not around anymore - except perhaps on eBay - and the reason is consumers didn't like them.  The Internet is, as Kosik contends, playing a role.  Through Twitter and blogs and on-line petitions, feedback is relayed much more quickly to businesses.

Linking the outrage of Occupy's hapless wretches to increased consumer power is more than a stretch, though.  Even for
CNN.                  

In recent years, various media outlets have established self-styled truth squads to "fact check"  politicians.  Today on CNN Newsroom anchored by Brooke Baldwin, correspondent Tom Foreman examined statements made at last night's GOP presidential candidate debate.  One was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's criticism of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s support for a law allowing children of illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at public universities and colleges.  Romney said: "Four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you're an illegal alien to go to the University of Texas. If you're a United States citizen you have to pay $100,000 more."
     
Foreman's verdict was that Romney's assertion was correct, but faulted him because he didn't mention other states have similar programs:

FOREMAN: If you were an out of state student, you would pay an additional around $23,000 to go there, so over four years that, would add up to about $100,000 break as an in-state student. What he doesn't mention, however is that Texas is not alone. Sure, he wants to punch Rick Perry with this. But California does this, New Mexico does it, Illinois, Nebraska, Kansas, Maryland, I can't remember them all.

BALDWIN: So not just Texas.

FOREMAN: A whole bunch of them. The bottom line, there are a good number who do the same thing. Some states don't allow it. But for him to present it in a way as if it's just Texas doing it, that's really one of those things that's a little misleading and more along the lines of being true but incomplete. So I think we're going to see an awful lot of this Brooke as this whole campaign goes on. Campaigns always cherry-picking their information.

The thing is, they often have a valid point to make, but they can't resist just shoving aside everything that doesn't fit. That's why we have this barbecue to throw them on later.

BALDWIN: Keep that truth-ometer handy, Mr. Foreman. Thank you very much. Have a good weekend to you.

Contrary to Foreman's claim, Romney did not "present it in a way as if it's just Texas doing it."  His opponents don't include the governors of Illinois, Nebraska, Kansas, or Maryland.  They do include the governor of Texas, and it's eminently appropriate for candidates to discuss each other's records without providing "complete" information on everyone else who isn't a candidate.

Foreman couldn't just admit that Romney was accurate.  No, Romney's argument had to be found "a little misleading and more along the lines of being true but incomplete."  Seems like Mr. Foreman's "truth-ometer" needs recalibrating.