Charter Member of the Sub-Media

August 17, 2008

Melting or Not? « Media Distortions »

Article 1

Article 2

The juxtaposition of these two articles is puzzling, to say the least. I guess I'd believe the one where government budgets will be affected, rather than the one where individual budgets will penalized.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 17, 2008

It's All About the Money « Media Distortions »

And it always has been.

Anyone who says differently is selling you something.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:11 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

March 07, 2008

Name That Party!!! « Media Distortions »

Here's an example.

My question is:
What do Democratic/liberal news readers think of this sort of thing?
There is certainly the limitation of anecdotal evidence when we conservatives feel like this happens all the time. The peril of perspective, if you will, that as a conservative, I am more sensitive to the leftward lean on this issue, and thus might not notice when a conservative-leaning publication does the same thing to shield GOP politicians.

So I asked my liberal-leaning co-workers.

They got angry and pretty much refused to answer, despite my repeated insistence that I was asking an honest question in search of an honest answer, and wanting to hear viewpoints different than my own.

One person rather irritatedly said that the number of above-the-fold articles about Clinton shenanigans back in the 90s make my question a non-starter.

I didn't reply, because it was going to start a fight. But that really doesn't seem to be the same thing, to me.

Can any (either) of you, my readers, fill me in on what you think?
1) Do you think there is an effort to bury the affiliation of Democratic Party politicians while highlighting that of Republicans?
2) If so, do you think it is intentional or unintentional?
3) If not, how do you explain/justify the lack of mention of affiliation in the above-linked (and similar) articles?
3) Do you think there is an equal and opposite tendency in conservative-leaning publications?
4) If you aren't a Democratic party voter, what do you think Democratic party voters think about this? Do they not notice, not care, approve, etc?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:14 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

September 18, 2007

This Bothers Me « Media Distortions »

Check this out:

Debbie Stabenow can't shake those photographs.

First there was that speech in Congress standing in front a sign that said "Dangerously Incompetent." Some Stabenow aide should have been fired for that one, but the Senator took the ribbing graciously.

Now she is in the main illustration of a New York Times story on the campaign-contribution bad boy, Norman Hsu. She's clearly having a good time with the guy. The senator takes the hit even though everybody in Congress is guilty of money-grubbing. It's the way the system works, what with contributions declared free speech.

Even Hillary got sucked in by Hsu and gave back $850,000 in loot.

The GOP does the same thing: Take the money no matter where it's from.

No proof. No evidence. Just a line that reveals the writer assumes Republicans are guilty as charged...and making sure the charge is constantly repeated.

I don't doubt that there are plenty of corrupt Republican lawmakers. But it seems to be evidence of bias when news outlets can talk for paragraphs about a Democratic Party politician's foibles without mentioning party affiliation, and has no problem not mentioning Democratic corruption in an article about Republican corruption, but feels the need to include an unsupported claim of Republican graft totally unrelated to the topic at hand. It seems like it is merely a knee-jerk reaction of liberal ideology: anything Democratics are bad/wrong about, Republicans are as bad or worse.

There simply is no evidence that Hsu has anything to do with Republicans, but we still get the wild assertion. No report of Democratic wrongdoing can go by without tarring Republicans with the same brush, rightly or wrongly. Yet our "unbiased" media actively downplayed Democratic connections to lobbyist Abramoff (particularly Senator Harry Reid). Why the double standard?

Oh, yeah. Silly of me.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 04:14 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

September 05, 2007

Bad Science in Movies « Media Distortions »

Blatant link.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

September 04, 2007

The MSM Gets it Wrong, An In-Depth Study « Liberal Democrats Are on the Losing Side of History » « Media Distortions »

From Karl, guest-blogging at Protein Wisdom.

I can't really blockquote anything, because it's all that good.

Go check it out. Well worth your time. Lots of links to specific examples.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 31, 2007

No Scientific "Consensus" on Global Climate Change « Media Distortions »

They've been lying to you, folks.

But then, why would you be surprised at that revelation?

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Democrat Corruption You Don't Hear in the News « Media Distortions »

Josh Marshall says Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats. He limits his "search" to the last 7 months (when there were more Republican scandals in the airwaves) to "prove" his thesis.

The only thing is, it isn't necessarily so.

When your party controls 80-90% of the media gatekeepers, it is really to starve a Democrat corruption scandal of oxygen.

Just compare the media coverage of Duke Cunningham (Republican) to the minimal/nonexistent of Dianne Feinstein. And that's just one of the better examples.

Here's another great example. Democrats and California fund-raising illegalities. They go together like a horse and carriage.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:10 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

August 22, 2007

Don't Forget This « Media Distortions »

Just imagine the reverse situation of this, i.e., Republican Congress sub-peonas the heck out of a Democrat President, affecting policy, and thus doesn't pass very much legislation. You can bet they'd be raked over the coals by the media about violating the separation of powers, betraying checks and balances, trying to push the executive branch under the control of the legislative, etc.

But since it is Democrats investigating a Republican Administration? We get vague approval, with the only three examples given all one-sidedly emphasizing a Democrat talking point.


Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 21, 2007

Excellent Rant on the Media Mob « Media Distortions »

From the American Thinker:

The Big Media are a mob. That should be Politics 101. They are a tiny, unchecked power elite, locked into life-long careers in the remnant of a crumbling monopoly over America's national conversation. Like other unaccountable elites, they are monumentally fickle, self-indulgent, snobbish, vain, vulgar, entitled, incestuous, arrogant, ignorant, unprincipled, hysterical, and demagogic. They sound like a unified chorus for the same reasons that street mobs run as a group -- because by and large, they don't dare to stand alone. Media snobs are always looking over their shoulders to see if they are still singing from the same hymnal as The New York Times. The US media have been one-sidedly Leftist, while piously proclaiming their devotion to impartiality. Thus, they are also institutionally mendacious. Telling the truth is hardly their job. They're just not qualified.

Check it out.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2007

More Global Climate Change Smokescreen Debate « Media Distortions »

For once, the comments are just as good (if not better) than the article.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 11, 2007

Advocacy Journalism Taken to New Levels « Media Distortions »

In this Editor's Note revealing that the "Surgically Altered iPhone Thumbs story was a satire, we find that the North Denver News serves a community of 35,000 people, but also likes to make editorial slams against Fox News.

That goes a little too far, in my opinion.

Now, I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch Fox News commentary. I don't go to the Fox News website. So I can't say exactly how "conservative" Fox News is.

But regardless of how conservative Fox News might be, it reports news as accurately as any other news media outlet. The focus of the stories might be different. The storied chosen might be different. But the report the news. The pundits are intelligent conservatives who help inform and shape conservative opinion. That might be a bad thing from a liberal perspective, but from a biased, liberal perspective only.

So how can a print news outlet justify printing an editorialization like this:

The Fox of course, is reference to Fox News (aka Faux News).

Even in an Editor's Note?

Brainfertilizer's Note to Liberals:
If you have to pre-emptively denigrate a competitor, you clearly don't have any confidence in your own product.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:50 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

July 22, 2005

Do Me A Favor « Media Distortions »

Read this article and tell me if you think there's a teensy bit of leftward bias there.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

June 27, 2005

Breaking News: The Sun Rises in the East « Media Distortions »

Civil Rights Groups say Bush abuses Due-Protection Statutes.

Well, of course they do. If they didn't, they wouldn't get any notice from the MSM.

The "money" quote? Glad you asked:

The report, paid for in part by the Open Society Institute, founded by the financier George Soros, charges that many of the men held as material witnesses were ``thrust into a Kafkaesque world of indefinite detention without charges, secret evidence and baseless accusations.''

Ah, "funded by George Soros", the man who proves that Republicans are the Party of the Rich and use billions to purchase election victories. [/snark]

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:25 AM | Comments (0)

June 16, 2005

...More Than Just a Bunch of Hacks « Media Distortions »
You can make up your own mind about the authenticity of those photographs. To my mind, the most impressive thing was the manner in which the debate was conducted. There exists a core group of media workers who care passionately about their professional work and who are capable of conducting discourse in a rational and dispassionate manner. The rapid response and full disclosure even compare favorably against how the major western media handle problems. Media in China is more than just a bunch of hacks re-printing Xinhua press releases.

The story.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:04 PM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2005

Meme Idea: Call For Responses « Media Distortions »

So here's what I'm thinking:

All next week, starting Monday and continuing through Friday, I'm going to write posts based on the recent demonstration of stringent mainstream media standards.

Meaning, every single post will have a single anonymous source, may perhaps be fake but will still accurately portray an underlying "truth" (without actually describing the assumptions necessary to accept such "truth"), and/or if it might be true, you have to accept my word for it unless you can prove beyond all possible doubt that it isn't true.

So: what do you think? Is 5 days too much? Is one day too much? Is the whole idea stupid? Do you think you want to steal the idea before I have a chance to do it?

Let me know.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:23 PM | Comments (3)

May 01, 2005

Great Moments in Journalism « Media Distortions »

Or something.

I dunno. Michelle Malkin doesn't actually comment on the content of the story, she merely praises the story as a good example of journalism.

It might be. I can't get past the editorial aspect.

It is a magnificent, compassionate performance of storytelling. It didn't leave me in tears, but it did choke me up. Until I saw where the piece was heading. In my opinion, at least, the purpose of the article was to help you understand just how horrible this girl's experience was in order to draw attention and raise support for laws regarding highway debris.

The summary:
The girl in the story suffered a horrible injury. She nearly died, and will be blinded, disfigured, and probably brain-damaged for life. It happened because of a piece of plywood from a desk that fell off of a truck. The driver of the truck has had criminal convictions in the past. The girl's life is ruined, and many people think it is absolutely a travesty that the man who drove the truck could only be fined about $1000. They tried slapping him with a tenuously-applied charge of "hit and run" (as best as I can tell, because he didn't come forward and say it was wood from his desk), but they would have to have proven that he knew the piece of lumber caused an accident.

Here's the money graph:

King County prosecutors, frustrated by their inability to bring charges against Hefley, lobbied lawmakers to pass a tougher law on debris-caused accidents. They testified in the Legislature, telling Federici's story. The lawyers recruited sponsors, and with almost no debate, legislators approved the Federici Bill on April 14, 2005.


The Washington bill, awaiting the governor's signature, makes it a crime to fail to secure a load that results in bodily injury. Conviction could bring up to one year in jail and $5,000 in fines. The person injured would also have access to a state compensation fund for crime victims.

Gerry Forbes, author of the AAA Foundation report, said it would be the most stringent law of its kind in the nation.

Here's the thing: you can't repeal the laws of physics. Accidents do happen, and you can't always find someone to blame. This guy didn't want to lose his desk, obviously. He secured it in a manner that he considered sufficient. Another law that would increase the penalty wouldn't have made a difference to him, nor to the next person who fails to properly secure a load.

People don't actually intend to cause accidents through the loss of their property, so making it worse when they make an error in judgment won't make any difference at all in people's behavior.

To me, this article was nothing more than an editorial to increase support for the bill on the basis of an extreme, but singular, example.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:22 AM | Comments (1)

April 15, 2005

Congressional Nepotism « Media Distortions » « Politics As Usual »

My friend Jo sent me an article/editorial commenting on Rep. Sanders' practice of hiring family members, the issue that Democrats are criticizing Rep. Tom DeLay for (covered previously here.

The editorial states (in excerpt):

None of this is illegal. The story did not state, or imply, that Rep. Sanders broke the law by hiring family members. An Associated Press story in Thursday's paper points out that employing relatives is common practice among the nation's lawmakers. It says about four dozen senators and representatives have hired family members for their campaign and political groups.

Of course, just because something is common practice and doesn't break the law, doesn't mean it's totally kosher. Watchdog groups are rightly concerned. Even if family members earn their pay, there still remains the appearance of impropriety. Given the power that elected officials wield and the fact that they serve at the pleasure of their taxpaying constituents, there's nothing wrong with holding them to higher standards. We're not talking about a small contractor who hires his son over summer vacation and doesn't mind paying him a little extra.

I think the Banner has it exactly right with Rep. Sanders, and so probably with Rep. DeLay

Not illegal, probably not inethical...but very hard to defend, and probably best if politicians stopped doing it. would have been nice for someone to write such an editorial in defense* of Rep. DeLay, but since Democrats consider him the Anti-Christ, I don't think anyone in a non-conservative publication (which is 99% of them) would dare.

Read More "Congressional Nepotism" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:37 AM | Comments (0)

April 13, 2005

A Few Points About Rep. DeLay (UPDATED) « Media Distortions »

I haven't investigated the alleged charges against Rep. Tom DeLay; people I respect say the charges are weak, probably not illegal or inethical, and most politicians do the same thing.

Here's the first example that last point is true.*

So regardless of what happens to Rep. DeLay in this, maybe the increased scrutiny of this issue may reduce this sort of behavior by politicians of all affiliations. That would be a good thing.

It seems rather politically naive of the Democrats to make this charge at this time, considering how many politicians do the same thing. It's almost like the Democrats are desperate to get any victory over a prominent Republican at just about any cost. That's not very wise, mature, or to their long-term benefit. Then again, I don't think I'd characterize many Democrats as being wise, mature, or concerned about long-term benefits at all, so I guess I'm not surprised.

Finally, it doesn't seem like anyone likes Rep. DeLay much. Not Ace, nor Right Wing Sparkle, just to name two.

And now we hear about Sen. Barbara Boxer and the inestimable Howard Dean.

Glass houses and all that, yo? Word.

Read More "A Few Points About Rep. DeLay (UPDATED)" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:04 AM | Comments (2)
Remind Me: Which Bias Does Mainstream Media Have? « Media Distortions »

Oh, Yeah: Leftward.

Mickey Kaus has a nice little snark regarding an AP piece. I guess I'm risking a "Fair Use" lawsuit, but I'm going to excerpt the whole thing:

Is this one of those new A.P. Special Sauce ledes?
NEW YORK - Irked by the success of the nationwide Day of Silence, which seeks to combat anti-gay bias in schools, conservative activists are launching a counter-event this week called the Day of Truth aimed at mobilizing students who believe homosexuality is sinful.

a) "Irked." Would they ever say that the Lambda Legal Defense Fund was "irked"? b) Is "conservative activists" really the best phrase to describe the fundamentalist Christians who are sponsoring this anti-homosexuality event? Isn't that a little like identifying sponsors of a gun-control or militantly-pro-choice rally as "liberal activists"? ... The label's both inaccurate and part of the press' tendency to make "conservative" synonymous with the most extreme and moralistic segments of the right. I would say it's a subconscious anti-Republican trope, if I knew what a trope was. [But this isn't in fact an especially biased or hyped up story--it's a perfectly ordinary AP piece-ed. That makes the problem bigger, not smaller.]

I know most of you readers know this already. Some of you may not. Most of you may already know how to read between the lines of a mainstream news media report, but for those of you who don't, this is the sort of thing you need to watch for. This is editorializing masquereding as news reporting. There is a definite slant based on the prejudices of the reporter and/or editor, and as such, it is absolutely not objective reporting.

So even though A.P. is owned by someone rich and therefore supposedly conservative, the liberal bias still manages to slip through, contrary to what liberal media watchdogs would have us believe (i.e., that the news media is actually conservative).

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:45 AM | Comments (0)

April 04, 2005

Moral Majority/Religious Right/Christian Conservatives « Media Distortions »

A slightly tangential reaction to these two posts:

To understand why the "religious right" isn't homogeneous or monolithic, you have to understand religion in America in the first place. Go figure.

Consider that Catholics are religious, and yet usually don't get included. Consider that Protestants run the gamut from snake-handlers, to Assembly of God (if people aren't crying when they pray, Jesus isn't there), to Pentacostals (women can't cut hair or wear pants, TV not allowed), to semi-heretical, semi-cultish Christian sects, to Southern Baptists, to Mormons, to gay-bishop-ordaining Episcopalian, to Lutherans (which range from extreme conservative to extreme liberal). Try to find agreement among those different denominations on alcohol, or dancing, or what communion means...then try to explain how they could all hold the same political view on anything; I'll be rolling on the floor laughing before you are halfway done.

I'm religious. I'm conservative. I make political decisions based on what my faith has told me is true about human nature. I approved of what the Florida legislature and the US Congress did in attempts to try to save Ms. Schiavo's life. Does that make me a member of the Religious Right? Heck, no: I don't like and don't approve of just about everything Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say, politically.

President Bush identifies himself as a Methodist. Does anyone even know what the Methodist church is like? Sure, there are various branches of Methodists, but the denomination's leadership put out a hymnal in the 90s with all masculine references to God removed. Does that sound fundamentalist?


Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:04 AM | Comments (1)
» Sharp as a Marble links with: Theocraziness - Now In Right Wingnut Flavor

March 23, 2005

The Next "Fake, But Accurate?" « Media Distortions »

Sometimes it seems the Mainstream* Media will cast any aspersion if it has a chance of making Republicans look bad. But it might not really be their fault; they may really believe those who don't support the liberal agenda are simply evil...except that their ideology doesn't really allow for the possibility of evil. This must result in a great deal of angst for them.

Read More "The Next "Fake, But Accurate?"" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:35 AM | Comments (2)
» In the Agora links with: Memogate, again

March 18, 2005

This is Journalism? « Media Distortions »

How can we trust the news if they can report something like this with a straight face:

Virtually no one disagrees human activity is fueling global warming, and a global treaty signed in Kyoto, Japan, aims to reduce polluting emissions. But the world's biggest polluter, the United States, has withdrawn from the 1997 treaty, saying its provisions would hurt the U.S. economy.

First, less than half the reputable scientists in the world even agree that the temperature trend is anything outside the normal cycle. Second, it has been proven that one medium-sized volcanic eruption spews more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all the nations of the world do in a decade. A large eruption emits more of those gasses than the entire human race has added in all of history. Third, the Kyoto Treaty wouldn't do a thing to stop pollution, it would only make it more difficult, economically, for the United States to continue to make its processes cleaner, while giving a free pass to China, India, Indonesia, et al, to continue polluting at will. Have you ever been to a city in China? Have you seen pictures, at least? Our worst city has far less smog than their best.

The whole ridiculous propaganda piece is right here, but it really isn't worth your time.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:09 AM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2005

Great Moments in Journalism « Media Distortions »

HaHa! Aren't Those Red-State Rubes Amusing!

They even still have 5-student, one-room schoolhouses! What a riot! I wonder what other aspects of rural life we could highlight for the amusement of people who live in cities...?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:30 AM | Comments (1)

March 04, 2005

Waitasecond! « Media Distortions »

Unemployment went up to 5.4%?

You mean the unemployment was a mere 5.3% just recently? That's a darn good unemployment rate, about as close to full employment as you can get.

How come the MSM wasn't all over this? The last I heard any mention of the unemployment rate was when unemployment was "remaining steady at 5.6%, and likely to rise if President Bush is re-elected".

For that matter, where were all the retractions from leading Democrats that President Bush did do what they insisted was impossible and helped create enough jobs that he didn't have a net job-loss number in his first term? Which initial spate of job losses should probably be attributed to the double-whammy of the dot-com bubble economy bursting along with the general economy-depressing effect of the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:31 PM | Comments (2)

February 16, 2005

Wanna See Inconclusive Anecdotal Evidence Presented as Fact? « Media Distortions »

Check out this gallery of "evidence" of global warming.

