AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Liberals and Media Don’t Like the Insight of Hillary on Obama

The liberals and “mainstream” media have circled the wagons to save the reputations of their precious liberal idols with 2008 Presidential aspirations, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama.  I posted the original reporting about Barack Obama’s background check here (Some Facts About Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)) and promised to post the Insight Magazine response to the liberals’ lying about the report when it was posted.  The Magazine now has two posts up, one in response to the Washington Post and one in response to CNN.

The smear by CNN and the Washington Post that I found the most laughable is their saying that Insight can’t use anonymous sources.  90 percent of the news is reported by anonymous sources!  If news agencies didn’t use anonymous sources, they would have no news to report!  Yet, when some anonymous sources provide information the liberals and the “mainstream” media don’t like, all of a sudden, anonymous sources are bad.  HAH  What a joke these people are.

Also, in the original post I made, the liberals and media defended Senator Obama by saying he goes to the United Church for Christ.  However, did they also state that this Church does not support Israel and supports divestment from Israel?  Mel Gibson got more coverage and denunciation for his drunk rant against Israel than a Presidential Candidate is getting for his Church’s stance against Israel.  Interesting, no?  Agenda?  Naaaaaaah.

First, here is the response to CNN:

We seem to have touched a raw nerve with the liberal media establishment. First, The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz and now CNN are doing everything possible to assault and undermine Insight’s credibility. CNN ran a news segment last night on Paula Zahn’s show, “CNN debunks false report about Obama.” In the wake of our story, CNN sent their correspondent to check out the Muslim religious school attended by Barack Obama as a young boy. CNN concluded that allegations “that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ‘madrassa’ are not accurate.” The school’s deputy headmaster told CNN: “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion.” CNN’s correspondent then told the “Situation Room” on Monday: “I came here to Barack Obama’s elementary school in ..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa … like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. … I’ve been to those madrassas in Pakistan … this school is nothing like that.”

We at Insight commend CNN for at least showing the initiative to follow-up on the story and send a correspondent to check it out. But, contrary to their claims, CNN didn’t debunk anything about our story. For the record, Insight never — not once — in its article claims that Obama went to a Madrassa. We didn’t claim it; Hillary’s people did. We reported — and we fully stand by our story — that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted their own opposition research on Obama’s Muslim past, and that the Clinton investigators had concluded Obama had attended a Madrassa. This is what Hillary’s camp was saying and desperately trying to prove — not Insight. Our sources also confirmed to us that the Clinton camp had come to the conclusion that not only had Obama been raised and educated as a Muslim, but that he had been deliberately concealing it. Moreover, our sources also said that Clinton’s people were seeking to find out about the possible radical Wahhabi angle, and then peddle their information to their media allies later this year — prior to the January 2008 primaries.

More to the point, we are a magazine that focuses on political intelligence. Our stated mission is to provide our readers with credible, reliable, cutting-edge information on what is really happening behind the scenes in the corridors of power. We did that in this case: we revealed what is truly going on in the Clinton camp.

Insight’s reporting and scoops have placed us consistently ahead of the curve. We have a proud record for accuracy and independence. We have broken numerous major stories that later appeared in establishment print publications such as Newsweek, The Washington Post and The Washington Times. We were one of the first to report tension between President Bush and his father, the tremendous resentment by the GOP leadership against the White House, conservative threats to stay home during the elections, fights over strategy, and the resignations of key White House officials over the Republicans’ loss of Congress.

Insight operates with seasoned journalists and a limited budget. Although we are not able to send correspondents to places like Jakarta to check out every fact in a story, we harness our resources for what we do best — providing our readers with political intelligence.

As for CNN’s investigation into Obama’s Muslim school, we are not yet convinced. To simply take the word of a deputy headmaster about what was the religious curriculum of a school 35 years ago does not satisfy our standards for aggressive investigative reporting. The State Department portrays Indonesia as a hot bed of radical Islamist activity. Christians and non-Muslims face persecution on a daily basis. CNN’s claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets — such as FOX News — who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama’s Muslim heritage.

