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

Thursday, July 24, 2008

New York Times: Meltdown Nearly Complete


The wonderfully managed New York Times Company just reported an 82% drop in profit for the second quarter.

Meanwhile, print advertising revenue continued to shrink... Revenue dropped 6 percent to $741.9 million, missing the average Wall Street estimate for $754 million. Ad revenue slipped down 11 percent, hurt mostly by fewer classified ads.

Look at the bright side: revenue only missed by $12 million dollars.

John McCain was unavailable for comment; presumably because he was too busy giggling.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

NY Times rejects McCain's editorial: says he hasn't 'earned' it


An op-ed written by GOP nominee John McCain was rejected by the New York Times for publication. This occurred only a week after the paper published an essay written by presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. In a statement released today, Times Opinion Page Editor David Shipley explained the paper's rationale.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain. However, we feel McCain's perspective in this piece is not as open as Senator Obama's. Nor has McCain earned the right to an automatic slot on our op-ed page through his service to the community the way the Obama has.

Remember, McCain never served as a community organizer. He did not serve his local citizenry as a state senator. And he never built grass-roots support organizations.

Barack Obama is a candidate who espouses inclusion, tolerance, and humility.

Furthermore, the presumptive Democratic nominee has been consistently right on the major issues; which is not the case for Senator McCain. We'd like McCain to take responsibility for his actions including terrorizing innocent civilians.

In conclusion, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft once Senator McCain has addressed these issues.

Monday, July 21, 2008

A distinct lack of media outrage over tasteless McCain cartoon


Remember the firestorm of media controversy that erupted with the publication of the New Yorker's recent cover story on Barack Obama?

Newsbusters' Tom Blumer noted a Rolling Stone cartoon that is arguably more tasteless (less tasteful?) depicting McCain's political opponents -- with decidedly Asian features -- torturing him NVA-style.

The cartoon accompanied a ridiculously partisan Matt Taibbi commentary.

Full Metal McCain - Haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam, the one-time maverick has transformed himself into just another liberal-bashing fearmonger

...here in the Big Easy, John McCain has chosen this moment to mount his first general-election attack against the Great Satanic Liberal Enemy — who, as luck would have it, turns out to be a Negro intellectual from Harvard who's never served in the military. And this is supposed to be a bad year for Republicans?...

No media outcry. No carping or complaining from the candidate. Just another day at the office for the GOP.

Hat tip: Rants & Refinements

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

2005 New Yorker cover that generated a firestorm of controversy

From December 2005 -- Bush is depicted as a dowdy housewife to Cheney's beer-guzzling, sedentary husband.

I recall with stunning clarity the astounding publicity that arose as a result of this Barry Blitt cover.

Linked by: Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities. Thanks! Hat tip: Ben, who whines, "do I have to do all of your work for you?"

Monday, July 14, 2008

2006 New Yorker cover that generated a firestorm of controversy


From February 2006 -- Bush and Cheney are depicted as lovers in an homage to Brokeback Mountain.

We all remember the maelstrom of controversy that arose from this fateful cover.

Update: Rants and Refinements reminds us of "the controversy":

Ulriksen’s cover for the February 27, 2006 edition of The New Yorker won the 2006 American Society of Magazine Editors award for Best News Magazine Cover.

Linked by: American Thinker and TigerHawk. Thanks! Hat tip: Ben

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Uproar over 'Barack as terrorist' New Yorker cover


Bumped and updated to include uproarious comments from outraged progressives and amused conservatives. See Update VI for liberals' live-blogged panic attacks.

The Politico's Jonathan Martin says "Ya can't make it up":

The New Yorker says it’s satire.... [Sunday Afternoon, Obama was asked] “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

...I’m sure Senator Obama is oh-so appreciative for The New Yorker’s help.

It would've been even better had Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Farrakhan, Khalidi and Said been depicted.

