June 16, 2006
Stick A Fork in Dan Rather
Dan Rather is done. He won't, however, admit that Rathergate was his undoing. I'm not surprised.
From USAToday.com:
Dan Rather, who stepped down as anchor of The CBS Evening News 15 months ago in the wake of the Memogate scandal, said Thursday that he'll soon leave the network after 44 years -- at the request of network executives.It's not clear what Rather is moving on to. Maybe he can help O.J. find the killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman."They wanted this resolution, and I'm willing to accept that and move on," said Rather, 74, whose contract expires in November.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
12:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
June 15, 2006
Commence Tragic Milestone Watch
From Mein Blogovault.
As opposed to real milestones like dually elected governments emerging from tyranny or terrorist leaders meeting their well-deserved ends, the media is trying to rescue its now lost "everything is bad for the GOP/America/Iraq" narrative by "reminding" people of things that they already are well aware of.
According to Lt. Smash, it looks like the Democrats are going to once again try to use the (apparent) significance of "two side-by-side zeroes" to formulate another negative headline and soundbytes to caterwaul around the media. The media, predictably, will be all too happy to oblige them since being knocked upside their collective skulls with the Rove non-indictment, the surging economy, the surprise and well-recieved trip into the warzone by the President and the death of a major (media hyped) al-Qaeda leader has left them a bit...off their game. And make no mistake - it is a game to the press.
None of these people (Democrats or press members) seem to be able, when pressed, to explain what exactly is so insignificant about fallen hero #2,499. Their emphasis on certain military deaths as headline-generators is sickening and sadly typical of a group of people who are more grounded in personal hatred of their political opponents than in the well-being and support of the nation's military.
And don't you dare question any of their "patriotism." Just don't, you massacre-covering, mass-murdering, cold-blooded fascist baby-killing, American-hegemonic-enabling monster. Speak truth to power instead. Right?
Their best attempt at discerning the "newsworthiness" of this number is that it (somehow) is a "psychologically" significant number. The fact that fallen hero #2,499 and #2,500 (or #2,501) are "different" in their minds is a point of contention to me and no doubt to many others. Both laid down their lives for their nation. Both have families that are no doubt grieving and dealing with the loss. But #2,500? That's a different story altogether! That's a "milestone."
It rather effectively supports the thesis that the media and that the Democrats do not really care about individual troops, their sacrifices or their accomplishments - so as long as we get to the next double-zero. Further evidence of this sickening obsession with evenly-rounded body counts comes from Common Dreams (a leftist Democrat supporting group), who chose to "commemorate" this "milestone" with a silent (oh, how reverent) anti-war/pro-surrender protest march. Rather than do something honorable, like perhaps laying a wreath at a memorial or raising money for slain troops families, they felt that making political and media-centric hey over the death of # 2500 is the right way to "honor" the memory of the fallen.
If that wasn't enough, the agit-prop brigade made "visuals" so that everyone can see how much these marchers "care" about the troops. These visuals included "banners, signs and flag-draped coffins." Actually, they aren't coffins. They are cardboard boxes created by puppeteers who think that street theater is going to stop the United States from pursuing Islamic terrorists worldwide.
Where will they be, however, when # 2,501 falls? I'll tell you where they'll be - right where they are right now. Home in their mothers' basements, bragging to their Kossak and FireDogLake minions while patting themselves on the back for a job well-done and a fun afternoon of "caring."
Support the troops - erradicate leftist agit-prop and troop smearing whenever confronted with it.
Also - Check out this DUmmie thread to verify that the nutroots do indeed follow the aforementioned pattern like Pavlovian dogs.
Posted by: Good Lieutenant at
04:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 5 kb.
June 14, 2006
Are a Million Spanish Protesters Newsworthy?
Apparently, it depends on what they're protesting.
Protesting a war? Newsworthy.
Protesting the Spanish government's appeasement of terrorists? Not so newsworthy.
From PubliusPundit: more...
Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at
06:13 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well for most of the rest of the world there is really only one newsworthy event taking place right now, and that is THE WORLD CUP Many consider it even more important than AMERICAN IDOL
Posted by: john ryan at June 14, 2006 08:55 PM (TcoRJ)
2
I think there's a better reason for the American media's relative silence on this. The American media is among the most provincial, narcissistic in the world. If 700 people die in Indonesia, and 4 do in wyoming, guess which leads?
The % of television news and newspaper coverage that deals with foreign affairs has been dropping since 1970, particularly foreign news that doesn't involve Americans.
The first Spanish protests involved a war we started. These are internal Spanish (with a little French) affairs.
Big difference.
Posted by: jd at June 14, 2006 10:32 PM (S6U60)
Is the Right Being Outgunned in Online Video?
OK, so I had this idea. Being a huge believer in online video as an effective medium, I figured I'd do my part to highlight conservative / libertarian videos I could find posted on the web.
Of course, Michelle Malkin and the other talented folks at HotAir.com are doing an excellent job of producing and highlighting conservative video, but they certainly don't need any help from the likes of me. I was specifically looking for some amateur videos "off the beaten path," so to speak.
To make a long story short... more...
Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at
11:21 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Good point, Eye. I think that there's a certain technical threshold with video that means fewer people know how to do it, and also that it takes longer to do, which means the gainfully employed people on the right who can squeeze in a blog post here and there are less likely to undertake a video. I'd like to see that change, too.
Posted by: See-Dubya at June 14, 2006 11:39 AM (eby9C)
2
I'd much rather hear a conservative like Ted Nugent backing up the visuals, or "Hey Man, Nice Shot" by Filter. :-)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 14, 2006 12:37 PM (pmP8H)
3
I was searching 'round youtube for more right-oriented video. There's lots of pro-military stuff, but here's one of the funniest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGcMula2a3Y
The UAV pilot says, "I'll try not to crash this thing..."
Funny all the way through.
Posted by: jason at June 14, 2006 01:48 PM (yZ81L)
Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 14, 2006 02:14 PM (FVbj6)
5
To find a "conservative/libertarian" video is like finding a "socialist/libertarian" video. Conservatives are socialists of the soul and just as opposed to libertarianism as are socialists who are material socialists. A pox on both their houses.
Posted by: HLM at June 14, 2006 06:02 PM (QXQpD)
6
By "conservative /libertarian" I meant either conservative OR libertarian. I suppose that wasn't fully clear.
But more to your point, like it or not, the libertarians have allowed themselves to be classified into the larger "conservative" tent, hence the terms "social conservative" (i.e., Moral Majority / Christian Coalition) and "economic conservative" (which could, unfortunately, mean either libertarian (laissez-faire) or corporatist (fascist)).
Posted by: Eye at June 14, 2006 10:30 PM (c/4ax)
June 13, 2006
In defence of honest mistakes.
I like Michelle Malkin. I like her writing, I like her speaking and, of course, I like the fact that she is, without any doubt ... hot.
I've begun to like Good Lieutenant (even though there's no evidence of hotness) but I have to wade into the 'hyperventilating anti-US reporting' post made earlier today and which has been running on Michelle Malkin's site for some time.
You are shooting at the wrong target.
The Times is not an Anti-American paper. It supported (and continues to support) the war in Afghanistan. It supported (and continues to support) the war in Iraq. It supported (and continues to support) the war on terror. It criticises, but it criticises tactics not strategy and we all do that.
Somebody (probably a hungover picture editor) made a mistake. S**t happens. When the mistake was pointed out to them, they apologised.
They didn't apologise in 36 point Times New Roman on the front page. It would be commercial suicide and the Times isn't some lefty cooperative that thinks that losing money is morally invigorating.
Demanding that they do makes us sound, well, a bit left wing. Its the left that continually hyperventilates, its the left that thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, its the left that believes that there's a vast conspiracy plotting to undermine them. LetÂ’s continue to allow them to monopolise that particular set of qualities. It's what they're good at. It's why they keep on losing.
There are Anti-American newspapers here in the UK (perhaps a post about the media scene here might be useful in the near future?) but The Times is not one of them. In the meantime, if you want to criticise a UK media source, might I suggest that a suitable target would be virtually anything written or broadcast by Al-BBC?
Posted by: Sheward at
04:45 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.
1
John, you are not going to fit in here. When the media makes a mistake on behalf of Republicans, it's a mistake. When they make a mistake that hurts Republicans, it is part of the worldwide leftwing conspiracy. Don't confuse them with facts! And don't analyze a media outlet and question whether it is lefty. They all are, except Fox and the Washington Times.
Posted by: jd at June 13, 2006 05:03 PM (aqTJB)
2
For a perfect illustration of left-wing moonbattiness, check out the discussions over at DailyKos as to how C-SPAN camera crews "conveniently" ran into "technical difficulties" during their YearlyKos conference.
The truth is, C-SPAN just couldn't get a fix on a satellite signal because of the RF signals bouncing off all the tinfoil hats, but the Kossacks are always looking for a conspiracy...
Posted by: Eye at June 13, 2006 05:07 PM (c/4ax)
3
I wouldn't characterize the Times as "Left", but I would characterize it as both a) liberal (in the American sense) b) partisan Democrat.
Posted by: Rusty at June 13, 2006 05:08 PM (RwmBV)
4
They didn't apologise in 36 point Times New Roman on the front page. It would be commercial suicide and the Times isn't some lefty cooperative that thinks that losing money is morally invigorating.
I dunno. Pinch doesn't seem to have a problem with it. :-)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 05:17 PM (jWYAe)
5
To be honest, I know little about UK newspapers or there various political leanings. However, after an admittidely entrtaining back-and-forth row at The Good Lt.s last post, I will say the UK's political bloggers are geometrically more rationale. The reprint of the photo could have been an honest mistake? From the MSM? You'll never make it at the Jawa Report!!!
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 05:42 PM (oxMjD)
6
Winged wrote:
"The reprint of the photo could have been an honest mistake? From the MSM? You'll never make it at the Jawa Report!!!"
My original post contains this relevant passage:
"The UK Times has issued a retraction and apology..."
That's what I wrote, thereby acknowledging the facts as reported. It's cool - just read a little more carefully before trying to be an editor.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 05:50 PM (jWYAe)
7
Michelle is a hottie, no doubt. Wish she'd lose the tight camera angles and show the whole package. Don't you?
Having said that, I do think the gal has a gift for writing and an even bigger gift of developing sources. She does great reporting and if there is anyone who will make the transition from the blogsphere to the on air Fox babe, it will be Michelle.
Posted by: whocares at June 13, 2006 05:52 PM (hGibF)
8
Yet, John, one wonders how these newspapers continue to make the same mistakes time after time. Is it sloppy editing? Is it a complete trust in the news-gathering outfits like Reuters and the AP, who continue to make so many mistakes(like posting photos of things that happened months ago), that one has to wonder whether these are in fact mistakes, or perhaps something much more sinister. I think the sinister theory is picking up steam, myself.
And why would the media accept obviously bogus reports and photos from known insurgent groups and their allies in the first place? And continue to accept these bogus reports, even when these people have proven to be wrong and to manufacture evidence in the past. Why? It's getting more and more obvious to anyone who has any sense of objectivity.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 13, 2006 07:29 PM (rUyw4)
9
Yes, Lt., I noted that you mentioned the apology the first time — kinda necessary, don't you think, as it was mentioned front and center in MM's blog. I also noted that you left in the struck-out line "dishonest smear attempt" referring to the inclusion of the photo. So what is it, honest mistake or dishonest smear attempt? And remeber, your standing as an MSM-hater may hang in the balance. I'd say my original statement about John Bull's chances stand.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 07:35 PM (oxMjD)
10
John Bull is a part of the MSM? That's news to me.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 13, 2006 07:56 PM (rUyw4)
11
Michelle can do no wrong.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 13, 2006 08:17 PM (ZVFO9)
12
Speaking of Al-BBC, what does the UK public think of that network? Do they really believe the BBC reports accurately on the US?
Posted by: InFre at June 13, 2006 11:40 PM (UlSUW)
13
InFire asked:
"Speaking of Al-BBC, what does the UK public think of that network? Do they really believe the BBC reports accurately on the US?"
Unfortunately, yes. The BBC is a cultural behemoth, it gets vast amounts of taxpayer's money to insinuate itself into virtually every part of UK cultural life and, more worryingly, acts as a training ground for many journalists who then go on to work for other outlets.
It's a real problem. Happily many UK residents have real life experiences of the US and American citizens that contradicts the party line. A number of former BBC journalists have also hinted that they are writing insider accounts of the BBC's bias. It'll be interesting to see how much of an impact those accounts have when published.
Posted by: John Bull at June 14, 2006 01:49 AM (o4YMh)
14
“Yes, Lt., I noted that you mentioned the apology the first time — kinda necessary, don't you think, as it was mentioned front and center in MM's blog. I also noted that you left in the struck-out line "dishonest smear attempt" referring to the inclusion of the photo. So what is it, honest mistake or dishonest smear attempt?"
Again, you (for some reason) point out what MM wrote, and I pointed what she wrote out in my post. What is your point here? To show me that you actually re-read it and saw what I wrote? Congratulations - you still have no point.
Just because the outlet said it was an "honest mistake" doesn't mean that I necessarily accept or believe that. There is a pattern of these things happening (especially at Reuters and in British papers), after all. Not that you'd notice any pattern of editorial malfesence since you choose not to, but that's why I write about it and you play catch-up.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 14, 2006 02:26 AM (yT+NK)
15
I'm no expert on overseas papers, but there have been too many accounts of staged photo ops and film footage and not just small errors, but big and very damaging blunders. Are they spread out over a vast array of news outlets? Yes. But some seem to be more apt to make these "mistakes" than others. And I gotta tell ya - that some AP and Reuters personnel, all for the sake of news coverage and photos, willingly cavort with terrorists to spread their propaganda calling it "neutrality" really disturbs me.
Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2006 05:31 AM (YudAC)
16
As it should. You will also (apparently) recieve flak for highlighting these ongoing patterns of "editorial misjudgement" from lefties as if you are somehow deranged for having a problem with media outlets misreporting informtaion (which is their "profession"), posting erroneous and falsely attributed photos and misleading editorial content that manages to leak off of the op-ed pages on a daily basis.
The fact is that every major and mid-sized rag in America runs a good portion of content from the wires. When Reuters runs misattributed, incorrect or doctored photos from questionable sources (like terrorist-friendly correspondents), they also disseminate that mistake to any number of media organizations who may or may not pick up that content and run it. When the original (as the Haditha pics I posted on the post) are put out by the AP, a paper like the UK Times simply took the AP as gospel and ran the photos. A moronic leftwing cartoonist then "speaks lies to power" by scrawling a distasteful and consequently inaccurate smear of the US troops which goes out all over their coverage area. Rinse, lather, repeat. If the organizations are internationally based, then they aren't going to be held to the already low standards that American journalism is held to.
Since we are dealing with our military in the middle of a shooting war, there is an argument that this kind of shoddy,lazy editing and reporting is actually giving aid and comfort to the Islamist enemies in this conflict. Islamists might as well take out full page ads in the UK Times or the Chicago Sun Times saying "Look. Just look at what the US does to innocents. Stop the war." That's powerful stuff, and should be held to a high standard of proof, verification and editorial oversight. Period, no exceptions. Mistakes should be corrected loudly, directly and immediately (and repeatedly, so that the public knows what is truly accurate information and what is pap).
Hence, it is a big deal, and I will not shy away from criticizing ANY media organization not taking the utmost care to treat potentially damaging news about our troops with deference, meticulousness and the utmost respect that all of them have paid in blood, sweat and tears to earn. Journalists know deep down that the only reason their profession exists at all is because the military is and has always been willing to fight for their right to print their daily screeds (lies and all).
Pay the troops back by taking some extra time to get it right, and not to be a propaganda enabler / conduit.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 14, 2006 09:12 AM (yT+NK)
17
The good Lt. very much reminds me of another of my Jawa favorites; always an answer to everything and an inability to admit error. So when will you be getting your eyepatch? Well, keep up the good work — someone may notice.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 14, 2006 09:28 AM (UHKaK)
18
I also gotta admit you make a strong argument above. There.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 14, 2006 09:31 AM (UHKaK)
19
Good Lt.,
"Journalists know deep down that the only reason their profession exists at all is because the military is and always has been willing to fight for their right to print their daily screeds(lies and all)."
A few know this, Good Lt., but the vast majority don't know it and don't believe it, either. What they know is that they hate the US military because that is what they see standing in their way. Standing in the way of some kind of UN run world, along the lines of the EU, where the beauracracy controls everything, and where the elites, which they happen to believe includes themselves, run it all.
Just look at the liberal movement afoot in the Supreme Court of the US to use court decisions in other countries, primarily EU members but others as well, to trash the Constitution of the United States.
Another indication that the Left, both in the US and abroad, hate the US military is the obvious alliance between the Left and the Islamic fundamentalists. This is another attempt to weaken the West, and its resolve to resist the totalitarian regimes the Left wishes to saddle us with. It's not that the Leftists like the Muslims, it's just that the Left sees them as a way to help them reach their goals.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 14, 2006 09:51 AM (rUyw4)
20
I think when a major media outlet makes a mistake, the correction should be made in the same manner as the mistake. If the mistake was 36 point font on the front page, then the apology/correction should be 36 point font on the front page. The same people who read the mistake and took it to be true have to see the correction.
Posted by: RepJ at June 14, 2006 05:46 PM (MWGDv)
21
Good Lt. You make a great case for common sense. Remember, leftards don't use it. So prepared to be judged by less than you. Best to tell them to eat shit.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 14, 2006 08:18 PM (s/5ju)
June 09, 2006
Bias Most Foul (UPDATED)
Conservatives have long known that the so-called mainstream media have a liberal bias that has only recently been offset somewhat by the rise of talk radio and rightwing blogs.
Apparently, talking points were distributed in the past year or so instructing liberals to argue that, in fact, the MSM is completely objective, or that, if bias is present, it doesn't tilt to either left or right in the aggregate. It's all reminiscent of the Left's love affair with the monster Stalin, denying his true nature even as his score of murdered peasants surpassed even Hitler's grisly record of innocent victims. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
05:19 PM
| Comments (70)
| Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 09, 2006 05:29 PM (FVbj6)
2
Umm... dude, Stossel's a libertarian, not a conservative.
Posted by: Evil Otto at June 09, 2006 05:37 PM (fcCt3)
3
This is a fantastic website that exposes the MSM slant on a daily basis. It's quite hilarious. But also unnerving. If really exposes just how far the MSM will go to carry the Democrats water for them. The Dems have at least a built-in 10-15 point handicap in any election because of it.
http://newsbusters.org/
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 05:47 PM (8e/V4)
4
OK, I'll bite (btw, I'm only accepting argu endo that all the names you listed are liberal biased. A single incident cannot indicate a worldview, unless it is so egregious as to color an entire career.)
Bill O'Reilly (surely no argument there)
Stossel counts--although I agree he is libertarian conservative.
John Gibson
Lou Dobbs (on immigration, at least--extraordinarily biased towards conservatism)
As for incidents:
Initially, the media twisted Bush v. Gore as a 7-2 decision, when the actual decision was 5-4. It was very important to Republican hopes for legitimacy that it be spun as two Dem/liberal justices voted for bush, as opposed to the narrow 5-4 ruling it actually was.
The misquote of Gore on Love Canal. He NEVER said I was the one who started it all. NEVER. One reporter heard it wrong. But it took the media three weeks to tell the truth. By then, it had damaged his campaign terribly. Ceci Connally has much to answer for.
Also on Gore: he never said he invented the internet. NEVER said it. He said, accurately, that he played a critical role in funding its later development. The Repubs issued a press release, and the media swallowed it hook line and sinker. The truth never really made it out.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:10 PM (DQYHA)
5
Also--in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky points out that the media treated the death of a Polish priest by the Jaruselski government as a MUCH MUCH bigger news story than the kidnapping, rape, maiming, and murder of FOUR AMERICAN NUNS by death squads linked to the Salvadoran government. They happened about the same time, but one could read the NYTimes and get 10 times the coverage of the priest. Why? Chomsky says the media has a conservative bias.
He makes the same argument about the Indonesian killings in East Timor, the hundreds of thousands of peasants and Indians killed by the Guatemalan government, compared to the Pol Pot killings in Cambodia. While Pot killed a slightly higher percentage of the population of his country, the media coverage was ten times as great as the other two killings by US allies. Why? Conservative bias.
Finally, there is documented evidence that many tv networks had consultants in 2002-3 who advised them not to cover the anti-war movement intensively, at the risk of losing viewers. This isn't quite a conservative bias, since they were only doing it for market share, not conservative bias directly, but it had a lot of the same effects.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:17 PM (DQYHA)
6
JD: when applied to you, the adjective "dull" is a triple entendre...
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 09, 2006 08:28 PM (+nlyI)
7
Yeah, them poor old conservatives ... all they got is the White House, Congress, 2/3 of the state houses and legislatures, all of Fox News, National Review, the neo-cons, several dozen think tanks, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Hitchins, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarburough, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin,
How the hell can they ever hope to get their word out?
Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:39 PM (oxMjD)
8
Darth, I know that complex arguments are like kryptonite to you. My apologies. I will keep it simple and snappy for you in the future. Maybe I'll post twice--once for you, and once for everyone else.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:45 PM (DQYHA)
9
Tell it like it is Bluto.
Glenn: We need out spoken heros to counteract the lies of the liberals.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 08:47 PM (4Ospb)
10
Yeah Bluto, tell it like you wish it were.
Rooster: You're funny. That's exactly what liberals say about Al Franken and Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (oxMjD)
11
That's not the point, Glenn. All the examples you cited are avowedly biased and conservative except for Fox News. The MSM is so insidious because they claim to be objective but are not. They would receive more respect if they reported the exact same stories but admitted their bias.
JD, it's ironic that you put O'Reilly at the top of your "right-wing" list and then began an impassioned defense of Al Gore. Are you familiar with the incident in which Gore claimed that he had received a letter from a little girl who claimed that she didn't even have a desk in school because of over crowding? Many in the press did laugh at him, but guess who researched it and verified that Gore was telling the truth? If you guessed O'Reilly, you're right! Another point on O'Reilly: he supports gay adoption and favors more gun control. Hardly conservative positions.
Posted by: Thrill at June 09, 2006 09:06 PM (DYb4r)
12
O'Reilly isn't a journalist. He's -- if anything -- a commentator. He's SUPPOSED to offer opinions.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 09, 2006 09:08 PM (Gn9tM)
13
Where is that asshole Improbulus
Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:12 PM (Tf4se)
14
Thrill; True, and offered up to make the point that, far from being victims of media, conservative viewpoints have more than ample voices in their support.
But here's the larger issue. What is referred to as the "bias of the MSM" irefers largely on the fact that it brings stories to the surface that are not generally flattering to George Bush in particular and Republicans in general, correct?
Well, that's not a lack of objectivity; that is the job of the media. The powerful who have control over vast swaths of information-letting are held in check by a media that is SUPPOSED to be saying, "Uh, excuse me Mr. President, we think that statement is bullshit." You want a media that parrots the company line? Go pick up a 1960 copy of Pravda.
George can't get a break? Big deal. He's the President, for Christ sake. Without a media that calls government officials on the rug, there's no point in having one. Sorry they're bashing you're guy, but that makes their efforts no less sincere. The White House has a press office and spokespeople. That's not the media's job.
And if anybody comes out with this crap about the kid-glove treatment the Clinton's got from the media, I may scream. Because of 9/11, GW got a walk from the media the first three years of his Presidency like no other President has before or may ever get again. A WALK. Now the questions are finally being asked and it's such a shock to conservatives it apparently looks like bias.
Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 09:32 PM (oxMjD)
15
Free market, Bluto, people want to listen to what they like. If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel. And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them.
Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:49 PM (TcoRJ)
16
>>>"NewsMax"
LOL! Newsmax. That's true. And that's exactly how we know the MSM is the voice of the Democrat party. Because of the folks at Newsmax. That's all we're saying. Why do you keep denying it? Just stop it already! Tell the truth! The MSM carries water for the Democrat party 24/7.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 09:51 PM (8e/V4)
17
Glenn, nothing you just said is correct.
The job of the media is to get the facts right. If they can't do that, they're not worth anything to anyone.
And, as it happens, they can't. No only are they blatantly biased, not only do they present their bias as fact, but they are actively incompetent.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 09, 2006 10:41 PM (O0soJ)
18
Off topic , but:liberals want to level the playing field. EVERYONE will be equal. Heck, no more losers=no more winners. Make sure everyone gets their fair share by taking from those who earned more. Power to the people!!! Workers of the world, unite!!! /sarc off
Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 03:16 AM (7RMSi)
19
Liberals are always yammering about tolerence all except when it comes to conservatives and patriotic god fearing americans
Posted by: sandpiper at June 10, 2006 07:36 AM (08Fdo)
20
Bluto associating the "Left" (whomever that actually means) with Stalin makes about as much sense as doing the same with the "Right" and their love affair with Hitler. Also somewhat bad timing considering the recent release of seclassified documents showing how the "Right" protected Nazi war criminals after WWII including ADOLF EICHMANN http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132509 Here is a link to the AZ Star
Posted by: john ryan at June 10, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)
21
Oh yeah! The AZ Star as an authority on what the Right did wrong during WWII.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:05 AM (+nlyI)
22
Pixy Misa: The job of the media -- any media -- is to do a helluva lot more than report facts. They gotta FOLLOW UP with interpretations of what those facts mean so the public has a context to place events in. Just walking around repeating things that happened today isn't journalism or media. That's stenography.
Use Zarquawis' death as an example.
We can all pretty much agree he was killed by two five hundred pound bombs and will have to be replaced in Al Quaida by a new thug. That is the fact and it was reported as such in every media outlet from Air America to Matt Drudge.
Now, what does that death mean? This is where the supposed "bias" comes in. Well, I've read where it's going to be the turning point in the war, that it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, that it exonerates Bush's execution of the war, that conservatives are using it as a diversion from their failures ... all from the same set of facts.
People who feel the MSM is biased just don't like the interpretations. And they want them to admit these "biases" as bloggers — including Bluto —gladly admit theirs.
The fact is industry-wide bias is a fallacy, reinforced by guys like Limbaugh who make a boatload of cash capitalizing on partisan frustration. Well, he too interprets and you happen to like his interpretations. Just don't walk around thinking you've found the "truth."
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 08:10 AM (oxMjD)
23
Gore: Well, I certainly misspoke when I chose my words about the Internet.
What I said to [CNN's] Wolf Blitzer, "I took the lead in the Congress in
creating the Internet," was an awkward way of saying that. And I regret it,
because yes it did appear to exaggerate my role. But fundamentally it was an
effort to try to describe the leadership role that I did in fact take in
getting the funding and also in evangelizing the idea and using the metaphor
of an information superhighway to help congeal thought about what was
possible. It is not after all an unknown phenomenon for politicians to tell
the voters what they've done and, in the process, try to put the best face
on it.
Crap... I lost the url to this interview... I just recall it was in Time magazine.
Posted by: h0mi at June 10, 2006 08:20 AM (Ncvk6)
24
Glenn,
What motivates simple-minded partisan hacks like yourself to come to the comments section of MY PET JAWA on a Saturday morning and post long-winded and dry rants?
Why are you and the Markosites so obsessed with gang-raping America?
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:32 AM (+nlyI)
25
glenn,
90% of MSM journalists surveyed reported being Liberals. You're telling us to ignore what we can plainly see with our very own eyes in favor of your nonsensical diatribes about "Rush Limbaugh" and "Fox" news. Yes, Rush is partisan, but he admits it. And "Fox" is no more slanted right than all of the MSM is slanted left. But we just have "Fox" (and Newsmax!), while you have the rest of the MSM.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)
26
I believe we have a breakthrough with Glenn here! Glenn, where does the MSM get off on presenting ANY INTERPRETATION???
They're supposed to be fair and impartial. They are supposed to JUST REPORT THE FACTS! Limbaugh is a commentator and Fox News hires commentators like O'Reilly, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes. We expect interpretations from them because COMMENTATORS make COMMENTS. REPORTERS are supposed to REPORT. Yet nowadays, REPORTERS INTERPRET. I just think that the MSM should quit claiming to be impartial, that's all. It is insulting when they pretend to just be "reporting" when in fact they are deliberately trying to affect policy and voter attitudes with the perspective of their stories.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:16 AM (DYb4r)
27
(because of the size constraints I'll have to break this up)
It's not fair to equate some of the names submitted here as counterparts.
The difference is reporters vs. commentators. You can't equate Rush Limbaugh with Dan Rather. The jobs are clearly defined as reporting or commentating. One is expected to show bias, actually claiming it, the other not. Let one person here tell me that the majority of "reporters" aren't politically left leaning and that their reporting isn't affected by that and I'll say you're fooling yourself, but not the rest of us. Is there bias on the right? Why yes! But most of the bias on the right comes from "commentators" as clearly shown by many of the names submitted here.
Then Glenn throws Sean Hannity's name in there without mentioning that Alan Colmes is on the same TV show with him.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:19 AM (YudAC)
28
(Well, Thrill already said it for me.)
But to continue...
"If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel." Well, duh. But does this mean if one doesn't "like what the other citizens like to watch" they should change the channel and remain silent?
"And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them." Didn't you just imply that simply changing the channel was the appropriate measure? No one, I repeat, no one has suggested censoring or banning anyone. On the flip side would it be fair for me to say, "Of course if you don't like those who claim there is bias then just censore them or ban them." ? Certainly not. That would be just as ridiculous. This is a debate; not an attempt to censor anyone.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:21 AM (YudAC)
29
Actually, it has always been, since the dawn of journalism, the job of journalists to not only report the facts, but to place them into a larger context. Imagine a news account of Sept 1st, 1939. Germany invades Poland. What does this mean for the US? For France, for Britain? What might it mean for Poland's Jews? How does it reflect the impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty? What will Stalin do next?
Speculative, yes. But clearly within the ambit of journalism. When Lippmann wrote his seminal text about journalism, he called for this as a core function of journalists. If all they do is report "Germany invaded Poland..." they are failing to do their duty.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:22 AM (DQYHA)
30
JC: What poll is this? What journalists were polled? Who sponsored the poll? What was the methodology? As far as "what you've got" in the way of media, see my first post. You're no victim.
Thrill: I don't know where you get your understanding of reporting, but hard news is and always has been BASED upon analysis of facts, and stories based upon that analysis.
You think news is supposed to be bland presentations of the obvious by coiffed talking heads, and only then turned over to "commentators" who get to say whatever they want about it, ala Fox News (though Fox "reporters" like Rita Cosby were egregious in handing out their opinions in the course of the build up to Iraq). C'mon.
Classical reporters have always dug for the story and presented the facts they've assembled in the form of stories--interpretations if you will-- approved by editors. If public opinions are changed by the results, as they were in Korea, Vietnam and Watergate, maybe its because they got the broader understanding they needed to change them. Thank God for reporters who have the brains to analyze.
You think right media--itself made up largely of commentators who according to you aren't bound by the same obligations as reporters -- present the facts? You may by fooling yourself.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 10:40 AM (oxMjD)
31
The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there "to place them into a larger context."
This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 10:47 AM (+nlyI)
32
jd, yes a certain amount of speculation and broader context is expected. There's a fine line between speculation and opinion.
About your earlier comment:
That advise "not to cover the anti-war movement intensively" was ignored by news outlets and they went apes**t over the anti-war people. That's a loose interpretation of this advice as "conservatism". While they were given "conservative" advice to help with the market share and ratings, their ratings consequently tanked by ignoring it. Even though, in Sheehan's instance, they tried very hard to selectively quote her pretending she didn't make some pretty wild statements. The way I see it is why is it considered conservatism to advise anyone that the majority of Americans, even those against the war, may not take kindly to being equated with the fringe whack-jobs like Code Pink, Sheehan, etc? Do you really think the advice came as simply as you state it without the "broader context"? Regardless of what one may think, too many people against this war don't like the coverage they get for their cause being represented by these kooks. If they wanted to cover it intensively they should have just stuck with the people with better credentials and credibility. It would certainly have made for a better argument to have only sane people on both sides of it. IMHO there is not a bit of conservatism in that advice. It was advise not to sensationalize.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:51 AM (YudAC)
33
Advice/advise. Who cares? ;-) Even Microsoft Word didn't care.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:56 AM (YudAC)
34
Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war. The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING. It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft.
Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:59 AM (DQYHA)
35
You know how to argue Glenn, but you don't know how to make a point. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I'll try to educate you.
You are reduced to arguing semantics. ANYTIME reporters start offering their own OPINIONS or expectations or hopes to a news story, they have moved away from "reporting" and are now "editorializing". Yes, "reporting" a story would be just stating the facts as they occurred and nothing else. What's worse are the editors. They decide what stories get run and how to characterize them. Isn't it interesting that the attitude of the press is that Iraq is a quagmire and troops are dying and dying but it's going on? All the coverage is through that perspective because that's the story the editors want. They think it sells. Imagine if the press was the opposite and actually wanted the US to win the war. Instead of reporting on each soldier who died, maybe you'd hear something like this: "Yesterday, an Army NCO received a silver star for gallant actions against an enemy ambush...". If they were impartial, they would do both.
The MSM is against the Iraq War, has been since the start, and the evidence is the coverage. They are trying to portray it as unwinnable so that we will pull out and a Republican administration will be harmed. Anyone who says otherwise is in the worst kind of denial.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 11:01 AM (DYb4r)
36
"The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there 'to place them into a larger context.'
"This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply."
DARTH, THIS IS HILARIOUS AND TRUE!
Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (+nlyI)
37
For someone hoping to educate, your lesson is a meandering one.
Yes, I've heard the "guilt by omission" arguments a hundred times as proof of bias. And no, I cannot answer for the decisions of editors at every newspaper. However, I googled "Silver Star Iraq" and came up with 6,670,000 results, including articles on winners from the Boston Herald, the Arizona Republic, the Washington Post and several TV news stations.
MSM enough for you?
(Sigh) my original point was simple: people who don't want professional reporters to contextualize events either don't understand the purpose of the media or plain don't like the facts they see.
I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science. Though my career path took me to the corporate communications side, I had great respect for a professor who had also worked for the Chicago Trib and several other papers large and small. He said, "News is what people don't want you to know. The rest is PR."
(I'm trying to imagine an Ernie Pyle or an Edward R. Murrow "reporting" in the fashion you think appropriate. They'd be as forgotten as the anchor who left our local news station.)
Whether you agree or not, every example you pointed out can
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 11:52 AM (oxMjD)
38
glenn,
the fact that MSM journos are OVERWHELMINGLY Liberals is common knowledge to conservatives. Begin your education here, and then do your own research. It's all over the web:
"A survey of his colleagues by a White House correspondent has confirmed that the Freedom Forum poll, showing 89 percent of Washington reporters voted for Clinton and 50 percent identify themselves as Democrats, but just four percent as Republicans, matches how they've voted since 1976."
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html
"In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican."
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#HOW%20THE%20MEDIA%20VOTE
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM (8e/V4)
39
Glenn exemplifies the arrogance and cluelessness of journalists who self-identify as "objective"...
Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:59 AM (+nlyI)
40
So..........you're a liberal guy and a journalist? Oh, THAT Liberal Media! That's precious that we have a card carrying leftwing would-be reporter instructing us that the biased MSM is a myth.
Since we're discussing resumes here, I'm a private investigator, Glenn. My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so. I would rightly lose my job if I only reported those events and statements that aided a favorable outcome to my cases while willfully ignoring or downplaying things that did not. This is what the MSM does, Glenn. They are portraying the Iraq War as Vietnam because they favor American defeat. Yes, when a soldier dies, it's a fact. Broadcasting that death is reporting it. It's when they try to use that soldier's death and keeping a running tally to somehow show that the war is wrong that they cross a line. Facts can be manipulated, and the MSM absolutely does for the benefit of the Democrats and (probably unwittingly) for our enemies. They have lost credibility and so the New Media has risen. Deal with it.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:05 PM (DYb4r)
41
Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (+nlyI)
42
>>>>I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science.
lol! case close.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (8e/V4)
43
>>>Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest.
Nah, jd is honest, but you gotta work hard for it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:12 PM (8e/V4)
44
JC: I'll take a look.
Thrill: >>>>My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so.
And that would make sense for a private investigator as you're job is that of a vendor, no insult intended. Journalism requires a different standard.
Thrill, all I can tell you is keep looking to find the reporting that tell you what you need to hear. You'll learn little new. Your pre-conceived notions will be validated. Your fears of the MSM bogeyman will be confirmed. But what the hell do I care, that's your problem.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:15 PM (oxMjD)
45
Yes, journalists have a "different standard". And it is a lower standard that they adopted for themselves. Journalists swapped integrity and objectivity for political partisanship.
The problem with your perspective that journalists should contextualize and interpret events is that you make the (surprisingly) foolish assumption that all journalists are fair minded, impartial, and disinterested all the time when we have seen that they are not. Your hero, Dan Rather comes to mind.