This guy absolutely doesn't allow for sunspot cycles, normal variations within a typical range, weather, or just about anything except that he's got 5 sets of pictures that show extremely minor differences only the non-imaginative would think has any significance whatsoever.

The argument is made more effectively here.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:33 PM | Comments (3)

February 15, 2005

This Needs an Instalanche, Methinks « Media Distortions »

So let's say you are wondering what the Eason Jordon flap was all about. And on top of it, you have never even heard of Jeff Gannon*.

Here's a pretty good analogy to help you understand the whole issue, and the significance of the relevant players' actions. And it's pretty funny, to boot, so I've got whole that going for me, you know.

Read More "This Needs an Instalanche, Methinks" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 05:56 AM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2005

Gannon-Quiddick « Media Distortions »

The three best summations of the Jeff Gannon story can be found at:
INDC Journal, Ace of Spades HQ, and Ace of Spades HQ again.

I didn't think I had much to say about this, but in retrospect, I do.

Heck, it isn't exactly a shocker to note the following:
-Liberals consider privacy, especially privacy about sexual orientation, to be of the utmost importance....unless you are conservative!
-Liberals consider it okay for journalists to lob softballs at political figures, as when Chris Matthews asked Sen. John F. Kerry something like, "Would you like to explain why, exactly, these fraudulent and so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spurious and underhanded attacks are, in fact, spurious and underhanded?" Again, it's beyond the pale if you are a conservative.

Apparently "liberal" is now a synonym for "self-serving double standard".

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:12 AM | Comments (0)

February 04, 2005

There Are Only Two Evil Things In This World « Media Distortions »

SUVs and Homeschooling. least, according to the liberal-leaning mainstream news media. Guess which one is a key player in this story?

Read More "There Are Only Two Evil Things In This World" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:34 PM | Comments (2)
» The LLama Butchers links with: Some questions to ponder over bagels and Book World

January 26, 2005

Worth Reading « Media Distortions »

The AIDS Heresy and the New Bishops.


Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:17 PM | Comments (1)

January 25, 2005

Black History Month « Humor » « Media Distortions »

I apologize for being a little late on this.

See, I've seen all sorts of media outlets and govt organizations making this declaration for next month.

Well, let me tell you: Spokane is pretty "white-bread", and yet I've still seen quite a few of 'em around. So I'm glad to say that this near-universal declaration that blacks are "history" next month is fortunately inaccurate.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:21 PM | Comments (2)
Abortion News « Media Distortions »

The bias in this article is pretty clear, huh:

But until there is a vacancy on the court, the president appears content to continue chipping away at the legality of abortion — through proposals such as the 2003 ban on partial-birth abortion and the fetal-pain and state-line proposals — rather than launching an all-out assault.

(emphasis mine)

Other than that, I pretty much support the bills President Bush is supporting.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:35 PM | Comments (0)

January 11, 2005

CBS Completes Investigation Into Rathergate « Media Distortions »

And Dan Rather has a message for the United States regarding his role in the whole matter:

Read More "CBS Completes Investigation Into Rathergate" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:23 PM | Comments (0)

January 06, 2005

Fisking CNN « Media Distortions »

It was Wolf Blitzer’s Report on CNN on 5 Jan.
He was talking with a reporter in Phuket, and the reporter said something like:

"The hardest hit are the children who had their lives wiped out by the tsunami. I watched a group of them in a classroom, and they seemed happy: laughing, playing, learning. But it only took a few minutes of talking with them before the tears came. You wonder how they will be able to recover from such devastating losses."
…so the kids were in the process of healing the way kids do: getting on with their lives. And then you came along, and for the sake of your exploitive storyline, talked them back into being upset. If they have nightmares for life, it's because you upset the healing process. Nice job, idiot.
"We followed one girl walking home alone, and you wonder what is going through her mind."
I would assume she was probably thinking, "Stay away from me, you weirdo. Stop following me!"

The reporter then moved on to talk about the people cleaning up:

"After the tsunami came the next step, which may be even worse."

What? The CNN reporters descending en masse to advance their careers to the detriment of the locals?

"The clean-up: These people are working so hard. Many work as long as they can stay awake. One wonders where they find the energy to persevere in such hard working conditions, why they continue."
And I’m sure it helps inspire them to see you standing there in a clean shirt, rested and relaxed, holding a chilled bottle of water you don’t share. They are probably motivated by the hope that as soon as they finish what they have to do (cleaning up their country), they can rip your head from its body.

That wasn't all of the condescending garbage spouted by this jerk, not by half. But it’s all I can remember. Then a later segment on the news channel (after Wolf Blitzer’s Report was over?) went to an attractive young lady (with clean clothes, perfect make-up and hair, obviously freshly-showered) who was going to talk about "Living the Tragedy in Sri Lanka". I hope that someday I can meet her at a party and listen to her bragging about the tragedy she "lived" in January 2005….like maybe she could only get her latte in a 14-ounce plastic cup instead of her usual 12-ounce, and not even earth-friendly biodegradable! ...or something equally petty. The gall of these people to assume they can package up the tragedy and dole it out in sympathetic packets of rationed guilt and responsibility…

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:50 AM | Comments (2)
» Yippee-Ki-Yay! links with: Clown News Network
» evolution links with: natural selections

January 05, 2005

Flood the Zone « Media Distortions »

Bunches of people who matter more than me are shocked that the CNN director used the word "flood" in relation to covering the aftermath of the tsunami.

Let me ask you: are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings really the same word?

For instance, is "bear - the animal" really the same word as "bear - to endure"?

I think you can make an argument that they are not. Mr. Klein was not thinking of "bunches of water covering what is normally land" when he used the word. By the very words he used, it is clear that the mental image he had that he was trying to convey was of a bunch of athletes overwhelming rivals by sending more people than the rival could match, in order to score a touchdown. That's what the term "flood the zone" means.

The mind is an interesting thing. People who haven't lived in the South for years often cannot remove the word "ya'll" from their vocabulary because it fills a conceptual gap in proper English language: 2nd person plural.

Some people are perhaps making a career out of being offended, I think.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:22 AM | Comments (2)

December 27, 2004

Whom Do You Serve? « Media Distortions »

Great minds think alike, or so they say. I'd say I happened to be musing on a subject that a truly great mind was also considering. But he was considering it a day or so earlier, to be able to produce this, today.

The question is: Whom do the journalists* serve?

The military serves the US Constitution first and foremost. Politicians ostensibly serve their constituents. McDonald's serves hamburgers. But whom do the journalists serve?

The question first struck me as I was working out this morning and watching CNN. A quote from a print journalist regarding the tsunami hitting SE Asia/SW Pacific was on the screen, "Where the wave hit, there was total and complete devastation." But in the pictures they showed, while there certainly was extreme damage, the devastation was neither complete, nor total. Another quote was given, "All the earth is vibrating..." (which can also be seen currently over at the Drudge Report as of this writing). Well, duh. That happens with any quake large enough for the shocks to hit the earth's molten core. From what I understand quakes as small as 4.9 (considered "small") can be felt by sensitive instruments around the whole world.

So why are these dramatic quotes being broadcast around the world?

It occurred to me: most journalists want to be the one to memorialize a disaster in a single line. Most journalists want to be the guy who said, "Oh, the humanity!" in the same way that most athletes want to make the last-second, miracle, game-winning score, the way most businessmen want to make the sale of the century, the way doctors want to find the miracle cure. It's beyond garnering of recognition, it's immortality.

So why don't they break out the dramatic and poetic language for our success in Iraq? Or for the successful election in Afghanistan? Why do they reserve their best efforts for the horrible news, the tragic, the sad?

Whom do they serve?

Not the government, of course. They want to be a check on government, and I can't disagree with that sentiment. The power of sunlight on corruption is an amazing thing.

But not the people, either, really. If they served the people, they wouldn't by hyping junk-science global warming, or pushing the Kyoto treaty. They wouldn't have endlessly returned to rumors of President Bush's possible AWOL while all-but-ignoring Kerry's service record, credulously accepting as gospel truth whatever Kerry chose to say about himself.
No, they don't really labor to serve the people, because they actively work to deny the people full access to some information streams.

They serve their employers, to an extent. Except that does anyone think Dan Rather's actions with the forged memos were in the best interest of the CBS corporation? Or even that he deliberately ruthlessly removed anyone who might have the skills and charisma to replace him? No. There is a symbiosis between journalists and their employers, in that greater circulation meets both their goals, but when push comes to shove, journalists serve themselves.

Sure. That's no big surprise. Cynics would say we all are selfish and looking out for our own good, that we all serve ourselves first and foremost.

Except that it seems to be different in journalism. Every profession has "ethics". One way to define ethics is they are a guideline for what you should do so that you don't merely rely on self-interest. Journalistic ethics seem to place a high value on the Truth. That becomes problematic, however, when Truth stops being a collection of facts and starts being an ideology that can be supported or denied depending on how you group or what order you present the facts.

So, yeah, I think even journalistic ethics tend to focus journalists on burnishing their own reputations, rather than serving the people.

Could you say that journalists serve the nation, perhaps?

No. In fact, I wish we had a news media/journalism profession that did serve the nation. The nation is served by protecting it from harm. Harm can come from the government itself, and from dangerous ideas arising from among the people. The news media/journalists are fine at exposing (and hopefully disarming) those threats. But our current news media only helps our enemies in attacking the US.

Some of the methods are obvious: semantic shifts in which terrorists in Iraq and Palestine are "militants" or "freedom fighters". Negative reporting from Iraq that implies the whole country is in chaos instead of showing all the progress that reveals the instability is contained and shrinking. Calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" beforehand, but eliding over the progress the nation has made in the last 3 years and never admitting a mistaken prediction.