As for the much-ballyhooed "politics of fear" charge, exactly who is culpable now?

Update: Commenting at Politico, Midas notes:

... and they're in the oval office, burning the US flag, no less. I find it funny how much of this kind of 'fear' crap the left has put out in the name of saying "watch out, the right is gonna use fear!". Holy crap, people, the 'right' hasn't done any of this stuff, and McCain won't tolerate anyone on his team saying anything remotely controversial. I've never seen a more blatant display of 'projection' than what is going on with the 'left' in this regard. Fearmongers, indeed...

Update II: A Politico follow-up by Mike Allen:

...The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering.

Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." [Ed: There are some of us who think it's frickin' hilarious.]

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

...Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably "incendiary... I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

Update III: More hilarity at the Politico:

Was this a painting or did the New Yorker just take a picture of the two at their home?

Posted By: JD | July 13, 2008 at 06:47 PM

Has anyone seen how George Bush is portrayed on the cover of, say, Der Spiegel? It's nice to see ridiculous caricatures at the expense of the Left.

Posted By: Jim | July 13, 2008 at 06:47 PM

I understand that this cover is supposed to be satirizing the Right. So why is the Obama campaign spokesman saying it's tasteless and offensive? Doesn't he "get it"?

Posted By: Karl | July 13, 2008 at 06:50 PM

What, and Republicans have never been satirized before? You guys are such whiners! Why is this cartoon more offensive than the dozens of others I've seen on this site of Bush, McCain, Obama, AND Clinton?

Posted By: sydney | July 13, 2008 at 06:50 PM

The ONLY thing that's offensive is that the leftwing media suggests that the ONLY reason anyone would not vote for Obama is because they're racist. When the reality is that he has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE for the job, whatsoever. It's infuriating and will bring even more conservatives out to vote against him.

Posted By: rinosaurusrex | July 13, 2008 at 06:51 PM

Come on! Bush did it. No, it was Cheney. No, no.. it was Hillary. No, that's not right.. it was Rush. Ummm... no, it was the vast right wing conspiracy bored that Hillary is out. No, that can't be. Hmmmmm... who can we blame this on anyway? All the targets are used up!

Posted By: samuel | July 13, 2008 at 06:55 PM

Just a hit job by the Likud-loving Jews of this country who care more about Israel than the US.

Posted By: le commentor | July 13, 2008 at 07:12 PM

I could care less if Obama is pictured as a Muslim. Picture him instead as the most inexperienced candidate for the Presidency since William Jennings Bryan, the most liberal since the last Democrat to run, and the least knowledgable about everything from foreign affairs to tax policy. And this is what the Democrats intend to foist on us? Who are they kidding? Bring back Al Gore and John Kerry - at least they were just losers, not dangerous losers who are naive beyond imagination.

Posted By: James Marsden | July 13, 2008 at 07:15 PM

Now, imagive if it were a picture of McCain in an angry rage while rolling around in a wheel chair with an IV hooked up to him, you upset Obama supporters would all be laughing your tails off, right? Face it... you're hypocrits.

Posted By: Hermann | July 13, 2008 at 07:18 PM

What a filthy, disgusting cover! Sounds like this is the work of Karl Rove and his protoges' who have just gone to work for McCain... [Ed: the close ties between Karl Rove and the New York art & literature scene are well-documented.] ...We are cancelling our subscriptions! We will never read another copy as long as we live.

Posted By: lyn | July 13, 2008 at 07:18 PM

Update IV: A montage of hilarious progressive satire, the responses to which included nary a complaint.

Pot, meet kettle.

Update V: Cover artist Barry Blitt defends his work (entitled "The Politics of Fear"):

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

Care for a heaping helping of "Fairness Doctrine"?

Update VI: Liberal Progressive blog reaction ranges from hysterical outrage to full-blown, liveblogged panic attacks.

The ill-named AmericaBlog: "A liberal media that bends over so far backwards to be "fair" that it becomes just as bad as FOX News."