This is my problem? I don't think so Boo-Boo. MSM newspaper subscriptions are falling and viewership of MSM news shows is worse every year. This is THEIR problem, not mine and they brought it on their own heads by abandoning objectivity.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:26 PM (DYb4r)
46
Actually, cletus, while I may be a dumbass (does it make you feel better to include an epithet in your argument? It makes your case look weaker), I certainly don't think the American people are dumb. By contrast, you seem to think that if the media includes contextual reporting, that they will bedazzle and fool the people. Which of us thinks the people are stupid, again? Not I. I think that when journalists put facts in the wrong context (say, for example, the media that blithely accepted the case for war in 2002-3), many people are smart enough to reject that contextual reporting.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:51 PM (DQYHA)
47
Sure as human beings, journalists are just as likely to have personal biases and political leanings as those in any other profession. You and JC say they're all lefties. JC's even got research. OK, they're all lefties.
You, however, are the type that equates a leftward/liberal leaning with an industry-wide loss of objectivity and the inability to report because of that. You don't point to any particular facts, but you make the claims. OK.
At the same time, you're more than willing to give the right-wing press a pass because as so many on this blog like to state, right-wing commentators put their political leanings and their own personal biases on display. There's is an honest kind of bias, which is supposed to be some sort of defense I guess!
So how is it again we get the objective story from the right?
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (oxMjD)
48
No Glenn, I do not think that liberal journalists shouldn't be allowed to report, it's just that I think that if they wish to "report" in a manner that allows them to "contextualize" and "interpret" according to their own worldview, they shouldn't pretend to be objective. Yes, The Jawa Report, the Rush Limbaugh Show, the O'Reilly Factor, and Sean Hannity are all subjective. They wish to influence events, opinions, and political outcomes and they apply available facts to support their conclusions. The only difference between them and the NY Times, WaPo, or CBS News is that they don't pretend to be anything else.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:00 PM (DYb4r)
49
So then a complete lack of objectivity is OK, as long as you strike your colors?
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:09 PM (oxMjD)
50
No, you can't have a TOTAL lack of objectivity or else you would lose your audience even faster than the MSM is now. Bill O'Reilly is actually my ideal of what a journalist should be. He identifies his viewpoint (traditionalist), acknowledges that his intention is to usher in a populist and reformist movement, debates issues, is willing to change his mind when he is shown to be wrong, asks good questions, researches events in person, and acts in the best interests of the community. He does consider himself to be fair and objective although many on the Left (you and yours) do not.
I'm just sick of arrogant and egotistical journalists trying to tell me what to think while condescendingly telling me that they're not.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:20 PM (DYb4r)
51
Sure, when O'Reilly's not telling people to shut up and pimping his books and radio programs, he makes some interesting cases.
Well evidently a lack of objectivity doesnt' lose you an audience faster than the MSM as Rush can attest.
But I always find it telling that people like yourself who harp on the MSM for their lack of objectivity (see Bluto's original challenge) are in reality harping on them for masking their subjectivity.
So from all you've said, you don't want objectivity at all; you want revealed subjectivity. And that's not journalism. Journalism involves finding out things you want to know as well as those you don't. You're not supposed to be a customer getting what you've asked for, you're supposed to be a participant getting what you may need.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:42 PM (oxMjD)
52
Glenn, what I'm trying to say is that it all comes down to one word: credibility.
Dan Rather lost his credibility and resigned shortly afterward because it appeared that CBS News attempted to sway a presidential election based on manufactured evidence. The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity. They only pretend that it doesn't exist and that's a mistake. The New Media DOES have credibility with a sizeable portion of the American public. As a liberal, you will no doubt claim that it's because "they're dumb" but you'd be wrong as usual. The credibility comes from shared values and an agreement that the objective is worth attaining. We trust the New Media because they speak for us, not down to us. I would like to say that it's been an honor to argue with you on this issue, Glenn, as you have such a distinguished background in the subject.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:57 PM (DYb4r)
53
As to your point about being a "customer", I'm afraid it's unavoidable. Journalism is a business. Newspapers and news programs are in business to make a profit. Part of the reason they give their analysis is because just reporting dry facts is boring.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:25 PM (DYb4r)
54
>>>>> The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity.
Then you have nothing to worry about Thrill... they will either come around and declare their existing bias, at which point they will be welcomed as the subjective shill that New Media already is or they will finally be "outed" as liars, become irrelevant and fold.
Either way, no more objective journalism will be found. Now there's a great thought.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 02:42 PM (oxMjD)
55
As if there ever was any. It is and always has been about profit and politics. You could lament that, Glenn, or you could be happy that Americans are now aware of it and thinking for themselves about the information they receive. The fact is that people do go to a variety of news outlets when they want to stay informed and they believe what they will based on their own knowledge and experience. I don't have a problem with that. An elitist bunch of journalists telling us how we should feel about the issues of the day that are judged for importance and chosen by these despotic editors with no discussion or disagreement has never sat right with me or any of the conservatives here.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:51 PM (DYb4r)
56
I like Bluto's update. He admits he asked a question that he had no intention of being persuaded about. He has already decided the media is biased, always. Conclusions first, discussion second. Open minded hero to us all.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:53 PM (DQYHA)
57
And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change? Incidentally, this could be construed to mean that one who is open to be persuaded on anything or everything is one who is perpetually on the fence. If Bluto hasn't changed his mind it's because no one has given him a compelling enough argument. No one here has persuaded me to change my mind about our contemporary media. An argument about some conservative bias 20 years ago set against a background of what we see today is hardly inspiring.
He invited others to try and persuade him. You didn't win the argument so that means Bluto had no intention of being persuaded?
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:21 PM (YudAC)
58
"Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war." Why should that make a difference? The media is pretty predictable in it's coverage. I think it's more telling that this advice was necessary.
"The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING." What numbers? You're unclear.
"It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft." I'll answer this further in the next paragraph, but your choice of words is curious.
"Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is." It's a matter of perception. Could it be that in the late sixties and early seventies we were relegated to speaking to each other in person, or that in the late sixties and early seventies our "letters to the editor" were more easily monitored? Also...no Internet. But it's not just that ...
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:37 PM (YudAC)
59
And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change?
Not jd. lol! God love him.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 06:23 PM (8e/V4)
60
I think everyone holds views of varying strengths. Some things I am on the fence on. Some things it would take a lot of evidence to convince me I was wrong on. What is wrong with what Bluto said is that he said: name three people as conservative as these three. Give incidents comparable to these. And then says--trick question--there were NONE possible.
It's not that big a deal. I've found from earlier discussions with Bluto that he believes a lot of very illogical things, and is absolutely unable to admit the smallest error.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 09:04 PM (DQYHA)
61
"Statistically speaking, three examples indicate a trend;"
Two points make a line though.
Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 12:01 AM (nnhSu)
62
My 2 cents - how about something we can all agree on ...
The MSM is incompetent, inept, shallow, self-grandizing, poorly researched ... I could go one without even touching "biased".
Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:54 AM (MVgHp)
63
Nice to see you back actus.
Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:55 AM (MVgHp)
64
Anyone who thinks Bluto is right about "three examples" having any statistical substance at all needs to take a basic stats course. Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis. For example: I can find you three fundamentalist Christians who voted for Kerry. That would indicate what, statistically? Nada.
In previous dialogues with the dread pundit, he has shown himself to be utterly at sea about statistics and polling. It's a record he has kept unblemished. More than three examples,let's say.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:22 AM (DQYHA)
65
"Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis."
No dude. He said 'statistically speaking' That means its more than if he wasn't statistically speaking. You're wrong, because he was 'statistically speaking.'
Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 02:56 PM (CqheE)
66
Huh? I don't understand you at all. If I say, "legally speaking, OJ faces no further criminal penalty." I'm clearly making a legal comment, about the nature of the law. "Sexually speaking, Roseanne Barr is repulsive." how do you read the clause "adverb speak-gerund"? It is traditional to think that someone is making a comment about that field of knowledge. Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:32 PM (DQYHA)
67
"Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking."
I know. He's full of shit.
Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 07:55 PM (nnhSu)
68
Don't you guys get it ... the Blutos of the world are the New Media: they don't have to be objective because they freely admit they're biased. The MSM however has to be objective, but that objectivity will always be measured by these guys' highly subjective standards. Heads I win, tails you lose.
And of course if all else fails, use insulting epithets.
Posted by: glenn at June 12, 2006 12:21 PM (UHKaK)
69
Yup, 100% Glenn. It's like what a former RNC head finally admitted--that crying media bias was like criticizing the refs in NCAA basketball. Even if you believe the foul on your guy was legit, you still howl, in the hope that they'll second guess their treatment the next minute.
And then, if the media does print something negative about a liberal, you say EVEN the liberal MSM thinks this is bad...if they print something good about a liberal, you can say, typical liberal media crap. It's perfect.
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 05:00 PM (aqTJB)
70
This isn't lost on them ...
Posted by: Glenn at June 12, 2006 06:29 PM (oxMjD)
June 08, 2006
MSM Mourns Loss of Ally in War on Bush
While the average American is celebrating news that al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, mainstream press reaction to the news of Zarqawi's death has been panic. The story, too big to simply ignore, endangers the carefully constructed memes of Iraq as a Vietnam-like quaqmire and President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as ineffective leaders in the War on Terror.
In response, major news outlets are desperately trying to portray Zarqawi's death as a minor development that will have little or no effect on fighting in Iraq and the greater struggle of the War on Terror. If Zarqawi's death does have an impact, the MSM predict, it will be to increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency.
Update: comments have been temporarily suspended while we deal with a mentally ill individual trying to vandalize the site. We apologize for the inconvenience, but point out that this incident validates our points about the Left. They are not on our side in this fight.
Posted by: Bluto at
09:34 AM
| Comments (82)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And why would it have an affect on the war on terror? There are a line of muslim fanatics to take Zarqawi's place.
Time will tell..
Posted by: Splatter at June 08, 2006 09:53 AM (rtnQC)
2
Splatter, how would it have an effect? Of course as it wont end the war we should have just left him to carry on cutting heads off and bombing innocents. Killing him wont have any effect at all cept its one less bastard willing to cut peoples heads off, if it was you he captured and he got killed before he got his hands on you, you would damn well think that a difference had been made, so fuck him, I truly hope he burns in hell. The BBC news here is really pissing me off, he is now referred to as an extremist and not the mass murdering barbarian that he was.
Posted by: dave clarke at June 08, 2006 10:37 AM (VdBwc)
3
>>>fuck the corpses of our slain soldiers
Bluto,
please leave that vile post up. Folks need to see exactly what kind of enemies Bush has made.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 10:55 AM (8e/V4)
4
I think the two, long posts are surplus to our needs.
The part about using two women to collect intel is almost as good, considering the "chastity" bit. "Women out of the house?!?!"
Posted by: Phillep at June 08, 2006 11:16 AM (OpGpa)
5
Bluto,
just crop them down to size and leave it up. It's good stuff, and useful to our side. Karl Rove couldn't do a better job than this guy.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:22 AM (8e/V4)
6
Why doess it matter?
Becuase there are only so many leaders who are able to convince others to blow themselves up while they sit back and drink another beer.
Because they can only say they are immune to the power of the allies for so long, until they are dead. Then the redshirts start to wonder if it really is worth all the trouble and what other things they have been lied too about.
Because the media need a poster-child to dangle for higher ratings. Blood for advirtising. (I kid you not, always remember that is their sole reason for existance)
And finally, because its just like the FBI vs. the Mafia. Keep cutting off the top and only the s**t remains to take controll.
Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 11:53 AM (sYpwq)
7
Rich, I like that:
No blood for advertising!
Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 11:57 AM (ULAbo)
8
Oyster,
Thanks. Its even better when I spell advertising right.
But it is so true and you have to always remember that conflict and tension will always be the MSM's goal because it oushes up ratings. Maybe sometimes the Moonbats have it right when they keep refering to the corporate media. heck, tehy detest them just as much as the right sometimes.
Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 12:16 PM (sYpwq)
9
LOL my ass. I'm retired not dead. I kept my notes too.
Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 12:53 PM (D3+20)
10
Would killing Hitler during WWII by the Allies been a good thing? What if Stalin had been killed by the Germans in 1941? Ho Chi Minh by the US? Stephan Harper(PM of Canada) by the Islamofacists? Of course killing the leader of the enemy is a damn enjoyable thing and sometimes its a game winner. I could care less about the corporate media, organized crime or other relentlessly irrelevant thoughts, the fact is, the leader of al-Qaeda is dead and Islamofacists everywhere are in a deep funk. We Americans ought to enjoy the moment, then get on with the business of killing more al-Qaeda leaders.
Posted by: changehappens at June 08, 2006 01:47 PM (Bmhbf)
11
So, changehappens, it sounds as though you advocate the murder of Stephen Harper. Is that really your opinion?