But some methods aren't so obvious. I think most people would agree that one of the ways journalists help protect against a tyrannical or corrupt government is by exposing lies and shady aspects. I, at least, am convinced this is so. But the way they go about this is by encouraging leaks "off the record", then pleading immunity from disclosing their sources. This has led to all sorts of journalistic improprieties, including making up quotes just to score political points.

But the real effect of this is to cause the government and all its organs and branches to clam up even tighter, to be even more careful about classifying information and closing potential leaks.

It's roughly analogous to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

One of the main reasons information is classified in the US security system is to protect the source of the information and the means of collection. If information is in the open (unclassified and non-governmental) news streams, it can be discussed openly. If our news media would spend its resources investigating what our enemies were up to, it would provide plausible sources for otherwise classified information. That makes it easier to disseminate the information not only among government bureaus to the people that need the information, but also to the people of the United States.** For instance, how much would it help the security situation of the United States today if our news media had sniffed out that North Korea wasn't holding to their agreement over nuclear weapon technology? But our news media unfortunately was too busy trying to find something to cover besides Bill Clinton scandals, and so it took until US Intelligence agencies discovered the problem several years later.

Our news media thought a drunk driving arrest from 30 years ago*** was more important than investigating the extent of Chinese attempts to influence our Presidential election process.

Can we get a news media that cares more about the good of the nation than its own agenda? Is that too much to ask?

Read More "Whom Do You Serve?" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:48 PM | Comments (2)

December 09, 2004

OH. MY. GOSH. « Media Distortions »

Heard this story about the specialist who asked about armoring vehicles in Iraq?

It turns out the question was a plant from a reporter.

It absolutely violates journalistic ethics.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:22 PM | Comments (1)

November 30, 2004

"Racist": the New McCarthyism « Media Distortions »

By David Horowitz.


The charge of racism is a toxic accusation in our culture more damaging than the charge of "Communism" at the height of the McCarthy era. It is the contemporary version of the witch-hunt and the fact that its stigma can be applied so casually by leftists to conservatives in their line of fire reflects how instinctive this enterprise is to people who think of themselves as “liberals.” The witch-hunt may even be said to be instinctive to progressives who regard themselves as the avatars of human decency and reason, the rest us as turn-back-the-clock reactionaries and … well, racists.

Is there a conservative figure in our culture who has not been so tarred? Rep. Charles Rangel has described anyone who supports tax cuts as a closet Kluxer. With even more subtlety, Rep. John Lewis has called supporters of welfare reform “Nazis.” In the 2000 election, Democrats tarred George Bush as a lyncher.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:54 AM | Comments (1)

November 16, 2004

The Camera Never Lies « Media Distortions »

Okay, I'm late coming to the party on the story of the Marine shooting the terrorist in Fallujah. And from my wording, you can probably guess my opinion.

It's axiomatic that pictures have massive impact, far more than mere descriptions. And a series of pictures tells an even more compelling story. Part of the strength of impact is that, absent any sort of alteration (which is more difficult to discount in this age of digital photography), people assume that the camera cannot lie. Seeing is believing, right?

But the camera lies by omission as much as anything else. Anyone who saw F9/11 saw a very facile motion-picture length falsehood. Slickly produced, context and sequence were manipulated with a artist's touch to present ambiguity in a light that was intended to damn President Bush as much as possible.

People are talking about what was shown on the tape. Some people are pointing out the context was such that the Marine may well have been acting within the Rules of Engagement (in that other terrorists have played dead until they could grab a weapon and resume fighting). I'd like to see more of a discussion about how cameras are the weapons of choice in propaganda wars.

The camera has a field of view much smaller than the human eye. It leaves out far more than it includes. The liberal pundits and talking heads who insist that of course they support the troops are exactly the ones now quick to convict this Marine on the strength of an edited film clip alone. This is wrong, dishonest, hypocritical...and par for the course.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:24 PM | Comments (4)
» Speed of Thought... links with: Oh really

November 02, 2004

Shepherd Smith Doesn't Seem Inebriated... « Media Distortions »

....just saying, is all.

Susan Estrich is still channeling Carol Channing.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:33 PM | Comments (0)
» The LLama Butchers links with: Llama liveblogging--day two

October 29, 2004

I'm With Kevin On This « Media Distortions »

'Which Kevin?' you ask? Good question, since I think a higher percentage of 'Kevins' are blogging than any other given name, although I think Michelle/Michele comes close if you combine the spelling.

In this case, however, I'm speaking of the inestimable Kevin McGehee, who explains that President Bush is not only going to win, he's going to win bigger than most people expect.

ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN would be well advised to stock up on antacid.


Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:16 AM | Comments (1)

October 28, 2004

WTF Is Going to Happen Next Tuesday? « Media Distortions »

Bush got just about half the votes in the last election.

Now, four years later, what's going on?

Q and O has this, saying Bush is picking up all sorts of votes among white females, blacks, Jews, first-time voters, and veterans*.

The Kerry Spot says has Zogby saying Bush has mobilized his base more effectively than last time.

Despite the Old Media not being able to find any, the Democrats For Bush phenomena is, by most accounts, stronger than the Republicans for Kerry movement.***

Now, unless you assume that Bush is only picking up the extra votes from people who didn't vote last time around**, shouldn't that translate to a landslide victory for President Bush? The percentages truly seem to indicate President Bush getting something close to 60% of the vote, which seems ridiculous on the face of it.

And here's some more evidence that Bush is going to easily defeat Kerry: Up by 5 points in heavily-Democrat Michigan?!??!

...and yet, Mickey Kaus keeps going over implausible scenarios of ties, and if you scroll down over the last week, keeps talking as if the "undecideds break against the incumbent" historical trend will deliver the victory to Kerry. And Rasmussen has the candidates well within the margin of error.****

That just doesn't seem possible.

I know there is some dispute on polling practices, i.e., Democrats tend to answer the phone more often during typical polling time periods, so to eliminate that influence the pollster has to "weight" the results in line with traditional Democrat/Republican percentages, but even the extent or direction of the weighting is in dispute.

The editor of Newsweek said the media is worth 10-15 percentage points of votes for Democrats, because of liberal bias. And an even more strong historical trend than the "Undecideds Break Against the Incumbent" one is that people tend to not vote if they think their candidate is going to lose. Combine those two ideas, and it becomes more clear why the Old Media is insisting Kerry is still in the race.

I'm still thinking the final results are going to be very unwelcome surprise for Democrats, indeed.

Read More "WTF Is Going to Happen Next Tuesday?" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:25 AM | Comments (2)
» The LLama Butchers links with: I really needed this right now!

October 12, 2004

Ever Find Yourself Thinking, "What Liberal Media Bias?" « Media Distortions »

Well, Winds of Change has a nice little round-up of articles you should read. And these are only recent examples.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:03 AM | Comments (0)

October 06, 2004

Liberal Democrats Are On The Losing Side of History: Exhibit E « Liberal Democrats Are on the Losing Side of History » « Media Distortions »

Why do they keep citing the less accurate Establishment Payroll Survey?!??!?!

The discrepancy between the job numbers produced by the Establishment Payroll Survey and those produced by the Household Survey has finally been getting attention in the last few months. I never payed attention to the Establishment survey because I never worked directly for an establishment. In fact there has never been a time when the money which supported me came from a countable job. Those whose premises are supported by the lower Establishment numbers tend to dismiss the new ways of earning a living as not being "real" jobs. I have no doubt that some of the tens of thousands of people who now support their families would really rather be back in that nice warm foundry, or working rotating shifts at the tire plant, but not many of them.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 04:14 PM | Comments (1)
» The LLama Butchers links with: Insult of the week

October 04, 2004

More on Teacher Who Put Up a Picture of the Sitting President « Media Distortions »

This is getting really interesting.

Here is a good summary with assertions broken out.

At this point, I'm not sure who is telling the truth, but the way the assertions shake out, someone is lying. Particularly: she says she never brought politics in and wouldn't touch politics with a 10-foot pole in the classroom vs. the administrator's assertions that she offended students with partisan harangues.

If her story is correct, the school administration was way out of line. However, in my experience, someone steeped in the political infighting endemic to school administration would be slightly more credible than a single individual. To tell the truth, I'm beginning to think that she was trying to seize a 'moral' high ground upon which to base a 'wrongful dismissal' argument or something.

Advantage: School Administration (barring more definitive information).

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:28 PM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2004

Ultrafisking « Media Distortions »

It's cool when you can invent a new blogging mode. I, of course, have never done that.*

But Sharp as a Marble, who apparently would like me to bite him, invents just such a special mode in this post.

It's so concise and so chock-full of feel-good blogging snarkiness that I can find nothing to excerpt, and yet I don't feel it's right for me to excerpt the whole thing....all of which is a long way of saying, Read the Whole F***ing Thing Already, Will Ya?

Read More "Ultrafisking" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:51 PM | Comments (2)

September 13, 2004

Old Media Bias In Economic News « Media Distortions »

This won't be a surprise to the people who pay attention and are able to separate viewpoint from fact, but economists found evidence of bias in the way Old Media reports economic news. (subscription probably required. Following the link at Drudge Report where I found this lets you avoid it)

They found that Mr. Clinton received better headlines than the two Republican presidents. Even after adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance under the three presidents, the Republicans received 20 to 30 percent fewer positive headlines, on average, for the same type of news, they concluded.

...They found that as a group, the nation's 10 largest newspapers and The Associated Press were even more skewed. According to the researchers, this group gave Republican administrations 20 to 40 percent fewer positive headlines than those given to Mr. Clinton, on average.

To me, the big surprise was that this appeared in the New York Times at all.

Oh, and our very own Ace of Spades was on top of this a long time ago.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:42 AM | Comments (0)

September 11, 2004

Please Understand This: There is NO Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy « Media Distortions »

Mickey Kaus, a Democrat and Kerry supporter with the guts to still report actual facts (unlike most of the other Kerry-supporting Old Media) absolutely destroys an Old Media attempt to smear Republicans. (sorry about forgetting to close the tag)

Patterico shoots down a promising pro-Kerry Web conspiracy theory--namely that the potential forgery of the CBS Bush guard documents was spotted so quickly on the Web that the person who spotted it ("Buckhead," poster #47 at Free Republic) must have been tipped off in advance. That would suggest that any forgery was planted, presumably by pro-Bush forces. But it seems this whole theory, promoted in this morning's ABC News Note, was based on a misreading of time stamps by ABC. In reality, Buckhead had a couple of hours to come up with his post--something he confirms in an email to Patterico. ... ABC has corrected its mistake (without withdrawing the now seemingly groundless insinuation). NPR hasn't corrected the error, according to Patterico, and David Brock's Media Matters still posts it. ... P.S.: Media Matters might want to decide if a) the documents are authentic, as argued at the top of their Web page or b) the documents are forgeries planted by Republicans, as argued at the bottom of their Web page. Lawyers are allowed to plead in the alternative, but a) and b) can't both be true, and the evidence for each of those propositions is also evidence against the other one. 1:10 A.M. Pacific Time (that's 4:10 to you, Ambinder)
(You'll have to go the actual site to be able to follow the links I'm too lazy to include)

The Democrats really want to believe that Rpublicans have developed a web of conspiracies to prevent their ascendency into power. It started with Hillary Clinton, who couldn't seem to believe that there were people who were not blinded by her husband's charisma and actually disapproved of the character displayed by his philandering and disturbed by the easy willingness to lie it demonstrated. She couldn't believe that people might not want to live in a socialist state with a Clinton/Democrat aristocracy. Hence, it must be a vast conspiracy by those evil Right-Wingers. The couldn't understand that the appeal of talk radio is its interactivity, that people can express their opinions, because they are used to a top-down dissemination of ideas through a hierarchy based on liberal college education (i.e., only the intellectuals are allowed to have ideas).

As people have grown more dissatisfied with Democrat glittering generalities, empty promises, untenable ideas, and dishonest tactics, Republicans have grown in political power. Democrats cannot understand this, apparently lacking the ability to understand differences of perspective and the concept of principled opposition. They seem to think that if they state a goal of "everyone having the same minimu level of financial resources", that anyone who opposes that goal must be evil, corrupt, and desirous of keeping others poor in order to stay rich...they cannot conceive that someone could have the ability to independently analyze the goal and methods and determined, on their own with native intelligence, that attempting that goal invariably results in greater injustice and widespread crime and poverty. Rather than investigate their own platitudes, rather than refine their own ideas, rather than actually investigating and evaluating their own proposals for efficacy, they prefer to merely label any opponent "evil".
Thus, as Republican political power has grown, liberals/Democrats have seen this as a growth of Evil. And stopping the spread and growth of evil is a worthy cause that requires extraordinary tactics, right?
Unable to understand the attraction of interactive discussion of news and politics, liberals/Democrats have responded by ratcheting up their methods of fighting conservatives/Republicans. In the 2000 Presidential election, the media, in collusion with the Democrat party, supported and aided Gore in trying to reinvent himself until he could find a pretend character that might resonate with voters. It was never an attempt to show voters the true character of the man they wanted to make the most important decisions regarding the country, it was an attempt to conceal anything negative. The Old Media did everything they could during the election, as well, even declaring Gore the victor in a "battleground" state 45 minutes before the polling stations were closed in the conservative-leaning panhandle. When the outcome was disputed, all the Old Media supported Al Gore's challenge, invariably accepting his team's arguments at face value, but dissecting all of Bush's assertions and casting his spokespeople in unfavorable light. We heard all sorts of stories about authorities attempting to prevent Democrat votes, but very little mention (and no follow up) on Democrat voting shenanigans.
Even now, some Old Media attempt to say Gore should have won in Florida, even though all recounts show that Bush did win the state. Even now, some Old Media still attempt to paint the Supreme Court as helping Bush get elected, even though, in light of the recounts, all the Supreme Court did was put an end to nonsense that would never have changed the outcome.

Now, none of this is a Left-Wing conspiracy. It is just disparate liberal/Democrat-supporting institutions that individually do what they can to shore up weaknesses in the liberal/Democrat machine...

The last four years of liberal/Democrat perfidy are well-documented throughout the web. But there are few points I'd like to make.

1) In any discussion, the lefty commenters usually accuse the conservatives of "following marching orders", and usually claim those are sent by the "RNC fax". I was puzzled by that for a while, until I realized it was projection. I'm as conservative as they come, and have never received an RNC fax. Our conservative ideas are introduced at the grassroots level, and we fight and hash them out. I have never seen conservative bloggers "thinking in lockstep" (or other variations of that theme), because we nearly always disagree on all sorts of different ideas. For instance, Stumpjumper and ZombyBoy of Resurrection Song don't even agree with each other, much less with me. Dean Esmay leans Republican (although he seems to still wish he could vote Democrat, but his integrity won't allow him to). Dodd Harris (Ipse Dixit) and Kevin McGehee (blogoSFERICS) are both as conservative as they come, but aren't in complete agreement and I disagree with them about any number of things. I'm probably closest in socio-political viewpoint to Rae (A Likely Story) and Tony (Sand in the Gears), and we don't agree with most of the above individuals regarding things like abortion... And I'm sure our various reactions to the Patriot Act are as varied as our blognames. Then throw in Kim du Toit, whose connection with the rest of the conservative bloggers I've named is probably limited to just 2nd Amendment rights, and probably not even complete agreement on that. But I'm not sure, because, you see, we don't coordinate! At all. I know this is hard for the liberals, Democrats, and Old Media to understand, but we all think for ourselves. We link what we like from each other, we disagree but remain friends on some issues, we decide for ourselves.

Liberals/Democrats cannot seem to understand that, and can't seem to handle the implications. That's why the accusations of a conspiracy grow ever more prevalent.

Terry McAuliffe has totally internalized that idea. He cannot understand that he might not be the most effective party chairman, so he blames every failure of the Kerry campaign on the manipulation of Karl Rove. He doesn't realize how petulant and ridiculous he sounds these days, I guess.

Dan Rather couldn't handle being fact-checked regarding the forged memos, and so blamed it on a right-wing campaign to discredit his version of the truth. Unfortunately, his take complete mischaracterizes the fact that it wasn't a campaign to discredit, it was a campaign for the truth. If there is a connection between "right-wing" and "truth", it is merely that the left wing no longer cares about the truth.

Remember, from the beginning of the Howard Dean candidacy nearly two years ago, it was decided that "Bush lied". (Okay, the opposition to Bush actuall started in November 2000, but the current campaign of "Anybody But Bush" started with the first declared candidacy). That theme was decided two years ago, before all the evidence was in...nearly before any evidence was in. The decision being made, no evidence or proof could shake the Anybody But Bush crowd. you get that? The Truth behind Bush's decision didn't matter at all to Democrats. They would use any appearance of impropriety, any perceived mis-step, any apparent contradiction to attack Bush. It didn't matter what the truth was. It didn't matter if the apparent contradictions were there own fabrications or the result of faulty analysis or incomplete reporting.

And so we end up with Dan Rather and 60 Minutes discarding any semblence of healthy skepticism regarding the authenticity of magically-appearing (my term) memos. And we end up with a group of individual bloggers using their own areas of expertise and intelligence to debunk the forgery in less than 24 hours.

Over the last 20-30 years, Democrats have been growing new Democrats by indoctrination through the education system. To perfect the indoctrination, they establish rules like "speech codes" and "politically-correct speech/programs" to ensure that information contradictory to the accepted liberal ideology is not presented. Over the same time period, Republicans have been growing new Republicans by thinking, analyzing, arguing, disputing, researching. Talk radio helped increase the speed of that growth. The internet has only allowed greater interaction and more connection, and greater access to be able to communicate individual ideas. And look around at the blogs: You have true debate on the conservative blogs, and all but the most negative and hateful trolls are tolerated (although probably ridiculed). If you have debate at all on the liberal blogs, you are banned for expressing conservative viewpoints. You are accused of hate-speech for debunking inaccuracies.

Granted, this little summation is fragmentary and incomplete. There are probably some inaccuracies as well. That's what you get when someone types impressions off the top of their head.

I've been wondering what's going to happen to the Democrat party. Kerry's campaign is imploding, and the Democrat party and all its supporting structures (like Old Media) may well implode with it. Since the irrational hatred of conservative ideas and personages won't disappear with the loss of structure, what happens? If you can't run a party on the basis of hate, you certainly can't form one. If your party lacks cogent, coherent ideas, you can't use that same nonsense to form a new party. But these ideas, fully discredited by thoughtful and thinking individuals, are still embraced and cherished by liberals. Can any good come of that?

Yeah, that was a set up for this conclusion, even as hap-hazardly as I wound my way down to it:

Whatever replaces the Democrat party, the advances in technology we take as commonplace now (global interconnectivity and easy access into the instantaneous marketplace of ideas) will be fully involved. I offer to you the idea that the Democrat party as we know it, and the liberal ideology as it exists today cannot exist in the face of intelligent challenge. Liberal ideology is bankrupt and the Democrat party a lame duck. The goals will remain, but the methods will (hopefully) be replaced with something besides the class envy and soft bigotry of the Democrat Party.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:15 AM | Comments (0)
» BinaryRoadTrip links with: Panic. No VRWC?

September 10, 2004

"Fraudulent" Coalition « Media Distortions »

Check 'em out. Fully 1/5th of the entire world's population.

