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

Monday, November 17, 2008

Rupert Murdoch reads the riot act to the 'mainstream media'


The media leviathan drops some rhetorical bombs on the fossilized relics currently managing network television and print media into bankruptcy.

"My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers"...

Murdoch, whose company's holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms.

"The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."

... "It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."

To make his point, Murdoch criticized the media reaction after bloggers debunked a "60 Minutes" report by former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, that President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard.

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively. During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. '60 Minutes,' he said, was a professional organization with 'multiple layers of checks and balances.' By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as 'a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.' But eventually it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Mr. Rather and his producer to resign.

"Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone," he continued. "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves..."

Murdoch does not believe that newspapers will disappear. Instead, they'll become highly personalized journals suited for an individual and "edited" accordingly.

I'm predicting the Sulzberger family won't be involved with that part of the business.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

New York not-very-Timely reports Palin rumors were bunk


Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country. She couldn't name a single country belonging to NAFTA. She believed that the U.S. had 57 states. Oh, wait, that last one was President-Elect Obama.

The Palin rumors, breathlessly marketed by David "Laughingstock" Schuster of MSNBC, turned out to be hoaxes and poor ones at that. So says the New York Times (don't worry, the link is to CNet), which calls Schuster the reincarnation of Dan Rather and labels MSNBC a "comedy channel". Well, I think they said that but then I only skimmed the article.

Who would say such a thing [about Palin]?

On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. "Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks," Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow--the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy--is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes...

Gee, MSNBC fell for a Dan Rather-style forgery? And a poor one at that? And then the New York Times reported on the debacle in the kindest way possible to cover for MSNBC?

I'll alert the real media: the blogosphere.

Update: Speaking of timely, terrorist Bill Ayers now says that Barack Obama was an old "family friend".

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The Gray Lady's not dead, she's just restin'


If there's an upside to the stock market meltdown (formerly known as Obama's "Age of Plenty") it comes in the form of devastating news for the New York Times.

QandO points us to a shocking analysis of the Times' balance sheet.

What NYTCo. has:
• $46 million of cash
• $366 million owed to it by advertisers
Total: $412 million

What NYTCo. owes:
• $398 million of short-term debt (due in May)
• $161 million of accounts payable (newsprint, travel, etc.)
• $100 million of payroll (salaries)
• $159 million of other expenses
• $50 million owed on long-term debt and rent
Total: $865 million

Bottom line, short term: NYTCo. owes $453 million more than it has.

Worse yet, total advertising revenue for the newspaper industry -- of which the Times is a bellwether -- was expected to drop 11.5% this year. It could be decidedely worse given the current state of affairs.

To add insult to injury, The American Thinker's Ed Lasky spotted a spate of short-sellers seemingly placing bets against the very survival of the Times.

Bloomberg publishes a list (for subscribers) of the top companies with largest percentage of shares sold short. The New York Times Company is currently number thirteen, with 17.5% of the shares sold short. This means that these investors are betting that the shares will continue to slide. No other media companies appear on the top 60 list.

Perhaps Executive Editor Bill Keller should rehearse his next public statement: "Would you like to super-size that value meal?"

Hat tip: Larwyn. Linked by: Tim Blair. Thanks!

Monday, November 10, 2008

A coalition to fight media bias: 50 Million Americans


The mainstream media could have destroyed Barack Obama's campaign with a single 60 Minutes segment and a John Stossel ABC Special. Their failure to report on Obama's background and associates represents one of the fundamental flaws of today's political scene: complete lack of balance.

For that reason, a group called 50 Million Americans is forming a citizens' coalition to fight media bias.

We the People have been duped. It is painfully apparent that many of the largest media and news organizations in this country are corrupt and are incapable of being straight with us. These organizations have rejected their ethical obligations and now serve as voluntary propagandists to an openly biased political and social agenda.

In just the last few days we've witnessed several different reports where mainstream-media (MSM) representatives have dropped any pretense of objectivity and have openly admitted working with an institutionalized bias. They have confirmed purposely attacking people who do not fit this bias, and confirm failing to do their duty to adequately investigate those people who best fit the bias...

Check it out and report back here when you're done.

Update: Oregon Live's David Reinhard has called it quits.

...my chief reason for leaving [is that] I want to be part of a team that shares a common goal and commitment. I want to work with folks who share my basic values. I no longer want to be the odd man out. I don't want to start my mornings with a running argument about politics that I'll almost invariably lose by virtue of the stacked numbers. Sad to say, today's newspaper business is not that place. Its fierce diversity efforts don't seem to extend to broadening the range of acceptable opinions in the trade. So much "diversity," yet so much monolithic thinking.

