After a cozy recounting of the launch of The Politico newspaper (run by ex-Posties), Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz noted leftist radio host Ed Schultz's complaint that Hillary Clinton is inaccessible, and passed on the official response from Team Hillary: "Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines says his boss has 'happily appeared' on Schultz's show at least half a dozen times, including her first national radio interview after being reelected."
That's apparently not enough. On Friday morning's Bill Press radio show, Schultz complained that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has appeared on his show 16 times in the last ten months. He apparently wants frequent access -- and he said it only makes sense, since Hillary was so crucial in creating progressive talk radio. He also slammed John Kerry, believing he would have done better in 2004 with more progressive radio interviews. Ed Schultz, king-maker?
So, here is a question: Why is CBS using propaganda film originally posted on an al Qaeda website and claiming it is merely "CBS obtained" with no mention of the actual source for Lara Logan's report on The "Battle of Haifa Street"?
The anti-Iraq website called Iraqslogger posted a story about how CBS reporter Lara Logan is crying that CBS seems to have spiked her "Haifa Street" story. Logan has sent out a mass email to all her friends and colleagues in the world of journalism in hopes that they will pressure CBS to show her report that has not yet made it to TV. It has, though, appeared on the internet.
As NewsBusters has been reporting for the past couple of weeks, a battle is being waged between liberal bloggers and a conservative radio station in San Francisco. Those that are unfamiliar with this issue should read articles covering both sides of the matter here and here.
NewsBusters readers are certainly aware of the controversy created by ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” In fact, we reported extensively on this issue here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
To bring people back up to speed, the left and former President Bill Clinton went absolutely berserk the week before this program aired due to some of the content. In fact, it culminated in ABC finally giving into all the pressure, and cutting some scenes from the final version aired.
The Los Angeles Times is continuing its fawning and glowing coverage of Democratic freshman Senator Barack Obama. Only 11 days ago, after Obama announced the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, the Times commemorated the event on the top of its front page with 1,469 words, a color text box, and photos (see this).
Yesterday (Sat. January 27, 2007), the Times published its latest adulatory piece, "Early on, Obama showed talent for bridging divisions." It was on the front page, and it featured a nice, smiling photo of a youthful Obama with more pics inside. (See an image of the piece.) It runs a generous 1,204 words, and let's just say the Obama camp won't be calling the Times to complain. It's a pretty sweet profile. ("Interviews with more than a dozen people associated with the law review, both liberals and conservatives, found no one who did not profess respect for Obama." You get the idea.)
Though all other major news outlets, including his own network's Saturday evening newscast, pegged the number of people who attended Saturday's anti-Iraq war protest rally in Washington, DC as in the “tens of thousands,” CBS's Bob Schieffer led Sunday's Face the Nation by endorsing the exaggerated attendance claims of self-interested organizers as he reminisced about the good old days of Vietnam protests. “Yesterday in Washington,” he recalled, “was like a day from yesteryear -- the war that to many seems long ago and far away: the war in Vietnam. Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of people descended on the capital to protest the war in Iraq.” Schieffer's opening of the January 28 Face the Nation segued into his lead interview with freshman Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia (Republican Senators Arlen Specter and Mitch McConnell were subsequent guests).
The Washington Post not only felt the need to praise the seriousness and maturity of Jane Fonda. It saw in her attendance at Saturday's Bush-bashing fiesta a "stamp of maturity and seriousness" on the hard left "anti-war" movement as a whole.
Post writer Linton Weeks remembered when Fonda first "spoke out for peace" against the Vietnam War, and how she has changed, like America, from activist to exercise maven to "post-feminist arm candy" for Ted Turner.
Yesterday, with her daughter, Vanessa Vadim, and two grandchildren nearby, she was again front and center as actress, feminist and opponent of war.
On January 9, at this December 7, 2006 post on asbestos lawsuit double-dipping ("the process by which lawyers file claims at many different bankruptcy trusts on behalf of a single plaintiff"), I received this comment from Brayton Purcell (#11 if your browser doesn't take you directly to it), the law firm that attempted a fifth dip on behalf of one of their clients, and was caught in the act of doing so by Judge Harry Hanna of the Cuyahoga County (OH) Court of Common Pleas.
