On Saturday, the Washington Post effectively demonstrated how the press cherry-pick snippets of speeches that political and business leaders give in order to completely alter their intent (hat tip to NB member crshedd). In an article entitled “Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change,” authors Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin took a few quotes -- one of them actually errant -- out of a 3,610-word speech that Shell Oil President John Hofmeister gave about a month ago to make it look like he’s totally bought into the myth of global warming (emphasis mine throughout):

While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable. [..]

"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?"

Now, take a look at what he actually said on this issue (emphasis mine):

From Allah at Hot Air, who has the Fox News video at his site -- New York Congressman Charlie Rangel spouts off (HT LGF) on why soldiers in our all-volunteer army sign up:

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

The Des Moines Register headline focuses on Barack Obama's enlistment of Iowa-savvy aides. But along the way, the article by Tom Beaumont, Obama talks with top advisers in Iowa, offers up some delightful Midwestern understatement.

First, in reviewing the potential Dem field, Beaumont writes of "Kerry, a Massachusetts senator." You can imagine him fuming: "Don't you know who I am? And why didn't you mention that I'm . . . a Vietnam veteran?"

With caution even more delicious, Beaumont notes "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is believed to be weighing a campaign for the Democratic nomination." Indeed. And in tonight's Nature documentary, a ravenous crocodile

This is pretty hysterical, folks, and certainly requires all drinking vessels to be placed at a safe distance from nearby electronic equipment. Laurie David, the global warming alarmist and spouse of comedian Larry David (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”), wrote an op-ed published in Sunday’s Washington Post. In it, she stated that the company which produced Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” wanted to donate 50,000 DVD copies of the schlockumentary to the National Science Teachers Association so that educators around the country could brainwash America’s youth with Gore’s junk science. Thankfully, the NSTA said, “No Thanks”: “In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other ‘special interests’ might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer ‘political’ endorsement of the film; and they saw ‘little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members’ in accepting the free DVDs.” Can I get a group “Hallelujah?”

Now, most folks would think that’s a reasonable explanation. However, if you are the type that buys into the global warming myth, reason is not your strong suit. As such, David sees mischief afoot. And, who’s to blame? Well, if you guessed “oil companies,” come on down and accept the keys to your brand new Cadillac:

Iraq War Will Soon Outlast US Involvement In World War Two

The violence continues in Baghdad, Iraq.
by Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Victoria BC (UPI) Oct 23, 2006

In just a few weeks -- on Nov. 28, to be precise -- U.S. involvement in
the Iraq war will have lasted a day longer than its participation in
World War II. As a reminder, the United States officially entered WWII
on Dec. 8, 1941, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the
declaration of war, after the Japanese surprise attack on the U.S.
Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, destroyed much of the American
fleet.

The war officially ended on Aug. 15, 1945, on Victory in Japan, or
VJ-Day. For the United States, the war lasted three years, seven months
and seven days. The war in Europe had ended a few months earlier, on
May 8.

Reports of burning mosques, like this one from Reuters remain unconfirmed, and may have been fabricated by Sunni militants.

Also, sensationalized accounts of Sunnis being dragged from prayer and burned alive by rampaging Shiites are unconfirmed, and all appear to come from the same source, police Captain Jamil Hussein, whose entire career appears to be issuing statements about Shia violence against Sunnis. Curt at Flopping Aces has researched Hussein and found a remarkable number of atrocity stories for which he is the source.

For journalists, the answer depends on whether they are covering the shopping season or company layoffs.
______________________

Last year, I sensed that journalists in general prefer to call this time of the year in commerce that of "holiday shopping" instead of "Christmas shopping," but that when it came to people losing their jobs, they preferred to describe layoffs as relating to "Christmas."

My instincts were proven correct, as you can see below from the results of three different sets of Google News searches in November and December (links to last year's related posts are here, here, and here):

I've decided to track the same items this year to see if there is any noticeable change or trend.

Based on the first set of Google News searches during this Christmas season, I would say there is:

Putin's Russia poses a potentially serious threat to the United States. But America lacks the moral standing to confront it. That was the view expressed by Ellen Ratner on this morning's Fox & Friends. Ratner, the short, liberal side of 'The Long & the Short of It' duo [seen here in file photo], expressed little doubt that Putin's government was behind the murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko.

Ratner: "I think that there's no question. If I were a betting woman it would be 100% Putin and Russia, it's just their operation and they have the means to do it."

She continued: "We have got to take a very good, careful look at Russia. We're in Iraq where you have sort of a ragtag group of insurgents. And we're not focusing on the Russians that have over 5,000 nukes [and other WMDs] . . . Unfortunately, we're in business with these guys, we need their oil."

That's when Ratner asserted that America's alleged moral failings limited its options:

"I don't know what we should do except that we are not in a great position because we don't have the moral standing given what we're doing in Iraq."

Fox News Watch led this week's show with Brent Bozell's condemnation of the press' coverage of the just-concluded congressional campaign. Host Eric Burns noted that Bozell is "head of an influential conservative media watchdog group called the Media Research Center" - which also happens to be the parent organization of NewsBusters.

FNW played a video clip of Bozell stating:

"In 25 years of looking at the national media I have never in my life seen a more one-sided, distorted, vicious presentation of news and non-news by the national press. The national press ought to be collectively ashamed of itself. They might as well take up membership in the Democratic national party. They were the simple microphones for the party. They need to be ashamed of themselves for what they did."

And here I thought I was joking.  Yesterday, I closed this item on Maureen Dowd's column - in which she longed for an Iraqi dictator to whom to surrender - by wondering whether we should "look for Dowd to pop up in Baghdad sometime soon, leading a 'Bring Back Saddam' movement?"

But the appeal of bringing back Saddam is apparently no laughing matter in liberal circles.  In today's Los Angeles Times, New Republic editor Jonathan Chait - he of "Bush Hatred" fame - has written a column entitled, yes, "Bring back Saddam Hussein."  I kept reading for a clue that this was a Swiftian modest proposal.  It never came.  Chait apparently means it. Excerpts: