Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Columbus Dispatch smacks down CAIR's grievance o' the week

 
The exceptional CHAT blog describes CAIR's war on Michael Ramirez, the editorial cartoonist of Investors Business Daily.

In their latest salvo, CAIR organized a letter-writing campaign to the Columbus Dispatch complaining about the accompanying cartoon.

Send polite comments about this Nazi-style cartoon depicting Iranians as roaches fleeing a sewer to: gsheller@dispatch.com, michael.ramirez@investors.com

CHAT goes on to call out this hypocrisy in stark terms:

This might strike the average reader as a bit hypocritical, as CAIR has not said a single word about the avalanche of racist hate cartoons published throughout the Islamic world; then again, CAIR has never had much of a problem with it's hypocrisy.

But let's leave that aside for a moment and focus on the fact that CAIR substantially misrepresented the cartoon. Ramirez clearly did not have all Iranians themselves in mind, as the cockroaches are streaming from a grate emblazoned with the word "extremism".

To their credit, the editors of the Columbus Dispatch rejected CAIR's critique and instead shredded their missives with a pithy rejoinder.

CAIR also likens the cartoon to Nazi propaganda. This is a remarkable display of intellectual gymnastics. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the Jewish state and questions the Holocaust, while his regime tries to develop nuclear weapons. If CAIR is truly concerned about the promotion of Nazi ideas and the use of Nazi methods, it should direct its attention to Tehran... In this case, CAIR has misrepresented this cartoon and missed the mark by fabricating a false grievance.

Well done.

Update: Extreme Mortman notes Ramirez' well-deserved Pulitzer. Now, which one of you SOBs put truth serum in the Pulitzer Committee's coffee?

Sunday, April 06, 2008

The Left's Litany of Lies

 
You know what's startling? The fact that liberals (er, I mean, progressives) have blithely ignored a tidal wave of lies promoted by their ostensible leaders. And I don't mean routine buffoonery like Hillary's tale of Bosnian snipers disguised as child greeters or her mother's encounter with Sir Edmund Hillary in The Time Tunnel.

Instead, I refer to the Democrats' tectonic lies. Lies so foundational, so interwoven into Democrat lore that they can no more be removed from the party than its symbol -- the ass -- can be replaced with a platypus.

Some of the most outrageous lies marketed by the left include the following:



LIE #1: There is no terrorist threat. There is... No... Terrorist... Threat.... I repeat: There is no terrorist threat. None.

On April 2, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued the following statement: "Nuclear terrorism remains a threat." But perhaps the DHS is populated with partisan liars? Oh, wait, a report from the Congressional Research Service, a bipartisan team of scientists and researchers, opens with the following statement:

It would be difficult for terrorists to mount a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, but such an attack is plausible and would have catastrophic consequences, in one scenario killing over a half-million people and causing damage of over $1 trillion...

In combating nuclear terrorism, the standard for success for the United States is daunting — zero nuclear detonations, which may require stopping every terrorist or rogue state attempt to acquire and deliver a nuclear weapon — while a single nuclear detonation in the United States would constitute a terrorist success... ...studies have shown many potential weaknesses in U.S. ability to thwart nuclear terrorism.

Furthermore, there have been numerous documented attempts at nuclear terrorism in the past. And more appear to be on the way, with the Atlantic's William Langewiesche stating "the spread of atomic weapons can't be stopped."

The assertion that "there is no terrorist threat" is as baldfaced a lie as has ever been marketed to the American people even disregarding the stunning national security ramifications.



LIE #2: Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror. This fabrication, unceasingly marketed across the entire swath of spectrum controlled by the mainstream and leftist new media, is as patently false as the assertion that Michael Moore is a celebrity endorser for Subway.

The website Hussein and Terror (authored by Deroy Murdock) is an excellent starting point for understanding Iraq's role as the central clearinghouse of terror. Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam and Salman Pak are central to that level of understanding; those who can't define these terms believe this lie and those who know the terms comprehend why this is such an egregious lie.

Other facets to consider include A.Q. Kahn's offer of nuclear weapon design to Iraq and Kenneth Timmerman's analysis of recently released Pentagon documents:

“Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” the report’s authors at the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) state... ...a Jan. 18, 1993 order from Saddam Hussein, transmitted to the head of Iraqi intelligence, “to hunt the Americans that are in Arab lands, especially in Somalia, by using Arab elements or Asian (Muslims) or friends.” ...In response, the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed Hussein that Iraq already had ties with a large number of international terrorist groups, including “the Islamist Arab elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and [currently] have no place to base and are physically present in Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.” In other words, al-Qaida.