Which is even more impressive when you consider that 2/5ths of the world's population resides in China and India, and they aren't playing. Yet.

Found via a truly hilarious explanation of Kerry's Opinion on Iraq.*

Read More ""Fraudulent" Coalition" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:03 AM | Comments (1)
» links with: A “Unilateral” Invasion

September 02, 2004

On Matthews, Malkin, and Miller « Media Distortions »

I've seen a few people mention the kerfuffle between Zell Miller (D-Georgia) and Chris Matthews (host of the show Hardball, also known as "Puffball" when John Kerry is his guest...). In that interview, Zell refers to Chris beating up on "that little girl", a reference to Michelle Malkin. Some of the commenters have mentioned Matthews picking on "a woman" or even a "little Phillipino woman".

Understand this: Michelle Malkin came off 2nd best because she tried to answer the questions directly and honestly, and Chris Matthews had no intention of letting her score points by doing so. His technique is dishonest and reprehensible, not to mention contrary to all ethics for a professional journalist or talk-show host.

Where Michelle Malkin went wrong was in not directly confronting Matthews' attack. Zell Miller did so, refusing to answer until Matthews' backed off and gave him space. I don't think Ms. Malkin has encountered such hostile interviewing very often; I have every confidence she will be more prepared in the future, and will not be caught so unawares ever again.

So let's not hear any more softly-bigatrous insinuations that Chris Matthews beat up on someone weaker. If she ever deigns to appear on his show again, and he tries the same crap, he's going to draw back bloody stumps.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:16 AM | Comments (10)
» resurrectionsong links with: Ya Gotta Like Zel Miller (Updated)

August 25, 2004

"Use Any Weapon" « Media Distortions »

So NPR uses military attempts to maintain Operations Security as a pretext to criticize the war in Iraq.

Here's Greyhawk's take on the issue.

My reaction? Well, I don't know. I don't trust NPR much to begin with, and when they say things like, "Critics say it's an attempt to suppress unflattering truths about the U.S. occupation" when Mil-Blogs are actually one of the ways you can bypass negative media accounts to actually hear good news about the continuing liberation* in Iraq.

I can understand the need for Operational Security. Our enemies say they can get 80% of what they need from open sources. We are accustomed to openness, and I can see the need to remind people to be careful what information they give out...even if it comes in the form of a warning that some people feel is somewhat threatening.

I also suspect that 'bandwidth' might be an issue. You don't want to miss an important message because someone is uploading an image to their website.

I can see a reason why some higher ranking officers might want to discourage blogging without actually saying "no". The less people doing it, the less chance there is of problems, but the people who really find it useful and soul-satisfying aren't barred.

To tell the truth, I am far more disturbed that the USAF (and maybe the rest of the military, dunno), totally blocks access to the portal mail servers (Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL). Even worse, they don't warn you before you deploy. It can be a significant morale hit to not be able to receive email or even be able to tell someone you won't be able to read their email until you return...

Read More ""Use Any Weapon"" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:11 AM | Comments (0)
» Mudville Gazette links with: With Friends Like That...

August 20, 2004

Political Drama Unfolds « Media Distortions »

This is an attempt to leave an impression in the minds of voters, regardless of whether or not the accusation goes anywhere.

And you can bet the New York Times will do all it can to try the case in the court of public opinion with a biased jury.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:37 PM | Comments (8)

August 17, 2004

Pardon Me, but Your Agenda is Showing « Media Distortions »

I don't think this sort of reaction is unusual for a journalist...this one just doesn't hide it as well as most.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:12 AM | Comments (0)

August 15, 2004

News Media Prediction Blunders « Media Distortions »

So Kerry leads by a few percentage points and the media says the race is Kerry's to lose, eh?

It seems to me that Al Gore was leading W by a large margin at one point before the RNC convention, but an admittedly cursory Google search revealed nothing. Is there anyone out there with more time on their hands who wants to look into this?

Premise: the mainstream news media is deliberately (although probably subconsciously) talking up Kerry's slim lead to discourage Bush supporters and encourage Kerry supporters. To do so, they have to ignore how even significant leads are largely immaterial at this point. That is why there are absolutely no comparisons to the race four years ago: it would not suit their subconscious agenda.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:20 AM | Comments (13)
Let's Upset People, Shall We? « Media Distortions »

This is a "ponder" piece. Meaning, I don't want you to just react, I would like you to think, consider, and use some introspection to remember how you felt about certain issues several years ago.

The impetus for my post is a recent one by Dean Esmay. In his post, he wonders about the stunning lack of coverage of Kerry's negatives by mainstream news media, particularly regarding the allegations of the the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He says:

I would have to ask why a single 20 year old drunk driving charge made screaming national headlines four years ago, but none of this is making it into the mainstream press, except on the editorial pages of a few small newspapers.

I am honestly stunned. This isn't bias. This is... it's... I don't even know the word for it. It's obviously not a conspiracy, and people who think it is one should take off their tinfoil hats. But what do you call it? Groupthink? Mass delusion? Blind spot? You cannot gush praise at a guy's military record and then just ignore the fact that he has heavy duty critics. Even if all of those critics were right-wing Republicans, that doesn't make it less of a story.

The comments in that post are also important, as they take the discussion further. Go read this post by Dean, then continue here.

Back? Good. Now, here's the thinking exercise portion.

I'm sure the reporters and writers and editors see nothing wrong with the way they are not approaching this issue. Nor do most Democrat supporters care much. After all, they want President Bush out of office, so who cares what happened 30 years ago? (Well, people who care about character do...)

The news media is actively attempting to monitor and moderate debate on Kerry. This is having an effect on our society and voting patterns, no?*

Doesn't this also call into question other issues that the left-leaning news media covers? Can we really trust the mainstream news media on the question of abortion?

Stop and think a moment. Did you care about homosexual marriage 5-10 years ago? Did you fight for it? Did it ever really cross your mind that it might be a human rights issue? Would you have considered making your votes for government contingent on this single issue?

I think few people can honestly answer all those questions in the affirmative.

I am leaning toward the feeling this issue was manufactured, highlighted, and foisted upon society at large by the mainstream news media. Lawrence vs Texas raised the issue in the minds of citizens, thanks to news media who covered it far out of proportion to its impact. The news media distorted Sen. Santorum's remarks as a tactic to allow them to vilify conservative viewpoint...they went so far as to insert the word "gay" into the interview, which word was not even implied! The mainstream news media has used its power and reach to popularize the view SSM is a human rights issue rather than the behavioral issue it clearly is...and everyone convinced of it thinks they are fully rational and reasonable about the issue...just like Kerry supporters regarding the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

It's not a conspiracy, no. It's just that Left/Liberal ideas currently have an extreme advantage in competition for adoption by the common citizen, since Left/Liberal idealogues control several of the main channels of culture/idea communication: News media, entertainment, and education.

Will the internet/blogging be enough to flip things around? I'm not sure. It will have an effect, surely...

Read More "Let's Upset People, Shall We?" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:10 AM | Comments (1)

August 13, 2004

Don't Wax Nostalgic « Media Distortions »

Because these are "the good old days", regardless of what you hear from pessimistic Democrats trying to win an election.

That's Kerrynomics, folks. Trash-talk the economy today. Conceal what you're going to do to the economy if you're elected.

Shoot. That's the entire Democrat platform over the last 20 years!

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:38 AM | Comments (7)

August 12, 2004

An Ann Coulter Article (UPDATED) « Media Distortions »

This one is relatively reasonable and sticks to facts more than invective! (Tends. But still far less invective and insults than the average pro-choice article.)

Maybe she's gotten enough of acting like Democrat notables like James Carville, Maureen O'Dowd, and Molly Ivins?

UPDATE: I, um, forgot to point out that I found the article courtesy of Mad Mikey, and didn't remember to do so until he left a comment. My apologies, Mike.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:15 PM | Comments (2)
Hmmm...Notice Anything Funny? « Media Distortions »

I wonder why his political affiliation isn't mentioned?

You know, since news media are usually big corporations, and big corporations are inherently capitalist and therefore must be conservative, that means that the governer must be a Republican and so the by-default conservative news media is downplaying the connection to his party to help Republicans save face in a way that Democrats would never do...

Oops. Maybe not...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:41 PM | Comments (1)

August 10, 2004

Why You Will Never See A Passenger Vehicle Get 100 mpg From Fossil Fuels « Media Distortions »

Cold, hard facts:
There is only a finite amount of energy in a gallon of gas. We are already extracting the vast majority of that energy. We can use mechanical means to try and reduce the waste (with the generator to charge batteries when braking), but there is an upper limit to that, too. The greater the weight of the vehicle, the more energy it takes to overcome friction and/or inertia to move it. So we've pretty much reached the point of quickly-diminishing returns there, too.
Most people simply want more use from their vehicles than you can get from an economy car. Europe's population centers are far more compact, so the solutions that work there wouldn't work here outside of the Eastern Seaboard's megapolis.
Maybe the next big break-through will be more efficient solar cells...but since solar energy is relatively weak, and the amount of energy beamed onto the surface area of the largest vehicles also has an upper limit, even significant gains in that area won't appreciably reduce our demand for oil. And hydrogen-cell cars are no panacea, since the easiest way to get the hydrogen is from oil, and the easiest way to get it from water is to burn fossil fuels for energy.

In fact, the only sane development that could conceivably make a difference would be modular cars. Specifically, a 1- or 2- seater for commuting/errands that gets 50+ mpg and can be attached to various specific-function add-on modules, such as:

a larger cabin for carrying 4-5 people,
an even larger cabin for carrying 5-7 people, or 3-4 + luggage/gear
a cargo-hauler flatbed or walled bed.

With each larger module, you'd get worse gas mileage, but it wouldn't be a big deal because it would see only occasional use.

