TV “news” doesn’t include coverage of IRS

Not when it involves the crushing of dissent. 

“We do, however, provide 24/7 coverage of the important stuff citizens should know about”, boasts Deborah Turness, British flack and newly installed director of NBC entertainment news division. “We had the Royal Baby story absolutely saturated, and next week’s five-day profile of Miley Cyrus will leave our audience simply gobsmacked!”

Wall Street Journal: IRS documents show agency flagged groups for “Anti-Obama rhetoric” – Big Three won’t touch it.

ABC, CBS and NBC have so far refused to report the latest bombshell in the IRS scandal – a newly released list from the agency that showed it flagged political groups for “anti-Obama rhetoric.” On September 18 USA Today, in a front page story, reported the following: “Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about ‘anti-Obama rhetoric,’ inflammatory language and ’emotional’ statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.”

Not only have ABC, CBS and NBC not reported this story they’ve flat out stopped covering the IRS scandal on their evening and morning shows. It’s been 85 days since ABC last touched the story on June 26. NBC hasn’t done a report for 84 days and CBS last mentioned the IRS scandal 56 days ago on July 24.

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “TV “news” doesn’t include coverage of IRS

  1. TheWizard

    Not surprised. The left can’t have their Watergate sacred cow eclipsed.

    I noticed the IRS chick retired with a full pension.

    I wish somebody would represent us and fight back. I won’t be holding my breath for it to happen.

  2. Libertarian Advocate

    See revolving door story between WH and MSM – the “press” is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Demoncrat party. But the media remain baffled as to why their viewership/readership has fallen off a cliff. Hint, it’s not at root the internet. They’ve mistaken cause and effect.

    • CatoRenasci

      Hint: it was pretty much a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat party in 1973 and 1974 when they took Nixon down as well. Even back in 1960 and 1962, when they helped take Nixon down. Nixon wasn’t being paranoid when he gave the infamous “you won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore” speech after he lose to Pat Brown in 1962, he was reflecting accurately on his treatment by the press.

      • Libertarian Advocate

        I don’t dispute your assertion. Then, the MSM, which was pretty much all of the media of course, wore a fig leaf of “objectivity.” Now, they’ve abandoned that pretense entirely.

  3. t

    So who watches Big 3 news?

  4. AJ

    IRS seizes couples bank account without filing charges for “structuring”, i.e., depositing amounts of less than $10,000:

    ‘Gov Targets Private Bank Accounts: Seizes Funds Of Innocent Americans Without Charge or Trial’

    “Do you still keep a hefty portion of your savings in a U.S. bank?

    If so you may want to reconsider your options. Because if the following report from the Institute of Justice is any indication, nothing you hold in a private bank account is safe anymore.

    Can the government use civil forfeiture to take your money when you have done nothing wrong—and then pocket the proceeds?

    The IRS thinks so.

    For over 30 years, Terry Dehko has successfully run a grocery store in Fraser, Mich., with his daughter Sandy. In January 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the Dehkos’ store bank account (more than $35,000) even though they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong.

    Their American Dream is now a nightmare.

    Federal civil forfeiture law features an appalling lack of due process: It empowers the government to seize private property from Americans without ever charging, let alone convicting, them of a crime. Perversely, the government then pockets the proceeds while providing no prompt way to get a court to review the seizure.
    ….
    What’s frightening about the experience of Terry and Sandy Dehko is that just months prior to their seizure of their assets the Internal Revenue Service completed an audit indicating that all of their records were legitimate, and their small business was operating within the guidelines of Federal tax law.

    No matter.

    When surveillance state flagging algorithms spotted them depositing suspicious amounts of money just below the $10,000 required federal reporting limit into their bank account, a necessity for the Dehkos because their insurance only covered up to $10,000 in losses, they were red flagged by automated monitoring systems as possible money launderers.

    Their $35,000 was subsequently seized after the IRS filed a secret warrant (a lot of that going around these days) accusing them of “structuring.” Because of the nature of civil forfeiture laws they now have to fight for their own money and prove their activities were legal. The IRS required no proof whatsoever.

    An accusation was enough. …”

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/gov-targets-private-bank-accounts-seizes-funds-without-charge-or-trial_09262013

    • Libertarian Advocate

      This is so common, but BOTH parties are happy to employ whatever means they can to enhance revenue. Summary Asset Forfeiture is one of many truly unjust BIPARTISAN laws.

      What are the odds that the the grocer and his daughter are also “TEA-BAGGERS?????? Dullard?

      • AJ

        Here is part one of a ten part film, “The Biggest Secret in American History”; you have to keep googling part 2, part 3, etc. to see the whole thing, that compares us to live stock, free range livestock because it’s more cost efficient as opposed to keeping slaves — an interesting perspective. There are several Youtube channels offering all ten parts.

  5. Balzac

    Right on, Libertarian. In the book Left Turn How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, Tim Groseclose makes a stunning statistical point. The two most liberal congressional districts (by vote count) are the districts which include UC-Berkeley and Harvard. Imagine yourself walking there, stepping over anti-Vietnam protestors, as well as Occupier nitwits in Bob Dylan and Che t-shirts. Well, the reporters/editors who provide your *mainstream* news are significantly more liberal than those crazy-ass voters, as Groseclose shows.

    What would it be like to have out-of-touch rich radicals who live in Berkeley and Cambridge provide your news? Well it would be like every other day in the USA.

    Your media is busted, example #856,909.

  6. David Smith

    Reporting the fact of ignoring the IRS behavior is interesting, but I would appreciate it if some qualified soul (not me) could comment on the reason. The idea that MSM is simply in the WH pocket is just to facile, too simplistic. Are there other explanations such as the possibility they are just plain scared of being “audited” by an organization w the power to interpret a byzantine tax code that gives them the power (legally if not in practice) to imprison the entire staff (from the janitor up) of a corporate entity that doesn’t say the right things?