Put simply, Hussein's Iraq was linked to a myriad of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Putting Hussein down was a blessing not only for the Iraqi people but also for the citizens of the West who would have suffered as victims of terror attacks sponsored by Saddam.



LIE #3: The Ripple Effect: not so much a single lie as an entire genus of lies in which falsehoods spread from left-wing anthills to the mainstream media.

A perfect example is represented by a recent (March, 2008) incident involving CNN's Glenn Beck. In an interview with pastor John Hagee, Beck noted that certain crackpots had emailed him with rumors that Barack Obama was the "Anti-Christ."

Within hours, the odious (and failing) Media Matters website posted an "alert" that claimed Beck had seriously considered that Obama is the Anti-Christ. As you might expect, this alert was effectively read right off a teleprompter by an unhinged crackpot (and MSNBC "journalist") named Keith Olbermann. At which point, the New York Times picked up the story.

The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest! — of being the Antichrist... Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.

In other words, the Ripple Effect -- a series of increasingly shrill falsehoods -- spread from an inconsequential progagandist website to the New York Times (but I repeat myself).

On CNN, Beck predicted the outcry before it even occurred and also described a series of similar events that can all be categorized as outright lies.



LIE #4: the assertions of Obama's church - I need not rehash the all of the lies of Pastor Wright and his friend Louis Farrakhan.

The highlights: the U.S. government invented HIV as a means of genocide against people of color; that racist Louis ("The Jews helped Hitler get the Third Reich on the road") Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness"; and reprinting (in a church newsletter, no less) the lies of a murderous posse of terrorist thugs known as Hamas.

The church, now under greater scrutiny due to Obama's 20-year relationship with it, has done its best to airbrush its website, removing damaging newsletters and statements. Furthermore, references to Wright on Obama's website have been purged.

Both are moves reminiscent of the "bad old days of the Soviet Union."



Why do progressives buy into this tripe? Well, for one, they're Democrats.

And I'm just getting started. More leftist lies are on the way.

Saturday, April 05, 2008

New York Times' website highlights good news in Iraq


Just kidding.

The Times would sooner devote its entire front page to a biography of Larry "Bud" Melman than illustrate what is really happening in Iraq.

Update: Vanderleun notes the accelerating decline of the New York Times. The money graph depicts the time-frame of '93 to '07.


...you need to ask yourself what happened to the New York Times at the beginning of this inexorable drift downward? One fear factor stands out... Arthur Ochs [Pinch] Sulzberger, Jr....became the publisher of The New York Times in 1992 and chairman of The New York Times Company in 1997...

Make sure you catch Vanderleun's line o' the day.

Hat tip: Master Gunnery Sergeant Kirk

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Revenge of the angry journalists

 
You can't tell if any of the anonymous complainers are Mary Mapes or Dan Rather, but it wouldn't come as much of a surprise. AngryJournalist.com appears to the hub of staff discontent with the old school journalism industry.

Among the less fiery comments:

Who the hell told newspapers they were a prestigious place to work, or that good people would stick around for crap pay and crap schedules?


...I went $50,000 in debt for a degree in Journalism to discover that nobody is hiring, and my internships and experience no longer matter.

...I edited my college newspaper and was excited about a career in journalism. I got a job at a small daily in the middle of Nowhere, Ohio. The pay was low, the hours were long, and no matter how good my copy was, my editors would chastise me for not knowing about something that the competing paper knew about. As exciting as the newsroom atmosphere was, I got tired of being driven like a slave for $22,000 a year... I left the grind of daily journalism and got a law degree from Georgetown. I’m much happier now, and the pay is much better!

Caution if you visit: harsh language warning.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

AP breakthrough: news and an op-ed in a single article


As the cost of newsprint skyrockets, the AP's Charles J. Hanley is doing his best to save space. By combining news "reporting" and op-ed analysis into a single article, he's helpfully assisting editors' cost-cutting initiatives.

An example: "'Standing Up' Iraq Army Looks Open-Ended":

...The 2004-05 Defense Ministry scandal was just one in an unending series of setbacks in the five-year struggle to "stand up" an Iraqi military...

A straight news reporter would have written a challenging series.

...Responsibility for these ever-unfulfilled goals lies in Washington, contends retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who preceded Petraeus as chief trainer in Iraq...

A straight news reporter would have written these unmet goals.

...A look back by the AP, as the Iraq conflict enters its sixth year, finds the $22 billion training effort has been a story of uncertain steps and policy reversals, corruption, questionable numbers and distrust, ending with an Iraqi military with narrow capabilities and years more "standing up" ahead...