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at June 08, 2006 02:24 PM (USZUJ)
12
Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!!
Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:28 PM (ZucvC)
13
Bluto, this is ridiculous. No one in the American MSM
is "mourning" this death. Their JOB is to report the
story. They report how Bush treats it, and go to talk
to other people. Just because some people are
minimizing this accomplishment, doesn't mean the MSM
agrees with it. They have a professional obligation
to be skeptical about all government claims. You will
not be able to find one MSM outlet that is mourning
this. The evidence you have is a quote from Berg, a
quote from Zarqawi's brother, and some badly worded
polls, and the use of the word "slain". If that's
mourning, you don't know what the word means.
You hurt the national unity in the war on terror when
you tell lies about some people supporting Al Qaeda.
I personally think that this is an important
accomplishment, but I want to hear what other people
think. That's what the MSM does--bring diverse views.
Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 03:09 PM (aqTJB)
14
Bluto your hatred of the American media is ever present. Likewise I believe that you hate all of your fellow citizens who read,watch,buy or support it in any way. You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal. I would never be allowed to post anything like this on YOUR blog, differing opinions are not allowed to be posted there. As for the MSM predicting this will increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency, my opinion after following this for 3 years is that NO ONE will be able to accurately predict anything. I have heard pundits predicting turning points so many times I scoff at all of them
Posted by: john ryan at June 08, 2006 03:56 PM (TcoRJ)
15
Damn well said, JR. There have been so many turning points in Iraq, it's a dodecahedron at this point: Mission accomplished, Bremer arrives, council appointed, elections held, Bremer turns over, Allawi brought in, Saddam captured, Uday and Qusay killed, Insurgency in "its last throes", elections held again, constitution written, Jafari put in, Maliki put in...and now this.
Hope they aren't blowing smoke, hope this time it really is a turning point.
Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 04:06 PM (aqTJB)
16
Thank you to the US Army, Airforce etc, for ridding this world of this pig waste.
It is indeed a good day.
Posted by: MathewK at June 08, 2006 04:44 PM (pVHqF)
17
jd., the MSM does not tell the truth, nor do you. This moon god worshipper was in Iraq before 9-11, yet where is the MSM on the stroy. The economy is going like gang busters, but the MSM report how it will be bad soon. Always, the wrong direction for people to really understand what is going on in the world.
But, that is the real point isn't it? Bush said something was wrong, and according to you lefturds there is no right, or wrong. Sounds New Age, and sounds like Europe. Go ahead boys, bugger each other in the ass. There is no G-d.
Posted by: Leatherneck at June 08, 2006 05:22 PM (D2g/j)
18
>>>Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!!
Ingnorant jackoff,
I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany had a seemingly endless supply of generals and leaders to replace the ones we killed. But killing them was still a cause for celebration. This would be the equivalent of killing Albert Speer or Goebles. And if some dufus reacted to their death the way you are reacting to Zarqawis death, I think people would rightfully conclude they were dealing with a traitor. You would immediately be put under surveillance as a threat to national security.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 05:36 PM (8e/V4)
19
You people would probably consider me a little left of centre - but I have to say, I did a little happy-dance when I heard that this loathsome little insect had been squished. Having observed the videos of his handiwork circulating on the internet, I cannot see how any rational being could conclude his (hopefully painful) demise is anything but a cause for profound joy. Maybe it will affect the situationin Iraq, maybe not - either way, he richly deserved what he got.
For the record, I'm from the UK. But to briefly quote from 'Team America' -
"America - *f$$k yeah!*"
Good job, boys 
Posted by: dave at June 08, 2006 05:46 PM (+nY9I)
20
I don't understand JD. The Islamofacists are against gay marriage.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:19 PM (4Ospb)
21
>>>You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal.
john,
Libs are obviously off base because you can see and hear with your own eyes and ears how estatic conservatives have been about Zarq's death. So while Lib rhetoric is baseless (as usual), I don't see where Bluto is off base at all. Most of you are acting like it's your mom's funeral. All you have to do is read Splatter's comments and see for yourself. Or read a little bit of Sonic's. Or the dude that got his comments deleted because they were so vile in slandering our troops. Just look at how unwilling the MSM is about reporting this without making it seem like more BAD news. Just admit it, you people are TERRIFIED of any good news coming out of Iraq. You refuse to deviate from your narrative even for one day of celebration. Even the Iraqis are celebrating, so why all the long faces coming from you Libs?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:48 PM (8e/V4)
22
Listening to NPR this morning was enlightening. They expounded on Zarqawi's hatred for the Jordanian government saying it was because they had put him in prison a couple times, but never said why he was put in prison. They just left it up to the listener to imagine the reasons. Jordan's not exactly the 'model' government and one is left with the impression that maybe they put him in prison, as so many other Middle Eastern governments do, on trumped up charges or because he was merely a dissident. In fact, it was was rape and conspiracy. They didn't let anyone in on that though. The very worse thing they said about his growing up years was that he was a thug.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:32 AM (YudAC)
23
Did you see the Army Briefing today Carlos? The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast. They also asked whether we gave him medical attention. How Zarqawi survived the blast is a mystery. He died of his wounds later.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 07:46 AM (CnDtU)
24
I don't see any defenses here of the claim that the media is "mourning" Zarqawi. You can't point to a single slice of evidence of that, because it doesn't exist. So, instead of admitting overstatement, we just change the topic and move on.
It's a lie. But it makes you feel better. Neither liberals nor the media regret this death. He was a waste of flesh, an evil and vicious killer. He richly deserved the death he was given by our brave forces. But the media MUST ask questions: what does it mean? There are differing opinions about it.
And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:05 AM (DQYHA)
25
Hey I'm not a far right guy. That's Carlos' department. It just makes me sick that people were concerned about Zarqawi's well being when he beheaded Nicholas Berg and Olin Armstrong.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM (CnDtU)
26
George--I don't think that asking whether he survived the bombing raid, and if he was offered medical attention, means that the questioner was worried about his health from the standpoint of "gee, I love this guy, hope he lives!" Rather, it is an attempt to get the full truth out to the people, which is the media's job. It would be newsworthy if the man survived the raid, and was allowed to die, just as it would be newsworthy if he survived and was later shot. I don't think either thing happened, I think our forces would be smart enough to keep him alive for intel purposes, as we have done with other al qaeda figures. But let's suppose that someone killed him or allowed him to die by mistake? That's news.
I know of NO ONE who isn't glad this puke is dead. Not any American, anyway. He was an enemy of civilization generally. This achievement belongs to all Americans, and we are all glad about it. There is no need to politicize his death. For once, let's be united as Americans, as we were on 9/12.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:23 AM (DQYHA)
27
>>>The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast.
George,
When you were a kid didn't your mommy tell you not to believe everything you saw on T.V.?
And even if it were true that he was shot, so what? Did we just drop two 500 pound bombs on his house? Means we wanted him dead, and I wholeheartedly approve. The last thing we need right now is another poster child for Amnesty International and the anti-American Left.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (8e/V4)
28
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
29
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
30
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
31
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
32
Sorry for the quadruple posts. The comment section is slow. Anyway Carlos didn't your mommy ever tell you to pay attention when I'm talking. I don't give a crap if the guy was shot. He wasn't Genius. I'm just telling you that the far left media is insinuating that we shot him dead after he was wounded when we didn't. Wise up man. I'm glad the piece of shit is dead.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:30 AM (CnDtU)
33
Oh and Carlos. Please don't hate my guts. Maxie who has disappeared already hates my guts. I want to have a fair debate with you. I don't know you so I don't want to insult you. I'm a moderate like Bill O'reilly. Not a liberal. I'll see you around.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:41 AM (CnDtU)
34
No, I don't think many are sad he's dead. Not even the media, but the way some in the media are downplaying his role suddenly does leave one to wonder why they're doing it. Afterall, if there was a boosting of his role (as some accuse the Bush administration of doing) the media have been just as guilty of it that as well. I don't believe his importance was ever played up too much.
Although, I have read on some lefty blogs that outright killing him was wrong and he should have been captured alive and been given the right to a trial and why is it right for some and wrong for others and all that swill. Most of us have a sense of right and wrong and are glad we aren't being subjected to the moral obscenity of another trial in Baghdad for this monster.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 08:56 AM (ULAbo)
35
Oyster, can you tell me which leftwing American blog said we should have captured him because he had a right to trial? That killing him was wrong?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 09:51 AM (DQYHA)
36
Here's one:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/8/75854/67368
"Who are the experts who have determined Zarqawi's guilt? What is the criteria they used, and how did they come to their conclusions?
If you agree with this killing, do you also agree with lynchings because people "knew" the person was guilty and should be put to death? Also, do you support the death penalty? I don't, but at least those people have been put on trial. Why should it be different for this person?"
Yes, he's merely asking questions, but they're obviously rhetorical and reflect his opinions. Even after so many comments displaying glee at Z's death.
I'll be back with more, but I'm really busy at work today.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 10:24 AM (ULAbo)
37
And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.
So Bush's intelligence of where the Zarkman was located on that particular occassion, was rock solid then JD? just all the intelligence after that was wrong?
How was it again, that one of the first military operations in Iraq was to assault the Al-Sunna camp he was believed to be training?
You guys pick and choose what intelligence Bush was right/wrong on, almost like you're flipping a coin...
Posted by: davec at June 09, 2006 10:44 AM (CcXvt)
38
Oyster, thanks for backing up your comment. Let me say this: I've never read the Kos comments page before, as I almost never go there. I think I'll start; there's a lot of stupid things said there, a lot of afactual assertions and poor logic. However, let's be clear--the quotes above were not from the blog itself, but from the comments. As you and I both know, one has to be careful to judge a blog by its comments. If I wanted to judge Jawa by its comments, I could easily say this is a blog that endorses genocide against Muslims, and mass murder of liberals, and the idea that ALL liberals are treasonous cowards who are mentally ill. The majority of responders that I saw on the website you gave did not say anything like "gee, too bad he couldn't have gotten a trial". There was a healthy degree of skepticism towards the administration, and many people saying this was very good news.
Do you think the majority of reporters and leftists are mourning the loss of Zarqawi, as Bluto says?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:45 AM (DQYHA)
39
>>>and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.
jd,
and that little whopper is just nonsensical on its face, given that attacking Zarq's camp would have BOLSTERED Bush's reasons for invading, not taken away from them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)
40
Whatever the truth of this debate, my point in raising the issue is to shoot down the idea that the MSM didn't report that he was there before the war. THEY DID. Agreed?
And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)
41
>>>And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right?
jd,
you've got blinders on, and that's the only way to explain how you can't see what's evident to us. Would you agree that people wear blinders sometimes? This is one of those times.
Every headline they put out is purposely designed to dampen the good news lest it positively impact Bush and the Iraq war. Every story states as fact that it won't make a difference in the war on terror-- AS IF THEY FUCKING KNOW. But they state it as fact. yippeee!!! And then when one reporter was called out on it-- he was asked, how do you know it won't impact the insurgency-- the reporter fumbled around and said, "you're right, I don't know." In other words he was talking OUT OF HIS ASS. They don't report the news-- they establish the agenda. The MSM is AGENDA driven. It goes beyond mere bias.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:51 AM (8e/V4)
42
I agree people wear blinders. In fact, I've been begging Bluto to read an academic study on a documented psychological phenomenon called "the Hostile Media Effect" in which strong partisans of both sides perceive the media as deeply biased, even when it is not. I'm always open to the idea that I'm getting it wrong. I frequently do. Here's what I see when I read the media on this: many media outlets are asking legitimate questions about what this means. The ones I have read are not CONCLUDING that this means nothing. They are asking knowledgeable people what they think. Some, like the WH and some outside experts see this as a major turning point. Some are skeptical. I'm in the middle. I think that's where the media is--waiting to see what happens. There is a brilliant piece up on NRO by Rich Lowry stating that it is just too soon to tell whether this will work. I agree. We've had SO many turning points that it would be irresponsible of the media not to be skeptical. That's their job.
Do you think you might have blinders on?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 12:33 PM (DQYHA)
43
jd,
I do agree that the Far Left also feels the MSM is too conservative. And by their wack standards they're probably right. Even moderate Liberals are too conservative for their tastes. But that speaks to how far out on Left field they are, not to how conservative the MSM is.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)
44
ps., in other words, the MSM is too cold for the Far Left, just right for moderate Libs, and too hot for moderate conservatives.
Think of it this way, if -10 is the Far Left, and +10 is the Far Right, with Zero being non-ideological, the MSM is a -5. The only people they can please are you NPR Lib types.
Which is fine. Bias is almost unavoidable. But bial and agenda are two different things. And the NPR Libs have crossed the line into agenda.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:39 PM (8e/V4)
45
Interesting study done a year ago. they asked people three factual questions:
Have WMD been found in Iraq?
Was Saddam Hussein involved in planning 9-11?
Did most of the world support our invasion of Iraq?
Guess what? Your likelihood of getting all three wrong was directly related to what media you consumed.
Those listening to NPR were most likely to know the correct answers to these FACTUAL questions (the first two have been conceded by Bush before the survey was done, the third is just too obvious to contest).
Those most likely to get all three wrong? Fox News viewers.
Those getting it from CBS,ABC, NBC television were better than Fox, worse than Newspapers.
Perhaps NPR's liberal agenda is in fact, accurate reporting, which is what you perceive as bias.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 03:58 PM (DQYHA)
46
jd,
that's not a surprise given that NPR would go out of it's way to hammer that home, while Fox wouldn't. It's in NPR's agenda to hammer that home. Not Fox's. That doesn' mean Fox is deceivig folks, it just means they chosen to hammer other stuff home-- the answers to which Libs would get wrong because they only listen to NPR, not Fox.
But if you're going to conduct a study, who gets to choose the questions? What do you think the results would be if that study instead asked:
1) Did Congress authorize the invasion of Iraq?
2) Did America "go it alone" in invading Iraq?
2) Are there U.N. resolutions authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein?
My guess is most Libs would get all three of those wrong, and that conservatives would get them all right. But I'm guessing Libs don't get quizzed the way conservatives do. Gee, I wonder why.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 04:42 PM (8e/V4)
47
jd,
that's a pretty good example of the blinders you're wearing. It didn't even occur to you that the questions used in that study are examples of Lib bias. To you, Lib bias is default setting, it's as things should be in the universe. It's no more controversial than the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. You don't even perceive it as bias BECAUSE YOU'RE IN IT. Yet I can see it because I'm not. The MSM is in the business of managing perception. They have thoroughly succeeded with you. Dude, I used to be a Lib not more than 6 years ago. I know what it's like in that bubble. I know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 06:05 PM (8e/V4)
48
carlos, that is the best answer I've read here ever. You've really made an excellent, logical point in regards to the nature of the questions. Until they repeat the study with questions similar to the ones you propose, the claims made are not nearly as strong as they should be.
Bravo for a very thoughtful response.
Incidentally, I used to be a Republican. Bush made me a Democrat. First one I ever voted for (for president) was John Kerry. One of the things I truly believe is that Bush isn't even a conservative. He doesn't believe in the conservative values of Barry Goldwater, that's for sure.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:03 PM (DQYHA)
49
You sum up the condition perfectly. What a shame it is. I wonder if the decent, honorable Democrats will ever regain control of their party.
Americans who cheer for the defeat of our country can not reasonably be trusted to govern us.
Posted by: pete at June 09, 2006 08:18 PM (bW9IA)
50
jd,
again you shame us with your intellectual honesty, lol! Kudos for that.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:26 PM (8e/V4)
51
Pete wins.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 09:09 PM (4Ospb)
52
Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind. I mean, it only takes an average of 100,000 years and six tons of matter to witness a single proton decay....if you're lucky.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 06:41 AM (DQYHA)
53
>>>Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind.
jd,
our minds are all made up, that's why they call us 'conservatives'. lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:15 AM (8e/V4)
54
jd,
but you're at a natural disadvantage on a conservative blog, just as I would be if I went to a Lib blog. The posts here go to conservative strengths, while the posts at Lib blogs go to Lib strengths. It's stuff we care about the most, and what we're most well-versed in, and vice versa at Lib blogs.
Your choice of ideologies isn't who's the smartest or right most of the times, it's which ideology stresses the things you consider most important. We think killing terrorists and winning in Iraq is the single most important cause today, you folks think killing Tom Delay and winning back the White House is the most important issue of the day. That's why Lib blogs are so boring, and ours are so compelling.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:45 AM (8e/V4)
55
Nice theory, Carlos, but I was making a different point. Even assuming you are right about the broader questions (I deeply disagree), you will not always marshall the right arguments, you will make mistakes. Why? because you are human. What I fail to see here at Jawa is debates in which learning takes place. I offered up evidence, you replied with a thoughtful analysis of what I put forward, I read it and agreed that my evidence on this point had been deeply weakened. Try to get Bluto to admit the slightest error. Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error. The conblogger main arguing tactic is attack attack attack. If you find yourself caught out on facts, never admit it. Go on to different ones, and admit nothing. That's not learning. But it sure reminds me of Bush. He and Rummy seem to think that if they admit a SINGLE error of significance, the entire superstructure of their world view will collapse. This is a sign of deep intellectual insecurity. A confident thinker and a confident movement learns. They admit mistakes. They explore why they made them. Gingrich did that. Goldwater did that. Bluto never does. Howie did a little. Instead of reading posts for learning, people here tend to read posts for ways to remain fixed in their views. Any feeble point will do, so long as you have to concede nothing. I'm proud that several times here, I've admitted to changing my mind. To learning from other people's logic.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:31 AM (DQYHA)
56
Death Could Shake Al-Qaeda In Iraq and Around the World By Craig Whitlock Saturday, June 10, 2006; A01 BERLIN, June 9 -- The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could mark a turning point for al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, according to terrorism analysts and intelligence officials. ... It is unclear which of 39-year-old Zarqawi's lieutenants, or deputy emirs, will attempt to fill his role...For recruitment efforts, the importance of Zarqawi's death "cannot be overestimated," Germany's foreign intelligence chief, Ernst Uhrlau, told the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Guido Steinberg, an expert on Islamic radicalism at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said other groups of foreign fighters that kept a loose alliance with Zarqawi, such as Ansar al-Sunna, might turn away from al-Qaeda in Iraq now that he is gone. "It's a great loss for the these jihadi networks," said Steinberg, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to Gerhard Schroeder when he was chancellor of Germany. "I don't think there is any person in Iraq able to control this network the way Zarqawi did. It's very decentralized. He was the only person in Iraq who could provide the glue. "By losing Zarqawi, they run the danger of losing Iraq as a battlefield to the nationalist insurgents and others who aren't interested in bin Laden or the global jihad."
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:38 AM (DQYHA)
57
I've just posted excerpts from an article that does exactly what Bluto said the MSM does NOT do: report Z's death as good news for us. It is almost uniformly positive. Please, here's a test for you conservatives: read this, and answer me this: is Bluto right or wrong in his original post? The conclusion if you read this article is inescapable, but who will have the courage to say so? Surely not Bluto. Anybody else? He said the MSM would portray it as a "minor development". This article in a "liberal" paper does NOTHING of the kind. Who will admit it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902040_pf.html
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:43 AM (DQYHA)
58
>>>Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error.
I can admit to the slightest errors, no problem. Didn't I concede that not all Libs despise christianity? Did I not concede that the spaniards sometimes used violence to force their religion on the indians? People on this blog will attest to the fact that I often concede on points of fact.
The problem is that folks like Bush and Rummy have no good reason to admit to the slightest mistakes because they know that the people demanding they admit it are intellectually dishonest partisan wolves intent solely on exploiting their admissions for the purpose of destroying them. Do you think they would say to Bush, "cheers to you for being honest! Let's report back to the American people how honest our president is!" ROFLMAO! No, they would use those admissions to destroy him. Bush would be fool to admit even the SLIGHTEST mistake to those assholes.
In fact now that you mention it, even the fact that you Libs are demanding that Bush "admit his mistakes" is RIDICULOUS. What purpose does it serve? None. It's a political gimmick, nothing more.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 10:57 AM (8e/V4)
59
At this point in his presidency, you may be right. But I thought the contrast between him and Blair was deadly. Blair, asked about mistakes, said disbanding the army and too aggressive debaathification. Bush said "Bring 'em on". Bush's error was rhetorical, not policy.
What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist. It sends the wrong message to our military. No problems, no mistakes, everything going as planned, when in fact, it is SNAFU and FUBAR as far as the eye can see.
If Bush had not spent a year trying to confuse the issue on WMD before finally admitting it, we would have been able to put more resources into anti-insurgency. If Bush had been able to admit errors, he would have been a more effective diplomat at bringing in the nations his secdef had insulted (actually, firing Rummy would have done a lot). How about this: GIVING MEDALS TO TENET, FRANKS, and BREMER? After Cheney and Rummy, the very architects of this FUBAR? Tenent--slam dunk on WMD. Franks: no need for more troops to prevent total breakdown of civil society, Bremer: disband the army and debaathy radically. Each of those decisions and acts resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans.
And this president, unable to say mistakes were made, gave them the highest honor of the nation.
Despicable.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:05 AM (DQYHA)
60
Carlos--when you "conceded" on liberals was that you meant your comment to mean the leadership of the party hates Christians. You didn't say that members of the leadership are committed Christians, which is true. Can you admit that the statement itself was wrong, not that your meaning was misinterpreted? I think there are aggressively secular people in the leadership of the Democratic Party who treat fundamentalist Christianity with great disdain, and who have grave doubts about religion generally. They are not the leadership. They are just a part of it.
As for Spaniards: ok, you got me. You did go from saying no one was converted at swordpoint to saying that some people were. I withdraw my comment about you as wrong.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (DQYHA)
61
The parallel comment would be: the Republican Party is a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who oppose abortion and gay rights. That woudl be ignoring the diversity within the Republican Party, which still has libertarian strains, Jewish members, etc. (and closeted gays in high positions, but whatever).
Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong?
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)
62
>>>What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist.
I don't buy that. You see, "admitting mistakes" isn't about forcing a change in policy for the better-- given that the policy has already long shifted by the time you get Bush to "admit his mistakes." It's simply gotcha politics-- making him feel pain for mistakes that are obvious only to hindsight. It's like a backseat driver warning about stuff in the rearview mirror. Wouldn't you just turn around and tell the guy to shut his big fat hole? Yes, our civilian planners make mistakes. But Newflash! They are infinitely further ahead of the curve than the schmucks in the media and the Democrat leadership, who are only experts because of hindsight. Their calls for "admitting mistakes" is pure gimmickry.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:26 AM (8e/V4)
63
>>>Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong?
That was a great article. The tone was pitch perfect. But I wouldn't make too much about it. It's the exception, not the rule.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:28 AM (8e/V4)
64
Then you are, in effect, saying that Bluto was wrong when he said the MSM reports only negatively about Iraq? that EVERY story follows that "meme". That they sought, in EVERY story to portray the murder of Z as a non-event?
Go ahead, say he was wrong. You disagree with him, without saying so. Lack of testicular fortitude?
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (DQYHA)
65
Well given that 1 out of 10 journalists are conservative, chances are that not EVERY single article is going to be a Leftwing hit piece. So if that's what Bluto meant, he was obviously wrong.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)
66
I think your numbers are suspect, Carlos. If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates? In fact, the Pew Research Center (one of the best, non-partisan centers in the country) has this to say of a large study of journalist ideology.
Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.
About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.
***
1-9 con-lib sounds really extreme. Do you have a source for that? 7-34 (12-23 at local level) con-lib seems much more accurate, and helps explain why I could find MANY examples of Bluto being dead wrong about the media and Z's death.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:32 PM (DQYHA)
67
>>>If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates?
Let me correct those numbers. Liberal journalists outnumber conservatives by 9-1. That's more accurate.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 04:58 PM (8e/V4)
68
Also, are you sure you mean "liberal"? I've seen a few studies (a Lichter one) that shows something near that in voting by national reporters. But that was 1992. Clinton was not running as a "liberal". He was from the moderate wing of his party, the DLC. He had many conservative positions (end welfare, pro-death penalty, pro free trade, etc). Votes are not perfect measures of ideology to say the least. Also, consistently since the question was studied, two key facts stand out--that national reporters are more liberal than local ones, and that editors are less liberal, and publishers trend conservative.
