It is amusing to me that the South was always considered by Democrats as "the people", the salt of the Earth, and the so-called rank and file in the "solid South" when the they had a lock on their votes from 1820 all the way until 1980. The South was the all-American region and the Democrats loved them dearly. Yes, for over 160 years the Democrats counted the Southern states as stalwarts and they loved them like brothers. But, now that the Southern states more often vote GOP they are a "problem" and are filled with Bible- brainwashed racists who pine for a return to slavery as far as the left is concerned.
On Wednesday's Countdown show, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann reported the recent deaths of 10 American troops in Iraq by commenting that they had "paid the ultimate price for President Bush's execution of the war." His comments came as he was introducing an interview with Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post on what the Iraq Study Group report could mean for American troops. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the December 6 Countdown show:
Keith Olbermann: "On this, the same day the Iraq Study Group released its report, 10 more Americans paid the ultimate price for President Bush's execution of the war. The collective price America's military is paying and how the Iraq Study Group may change it is our number three story in the Countdown tonight."
I don't track Keith Olbermann's descents into mean-spirited bad taste systematically enough to definitively proclaim that he has charted a new low. Let's just say that he has once again indulged his proclivity to traffic for political purposes in the worst of ill-will.
ABC anchor Charles Gibson and NBC anchor Brian Williams let the Iraq Study Group's conclusion, that “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” speak for itself as they refrained from additional editorializing in opening their Wednesday night newscasts. But CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric inserted her personal views into the top of her newscast as she framed the day's news: “With each death, with every passing day, so many of us ask, 'Is there any way out of this nightmare?'” She proceeded to explain how “today we got an answer from a bipartisan commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.” All three December 6 broadcast network evening shows were anchored from Washington, DC.
O'Brien, during a more wakeful momentAs alreadynotedhere on NewsBusters, the Senate held a hearing today examining the role of the media in promoting climate alarmism. With others covering the newsmaking part of the discussion, I decided to drop by to observe things from a blogger's point of view.
I went into the hearing expecting it would be more interesting than your typical congressional hearing and wasn't disappointed. Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist from the University of Oklahoma recounted an experience he had with an NPR reporter who hung up on him after he declined to say that he thought global temperature increases were human-caused.
Apparently I was not joined in my assessment of things by CNN "American Morning" anchor Miles O'Brien who fell asleep during the discussion, according to several witnesses. Only a colleague's nudge prevented the slumbering former science correspondent from missing the entire discussion. One would think that O'Brien could have scared up some more interest considering his ongoingfeud with Sen. Inhofe. The two have tangled on O'Brien's CNN show and both have denounced each other from their respective platforms.
The VRWC is apparently even vaster than we realized.
In a fund-raising email today David Brock, President of Media Matters, the organization that some might consider the left-wing counterpart to NewsBusters, claimed [emphasis added]:
"Media Matters has already exposed more than 6,000 instances of conservative misinformation in just two years -- and not just from right-wing news outlets such as Fox News Channel, but from sources like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times."
Brock cites two instances in which Media Matters corrected errors at the Washington Post. But might the conservative rot run deeper? Could Paul Krugman be a deep RNC mole? Christiane Amanpour a conservative agent provocateur? E.J. Dionne perhaps a catspaw for Karl Rove?
As NewsBuster Matt Sheffield reported Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works held a hearing Wednesday to discuss the media’s role in causing global warming hysteria in the country. The committee’s website encapsulated the proceedings (emphasis mine throughout):
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should not drive public policy.” The hearing’s purpose was to examine the media’s presentation of climate science and featured scientists and media experts.
“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity.” Senator James Inhofe said.
As fellow news analyst Geoffrey Dickens blogged, Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio bonded with Matt Lauer on his global warming hype movie, Eleventh Hour. But before DiCaprio demands a host of new government regulations to clean up the environment, he should look at his own Hollywood pals. On Wednesday’s Fox and Friends First, hosts Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Judge Andrew Napolitano hosted author and columnist James Hirsen to expose the hypocrisy of the Hollywood elite. Despite their constant preaching about the environment, they are in fact one of the largest polluters in metropolitan Los Angeles.