That's a damn shame.

Hat tip: Pat Riotic.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

A love story for the ages: the press and Barack Obama


Even foreign journalists were stunned by the love affair between the press and Obama:

The late Jerome Holtzman, a sports writing institution in Chicago, wrote a book 35 years ago called No Cheering in the Press Box...

I was in the press tent in Chicago on election night, with some hundred other journalists whose news organizations had ponied up large for a tabled seat at Grant Park. These were all veteran reporters, including the "travelling media" posse – embeds – who had accompanied Barack Obama throughout the campaign.

At 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Wolf Blitzer appeared on the giant television screen to announce Obama had won the U.S. presidency, as projected by CNN, which was hardly a risky declaration with several big swing states already in the bag.

Huge cheers erupted, squeals of delight, and some reporters high-fived.

I was stunned. Not at the victory, of course, but that top-drawer journalists would so lose their arm's-length professional detachment from events...

Only a day or two late, the Washington Post helpfully admitted it was in the tank for Barack all along. Today Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell issued a half-hearted apology.

...readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts...

...Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

...[another] gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

Timely reporting from the mainstream media, as usual.

At least the Post 'fessed up. Blithering idiot Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily Birdcage-liner says that media bias just saved America.

In the weeks immediately following the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign made a conscious decision to declare war on the media and to use that “media war” as an excuse to run several ads that were misleading or egregiously false. It was a do-or-die moment, and there were enough reporters in 2008 who were willing to shed the cloak of contrived objectivity – to acknowledge the once unprintable fact that one side was lying more than other.

And it may well have been a turning point in the election...

[Ed: the Fannie Mae-inspired meltdown of the financial system, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with it.]

...for eight years now, there’s been an out-of-control fire raging outside... a fire that was built upon the USA Patriot Act and Guantanamo and rendition and torture and signing statements and 16 words in a State of the Union Address. Ultimately, saving the last fabric of democracy is more important than worrying about what contrived commandments of journalism were stepped on while the blaze was finally extinguished.

I myself would call it truth-telling, and honest journalism, but now we have some who want to call it “media bias.” That’s fine with me, but understand this.

“Media bias” may have just saved America .

Buffoonery has a new name and its name is "Will Bunch". This feverishly partisan leftist, who presumably is paid in Starbucks gift certificates for his literary excretions, has unwittingly written an epitaph for his own profession. Mission Accomplished!

Cartoon: Chuck Asay. Hat tips: YWL and Larwyn. Linked by: Gateway Pundit. Thanks!

Friday, November 07, 2008

The $899/mo. BMW lease payments of the Mediacrats


Many observers believe that the mainstream media could have blown Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign to bits over a single long weekend. A couple of hit pieces featuring Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Edward Said, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, the lost years at Columbia, ... well, you get the picture. Any of the big outlets could've put a stake in the heart of Obama's campaign with a single 20-minute segment of John Stossel presents: Barack Obama's Whackjob Friends.

So why didn't our world-class U.S. journalists explore Barack's background? In fact, the world wonders how our media could be so biased, so in the bag, so incredibly tilted that even the Saturday morning cartoons are mocking 'em. The answer is right in front of our noses.

• Senior Obama adviser Susan Rice (a former Clinton administration official) is married to Ian Cameron, the Canadian-born executive producer of ABC News’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”


• NBC's David Gregory is married to Beth Wilkinson, a partner at Latham & Watkins in Washington and a former official in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.



• ABC's George Stephanopoulos hosts a show bearing his name and earlier served as a senior advisor to the Clinton administration.



• Chris Matthews hosts MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and served as a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.



• David Gergen is a political analyst for CNN and served as a special adviser to President Clinton.




• Paul Begala is a CNN commentator ("[President Bush is] a high-functioning moron") and a former senior adviser to President Clinton.



• Bill Moyers is a journalist employed by PBS and was a press secretary for President Lyndon Baines Johnson. His son is a producer for CNN.




Put simply, there appears to be only a turnstile between a Democratic administration and a cushy media job. Perhaps that explains the disconnect. After all, career and spousal advancement come before integrity. Hey, they've got two BMWs to pay for! And private school tuition, b***hes!

Update: An incestuous exclamation point: CNN is selling Obama victory T-shirts.



Linked by: Instapundit, Patterico and Fausta. Thanks!

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

The brilliant Thomas Sowell: Illustrated


Thomas Sowell:

Some elections are routine, some are important, and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of “change” are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That’s been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of “change.”

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being “a small country,” as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn’t have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn’t do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn’t bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions — none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

Let's hope he learns on the job. Quick.

And I hope his views aren't as radical and racist as his friendships might indicate.

Congratulations are due not only to the candidate, but to the most one-sided media coverage in history.

It's their last gasp, that much is certain.



Linked by: Marathon Pundit. Thanks!

Monday, November 03, 2008

Cover o' the day: One More Mission


The Boston Herald has the winner.

Via Jules Crittenden (hat tip: Larwyn), who has the back story.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Pew Research Center confirms media bias affected race


New reports from the non-partisan Pew Research Center confirms what everyone knows. Namely, MSNBC is in the tank for Barack Obama. And the statistical techniques used by the Center reveal that Fox News has the most balanced coverage of the presidential election.

...MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).

On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.

...[the] study found that in the media overall -- a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate -- Barack Obama's coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain's, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.

In related news, day will be followed by night later this evening.

Update: NBC's SNL shreds the unhinged Keith Olbermann. Keith, they're not laughing with you. They're mercilessly laughing at you.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

In Hollywood both sides of aisle slam MSNBC, Olbermann


The Hollywood Reporter reports that MSNBC is under fire from all sides.

In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election... The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann... Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters... Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because "I actually get death threats."

...Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is "the only network with more letters in its name than viewers."

On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well... Obama... gets credit because he's a better communicator than past Democrats, Luntz said, comparing the previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to one of those trees that threw apples at Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz."

...Some of the most spirited debate came from the panel's moderator, outspoken conservative Lionel Chetwynd. The writer, director and producer passionately defended the Iraq War and Palin, whom he called "the ideal Jeffersonian political figure."

Olbermann is a disgrace. Had he tried labeling a Democratic President a fascist war-monger (say, JFK during the Bay of Pigs or FDR during the Battle of the Bulge) -- he'd have found himself in front of a firing squad, after a six minute trial for treason.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

"In the tank": Biden's gaffes entertaining, helpful to Obama


The Associated Press offers, "Biden a reliable running mate amid the stumbles."

While CNN asserts, "Palin's 'going rogue,' [anonymous] McCain aide says."

Later this evening, Jack Cafferty reports on Joe the Plumber's latest colonoscopy results.

And on CBS Katie Couric goes undercover to interview Sarah Palin's personal shopper at Saks.

Sometimes I think that the only thing keeping the Earth aligned on its axis is the gyroscopic spinning of Ernie Pyle in his grave.

Update: Rants & Refinements has the essentially summary: Brownshirts and Jackboots.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Chris Matthews gets pwnt on Hardball


Trust me. Watch this segment of PMSNBC's Screwball.

Chris Matthews had to throw out a pair of pants after getting pwnt by Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN).

Fun historical fact: on Oct 27, 1980 Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 3 percentage points.

'Joe the Plumber' forced to launch a 'Fight the Smears' site


'Joe the Plumber' is under attack by Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself). In fact, he's had to launch his own 'Fight the Smears' website.


The liberal nutjob columnist James Oliphant (I hear that's the description he prefers) said that "Joe the Plumber isn't really called Joe, doesn't have a plumbing licence, and may not be hurt by Barack Obama's tax plan after all."

And NBC President Joseph Zucker parked a satellite truck outside Joe's house in order to coordinate a series of background investigations. Didja know Joe owes $1,000 in back-taxes?

Meanwhile the forsaken residents of Grove Parc are suffering in Barack Obama's Englewood neighborhood with nary a reporter to notice the uninhabitable buildings. And Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, and the entire range of Marxists and terrorists who launched Obama's career are given a pass by the mainstream media.

Vote accordingly.

Update: What is it about plumbers?

Linked by: Gateway Pundit and Denny. Thanks!

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Obama team sends media marching band onto field before the game is won


The Obama campaign victory party is well underway.

Pity the voters (the real ones, that is) haven't spoken yet. The Anchoress describes the presumption, illusions and reality.

It's happened before.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Tipster says the fix is in for tonight's debate


Tipster W provides a prediction for tonight's debate:

BOB SCHIEFFER TO SABOTAGE OBAMA AT HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

So Goes CBS's GOP support. Example: Dan Rather fired to promote the Bush administration, now, the set up is CBS's Bob Schieffer to sabotage Obama. Three of many CBS/Schieffer hits on Obama: (1)Listen for the repeated re-questioning of Obama regarding serious topics while light and airy questions are presented to McCain. (2)Watch Schieffer call speaking time on Obama while allowing McCain to 'talk on' at his leisure. (3) Schieffer will question Obama about 'terrorist association' McCain has accused him of, simultaneously, Schieffer will refuse to ask McCain about the many 'evil' & 'terrorist' associations McCain & Palin have amongst themselves, noted below.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS ANOTHER GOP LIE, IT'S SKILLFULLY PORTRAYED AS SUCH BUT REMAINS THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA AS OWNED BY RNC FRIENDLY CORPORATIONS. The Times reveals that Brokaw has "played a pivotal role out of public view, both within NBC and in its dealings with the campaign of John McCain. Browkaw had Olbermann and Matthews fired from NBC's coverage of the presidential debates and election night on behalf of the McCain Campaign.

* As a result of John's friendship with CBS & Bob Schieffer, there's some special knowledge of Debate topics as McCain, while on the Mark Readon Show, promises that moderator Bob Shieffer will bring up the Ayres & Wright associations. (Link)

* Guess Who The #1 National Debate Sponsor is: Anheuser-Busch Companies (BUDWEISER)~Isn't there a strong association/connection here, to Cindy McCain?
(Link)

The fix is in for a GOP candidate?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

I wonder if Richard Cohen's gonna put some ice on that?


B just sent this letter to the Editor of the Washington Post (hint: it ain't ever gonna see newsprint).

Mr. Cohen,

I enjoyed your column in today's Washington Post  and was particularly taken by your statement that "[h]ard times are hard on truth."   By this measure, The Washington Post  must be enduring some very hard times indeed.

While the Post treats its readers to articles about an advisor for John McCain lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the paper makes no mention of the fact that Barack Obama received more money from lobbyists and employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, except for Christopher Dodd. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html . And it took Senator Obama only three years to raise more money from these institutions that many of his colleagues were able to raise in ten years.

Similarly, the Post  (and most of its columnists) tell readers that the current financial debacle is the result of deregulation of the financial services market, suggesting that the problems we currently face are properly placed at the doorstep of President Bush and conservative philosophy.  But The Washington Post  fails to mention efforts by the Bush Administration to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  For example, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190), of which Senator McCain and three other Republicans were co-sponsors, would have regulated the secondary mortgages market and placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under tighter regulatory oversight.  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c1094zZ77z::  The bill went nowhere.  It was reintroduced in 2007 (S. 1100) and referred to the Senate Banking Committee chaired by Senator Dodd. Again, the bill went nowhere.   Despite these and other well-intentioned efforts to address the current crisis before it actually became a crisis, The Washington Post  (and most of its columnists) apparently do not want to burden their readers with such facts.

Instead, readers of the Post are treated to a puff piece about Barney Frank, claiming that he is the "real deal" and that his "sense of urgency" in solving the current financial crisis is "palpable."  Libby Copeland, "Rep. Barney Frank Dives Right in on the Bailout," Washington Post  (Sept. 27, 2008).  Yet, the Post  makes no mention of Rep. Frank's persistent opposition to efforts to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would have avoided, or at least lessened the disaster that our economy is currently facing.  In fact, in 2003 during debate on H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT, which would have created a "strengthened regulator" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this is what Rep. Frank had to say: "I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country."  http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba92628.000/hba92628_0f.htm.  Obviously, Mr. Frank was wrong (as were other prominent Democrats leading the "financial recovery" effort, including Senator Dodd), but you wouldn't know that from reading The Washington Post .

People buy newspapers to get the truth, in both good times and bad.  When people can't get the truth, they look to other sources of information, which likely explains the continued decline in subscribership to The Washington Post

Instapundit: The MSM fix is in


Not exactly a scoop, but interesting nonetheless. Glenn Reynolds:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things. And reader Eric Schubert: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rand Simberg isn't so sure: "Where was the backlash against this about Bill Clinton in 1992? They just seem to continue to get away with it." Well, yes and no. Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening. I think they're willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things this way. No point saving your credibility for the future when you don't have a future, I guess . . . .

Yep! It's time for the obligatory New York Times stock chart:

You know, even after a tough day, nothing lifts my spirits like this chart!

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Photos o' the day: Stuff the MSM Forgot to Show the Rubes



Spotted at Audiworld



I guess the media forgot to report that the largest re-enlistment ceremony in military history was held on July 4, 2008 at the Al Faw Palace in Baghdad (via Israpundit).