Also, national reporters aren't lockstep liberal even when they are "liberal". On social issues, VERY liberal. On issues like taxes, and particularly free trade, pretty conservative. I'll never forget an MSNBC segment where a reporter made it sound like lowering the mort. exemption to homes valued 300K or less was stalinism--she almost said no one had a house valued that low. National reporters are aloof from the economic concerns of the working class. this gives them a conservative bias on several issues, including things like taxes and free trade. It is also one reason they don't agree with many americans on immigration. It is MUCH more complex than many people here realize.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:10 PM (DQYHA)
69
A large study by Rozell of Virginia journalists also shows they are more secular than the American norm, altho again other studies show this is more national than local. Wealthy, highly educated Americans tend to be less religious generally, and national reporters are, compared to the median family income, pretty well paid. One big change since the early years of mass media journalism is that journalists today almost ALWAYS have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees. Graduate degrees are associated with lower levels of religious faith, as well. It is possible that journalists are not more secular than people with similar income and education.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:14 PM (DQYHA)
70
Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000? Yes, endorsements are made by editorial boards, and sometimes by the publisher, and sometimes by the combination. But IF the MSM is as biased as you people think, why don't the owners do something about it? And if, as you have said, the editors are the worst of it...how do you explain these endorsements?
Give it a shot, folks. See if you can square these facts with your beliefs.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 09:00 AM (DQYHA)
71
>>>Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000?
hmmm, that's intriguing. Do you have a credible source for that allegation?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:01 AM (8e/V4)
72
This is from Salon, which you probably don't trust, but the study is from editor & publisher, which you probably do:
Since 1940 when industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.
In 2000, the overwhelming trend toward Republicans continued. According to estimates, candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore. On the eve of the election four years ago, Editor & Publisher spelled out the newspaper love affair with Bush in a Nov. 6 article: "The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally."
E&P's results come from industry-wide surveys it conducted among 800 top newspaper executives one week before the election. Asked how they were going to vote in 2000, 59 percent of newspaper publishers signaled they were voting for Bush, compared to just 20 percent for Gore. And even among newsroom editors, Bush won support among 33 percent, compared to just to 24 percent for Gore.
****
Does it matter? Well, it kind of destroys the whole uniformly liberal media crap. Please note that editors, who someone here said were the most powerful, voted for Bush more than Gore...perhaps one reason why even conservative Robert Lichter said that Gore got screwed by the media in 2000.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:06 PM (DQYHA)
73
BTW, Carlos, if your source for 9-1 lib-con is Lichter's survey of journalists and how they voted in 1992: first, votes in 92 are not measures of ideology. Second, that survey has vast errors in it, that have been documented by several academics.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:08 PM (DQYHA)
74
Oh, and a countervailing fact: if you add up the circulations, as opposed to the number of newspapers, Gore does significantly better than he does by number of newspapers. This is because (shocking) newspapers tend to (but not always) reflect the views of their market, and urban areas lean Democratic, while rural ones lean Republican. But a counter-countervailing trend: one study I've read suggests that rural newspapers are more influential on their readers. This may be because they are more opinionated, with less professional separation between news and editorial. Or it may be that their readers are easier to sway.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:38 PM (DQYHA)
75
votes in 92 are not measures of ideology.
What's that supposed to mean? Libs voted Democrat in 92, just as they do in every election. If there were errors in that study to account for the 9-1 ratio, they would certainly have to be pretty VAST errors.
So when you say the publishers endorsed Bush, is that the bigwig capitalists who actually own the newspapers? If so, I don't think that necessarily reflects on joe blow journalist just out of NYU. One's worldview is tempered by the reality of running a business, the other one is an idealist trying to "make a difference." In fact, one might conclude that but for the publishers and people trying to turn a profit (including the editors), the papers would be even more Leftwing than they are now.
Interesting about the newspaper endorsements, but do you think it's material?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)
76
Sure, I imagine that most liberals (say the overwhelming majority) voted for clinton. But the converse statement is not true: all Clinton voters were not liberals. In fact, if you look at the National Election Study data, a non-trivial number of liberals voted for Bush, and conservatives for Clinton. Happens every year. But the more vital number is the number of moderates who voted for both men. Thus, the 9-1 figure of voting is NOT the same as saying that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by 9-1. If (and there are HUGE criticisms of Lichter's methodology) his data is accurate that 9 reporters (and his study was just washington reporters, not even national) voted for Clinton for every 1 who voted Bush, that doesn't mean the 9 were libs (or the 1 con). They are correlated, but not the same.
As for the EP. ABSOLUTELY it's material. It's not just the endorsements--it's the EDITORS voted for BUSH. Think about it. Earlier in this thread and also elsewhere when people talk about the liberal bias in the media, they say that editors are at least as powerful and force the liberal bias into the media. Well...if more voted for Bush...that suggests that they are probably more moderate than you realize.
And publishers are not the only ones who determine endorsements. Sometimes they are the only voice. Sometimes they participate with the editors. Sometimes they let the editorial board do it. AND--if I own a newspaper, and I'm a conservative, and I see obvious bias (which is what you all think it is)--well, I'd take action. Unless these owners are just dumb...
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:39 PM (DQYHA)
77
Interesting pattern though. Why did you ask for a source if you didn't think it was impressive evidence of the non-liberal nature of the media?
C'mon, give a little.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:40 PM (DQYHA)
78
jd,
I can give a little, but agreeing with you that newspaper publishers are representative of most reporters isn't a little. I've always believed that the folks who run the newspapers run it as a business, and as long as the journos are selling papers, the tycoons don't get involved in the micromanagement. Why would I change my mind about that now? I asked for your source because I admit I thought it odd that newspapers were endorsing Bush more than Gore. But when I saw that the endorsements were mostly from the money bags in charge, it all made sense again. There is too much info out there confirming what I can see with my two own eyes-- that the MSM are all a bunch of NPR Libs-- to concede the issue based just on publisher endorsements.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:50 PM (8e/V4)
79
I NEVER said publishers were representative of reporters, did I? Nice straw man. What I said was: look at editors voting. You didn't. Why? And many cons have said, hey, the media is leftwing, that's why Fox is gaining viewers and MSM losing subscribers and viewers. So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective?
The MSM doesn't see Zarqawi as an ally. They don't mourn his death. They don't twist stories against our troops as a rule. I think they could do a better job sometimes showing the accomplishments of our troops, but the media has a well-established bad news bias. If it bleeds, it leads. If the bleeding hurts liberals or conservatives, it doesn't matter.
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 06:41 AM (adM2O)
80
>>>So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective?
dunno. That does throw a wrench into the mix, and I admit I don't have a good answer to that. I'll have to think about that one.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 12, 2006 08:56 AM (8e/V4)
81
Fair enough. It is a complicated subject. I'm certainly open to the idea that the media has a liberal bias on certain issues. It is very tough for fundamentalist Christians to get a fair shake from the national media. The national media is pro-gay rights (along with most similar people of their education and income level) and pro-choice. I just don't think they are anti-American in covering foreign policy at all--in fact, much the opposite (good book showing that is Lance Bennett's News: the Politics of Illusion, if you can't bear to read Chomsky's flawed but important Manufacturing Consent). CNN's coverage is far more pro-American spin than it was in 91-2, thanks to competitive pressure from Fox. They are often selling patriotism. Whether that is bad or good depends on your own views on what the media should do, but it is afactual to argue that they are anti-American. They've become so pro-Am that they now have two coverages, one for domestic, one for foreign, because if they'd shown the world their American coverage during the iraq invasion, they'd have lost viewers, and if they'd shown the Americans their international coverage, they'd have lost viewers. That's how pro-Am their domestic broadcast is.
Even more so the national media sometimes takes a conservative viewpoint on trade issues and general economic issues. No reporter is afraid of an illegal immigrant taking their job for half salary.
The national media also isn't as sympathetic to the poor on health care, because most members of the national media HAVE health care. They aren't part of the 45 million Americans who don't.
One other issue they don't cover fairly--the plight of newspaper delivery people (seriously!).
The media has biases and blind spots. They just are uniformly liberal. That's why more editors voted for Bush than Gore.
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:28 AM (aqTJB)
82
Not that anyone who's reading wouldn't realize it, but just in case: the penultimate sentence should have an "aren't" not an "are"!
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:29 AM (aqTJB)
June 04, 2006
Newspaper Encourages Readers to Phone Conservative Letter Writer
Apparently stung by recent criticism citing a lack of balance in the selection of letters to the editor, the Syracuse Post-Standard in its Sunday edition suggested that readers telephone the conservative reader who raised the issue.
From the Editor's note (emphasis added):
A close reading of last Sunday's Feedback response would make clear that Richard Lindsay has earned his record as "most prolific" from the number of letters he writes, not the number published. Just because we say it, does that make it true? Here's more specific information: Lindsay sent us four letters dated May 26; two more dated May 27; two dated May 28; two dated May 29. And so on. Still don't believe us? Why not give him a call?While the paper stops short of providing Lindsay's telephone number, the suggestion to call him implies that Lindsay does not have an unlisted number, and, in fact, there are two Richard Lindsays listed in the Syracuse phone book.
Apart from the accusations of editorial bias in the selection of letters (members of the Syracuse Peace Council do seem to be pretty successful at getting their visceral hatred of the President published), why Lindsay, a conservative who often disagrees with the Post-Standard's left-leaning editorial policies, is singled out for criticism for being "prolific" is a mystery. Apparently, prolific liberal letter writers are concerned citizens, while prolific conservative letter writers are cranks.
In any case, for a daily newspaper to encourage its readers to harass a man for stating his opinions is irresponsible and outrageous, and seems more driven by pique than reasoned counter-argument.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
08:16 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I've said it before: I don't really care if the MSM is biased or not. I just wish they had the balls to admit that they not just biased in favor of the left, but rabidly so.
Posted by: Thrill at June 04, 2006 09:08 AM (DYb4r)
2
In my hometown paper, no editorials submitted WITHOUT a phone number are published. Unlike the blogosphere, this example of MSM or whatever you call it requires accountability -- and some guts -- from its readers.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 09:31 AM (oxMjD)
3
What's your phone number, Glenn?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 10:22 AM (RHG+K)
4
Well Bluto I am not quite sure of what to make of YOUR publishing on the internet the fact that there are two listings for that name in the phone book. Are you hoping that some of us will call ? And as for lack of balance and censorship : horrible and shocking !!!.......... Oh yes I can well understand having been BANNED from your blog for comments disagreeing with your posts.
Posted by: john ryan at June 04, 2006 10:35 AM (TcoRJ)
5
(Glenn's address and phone number have been removed - ed.)
Yours?
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 10:41 AM (oxMjD)
6
John Ryan:
Do you ever stop sniveling? it sounds to me like you need to cuddle up with a big box of Kleenex tissue, sunshine, and cry yourself to sleep?
I would find a crotch full of sand lice, eating their way through my skin, less irritating that you.
Posted by: davec at June 04, 2006 11:56 AM (CcXvt)
7
John Ryan, is Bluto hoping one of us will call him? Are you kidding? Just the fact that there are two listings with that name, and the suggestion that readers call Mr. Lindsay would not only be "lashing out" (a very unbecoming trait for journalists who claim to have standards and objectivity) at the Richard Lindsay who is the "prolific" letter writer, but would also be unfair to the Richard Lindsay who would likely prefer to be left alone. Or was that too simple a concept to grasp?
If our local paper was angry at a Judy Milam in my town and suggested their readers call her, I would be very upset if my phone started ringing with angry outbursts from strangers just because I had the same name. How would you feel?
Posted by: Kim Jong Il at June 04, 2006 12:39 PM (YudAC)
8
[sigh] Every time I think I've p[lumbed the depths of Liberal stupidity some Lefty comes along and does something idiotic like posting their name, address, and phone number on an internet website.
john ryan: you were banned from my website for making grossly inappropriate and disrespectful comments to a Memorial Day post.
If I were going to ban you for disagreeing with me that would have happened months ago, as you have never, to my recollection, agreed with a post that I have made. Your freedom to be a drive-by troll on my blog does not extend to disrespecting veterans.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 12:55 PM (RHG+K)
9
Oh mildly risky I suppose, but well worth it to illustrate one more time that the evil MSM doesn't have the market cornered on hypocrisy (also that grammatically-correct invective can't be equated with well-conceived editorial content ... but that's just a bonus.)
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 01:10 PM (oxMjD)
10
Opps, Kim Jong Il was me. (I thought I'd changed that. Sorry)
Posted by: Oyster at June 04, 2006 01:12 PM (YudAC)
11
Oops, "Opps" should be "oops".
Posted by: Oyster at June 04, 2006 01:13 PM (YudAC)
12
Risk is risk, Glenn - you never need a seatbelt until an accident. Of course, there's no way for us to gauge the risk unless we read about you in the papers. A couple of years ago a local girl was murdered after revealing her contact information on the Web. I believe the killer then set her body on fire to conceal the evidence, but I might be mixing it up with another murder.