Within one week, the liberal bias of the The Washington Post is made perfectly obvious. On Monday, tens of thousands of protesters emerged on Washington for the March for Life, but the hometown paper put the story on the bottom of page A-10 Tuesday morning. On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters emerged on Washington for a rally against President Bush and the war in Iraq. The Post blasted that story across the front page on Sunday, complete with a large color picture taking a wide shot of hundreds of marchers and their signs and banners. Tuesday’s story on abortion protests matched carried no wide shot of hundreds. It showed four pro-life marchers, and matched them with another picture of five feminists counter-protesting. There were no photos of conservative counter-protesters in the Sunday paper.
The Post not only let the anti-Iraq rally dominate the front page, but devoted an entire page (A-8) to more photos and a story on student protesters. The front-page story carried over to most of page A-9. Jane Fonda’s appearance at the march drew another story, placed on the front page of the Style section.
It's turning out to be quite a day for pugilistics. Earlier, I noted how Hillary threatened to "deck" her opponents. Now, just about a month to the day after the holiday is observed by the Brits, Brit Hume celebrated a personal Boxing Day of his own. On this morning's Fox News Sunday, the FNC DC managing editor landed some heavy body blows on Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.
On a long drive home from a Indianapolis this weekend, I had the dubious pleasure of listening to a CBS news break at the top of the hour on a talk station and in one of their reports on Saturday's anti-War protests the verbiage used to report the gatherings was so slanted that it was startling and was so obviously intended to make it seem much greater than it really was that it wasn't even funny.
Reporter Jim Taylor started his report saying "A nation says no to war ..." as an introduction to the story of the goings on in Washington.
A "nation" says no? A few protests equates the the whole nation, CBS?
Just when we were getting warm 'n fuzzy with Chatty Hillary of the living room couch, she went Mike Tyson on us.
Can you imagine the MSM's collective gasp of horror if a Republican presidential candidate threatened to punch out opponents? It would be a field day for the psychologists, as one after another would be paraded across TV screens to speculate on the subconscious roots of such hostility, and opine on the fitness for office of anyone harboring such pugilistic predilections. Lefty foreign policy mavens would be invited to fret over the way such knee-jerk aggression might lead us into war, etc.
But NBC raised nary an eyebrow when reporting on Hillary having uttered just such a threat during a campaign stop in Iowa yesterday. View video here.
The Left side of the blogosphere, or Nutroots, appears to be set to, not only encourage, but financially reward, the worst types of political activism, some of which we observed during the last election cycle.
I've just agreed to accept the position of Director of Activism at blogpac.org.
The above was recently posted by Mike Stark at DailyKos. You might recall that Stark's particularly distasteful brand of activism includes physically confronting campaign aides to ask candidates such pressing questions as: Did you spit on your wife, or use the word nigger lately? He's also known for his great judgment, as when he deliberately held up an extremely vulgar sign during a national broadcast on the Fox network. One can only imagine what types of activism Stark will use designated funds to support.
I won't let the week end without a fisking of the Washington Post's silly global warming op-ed Monday by in-house writer Sebastian Mallaby.
Mallaby says: "While the White House was sorting out its message, the rest of Washington was busy. Over at the Reagan building, a conference on carbon trading sold 600 tickets at $595 a pop and turned away 150 executives hungry to study the intricacies of permit allocation."
Response: Hungry to study the green -- or to reap the green? People who understand the global warming debate more than superficially have long known there is a constituency among profit-seekers to impose cap and trade. There is money to be made, even though cap and trade would hurt the economy, and especially harm low-income individuals and families and small businesses operating at the margin. There's a reason Enron pushed so hard for Kyoto and other limits on carbon -- that reason is money. We now speak of Enron's green-fingered successors.
On Saturday evening, the networks highlighted the anti-Iraq War protests in Washington, D.C., and other cities. While ABC's World News Saturday drummed up the anti-war movement as "getting warmed up," displaying the words "Peace Surge" on-screen, the CBS Evening News focused on military families who are part of the movement, suggesting that such participants could provide "political cover" to Democrats who fear looking "unpatriotic" if they "stand up to the President." The NBC Nightly News led with the story, with correspondent John Yang relaying a Newsweek poll showing that 67 percent of Americans believe the President's Iraq policy is "based on his personal beliefs regardless of facts." (Transcripts follow)
While the MSM may try to spin today's DC war protest as a major event, apparently relatively few people showed up to hear actor Tim Robbins call for the impeachment of President Bush. He also suggested Bush would end his presidency in a bunker, as did Adolf Hitler. Yes, he said that, I listened via C-Span.
There's legitimate reason to claim anti-war support isn't what some might like to make it out to be.
One last tidbit from State of the Union Night: On Tuesday night’s Charlie Rose talk show on PBS, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and ABC political director Mark Halperin and White House correspondent Martha Raddatz took turns sticking forks into President Bush and saying he was done. Meacham said Bush attempted to show he’s "actually involved with reality, that he’s a reality-based figure." Halperin agreed that the president "wanted to show that he had a reality-based presidency, but I don’t think he did. I think the war is over politically." Halperin even suggested that if Congress could vote by secret ballot, both Republicans and Democrats would vote to end the war – and vote for Bush’s presidency "to end today."
But Google's founders don't regret being evil because of moral principles. It's about the bottom line [emphasis added]:
Google's decision to censor its search engine in China was bad for the company, its founders admitted yesterday. Google, launched in 1998 by two Stanford University dropouts, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, was accused of selling out and reneging on its "Don't be evil" motto when it launched in China in 2005. The company modified the version of its search engine in China to exclude controversial topics such as the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Falun Gong movement, provoking a backlash in its core western markets.
Asked whether he regretted the decision, Mr Brin admitted yesterday: "On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative."
Speaking in Davos, Switzerland, foot in mouth Senator John Kerry, perhaps now liberated to be a total clown, suggested that the problem with America is Americans, recommended sending former President Clinton to settle matters in Iraq, while also claiming America is an international pariah because of Bush - and somewhere along the line he found time to pose with former Iranian President Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)
Speaking at Harvard University, the Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami denied that Hizballah is a terrorist organization, and called it “a symbol of Arab resistance.” that story at lgf
Imagine if one of the leading Republican candidates for president in 2008 like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani had a civil lawsuit for campaign finance fraud pending against him. Do you think that the media would be following this action with every legal brief filed, and every breath uttered by anyone involved?
Well, there is a huge campaign finance fraud case pending against Hillary Clinton that was enacted by the largest contributor to the junior senator’s 2000 campaign almost three years ago, and the media couldn’t care less. Those looking for some background regarding this issue should read a comprehensive analysis of the subject published by the New Media Journal last March.
With that in mind, on January 11, a brief was filed concerning this action in the California Court of Appeals alleging criminal misconduct by the lady who would be president that no media outlet reported except for World Net Daily:
Push Poll: Definition: "A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants."
Melissa Russo, political reporter for NBC's NYC affiliate WNBC, recently followed Rudy Giuliani up to New Hampshire. In her report on this morning's "Today," Russo stressed that at a GOP campaign stop, Giuliani failed to inform the Granite State Republicans that "he's far from a social conservative."
It’s always nice to have your father stick up for you, even when you’re 60 years old.
Such was the case when former President George H. W. Bush spoke at a recent reception for a journalism scholarship. As reported by Reuters (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge):
President George W. Bush's father accused the news media of "personal animosity" toward his son and said he found the criticism so unrelenting he sometimes talked back to his television set.
"It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.
It’s safe to assume most NewsBusters readers agree with these sentiments, and will the following:
Did anyone really believe that Nancy Pelosi's recent whirlwind visit to Iraq was truly the "fact-finding" mission she billed it to be? I doubt it. But just in case there are some credulous folks out there, here's proof that rather than trying to find facts, Pelosi wanted to promote a political agenda.
Have a look at this video clip from her January 26th visit. Exactly two minutes in, Pelosi, seated with Jack Murtha, is speaking with the young female Army
soldier who is seen facing the camera. Here is the exchange:
Young Army Soldier: "I'm a 96 Bravo Intel Analyst. I work as a Sunni analyst in a fusion cell."
Nancy Pelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence that got us into the war. That would be interesting to start with."
The Washington Post is so liberal that even the sports writers are politically correct. In Saturday's Post, columnist Mike Wise stumped for the University of Illinois to dump their traditional Chief Illiniwek mascot. To a sports reader in D.C., it's quickly obvious that Wise is also sympathetic to making the Washington Redskins dump their moniker next.