A straight news reporter would have written fraught with difficulty and some sporadic successes.

Congratulations to Hanley and the AP for this breakthrough combination of news and an op-ed into a single, space-saving article!

More info: StrategyPage - Iraqis fight like Americans

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Print media augurs in


The newspaper industry just suffered the most catastrophic drop in ad revenue since, well -- since anyone started measuring ad revenue.

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 -- the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950.

The drop-off points to an economic slowdown on top of the secular challenges faced by the industry. The second worst decline in advertising revenue occurred in 2001 when it fell 9.0%.

Total advertising revenue in 2007 -- including online revenue -- decreased 7.9% to $45.3 billion compared to the prior year.

The Associated Press did not return my calls requesting comments.

Monday, March 24, 2008

NY Times exposes Bush's war for oil zioneocons

 
Eagle-eyed Reliapundit caught the New York Times' not-so-subliminal message in its conventional "grim milestone" story. Interesting choice of picture.

It's the left-wing line: Bush went to war against Iraq for Israel. Even Obama advisor McPeak recently said as much.

Of course, other left-wingers say we went to war against Saddam for the House of Saud.

The spokesman for Likkud's World Domination Council did not return calls at press time.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

MSM crops controversial signs in anti-war protest photos

 
Here is the AFP photograph of an antiwar march in Hollywood (Valerie Macon photo):

I wonder what the "Free P..." sign says?

Helpfully, AnswerLA provides the --uhmm-- answer. The full sign reads:

"Free Palestine" -- in other words, make the tiny sliver of land in the Middle East called Israel Judenfrei.

The leftist, moonbat, anti-Semitic, terror-supporting alliance is now complete.

* * *

Another photo from the event threatens the president.

Didn't that used to be against the law?

Saturday, March 01, 2008

60 Minutes gets duped again

 
Topic: another bogus hit-piece on the GOP... what else?

Gateway Pundit has all of the details on "Dana Jill Simpson." My goodness, she resembles James Carville, doesn't she?

* Dana Jill Simpson from small town (Rainsville) Alabama, went on "60 Minutes" and told an outlandish fable about her so-called interaction with Karl Rove.
* Karl Rove strongly denied the charges on Wednesday.
* Yesterday, the Alabama GOP demanded that "60 Minutes" show proof of the allegations or retract their story.

Put simply, no one in the GOP has ever heard of "Dana Jill Simpson" nor has "she" ever given any money to the GOP (according to OpenSecrets.org). You'd think CBS would get sick of being made a laughingstock...

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Dear Tim Townsend, attached please find glossary of blog terms

 
Dear Tim, I know the idea of new media is strange and frightening. I've therefore attached a detailed set of instructions for using blogs with helpful definitions of key terms.

1: Blog - this is the title of the blog

2: Blog post - this is an article posted by the "blogger"; click on the headline of the post to see additional detail

3 - this is the "Comments" section, where registered users can respond to blog posts

4 - this is the first comment among hundreds that may appear within an article's detail page

5 - just seeing if you're paying attention, Tim. There is no #5.

* * *

I didn't memorize Charles Johnson's conversation with Mr. Townsend ("Tim Townsend's Temper Tantrum"), but it went something like this.

Dear Tim,

In the future, I would appreciate it if you could contact me first if you're going to publicly cast aspersions on my website. I'd like an opportunity to at least present my side.

Thanks, Charles
Charles,

I know you are, but what am I?

Tim

If he is representative of the technical know-how possessed by legacy media, I'd recommend Mr. Townsend surf over to CareerBuilder to pursue a new line of work. Assuming he can use Google to find it, that is.

Back story:
• LGF: St. Louis Papers Shill for CAIR

• Gateway Pundit: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Spins for CAIR

• Cristi Li: Holy Land Foundation Retrial Date Scheduled

• Matthew Sheffield at Newbusters: Bashing LGF, St. Louis Paper Shills for Islamic Group

• LawHawk's Blowback

• St. Louis Today Forums: Islamic Prayer Tower Rises in South St. Louis City

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Francisco Castro is still dead. Or not.

 
Earlier today, Snapped Shot spotted a press release from the AP that appears to anticipate the death -- not the just-announced retirement -- of Fidel.

Fausta has a great roundup of news and links. Don't miss her shredding of the BBC's writers, who appear to be auditioning for a slot on the SNL staff with their snort-worthy satire.