It wouldn't be for everyone, no...but most people don't really need large pick-ups or SUVs for the bulk of their driving. They have them for prestige/pride (which might be less important as gas prices increase) and because they assume (rightly or wrongly) that there are enough times they need it to make it worth it.

For instance, I commute. I can't carpool because I keep quite irregular hours. My wife rarely, if ever, drives while I'm at work. But we need two cars. We need the smaller because I don't want to put the commuting wear-and-tear on the nicer, newer, larger vehicle and because the smaller car gets significantly better mileage. We can't live with just the smaller car because we like to travel, and we sometimes like to browse antiques and garage sales. The smaller vehcle is wholly inadequate for the space we need for those functions. So we own two cars...

I'm sure we aren't the only household in that situation.

But you won't hear any of that from Kerry, and the news media won't call him on it.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:32 PM | Comments (4)
Disheartened By Weak Job-Creation Numbers? « Media Distortions »

Well, the non-liberal news media wants you to be, don't they? Here's a full analysis of the true current situation, rather than just a flat number without context or comparison.

...and if you are excited by recent weak job-creation numbers, shame on you, you partisan hack who puts your own political desires ahead of the good of the nation.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:50 AM | Comments (1)

July 23, 2004

Ya Can't Win « Media Distortions »

A nice little satire piece that isn't far off from the way the media really does treat President Bush.


Bush's denials prompted immediate condemnations from the Kerry campaign and Hill Democrats, many of whom saw Bush's denials as suspiciously timed and politically motivated.

"I find it rather curious that the President has chosen the very week before the Democratic Convention to deny his deep involvement in a potentially criminal effort to smear an anonymous private citizen," said Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane. "Coincidence or not, I would note that the GOP has a long, sordid history of pushing pro-Republican and anti-Democratic stories, often during election years."

Via The Commissar.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:30 AM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2004

It's About Time « Media Distortions »

Doonesbury has been offering up baseless and inaccurate criticisms of Republicans and President Bush for far too long. Well, the cartoon is gone from 38 newspapers now.

Some cry "censorship", but the government had nothing to do with this. The market forces have their place, and in this case, the significant majority of newspapers felt their readership no longer wanted such slanted and biased propaganda. The comics page should be for humor, not mean-spirited partisanship.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 04:01 PM | Comments (11)
Bloggers Are Too Journalists! « Media Distortions »

I gotta link this.

One of the biggest hints that the admission by The Note is correct is that people often find news on weblogs that they have never heard anywhere else. Not reporting, or under-reporting is prevalent in America today. Stories such as the U.N. Oil for Food scandal, the removal of two ton's of uranium from Iraq , and the fallacies which are prevelant in Michael Moore's propaganda are among other reports that many have never even heard. How about a single good news report out of Iraq - when was the last time you heard one of those? This information is widespread among weblogs, yet coverage on the networks is non-existent. Most traditional sources of information have all but ignored them.

Not only can you find these stories on the web, but you can get the background information and find them put into context. The reason I write Perry on Politics is to inform the masses in a manner in which makes current events interesting to all. You don't have to be a media elite or take yourself too seriously to express your point of view and inform the public. If you want detailed commentary on the events of the day, you can read Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, Powerline, Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Totten, NRO's Corner, and Watchblog among many others. There is an endless supply on both the left and right to make your choices complete.

Start your day by getting your morning news from these weblogs, and then spend the evening in front of the major networks. It will truly open your eyes. What you hear in the evening might take a totally different perspective when you have the context that these weblogs have put into your consciousness. Getting your news from different sources not only adds context, it is the most logical way of getting informed. Information is power, and without hearing both sides of the issue you are unable to be sure that you know what is happening.

Weblogs are a new driving force behind informing and bringing context to the public, but they are not beyond reproach. It is the responsibility of the authors of these websites to maintain and fact check their work. Their information still requires validation. We must not allow the spread of rumor and false stories, that should be left to the networks. With the blogosphere growing to over 3 million websites, the revolution has begun.

There are hotlinks in his piece to those news stories, but ya gotta go over there to follow 'em.

Oh, and he's going in my blogroll.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:35 AM | Comments (0)
Democrats: Fox News is a Threat to Democrats « Media Distortions »

At least, that's what it seems from reading between the lines of this piece.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:15 AM | Comments (3)

July 13, 2004

News, Liberal and Conservative « Media Distortions »

Okay, we know most of us know that liberals are full of it when they criticize Fox News as being a branch of the GOP and consider CNN and MSNBC to be unbiased. Independent studies have shown Fox News and The Drudge Report as being far more centrist than most of the other mainstream news media.

But sometimes we forget to actually combat the liberal assertion. Suzy Rice does a nice job of describing the true situation here. Go read.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:09 PM | Comments (0)
» marcland links with: Bias? Us?

June 25, 2004

Reading the NY Times is Like Watching Al-Jazeera... « Media Distortions »

...and Ace takes 'em to task for their blatant distortions. Then he does it again.

It would be nice if American news media would try reporting facts for once, rather than supporting the lies and falsehoods of Democrats and liberals. I won't hold my breath.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:42 AM | Comments (0)

June 21, 2004

Iraq Is Going Better Than It Seems Here « Media Distortions »

And here is an article that explains why reporting is flawed.

Of course, not everything is going peachy, and it could be going better. Here is an honest evaluation from the same article:

Not everything has gone well in Iraq. U.S. forces won a stunning military victory; diplomats botched the occupation. Interagency wrangling delayed establishment and hampered operation of a free Iraqi media outlet. Rather than put an Iraqi face on occupation, Bremer sought the spotlight. Many career diplomats treated President George W. Bush's goals for a democratic Iraq with disdain. Policy flip-flops confused Iraqis looking for consistency. Bremer's personal foibles, especially his tendency to treat mediators as adversaries and personalize politics, antagonized Iraqis. Because of his abuse of the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, some Iraqis now compare Bremer to Ayatollah Sadiq Khalkhali, hanging judge of the Iranian Revolution. Bremer's abuse of the judiciary has undermined Iraqis' faith in American promises of democracy as much as a small number of CIA contractors and the 800th Military Police Brigade undermined faith in American human-rights standards. The U.S. military failed to adequately secure the border; Bremer's decision last October to veto any contribution of Turkish troops to guard the non-Kurdish portion of the Syrian-Iraqi border has had profound consequence on the security of both Iraqis and American forces. Rather than encourage political parties which span ethnic and sectarian identification, the State Department and British Foreign Office did the opposite. Bremer's decision to hold party-slate elections rather than single-member constituency elections will push Iraq further toward the failed Lebanese model rather than true democracy. Ironically, Jordan abandoned nationwide party-slate elections because they disproportionately favored militant Islamists.

I still think things have already turned for the better. I have seen some minor signs that the Iraqis realize they are now working and fighting for their own country, not for the Americans. They are starting to believe that the United States will pull out someday, and the sooner they can stabilize the country, the sooner we will leave.

You see, the insurgents don't actually want us out! At least, they don't want us to leave on our terms. They want us to hang around for a few years, acting as an international recruiting tool (Jin Islamists and Get A Chance To Kill Americans, the Pawns of the Great Satan!), and then leave bloody and beaten, like the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

But the Iraqis aren't capable of standing up to the insurgents and defeating them. We are stronger than the insurgents, but the insurgents are stronger than the Iraqis at this point; the Iraqis need time, training, and equipment. But the early signs of their standing up for their own nation will accelerate, and bear unmistakeable fruit a few months down the line. I think things will be quite a bit more stable six months from now...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:36 AM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2004

More Media Distortion « Media Distortions »

Stupid Question

The Lies Continue

A Misleading Correction

It seems the media distortions in support of Kerry's candidacy and liberal ideology are coming faster than any one blog can expose them.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:32 AM | Comments (0)

June 05, 2004

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Radio Station « Media Distortions »

Go check out this page. Or, you can merely check out the excerpt of the part I want to discuss below:

The O'Franken Factor is a Zero Spin Zone. So if you hear something inaccurate on our show, it isn't a lie--it's an error. We want to correct it. And we need your help.

If you hear a mistake, an inaccuracy, or a falsehood--no matter how boring or technical--send it to We'll be checking the box. If we find that we have strayed from the truth, we'll get to it in our semi-regular, much-beloved "boring corrections" segment as quickly as we can.

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief. The man who wrote the book "Lying Liars Lie Lie Lie" (or something like that) realizes that the same technique might be used on him, so he pre-empts any such attempt with that lame " isn't a lie, it's an error" crap. So, anyway, now you have the address to correct them in the "errors". I figure I'm going to start mailing them transcripts daily of everything Al Franken says.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:26 PM | Comments (0)
Mainstream News Media Still Coddling President Clinton « Media Distortions »

The scoop from Ace.


Ever notice that when the media is reporting on something that is potentially damaging to Clinton, they get very vague about the administration the event occurred under? They can never bring themselves to say "Clinton." The best they can do is provide a vague date that allows you to figure out who was the President at the time.

I can't help but think they're hoping readers don't bother doing the math themselves.

I've seen this dozens of times. Hell, I've even seen them misidentify the President during 1999 or 2000 as George Bush in their rush to pin something on the current administration.

He gives two specific clear examples. Go read. Now, if you haven't yet. Or later this afternoon a second time, if you have once already. It's worth re-reading.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:20 AM | Comments (2)
NYT: The "T" is for "Treason" « Media Distortions »

The mainline news media continues to fight against the United States with the New York Times as its vanguard.

Need some evidence? Check out this article. (Note: I got there without needing a subscription by way of Google News)

Check out this sentence:

The deal made scant mention of the fate of Mr. Sadr himself. The capture of Mr. Sadr, who is accused of planning the murder of a rival imam, was one of the reasons American forces started the fighting, which is estimated to have cost more than 500 lives.

This is demonstrably slanted against the United States.

1) American forces did not start the fighting. We arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's leading subordinates, and they started the fighting in protest and pre-emptive protection of Muqtada, who is wanted for murder but protected by armed guards.

2) 500 deaths? Who died, specifically? If they know it was more than 500, can't they determine how many were non-combatants? Can't they determine how many US Soldiers were killed in ambushes? Can't they determine how many US Soldiers were killed by Muqtada's forces breaking a cease-fire they requested? The bulk of the 500 killed were thugs, terrorists, and illegal militia who broke all internationally accepted Rules of Engagement. But the New York Times obscures those facts. If that was an unintentional obfuscation, then the reporters are incompetent and the paper is a worthless rag undeserving of press credentials. If it was deliberate, it is treason, pure and simple. The editors of the New York Times should be held accountable for their actions.

Update:: If these reporters are American, then they, too are traitors.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:24 AM | Comments (0)

June 04, 2004

Biased News Media « Media Distortions »

Every time I read polls like these, I can't help thinking that each report of negative attitudes from the population should be prefaced with the phrase, "And in a victory for mainstream news media,"

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:24 AM | Comments (2)

May 24, 2004

May 16, 2004

Mother's Day Post, Revisited « Media Distortions »

A few comments were left regarding this post last week.

They were left while I was in transit, and I wanted to take some time to respond to them more fully, so I didn't get to it until now.

Read More "Mother's Day Post, Revisited" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:28 PM | Comments (4)

May 15, 2004

Objective Reporting? « Media Distortions »

Can't find it at the New York Times, obviously.

...and here's one example.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:09 PM | Comments (0)

May 13, 2004

Reporting Anything That Supports Conservatives Is Inethical « Media Distortions »

At least, that's the only conclusion that can be made from watching the "non-" liberal news media fall all over themselves in their haste to publicize photographs of US servicemembers abusing prisoners, and yet minimize any publicity of Nick Berg's execution.

Heck, where are all the people who were saying we should show coffins of US soldiers? Shouldn't they at least be urging the "non-" liberal news media to show the execution with the more graphic parts blurred?

I'm guessing we won't see that happen. It is becoming more and more difficult to deny that the left is cold-bloodedly attempting to manipulate coverage of the deaths of Americans for political gain.

Here's a deeper look at the issue. Take a look.

(Link via Jeff G.)

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:50 AM | Comments (0)

May 09, 2004

Reporting Facts is Inethical (UPDATED) « Media Distortions »

Thanks to Kevin for calling my attention to this piece by Kevin Paul. A different Kevin, I mean.

My first thought was: Maybe they should do another study to find out what erroneous views are held by watchers of other news outlets; for instance, that these other viewers might believe no evidence of WMD was found in Iraq (wrong: evidence's just that a definitive presence has not been established), that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and terror (again, wrong: evidence's just that a definitive connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has never been established, nor does it need to, because Saddam's connections to international terror organizations is undeniable; it's a media red herring to keep mentioning no connection has been drawn from Saddam to 9/11: no one is even looking!). So why doesn't someone look into the views of the average CNBC viewer?

UPDATE: Thanks to all the losers and trolls who have stopped by to leave totally stupid and immature comments. If your comment doesn't pass a 'basic intelligence' test, it will be edited. Using any sort of profanity in your comment is sure to get me to edit it, and the results won't make you look good.

Instead of spewing stupidity, why not try actually thinking for once? I know that's very difficult for liberal brats like you, and liberals tend to avoid difficult things, but you could do it if you tried.

Fact: Clear connections between Saddam and terror, including clear connnections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Anyone who willfully refuses to recognize those facts will earn nothing but derision.

Read More "Reporting Facts is Inethical (UPDATED)" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:33 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1)
» damnum absque injuria links with: Dog Trainer: If it Ain't Liberal Journalism, it Ain't Journalism

May 05, 2004

April 29, 2004

Why I Hate The Mainstream News Media « Media Distortions »

By now, you've heard how our supposedly unbiased news media has pretty much refused to do much reporting on the UNSCAM "Oil for Food" program. And how the press really hasn't done much investigation into or reporting on the chemical attack planned in Jordon with weapons that came from Syria and training that came from Iraq (if the chemical weapons didn't originate from there, as well).

If you haven't heard the blogosphere complaining about the press not doing its job on this, well, you need to get out more, I guess.

Here's one man's take on the whole deal. I'm pretty much exactly in line with it.

Read More "Why I Hate The Mainstream News Media" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:55 AM | Comments (0)

April 26, 2004

Great News! « Media Distortions »

People who know me fairly well have probably heard me rant against the choices of news media available to us in this country.

Despite the insistence from fairly liberal/leftish people that CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast news channels are unbiased, I get tired of having to constantly read between the lines and discount the liberal spin of those outlets.

Sure, I feel that way because I'm conservative. So I guess I'm supposed to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News and take my marching orders from some as-yet-unidentified marching-order-channel run by Karl Rove or something. Nope. I don't like Rush Limbaugh and don't listen to the radio in any case. I don't like Bill O'Reilly, and I don't really like the stories that Fox chooses to highlight.

So what do I do?

Read More "Great News!" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:09 AM | Comments (0)

April 21, 2004

April 20, 2004

Viewpoint Alert! « Media Distortions »

Bush support holds despite Iraq, 9/11 hearings

Might I suggest a different title? Perhaps that should be "...because of Iraq, 9/11 hearings"

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:20 AM | Comments (0)
Pay "Gap" « Media Distortions »

It's like "Whack-A-Mole" matter how many times this meme gets shot down by th cold, hard light of reason and facts, they can always find some reporter credulous and lazy enough to repeat what they're told without doing any actual investigative journalism.

Oh, here's the article.

Read More "Pay "Gap"" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:10 AM | Comments (1)

April 13, 2004

I Defer the Question « Media Distortions »

Over here, Zombyboy asks a question. Well, he implies it with this:

If I feel that way, I wonder how every soldier who wakes up in service this morning feels.

I recognize that the inclusion of "I wonder" renders the statement largely rhetorical...but as a servicemember myself who is extremely tired of the left failing to castigate their own for idiotic statements as much as the right castigated Trent Lott for his idiotic statement, I thought I'd respond.

Except that it was a non-servicemember who put it best, I think.

Go read Steve's take on the whole article.

Here's the obligatory excerpt:

Rooney implies that if you asked a whole bunch of US soldiers how they feel about Iraq, they'd tear off their fatigues, exposing T-shirts, and loudly proclaim "Bush equals Hitler." He wants us to think they're over there cursing Bush day and night and writing love letters to Patty Murray.

Not true, of course. Polls suggest morale may need some punching up, but that's about it. Name a conflict in which no soldiers grumbled. Hell, Rooney himself grumbled about working in the oppressive Rather regime at CBS, but he kept plugging along until they put his things in a box outside his office door.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:23 AM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2004

They Were Let Off Lightly? « Media Distortions »

This article makes me quite angry.

U.S. soldiers accused of rape and other sex crimes while serving in Iraq routinely dodged prosecution during the past year with the help of commanders who gave them light punishments such as reprimands and pay cuts, according to military records released to the Denver Post.

Troops facing sex offenses were given job-related punishments -- which offer no prospect of prison time -- nearly five times as often as those charged with other crimes.

Such leniency also was granted to soldiers accused of serial crimes. Though investigators compiled evidence to prosecute a sergeant for sexually assaulting three subordinate battalion members, he was only given a reprimand, records show.

And though evidence was gathered to prosecute a military police officer for one of two rape allegations, reports show his commanders merely dropped him in rank and discharged him at his request.

I'm angry because the writer of the article does not understand military culture enough to understand that an Article 15 can actually be a very serious punishment. I'm angry because "accusation" is used as if it is a synonym for "conviction". I'm angry because "gathered evidence to prosecute" does not mean there was enough evidence to prosecute. I'm angry because it is after-the-fact hindsight second-guessing that implies the the person charged was absolutely and provably guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the commanders deliberately lessened the punishment to perpetuate some Good 'Ol Boy attitude that sexual assault is unimportant.

Horse Puckey.

Women do make unfounded accusations of rape and sexual assault. Sexual assault and rape are often difficult to prove if they aren't witnessed or if the woman doesn't get a medical exam in a timely manner. What do you do if it comes down to a case of "He Said/She Said"? In the civilian world, absolutely nothing. In the military world, the male soldier will get, at the very least, a thoroughly masterful dressing down for even allowing himself to be in a situation that looked bad. He'll get screamed at by at least three levels of the chain of command. The accusation will remain in his record, and even a dismissed allegation can prevent him from getting promoted. If the commander has some idea that the accusation is correct, but cannot prove it, he is still within his rights to take money and time from a soldier just because he wants to; the control enjoyed by a commander is total. And believe me, you spend enough of your time away from home trying to earn too little money to live on that losing half your pay for even one month is a serious blow, as is having to do extra duty for 4 hours a night for a month. They make darn certain that the extra duty is not enjoyable.

This whole article is a study of half-truths and lies. The military takes rape and sexual assault far more seriously and prosecutes it far more vigorously than any corporation I know. I had been on station less than a month when a 1st Lt was kicked out of the service with a Dishonorable Discharge for doing nothing more than having consensual sex with an adult enlisted member not in his chain of command. Name one other corporation or institution worldwide that would go to that length to protect its employees.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:14 AM | Comments (0)
» Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon links with: Scattershooting
» Weekend Pundit links with: He's Back!

April 09, 2004

Very Important « Media Distortions »

Go check this out. CNN shows they ain't exactly reporting and letting us decide.

Via Protein Wisdom

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:59 PM | Comments (0)