Some would say if Obama has a Muslim background that could be a good thing, given the global threat from militant Islam. That is not for us to judge. Ours is to report, so the American people can have the information they need to make informed decisions. Recent history and contemporary events have shown that the religious belief systems of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were significant in their policy-making. The same might be true with Obama — whatever he believes. And perhaps also with Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, and all other candidates standing for election to the highest office in the land.

The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama’s Muslim past: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have — or retain — Muslim names, Barack and Hussein? Were his father and stepfather as secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama’s current religious affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of his current church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ? Does he adhere to these teachings or is he a Sunday bench warmer only? These kinds of tough questions need to be asked of all presidential candidates regardless of political party. This is the duty of a responsible press.   We at Insight do not intend to shirk our responsibility — no matter how often we are attacked.

Now, here is the response to the Washington Post:

The liberal media establishment is at it again. For years, they have been carrying water for liberal Democrats. Today’s hit piece on Insight in The Washington Post is another case in point.


Howard Kurtz’s “Media Notes” column deals with our recent story about the Hillary Clinton camp’s role in investigating Barack Obama’s education as a young boy in an Indonesian Madrassa. Kurtz claims our story is “thinly sourced” and cites “only unnamed sources.” He further quotes officials from the Obama and Clinton camps, attacking the story as false. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “It’s an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time.” Kurtz went on to say that “Insight, like The Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” Finally, Kurtz writes, “No one answered the phone at Insight’s office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment” — the impression being that somehow we at Insight were reluctant to discuss and defend the story. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Insight’s story was not thinly sourced. Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story. The Clinton camp’s denial has as much credibility as the “I never had sex with that woman” statement. But Kurtz ran with their statement as if it were credible. Moreover, the accusation that the story is flawed because it is based on unnamed sources is laughable. Most major investigative stories published in this city are based wholly or in part on anonymous sources. Just ask Bob Woodward. Many of The Post’s scoops against the Bush administration rely on anonymous sources.


Both Wolfson and Kurtz raise the issue of Insight being owned by the Unification Church. This is not only irrelevant, but bigoted and, unfortunately, consistent with The Post’s 25-year attempt to discredit if not destroy the one major opposition print publication in their market. It is a form of religious bigotry that tries to smear our credibility by implying that we are owned by religious zealots. And hence, our reporting should not be taken seriously. As Kurtz knows, the truth and veracity of our reporting is what is relevant. We at Insight developed our publication concept, gained support of the Board of Directors, and have run with it ever since, being selected as the top conservative magazine by Rolling Stone in just our first year. So what’s the point in mentioning religion when referencing a relevant and credible secular publication, except as an underhanded ploy to try to marginalize us?


And here is the larger issue: The New Media — including Insight — are surging forward in readership, influence and clout (that’s why our story was picked up by FOX News and talk radio). We provide hard-hitting, well-sourced and aggressive reporting — just as serious and fearless journalists of old used to do. How alone are we, in today’s media conglomerate world? The Washington Post should ask itself, does it wish to have serious journalists aggressively following up on our ground-breaking story or does it wish to carry water and curry favor for ambitious and aggressive politicians, and attack its competition rather than report?


Prior to our story being published, we contacted the Obama camp for comment. They had none… and were petrified about the story. Only when FOX and several national radio talk show hosts jumped on the story, did they issue their denials. We stung the Obama people by doing what journalists should do: follow the truth, no matter where it leads. Insight reports on political intelligence without partisanship. We have run countless stories embarrassing and damaging to President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. We have few friends in the White House — and that’s exactly the way we like it.


Finally, let’s examine Kurtz’s claim that he tried to phone and e-mail the editors, but received no response. First, he called on a Sunday when there is nobody in the Insight office and did not leave a phone message, so no one can verify whether he really called or not. We learned on Monday that he did send an e-mail on Sunday afternoon, the day before his story went to print. This was not a genuine effort to get a real comment from us. He was simply covering himself before publishing his hit piece. This is precisely the kind of irresponsible  journalistic practices that we teach our interns not to do.

January 25, 2007 , 10:57PM Posted by | Barack Obama, CNN, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Media Bias | Comments Off on Liberals and Media Don’t Like the Insight of Hillary on Obama