Talkers Magazine lists Top Ten Radio Hosts

 
The Daily News lists some of Talkers Magazine's Top 100 radio personalities. The folks you'd expect to be at the top of the list still are. Shockingly, liberals "progressives" seem to be in short supply.

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Michael Savage
4. Dr. Laura Schlessinger
5. Glenn Beck
6. Laura Ingraham
7. Don Imus
8. Ed Schultz *
9. Mike Gallagher
10. Neal Boortz

Bill O'Reilly shows up at #11, Mark Levin at #15 and Alan Colmes at #16,

* Schultz is the only "progressive" in the top ten list.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Line o' the day: our curiously incurious "professional" journalists

 
Charles at LGF:

Does anyone think that if a news crew happened to capture on film a Confederate flag hanging in a John McCain campaign office, the rest of America’s media would just yawn, ignore it, and move on to other things? I’m just asking.

Newsbusters: MSM Remains Incurious About Obama Volunteer With Che Guevara Flag

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

CNet: Tech News as reported by "Progressives"

 
Balanced reporting from Declan McCullah, who purports to be a tech news writer at CNet. The headline -- Obama, not McCain or Clinton, votes for electronic privacy -- captures the flava.

A U.S. Senate vote that took place two hours ago reveals how much three of our leading presidential candidates are committed to electronic privacy and the rule of law.

Barack Obama passes the test. John McCain failed. Hillary Clinton gets an incomplete.

The vote was on an amendment to deny AT&T and other telecommunications companies legal immunity if they are proven in court to have violated federal privacy law by opening their networks to the National Security Agency...

Quick quiz: which candidate does he favor?

Immediately after 9/11, when said wiretaps occurred, I don't recall many media types railing against the U.S. Government's invasions of privacy. It was perfectly obvious that the feds would begin (and the public was demanding) interception of calls leaving or entering the country if they were connected to known terrorist enclaves.

Furthermore, it is patently a legal practice, considering every time we leave or enter the country, we are subject to warrantless search and seizure of our persons and property.

It's called "Customs". Perhaps Mr. McCullah's heard of it.

I wonder how Mr. Partisan Tech Reporter could distinguish an electronic Customs bureau from a physical one.

As for the constitutionality of FISA, it strikes any serious observer as counterintuitive (putting it kindly) that the Commander-in-Chief can order terrorist camps in Afghanistan pulverized with bunker-busters... but can't listen to a phone call from the same camp to a safe-house in New Jersey!

Put simply: your right to privacy ends at the border. An international flight should put the question to rest for Mr. McCullah.

Also see: National Defense 101: A public service for "Progressives"

DHS warns terrorists may use "pregnancy prosthetics"

 
MSNBC's Deep Background:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is reminding law-enforcement officials of the increased use of female suicide bombers worldwide, and warning that women terrorists might hide explosives in devices “that mimic the look of a pregnant woman.”

The unclassified DHS threat assessment, released Monday and obtained by NBC News, shows photographs of “pregnancy prosthetics,” hollowed-out devices that could hold explosive devices. The report says “female suicide bombers have used devices that make them appear pregnant to hide explosive devices.”

The DHS report states that terrorists are using female bombers more frequently, in part because these attacks generate “more widespread media exposure.” It adds: “Continued use of female suicide bombers-the most recent example being a 3 February 2008 attack at the main railway station in Colombo, Sri Lanka-indicates that terrorists judge this tactic as effective in increasing defenses and thwarting security measures.”

In related news, authorities warned citizens of New York to be on the watch for partisan newsman Keith Olbermann.

One official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stated that "Olbermann may be hiding explosives in the empty husk that is his skull."

Friday, February 08, 2008

Sorry Cadillac Tight, but we all owe an apology to Hugh Hewitt

 
Joe Tobacco at Cadillac Tight offers a nicely delivered argument that the standard conservative themes no longer resonate with most Americans, thus explaining the incipient McCain nomination (hat tip: Glenn Reynolds).

...The [conservative establishment (e.g., talk radio combined with National Review)] really think that there is nothing wrong with their ideas, their methods, or their scorn for their own voter base. Even after the 2006 “thumping” they took in Congress, they don’t see it. Rather than take a step back and consider that McCain may actually be closer to the base in terms of his policy preferences (they can, after all, always tell themselves these primaries were about “electability”, not policy), they intend to soldier on with their losing agenda, keeping a nice supply of brickbats ready to hurl at their own base when things don’t work out the way they expected them to.