RawStory: "'This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish,' one high-profile Obama backer told ABC News, 'and I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that trafficks (sic) in such trash.'."

Daily Kos: "The New Yorker Obama cover: OMFG, WTF? ...There's no other ulterior motive to publish cartoons like this right? ...This is disgusting. Might be worth cancelling a subscription or two."

New Republic Blogs (Isaac Chotiner): "No one would have even noticed it--certainly no one in the right-wing nut-o-sphere--if they'd just kept their mouths shut. Now we're going to get all this protest-too-much commentary..."

Taylor Marsh: "What's missing is Sean Hannity placing the flag into the fireplace."

Polimom: "I mean… an Afro-wearing, AK47-slingin’, boot-stompin’ Michelle fist bumpin’ a Muslim Barack in the Oval Office? With Osama AND a burning American flag? Couldn’t the artist jam any more paranoia into one cartoon?"

Blue Girl, Red State: "No, It's Not Satire--it's a Smear ...this isn't even remotely funny."


Linked by: Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, American Thinker, American Digest, Memeorandum and Texas Scribbler. Thanks! Hat tip: NJDhockeyfan.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Tony Snow, Rest In Peace


Tony Snow, 53, passed away last night after a protracted and courageous fight against cancer.

Michelle Malkin, Doug Powers, Gateway Pundit, Hot Air, Gina Cobb, Macsmind, The Corner and BizzyBlog have the tributes.

Update: True to form, the Associated Press (Douglass Daniel, in this case) couldn't resist taking one last swing at Snow.

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses...

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation...

Stay classy, Democrats:

• Daily Kos: "When a bad guy dies, we should rejoice, not sing his praises of wish him anything by scorn"
• Huffington Post: "Comments are closed for this entry"
• Pish Posh: "Another one bites the dust"
• Yak Milk: "Tony Snow Was A Hatchet Man For Fox News’ Fascism"

Stay classy.

Rest in peace, Mr. Snow. It was not my privilege to know you, but my thoughts and prayers are with your family and friends.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

AFP's exclusive new photo of Iran's missile launch


Yesterday Charles Johnson discovered that photos of Iran's missile launches had been doctored. Unfortunately Fox News, the New York Times and the Washington Post failed to credit him with the discovery, and instead left it up to various commenters.

Not to be outdone, Agency France Presse (AFP) just released a new photo of a devastating Iranian missile test that is certain to rattle nerves throughout the Middle East.



Related: Gateway Pundit and Kamangir. Hat tip: News Junkie, who served as an unindicted inspirator for this picture.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

ABC's Radatz: a careful balance between left and further left


RWD:

My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud , Iraq was assigned, with others of her detachment, to be escort/guard/watcher for Martha Raddatz of ABC News as she covered John McCain’s recent trip to Iraq.

Katelyn and her Captain stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI’s walking past. They kept count of the GI’s and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GI’s who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama, and 2 for Hillary.

Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and maybe they’d see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn.

Well, of course, we all watched and what we saw wasn’t a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a hell’uva view of skewed news. After a dissertation on McCain’s trip and speech, ABC showed 5 GI’s being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton... No mention of the 54 for McCain.

Maybe it wasn't bias --- maybe they just randomly picked five out of the 60 who didn't favor McCain. Never mind the odds of that happening are roughly 1 in 100,000. It was just luck of the draw! Luck of the draw, I tell you!

Hat tips: Patriot Room and Shiplord Kirel.

Saturday, July 05, 2008

AP: Your life is a disease. Barack Obama is the cure.


Could the AP -- and pro journalist Pauline Arrillago -- be any more obvious?

Happy birthday, America? This year, we're not so sure.

The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue...

They use words such as "terrified," "disgusted" and "scary" to describe what one calls "this mess" we Americans find ourselves in. Then comes the list of problems constituting the mess: a protracted war, $4-a-gallon gas, soaring food prices, uncertainty about jobs, an erratic stock market, a tougher housing market, and so on and so forth.

Drill down to paragraph 16, however, and the little land we like to call reality disrupts Arrillago's theme.

In 2008, using history as a yardstick, life actually is better and richer and fuller, with more opportunities than ever before.

"Objectively things are going real well," says author Gregg Easterbrook, who discusses the disconnect in his book "The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse."

He ticks off supporting statistics: A relatively low unemployment rate, 5.5 percent in June. (Employers did, indeed, cut payrolls last month by 62,000 jobs, but consider the 10.1 rate of June 1983 or the 7.8 rate of June 1992.) Declining rates of violent crimes, property crimes and big-city murders. Declining rates of disease. Higher standards of living for the middle class and the working poor. And incomes that, for many, are rising above the rate of inflation.

But most newspapers would have truncated the article by then.

As for the primary reason behind the slowing economy? The AP omits one crucial fact: our entire economy runs on oil. And Democrats have blocked its own citizens from tapping tens of billions of gallons of petroleum and natural gas for more than a decade.

If the AP's agenda were any more transparent, a faux Obama presidential seal would have watermarked the article.

Hat tip: LGF. Linked by: Protein Wisdom. Thanks!

Monday, June 30, 2008

Newspaper Correction o' the Day


The Guardian (UK):

[The story] "The Toxic Texan's foreign policy doctrine Will Endure", page 26, June 20, was referring to, not endorsing, the position taken by others when it used the term "apostate Muslim" in relation to Barack Obama. Obama has never been a Muslim.

Well, Obama's brother may have been mistaken about his sibling's religious background, but please: no one question the Guardian's label for George W. Bush.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Now even you can be a member of the mainstream media!


SaysMe provides a platform for individuals to not only create ads suitable for television... but to get them placed on major channels as well.

Best of all, as least for readers of this blog: they're having trouble coming up with conservative content, so you'll get extra-special attention.

We are really looking for conservative content that is Pro-McCain... We are also seeking content about conservative issues. It seems there is a shortage of material out in the viral video sphere, and we would love to find some solid Pro-McCain content that is independently produced. It is really important to us to have good representation of all sides. If you have other bloggers that you can share this with, it will certainly help us to balance out the onslaught of the Youbama video campaign.

Click on the banner ad to check it out and -- if you like what you see -- get started.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Keith Olbermann: World's Worst Hypocrite?


The invaluable Olbermann Watch:

This has to be quoted verbatim, since it is rich in Olbypocrisy and irony [as Keith Olbermann earlier this week said]:

It's not an unreasonable request to ask that personal attacks against the wife of the candidate as part of a misguided strategy to torpedo a political campaign be off limits.

Stop the tivo! Let's set The Wayback Machine for just a few weeks ago:

KEITH OLBERMANN: So Cindy, your husband is running a fully negative campaign. He's a flaming fraud. And if you think he's clean, so are you!

Cindy McCain, today's "worst person in the world"!


Attacking the wife of a decorated POW as a "fraud"...

...now that's what an Edward R. Murrow or Tim Russert would have done!

With Olbermann, though, it is hard to say whether it's hypocrisy or stupidity.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Bush says 30,000 troops leaving Iraq next month. AP wonders why no one knows about it.


Funny - I didn't see this headline in the American press. Iraqi news service Aswat Al-Iraq (via Gateway Pundit and Larwyn):

U.S. President George Bush on Monday announced the withdrawal of 30,000 troops by July, highlighting that any further withdrawal of the troops will depend on the security conditions in the country... This came during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London.

In concert with this hidden report, Ace calls attention to an AP article, which wonders why the successes in Iraq are generating scant attention in the U.S.

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets....

...positive signs are attracting little attention in the United States, where the war-weary public is focused on the American presidential contest and skeptical of talk of success after so many years of unfounded optimism by the war's supporters...

...American deaths last month — 19 including four non-combat fatalities — were the lowest monthly tally of the war. In May 2007, 126 American service members died...

Many Sunni insurgents have stopped fighting and turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. commanders say still remains a threat.

Could the main reason that "positive signs are attracting little attention" be that media coverage of Iraq dropped by 90+% while U.S. troops achieved victory?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Barack Hussein Erkel threatens to Pop a Cap


Ace o' Spades:

The fighting, fighting nutroots certainly found their candidate in Barack Obama.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said

Jim Malone would be proud.

Now, it’s a kind of funny thing for him to say at a fundraiser but consider two things.

If a Republican had used a gun metaphor against Obama or any Democrat, the world would have come to an end. The press and the Democrats (pardon the redundancy) would go bats**t crazy about it and my guess is McCain would borrow Obama’s bus to throw the offender under it.

Secondly, it’s great for Obama to talk all tough but there’s the little part about him not being man enough to take up McCain’s joint appearance challenge...

That's why I've taken to calling the erstwhile Democratic candidate Barack Hussein Erkel.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Washington Post: "'Bush Lied' Story Line Phony"


Someone pinch me. The Washington Post's Editorial Page Editor -- Fred Hiatt -- just ripped the entrails from the standard slogan of the leftists: "Bush Lied".

First, Hiatt eviscerates Sen. John Rockefeller's (D-WV) summary of his own Select Committee on Intelligence report. The summary was so disconnected from the real report that it could become a blueprint for all future satire.

In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.

Unsubstantiated contradictions? As Hiatt points out, Rockefeller's summary of the report qualifies, but not the administration's handling of the intelligence data.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Yes, the committee's report completely validates the approach of the Bush administration -- as any rational observer would have concluded in 2003, having heard every Democratic figure other than Jimmy Carter echo the threat of Iraq.

But what about Saddam's ties to terrorism? Surely, Bush was lying about those!

...statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

...it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated...

...To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Put simply, Rockefeller's report completely validates his own 2002 statement as well as that of the Bush administration.

The Anchoress asks the obvious question -- the 800-pound gorilla living in the media's finished basement: why, suddenly, is the WaPo deciding, after 5 years of supporting and promoting the “Bush lied” meme, to clarify?

There are no easy answers to that question. But the New York Sun (via Gateway Pundit) did note one other key facet to the story.

...[the critical Ford] memo came on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."

Well, that's certainly something you don't read about in the paper every day!

* * *

Executive Summary: The Bush Lied meme, which was marketed incessantly by the Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), was unadulterated partisan pap. Furthermore, it was dangerous pap, as it presents a future CINC with additional complexities and bickering even when the need to take military action is clear and present.

As it was with Saddam Hussein's factory of terror.

And as it is with Iran's redoubt of nuclear horror.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Saturday, June 07, 2008

If today's editors of the New York Times had their way


1979

1993

1998

2001

2011



Linked by: Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities. Thanks!

Digital Forensics: Spotting Forgeries and Fake Photos


This month's Scientific American has a special section on "digital forensics." Among the areas covered:

How experts uncover doctored images (look for the ducks?).

Five ways to spot a faked photo.

Altered Lance Armstrong photo explained.

Photo tampering throughout history (slideshow).

I tried to get a hold of Dan Rather for this story, but he was unavailable for comment.

How today's media would have covered D-Day


So accurate, it's downright eerie.

Reporter: ...the initial reports we're getting from the beach are grave. In your opinion, General, can the beach be taken?

Analyst: I... I don't think so. At least not the way we're doing it. Hey look, if we came in at night, if the weather was better... all these maybes and and ifs, possibly, but the way we're doing it, in broad daylight, full-on frontal assault, on these heavily defended beaches, I would have to say no way.




If today's mainstream media had operated then, we'd all be living in the land that Philip K. Dick described in The Man in the High Castle.