But I did learn a valuable lesson here. Never dare a liberal to do something pointless and stupid.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 03:14 PM (RHG+K)
13
Well, I appreciate the concern for my well-being,
Bluto, but I'm not a local girl and anyone that bothers me from information gleaned on the web would get my best efforts toward an ass kicking. As for listing my contact info, I don't think assuming an arguably minute risk to stand up for what I believe in is pointless or stupid. But that's always been the main point of contention between liberals and cynics.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 03:42 PM (oxMjD)
14
glenn,
taking risks that have no reason to be taken is always pointless and stupid.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 04:05 PM (8e/V4)
15
Read my initial post. Seems plain I had a reason.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 04:07 PM (oxMjD)
16
glenn, the point of your initial post was that if conservatives have the audacity to write letters to the editor, their contact information should be published in order for liberals to harass them.
If you had another point I'm afraid I didn't see it, nor do I see how providing your personal contact information had anything to do with my post.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 05:08 PM (RHG+K)
17
>>>their contact information should be published in order for liberals to harass them.
That sounds pretty pointless and stupid to me.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 05:42 PM (8e/V4)
18
Hmmm... you sure you're referring to my post? I don't recall alluding to anyone having the audacity to write something deserving of harassment by anyone else. This is one of the "blanks" you've again filled in on your own.
My point was rather simple: editorialize in a bona fide media outlet, have the guts to take any resulting heat. It was what Michele Malkin required of those kids last month at , where was it....UC Berkley?
If on the other hand, you prefer to avoid accountability for your statements and sling your arrows from darkness, then the blogosphere is the place for you -- which is why its entertaining and often amusing, but never to be taken as a source of real analysis or context.
I prefer sunshine and am willing to take the heat that goes along with it. I left my contact info as evidence--especially after your attempts to "call my bluff" as it were.
Small deal, really, and the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 05:58 PM (oxMjD)
19
glenn,
There's a difference between anonimity vs posting your address for everybody to see and use. Anonimity might be gutless, but posting your address/phone number on the pages of a major U.S. newspaper is just plain stupid. That's why nobody does it.
Therefore, it doesn't make you courageous to post your address, it just makes you someone who is stupid pretending to be courageous. That pretense is all the more pronounced and ridiculous when you do it on a blog of little or no consequence like this one because here you suffer no risk (as opposed to at a major U.S. daily). So you just come off as silly and childish, not courageous.
Bluto's first mistake was to equate you posting your address on this inconsequential blog with posting it on a major newspaper of a major U.S. city. His mistake, and you exploited it. Your mistake was thinking that calling his bluff makes you courageous. It doesn't, because this isn't a major U.S. newspaper and there was no risk to you.
But it all really boils down to this. Your little exercise in "courage" amounts to nothing but rhetorical point scoring with little or no substance to it. Not a surprise. Most of the back and forth on blogs usually amounts to no more than that. But it doesn't change the fact that it's unethical for a newpaper to do what they did to that poor conservative crank who wastes his time writing them letters. He's a crank, and they're unethical fucks. You volunteered to publish your address, he didn't. This is a harmless blog, that's a major U.S. daily. No comparison.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 06:25 PM (8e/V4)
20
OK.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 06:47 PM (oxMjD)
21
"OK"
lol! at least try and put up a fight dammit!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 06:50 PM (8e/V4)
22
Ha! Alright, you've got me pegged. A lot of my willingness to throw my phone number out there was because I realize blog sites in general are fairly inconsequential — and as you say even more so when compared to a US newspaper. Plus, I was called out and never run in the face of such a challenge.
But when I have submitted editorials to my newspaper in the past, it's listed my name and the suburb I live in. From that, people have found my phone number (not tough to do) and left comments either agreeing or voicing anger with me on our machine. OK, that's the deal. I get that.
So it's not a matter of courage JC, it's a matter of being willing to play by the rules of editorial submissions. And that's why I hold blog sites in low regards--they play by no such rules and the sharing of legitimate information is the worse for it. Far from being an answer to the MSM (and I despise that acronym) it is the de-evolution of it.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 07:08 PM (oxMjD)
23
Let's get some of their home phone numbers and make some phone calls. I got free nights and weekends and a fair and flexible plan.
It's my little way of - sticking it to the man.
Posted by: dan l at June 05, 2006 05:37 AM (CLW0q)
24
Jeez Steve, what liberals you been talking to?
I always thought we were the tree-hugging pacifists, ever thwarting the best efforts of the pro-military conservatives and putting our country at risk in the process.
As for specific threats, you're funny. See anything from Improbulus Maximus on these posts and then tell him he must be a liberal. You'll be garroted by the time it's all done.
Best get your story straight, captain.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 05:55 AM (UHKaK)
25
Glenn,
What's always interesting when having a "discussion" with a liberal is that you can bet the farm on having some type of physical threat (best efforts towards an ass kicking) at some point during the "discussion". It's just so predictable. I just imagine some scrawny nerd hiding behind his keyboard spewing out threats knowing full well his bravado is all he has. In the real world, this is the guy that would never even think of issuing a threat face to face because he knows he would be in for the beat down of his life. I almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost.
Posted by: steve.miller at June 05, 2006 05:57 AM (y2Q1a)
26
Jeez Steve, what liberals you been talking to?
I always thought we were the tree-hugging pacifists, ever thwarting the best efforts of the pro-military conservatives and putting our country at risk in the process.
As for specific threats, you're funny. See anything from Improbulus Maximus on these posts and then tell him he must be a liberal. You'll be garroted by the time it's all done.
Best get your story straight, captain.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 06:00 AM (UHKaK)
27
glenn, your disdain for blogs is gainsaid by the amount of time you spend trolling. I understand your distaste for conservative blogs and the term "MSM". Most liberals have been in a state of frenzy over losing the decades-long liberal monopoly on news. But you're looking at blogs the wrong way; the real effectiveness of blogs (and talk radio) is not as an alternative to traditional media, but as watchdogs.
JC: this blog's average traffic is over 5,000 visitors per day. Unlike a newspaper, posts and comments are left up indefinitely, multiplying the "traffic" statistics. Also, the audience is worldwide, not limited to one city or region. There are good reasons why we teach our teenagers not to share personal contact info on public sites. What glenn has going for him is that psychos are more likely to arise from the Left than the Right.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 05, 2006 06:22 AM (RHG+K)
28
Bluto-actually, I understand full well how these mediums see themsleves. And in the initial stages, they probably filled the void for the disenfranchised.
But they did it too well and something else has happened along the way. Rather than acting as watchdogs, they got into the business of creating alternate realities from the facts at hand (though those "facts" are often questionable.)
From that, the idea has been established (damn-near codified) that there are no REAL truths, merely interpretations. So "forget the truths that may not jibe with your world views, ladies and gents,go out and find the interpretation that suits you." Politics has turned into a team sport and blog/talk are the cheerleaders.
I don't like the idea of alternate news any more than I like the idea of "good" science and "bad" science. If blogs and talk radio are the watchdogs, then we need better watchdogs. Lots better.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 07:17 AM (UHKaK)
29
From that, the idea has been established (damn-near codified) that there are no REAL truths, merely interpretations.
That notion is already codified by the Left. The belief that there are no real truths is boilerplate Leftism. That's the "nuanced" approach, no? You wouldn't want to be accused of being "black or white", no? You wouldn't want to be accused of being a "Sith" conservative, now would you.
Nobody here is claiming there are alternate truths, we're claiming the MSM is populated by Liberals who are in the business of lying by distortion and ommition. How else do you explain how it's always in paragraph 18 where it finally says the "dissafected yutes" are actually MUSLIMS. Every. Single. Time. You know why? Because they are trying to manage our perception of reality. Or look how Haditha is going to be front page news for the next 6 months, while the exonneration of marines at Ishaqi gets a page 16 squib. It happens every single time.
Unlike what the Left would have us believe, there is only ONE truth. ONE. Oh, and then there's Liberal MSM version of truth. And that's what we have blogs for.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 05, 2006 08:13 AM (8e/V4)
30
I agree with glenn about the term "mainstream media", or "MSM". It's a bad term. The so-called MSM don't really represent the mainstream anymore, a consequence of losing their monopoly on deciding the news.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 05, 2006 08:21 AM (RHG+K)
31
JC, the conservative movement's grasp for power -- going back to Goldwater's loss -- and reassertion of power -- going back to Nixon's resignation -- had as one of its core tenets the deligitimization of mainstream press.
That delegit program was founded on establishing the idea--now accepted as truth by conservative bloggers--that the media is somehow an instrument of the liberal elite. Conservatives point to their "evidence": certain things given short-shrift, some stuff on page one, other stuff on page 16.
How can that be? Today, I read everything George Bush had to say about gay marriage on page one. The Marines exonerated of murder charges on page 2, along with an article about Haditha. This Canadian terrorism plot on page 1 of the International section. Where is this liberal whitewash?
Meanshile, I see the Sean Hannitys, the Cal Thomases, the Fox Newses and the Rish Limbaughs everywhere. These people don't report, they opine and they're opinions are well represented in the MSM. Where is your gripe?
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 08:33 AM (UHKaK)
32
>>>>The Marines exonerated of murder charges on page 2, along with an article about Haditha.
Yes, "along with an article about Haditha", lest we forget Haditha! lol! You aren't sensitized to it, that's why you can't see it.
So why wasn't the exoneration of Ishaqi BLASTED all over the headlines the way Haditha, Abu Graib, and Ishaqi were? Because they aren't interested in blasting the good news all over the headlines, only the bad news.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 05, 2006 10:23 AM (8e/V4)
33
And because the Haditha story was on page 2, could I have "Ha, blatant conservative bias?" That should have been page 1 stuff!!!!
Of course not. News is news.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 10:54 AM (UHKaK)
34
Should be "could I have YELLED "Ha, blatant conservative bias?" Sorry.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 10:56 AM (UHKaK)
35
glenn,
also, I'm willing to bet $50 bucks that in the Ishaqi article they PROMINENTLY regurgitated more of the same on Haditha-- LEST WE FORGET. lol! That's how it works, standard operating procedure for the MSM.
You probably haven't noticed how even the good news is used to spin their narrative. They'll briefly state the good news and then the rest of the article is reguritated bad news.
A pretty good example would be an article about the successfuly Iraqi elections. It starts with the headline about the iraqi elections. The first paragraph expands on it, and then everything underneath it is about all the bombs exploding and people being killed and blah blah blah --- LEST WE FORGET! lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 05, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)
36
Thats a violation of right to privacy that news paper should be sued and used for birdcage linning
Posted by: sandpiper at June 05, 2006 03:13 PM (Dutrh)
37
Bluto banished the American hating little shit John Ryan!
Hmmm. Bluto must be ahead of us here.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 05:15 AM (PV2nq)
38
I think I see where you're coming from JC -- why emphasize the negative when the positive is in the same theater?
So using the past few weeks USA Today as an example, "9 severed heads found in fruit boxes in Bagdad" could just as easily be "2.7 million heads NOT found in fruit boxes in Bagdad."
And "US Marines accused of murdering two-dozen civilians" could be re-written as "28,000+ US Marines NOT accused of murdering two-dozen civilians."
Hey, how's about changing "Two US soldiers Killed by IED" to "The rest weren't."
It's all so clear to me now.
Posted by: glenn at June 06, 2006 01:41 PM (UHKaK)
June 02, 2006
"Nasty in Manhattan" Quoted by Times of India
The Times of India is carrying the Lina Sinha story under the title "Lusty Lina Charged with Rape." Interestingly, the article quotes the entry posted on Interested-Participant and The Jawa Report. They didn't mention I-P specifically and they misspelled The Jawa Report calling it The Java Report instead.
Nevertheless, it's nice to be recognized.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
05:13 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.
1
MiB was quoted while quoting old Markos rants.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 02, 2006 05:28 AM (+nlyI)
2
Is this important? This is a blog, not the Page 6 Celebrity Section.
Posted by: hondo at June 02, 2006 08:24 AM (el7nZ)
3
No, hondo. It's not important. However, I do think it's noteworthy so a note was made. Maybe you frequently get quoted by a major news outlet on the other side of the globe. This was my first.
Are you suggesting I delete the post?
Posted by: Mike at June 02, 2006 08:46 AM (i7oFU)
4
Congrats! You've almost "made it". Still need that fatwa, though.
Posted by: Macktastick Rsty Wicked at June 02, 2006 10:01 AM (JQjhA)
5
The Coffee Report?
Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 06:40 AM (YudAC)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
187kb generated in CPU 0.0489, elapsed 0.1718 seconds.
123 queries taking 0.1345 seconds, 468 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
123 queries taking 0.1345 seconds, 468 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