At first blush, the story doesn't pass my smell test. Talk radio and the center-right blogosphere, for example, were able to instantly marshal their forces against the open-borders crowd and defeat the amnesty bill, despite every advantage possessed by the President, Ted Kennedy, John McCain and a host of other beltway insiders.

As for a "thumping" in 2006, were it not for the "macaca" kerfuffle (vastly inflated by the progressive media), it's entirely likely that the Senate would have remained in GOP hands.

And if we're going to buy into CT's argument, I'd like some metrics that can help confirm or deny the assertions.

The candidates and the campaign


The Intrade political futures market provides insight into the dynamics and trending of the race. Look closely at the market for each candidate over the hottest period of primary season (mid-2007).

Giuliani: hovering between 20% and 40% during the meat of the campaign, Rudy had grabbed many national security conservatives and centrists who admired his handling of the 9/11 attacks. As for Second Amendment and social conservatives, many had their doubts. A lack of major-league funding rippled into tactical errors that quickly short-circuited his campaign.

Thompson: gravitating between 15% and 30%, Fred was beloved by the conservative backbone of the party. A late and ineffectual start followed by a sequence of debate breakdowns -- cause by an apparent lack of both preparation and eloquence -- accelerated his fall.

Romney: ranging between 15% and 25%, Mitt had the advantage of an unlimited warchest and a professionally staffed campaign. He was repeatedly wounded by the media, which focused inappropriate attention on his Mormon background (consider: did you ever read a news story about Harry Reid's Mormon upbringing?).

McCain: listing between 5% and 20% (on the lower end for most of the race), the war hero-cum-beltway insider was too old and too damaged by the immigration debate to be considered a serious GOP candidate. Or was he?

Huckabee was simply not a viable candidate until a series of wonderfully glib debate performances propelled him to mainstream media prominence.

Examined this way, conservatives had split between three viable candidates who combined for nearly 90% of the Republican sentiment in July of 2007! Later in the race, the GOP split even further. But why was the voting public so fragmented, so compartmentalized?

The mainstream media and the GOP race


Over the course of the Republican nomination process, the ultimate barometer of mainstream media sentiment -- the New York Times -- promoted candidates certain to be weakest against Democrats in the general election. To gauge this contention, let's examine the number of mentions in the Times over the past year for each candidate.

John McCain: 97,400
Mitt Romney: 87,400
Mike Huckabee: 52,800
Fred Thompson: 21,700
Rudy Giuliani: 18,600

Consider that Huckabee, a man with no significant backing early in the cycle, was promoted by the Times nearly three times as much as New York's former mayor, a much more well-known and local figure. Or that John McCain was publicized (in the context of the GOP nomination) approximately five times as much as either Giuliani or Thompson.

And to reiterate, much of the MSM's attention focused on Romney's "oddball" Mormon background and other attack stories.

Put simply, the mainstream media relentlessly marketed the comeback of John McCain and the viability of a no-name, no-money, no-chance candidate like Mike Huckabee simply to fragment and weaken the Republican fold for the inevitable Clinton/Obama onslaught.

An apology to Hugh Hewitt


In short, the center-right blogosphere (myself included, eighth-tier player though I may be) and talk radio both owe an aoplogy to Hugh Hewitt.

Hewitt had the right idea all along: back the man with the best executive track record, eloquence, squeaky clean background, solid (if imperfect) conservative credentials and, yes, presidential appearance as the single man who could unite the GOP.

Had Rush, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin followed Hewitt's lead earlier -- using their bully pulpits as blunt instruments, just as the mainstream media is fond of doing (only they do so in the form of analysis disguised as news) -- Romney would be the presumptive nominee.

Perhaps these are our lessons for the next go-round.

That said, many things can happen before the general election. One never knows what shenanigans the Clintons might pull with the super-delegates, for instance.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Double standard? What double standard?

 
Yesterday, a prominent U.S. Cardinal pilloried federal officials for permitting Iran's president Ahmadinejad to visit New York City last year.

We should have executed the dictator. Everyone in the West knows that Iran's president must die. And we could have easily made it appear he died of natural causes.

Oh. My mistake. Did I say a U.S. Cardinal?

I meant that a prominent Iranian cleric called for the beheading of George W. Bush; he expressed disgust with Arab leaders for not taking advantage of Bush's visit by assassinating the U.S. president.

Stepping back for a moment, what does it say about religious authorities who call for executions? And what does it say about a mainstream media that can't be bothered reporting this news. Of course, had a real Catholic official called for Mahmoud to be killed, we can be sure the New York Times would have erupted in righteous liberal progressive outrage.

Double standard? What double standard?