Wise begins in the most propagandistic way, comparing oafs favoring the tradition declaring they're going to become racists and do violence to Indians with an Indian activist who fears for her life. He suggested this was the biggest issue going in college athletics:
We get all lathered up because college football does not have a playoff system. We produce talk shows about gender equity. We want our student athletes paid, as if that will somehow right another NCAA wrong.
There's no sign that the Los Angeles Times is planning to correct, clarify or explain an embarrassingly negligent passage from this past week. On Tuesday (1/23/07), the Times published a front-page piece called, "Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link." In alleging that there are few Iranian arms in Iraq, the writers asserted (emphasis mine):
"During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered."
As NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein wrote Tuesday, the Iranian government is a Shia government working in opposition to Sunnis in Iraq. (Even the writers of the article appear to know this.) Therefore, it should not be news that there are not a lot of Iranian machine guns turning up among Sunnis. As Mark reported, Keith Olbermann made an utter fool of himself on Tuesday by parroting the Times' line on his show. Asked Mark, "Would you (Keith) be stunned to be told that not much weaponry from Hamas supporters turns up in the hands of the Israelis?"
While media outlets carped and whined about a perceived conservative slant to the hit television series “24” as reported by NewsBusters here, here, here, here, here, and here, none seemed interested in asking the opinion of the star of the show who also happens to be the executive producer.
In fact, all of the hyperventilating left could have just watched the Charlie Rose Show on PBS on January 12 to find out the truth, assuming of course that this is important. If they had, they would know that Kiefer Sutherland believes he "[leans] towards socialist politics."
How's that for a kick in the head? Confused? Well, you won't be when you read Sutherland's response to Rose's question, “What are your politics?” (this is where all of the "neo-con" conspiracy theorists must pay particular attention if they dare):
In response to my earlier post today on NPR reporter David Folkenflik's report featuring Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Beck e-mailed me a statement late this afternoon to clarify that he in no way was criticizing Limbaugh in his interview:
"After conducting a 30 minute interview with me on the supposed topic of 'does conservative talk radio reach across party lines, and if so, how?' NPR chose to take a quote from me and use it completely out of context. The quote was not about Rush Limbaugh, which is how it was made to look in the story, it was in response to how the country is dangerously divided along party lines and how that division may be the death of us all. I was also commenting about my disdain for the breed of talk radio hosts whose sole AGENDA is get people elected; they are contributing to this division.
"As Rush said in the story, his goal is to attract the largest possible audience, and that's my goal as well. Rush and I are not "rival" talk hosts, as the story states, since my show precedes him on the same network, and we both work for the same company. I was disappointed to see how NPR chose to make it look like I was insulting Rush, which is something I would never do.”
A week after NBC News reporter Jane Arraf conceded that life in Iraq “isn't entirely what it seems” from the constant media focus on bombings, the Friday NBC Nightly News gave rare voice to soldiers in Iraq disturbed by criticism of the war back home. Embedded with the Army's Stryker Brigade's Apache Company (the Fort Lewis, Washington-based 1st Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Regiment; newspaper story) in Hurriya, Richard Engel relayed how “troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." Johnson asserted: “You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."
Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun directly took on the spin of war critics, complaining that “one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Engel soon powerfully concluded: "Apache Company has lost two soldiers, and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.”
In the topsy-turvy world of CNN, Tom Tancredo's call to end racially-exclusive congressional caucuses might make him a racist. His call for an end to segregated caucuses might make him a segregationist.
As reported here, in the wake of a Dem congressman who represents a 60% black district being excluded from the congressional Black Caucus because he's white, Tancredo today said:
"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race . . . If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."
If you've been student of politics on the internet for more than a few years, you've no doubt seen variations on what your political ideology is. With Democrats recently having taken control of congress and the Right wondering where to head after big losses in 2006, I think it's time to break down what I think defines a person's political ideology. The following is my attempt to do this:
Moral: Religion, censorship, science, and sexuality.
Social: Race, regulation, the welfare state
Foreign policy: America's cultural place in the world, military interventions
Fiscal: Taxation, spending
Organizational: Unionization, regulating politics
Tell me if you think I've missed any broad topics that should be in here. Then, head over to the Pew Center's political Typology Test and see where you fit in. I have a poll at the bottom of the sidebar where you can say which group you're in. I did notice two flaws in the poll, though: It skews your results if you say which ideology you think you are.