Gretchen Carlson asked the question, "why don’t we hear about this?" Good question. The entire transcript is below.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Is Hollywood a major contributor to air pollution? Our next guest says the film and TV industries on the west coast are a huge factor. Columnist James Hirsen joins us now from Santa Ana, California. He's also the author of Hollywood Nation. Good morning James and welcome here."
In a story on the resignation of United Nations ambassador John Bolton, reporter Helene Cooper, for the second time in three weeks, suggests (mockingly?) that defeated Sen. Lincoln Chafee, one of John Bolton's chief Republican critics, is actually a possibility to succeed Bolton as ambassador to the U.N.
Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online caught it first when the story was posted to the Times website Monday, but the story was subsequently changed both online and in print, deleting the Chafee reference.
Earlier today my colleague the MRC's Business & Media Institute director Dan Gainor testified before a Senate panel on the media's biased presentation of climate change science. Gainor's testimony is a coup for the MRC and invaluable for the public record. Of course the aim is not to legislate or regulate the media. By no means. But it's an honor when your boss gets to flesh out our hard work and intensive research for the congressional record.
On Wednesday morning, the highly anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group [ISG] was released to the public. The ISG’s report contained seventy-nine recommendations for the United States in its effort to lessen the violence in Iraq and protect American forces. One of the major recommendations of the panel was a call for the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.
During an 11am press conference Wednesday, Jonathan Karl, ABC’s senior national security correspondent asked the panel pointedly why their recommendations should outweigh the advice President Bush receives from military commanders on the ground:
Jonathan Karl, ABC News: "You're certainly a group of distinguished elder statesmen, but tell me why should the President give more weight to what you all have said, given that, as I understand, you went to Iraq once–with the exception of Senator Robb, none of you made it out of the Green Zone–why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he’s hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?"
The much-hyped Iraq Study group has finally released its report. Hot Air has a nice roundup, you can read it in HTML form via NZ Bear. LGF looks at the group's conclusions regarding Israel and finds much to dislike. Related: Wacky lib bloggers are upset with incoming Democratic congress's lack of desire to impeach President Bush.
In other news, OpinionJournal has an interesting op-ed by a sister of one of the pilots who was killed on 9/11 about the topic of airline security and the Muslim imams who were ejected off a U.S. Airways flight recently.
In lighter fare NRO has a funny joke about God's profession that I won't reveal the details to; Reason Magazine has an interview with the creators of South Park (hat tip: NB reader sarcasmo) in which Matt Stone and Trey Parker comment about a number of subjects including their unsuccessful campaign to air an innocuous cartoon depiction of the founder of Islam Mohammed. At least they weren't fired or threatened with death, though.
It’s almost becoming a daily occurrence now, isn’t it? Another major media outlet has confirmed that all the pre-election blather concerning a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq if Democrats took over Congress was just another part of that Party’s elaborate bait and switch scheme. This time on its knees in the confessional was Newsweek (hat tip to NB member “aero”), and none other than two of its crack investigative reporters, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball (emphasis mine throughout):
In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep.Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
Excuse me? Wasn’t this man appointed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi who went around the country promising voters that troops would be withdrawn from Iraq if Democrats won and she became Speaker? Are you kidding me? Shouldn’t this evoke tremendous anger from the writers at Newsweek? Au contraire:
Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner weighs in on how the Associated Press can extricate themselves from the Jamil Hussein/burning men story in Iraq. Sound familiar?
What AP appears not to grasp is that the most serious questions about
its credibility are already in the minds of millions of people, thanks
in part to the bloggers, but also to the few mainstream media
organizations that have covered the growing controversy.
What is most puzzling about the AP reaction is its failure to do
the one thing that would instantly put the critics in their place -
produce Capt. Jamil Hussein. If he is in fact an Iraqi police captain,
it is impossible to understand why he cannot be produced and his
"Captain Jamil Hussein" is but one of 14 Iraqi-sounding names of
sources quoted by AP that U.S. military officials say cannot be
verified as credible sources.
By this point, the Associated Press has almost assuredly tried to
contact Jamil Hussein to come on camera, in uniform, in his police
office to prove that he does in fact exist, thereby shutting down this
Just as assuredly, the present silence from the Associated Press on
the matter indicates that they have likely failed to produce their
source for over 60 news stories.
Matt Lauer is getting greener by the minute. Fresh off his promotion of Al Gore the Today co-host turned to noted environmental activist/actor Leonardo DiCaprio to plug his latest enviro-flick. Initially on to promote his movie on the African diamond trade, Blood Diamond, Lauer couldn’t resist asking DiCaprio about his first liberal love, global warming. DiCaprio went on to push his upcoming movie, Eleventh Hour, that featured the "greatest minds in the world," on the subject of global warming. DiCaprio claimed his scientists represented "over 90 percent of the collective thought," on the issue but absurdly lamented they don’t get the appropriate amount of time in the media claiming: "But then when it's on the media you have that 10 or five percent and there sitting opposite on a chair and it becomes an argument when they are actually the minority."
Referring to the last time Dan Rather made assertions without documentation, Bill O'Reilly said Dan Rather should produce proof after claiming that Fox News got "talking points" from the White House.
Said Rather on HDnet:
I think it's fair to say, Bill, in fact I know it is, that FOX News operates in at least a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know, that they have their "talking points," in which somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House. And they can say well, we don't always take those talking points, but I think it's pretty clear that they had wished the election had gone another way.
O'Reilly said he had previously defended Rather during the Memogate scandal, but once again it appears he has no proof for his assertions.
Mr. Rather's assertions are nonsense, untrue, seriously dopey. I've been here from the beginning, and have never seen a White House "talking points." — And I don't know anyone else who's seen one either.
I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had.
So we called Dan Rather to ask for some "documentation." He's on the road, but said he'd come on “The Factor” next week to explain. Can't wait.
Since today is being hyped as Bow to the Iraq Study Group Day, we should note that this is not a White House commission, but a group assembled by Congress. It’s also affiliated with the U.S. Institute of Peace. (Not all of those affiliated commissions get massive hype from journalists. For example, take Newt Gingrich and George Mitchell’s commission on United Nations reform last year.) Gail Russell Chaddock of the Christian Science Monitor explained recently it began with veteran Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of northern Virginia:
The Iraq Study Group is the flip side of the usual blue-ribbon panel, whose launch is often its high point. It began modestly as a one-line earmark in last spring's emergency defense spending bill - "$1 million ... for activities relating to Iraq."
This was just too delicious for words…but I’ll try. As many of you are aware, most conservatives who study the economy and the markets view the New York Times’ Paul Krugman as being one of the most disingenuous pols on the landscape. Krugman has regularly been shown to flat out lie about economic data in his articles to prove his specious points, and was accused by the Times’ former ombudsman Byron Calame of regularly doing exactly that.
Well, on Tuesday, Krugman got his well-deserved comeuppance as Fox News’ Neil Cavuto called him out for such errors in transmission, and actually called Krugman a liar (must-see video available here):
Here’s what I’m saying that you’re doing: You are lying to people. That’s what I think that you’re doing.
Krugman then actually had the nerve to respond: “I haven’t heard a lie yet.” He mustn’t proofread his work. Luckily, Neil was having none of this:
Not only did Matt Lauer push Al Gore to run for President, as pointed out here, on this morning's Today show, he also repeatedly plugged Gore's An Inconvenient Truth DVD and pushed the former Vice President to call the President's decision to invade Iraq, "The worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States." First Lauer pressed Gore on the Iraq Study Group's findings: "So it's being described by some as 'cut and stay,' as opposed to 'cut and run.' Does it do enough to acknowledge the results of the midterm election and, and the message that voters were sending this administration, if these are listened to, these recommendations?" Then Gore moved on to Gore's pet cause, the environment, and pressed him to run for President with the following questions: