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

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Culture: Color Me Racist



Your Ad Here


Color Me Racist
Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
September 17, 2009



Its now official. I'm a racist. No less than a former president of the United States has declared that if I oppose the takeover of 17% of our economy under the guise of health care reform, I hate black people.

According to President Carter, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's objection to a 'misstatement' in President Obama's speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president. And a Rasmussen survey shows that fully 12% of Americans agree with him.




The old media has chimed in, with the left's favorite columnist, Maureen Dowd, going a step further. Rep. Joe Wilson said, "You lie' to Obama. But Maureen Dowd heard, "You lie, boy." Boy being one of the many politically incorrect words the left has decided is an indicator of racism. Point made. Case closed.
Another columnist, E. Danielle Egan, has joined the growing chorus. In the Philadelphia Enquirer, Egan blithely dismissed the app. 2 million protestors who turned out last weekend to protest Obama's policies, writing them off as illegitimate. "So I have decided it's time that what I've been watching be called what I believe it is: racism." She continues, "The level of rage being expressed is different and out of sync with what we know from the past." I guess she was visiting Atlantis during the Bush years, or something.

And just in case anyone has missed the point, ABC has devoted a full story to the racist motives of the Obama protestors.
So there. The media and political elite have spoken. Any opposition to Obama means the protestor is a bad person. A person unable to see beyond the color of his skin. A racist. (Isn't that called profiling?)

Conveniently for these elites, they have also decided that responding to ignorant racists is quite beneath them. Being a racist is bad, therefore there is absolutely no need to respond to the underlying complaint. Whew.
This is the ultimate free pass. It almost makes me wish I had been born black. Then I could make any claims I want, without any facts to back them up, and still maintain the moral high ground. I could blame every bad decision I ever made on racism and, best of all, put my opponents in the impossible situation of trying to prove a negative.

I would gain membership in the ever growing class of 'victims', which automatically grants me immunity from the normal rules of civilized behavior.
The fact that Joe Wilson was quite correct in branding Obama a liar is not the point. By diverting the issue to racial animus, Obama's 'misstatement' is conveniently overlooked. This is called a win-win situation.
Wilson's audacity in branding Obama a liar has caused a national firestorm. The left is in high dudgeon, quickly spinning the truth of Wilson's (admittedly disrespectful) assertion into a condemnation of his integrity, topping it off with the unprecedented act of issuing a formal rebuke from the House. Bad boy! (Can I say that?)
Not mentioned in this national brou haha is Sen Reid's Dec 15, 2004 statement, where he called called President Bush a liar. "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

I guess its OK to call white guys liars. Even when they can't come up with any specific lie. Its just something everyone knows. Bush lied. Strangely enough, I've never been taken up on my challenge to pay $100.00 to anyone who can cite a specific lie that Bush told. I digress.
Also not included in the conversation the left is successfully controlling, is President Obama's statement last week branding Kanye West a jackass. But, hey, West is black...this is starting to get confusing.
I'm in awe of the left. Though they have admitted not knowing the details of the 1,000 plus pages of the Obama health care 'reform', they have managed to divine what is in my heart. And the hearts of millions of others. And it's called racism.
Despite having elected a black president, the left would have us believe that the millions of whites who voted for Obama still hate black people. They would have us believe that, even though we can't see it, racism is still a dominant force in America. Its just evolved into the silent 'institutional' kind of racism that no one can quantify. But it's still there. I guess we just have to take their word for it. If we dare question their premise, we're racists. Game, set and match.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina





Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 14, 2008

AP Notices Obama Refusal to Answer Questions about Blagovich, Rahm Emanuel



Your Ad Here


Obama, Chicago and Blagojevich:
The Media Asks Questions--After the Election






The AP is Curious About Obama


The AP thinks it's a story when Barack Obama refuses to answer any questions.

That the former junior senator from Illinois didn't have to answer many during the campaign might have something to do with his present stance.


President-elect Barack Obama is refusing to answer any questions about the internal review he has ordered into Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged efforts to sell his former Senate seat, saying he will do so when the examination is finished.

Obama's staff has declined to respond to even basic questions, like who is conducting the probe, how long it will take, what issues are being explored and whether they are working with federal investigators. Obama has promised transparency throughout his service and to divulge contacts his staff has had with Blagojevich's office in the coming days. But his staff has locked down on inquiries in the meantime.

The Obama transition team's refusal to talk has contributed to a maelstrom around Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago congressman likely to have been in contact with the governor, who was arrested this week in a corruption scandal. But Emanuel is not a target of the probe, according to people who have been briefed on the investigation.


Barack Obama, international man of mystery lists 51 things that we do know about Obama, including the fascinating facts that the President-elect enjoys Scrabble and poker.


ALSO at DBKP:
* Who is Barack Obama?
Over 60 stories on the unreleased records, citizenship questions and murky past that the Mainstream Media didn't think newsworthy during the campaign.
* Obama’s Rezko Ties: Cook County Clerk’s Office Lists Attorney as Owner Of Obama Chicago Home
Obama doesn't own his home?
* Obama Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Chicago Home Mortgage $903,000 over Legal Limit
Obama Fun Financing Facts!


Obama supporters may become confused about the Mainstream Media's new-found curiosity over the president-elect. What's all of the chatter about? Didn't Obama say that he didn't know anything?

That answer seemed to work just fine during the primaries and general election. Why won't that answer satisfy the press now?

As RidesAPaleHorse points out, the latest revelations from Chicago may become "Senategate"--or just the World's Largest Dog & Pony Show.


by Mondo Frazier
image: RidesAPaleHorse




Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

NY Times Jodi Kantor: Are Journalists the New Internet Predators?



Your Ad Here


Parent Alert!
NY Times reporter sought teens on Facebook
by Rhonda Roland Shearer
Stinky Journalism




[ABOVE: Cartoon depicts a NY Times sanctioned reporting method--contacting teens on Facebook-- that new guidelines only require "prior consultation" with editors.]



Clark Hoyt, The New York Times public editor, recently wrote about a "troubling issue" regarding how the Times deals with minors. Times reporter, Jodi Kantor, wrote what, Hoyt described, was "an unflattering front-page profile of Cindy McCain." Kantor's reporting methods included soliciting teenagers on FaceBook who attended Ms. McCain's daughter's school. Hoyt said, "Trying to find sources for information about Mrs. McCain, a reporter reached out to 16- and 17-year-olds through Facebook, the social networking site."

He continued, "Although the reporter, Jodi Kantor, said in a message to the teenagers that she was ' just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like,' people I heard from thought it was wrong. 'Disgusting,' said Gwilym McGrew of Woodland Hills, Calif. 'Will she be contacting my 12-year-old soon, too?' " Indeed.

Kantor claimed she was not trolling for teens, just their parents. But the count tells the truth. She contacted only one school versus "eight or nine" teens. Her asymmetrical actions state loud and clear that Kantor was seeking teens to find out "what she [McCain] is like as a mother?"



[ABOVE: Are journalists a new kind of Internet predator? Must parents warn teens not to speak to journalists? Image of Jodi Kantor, NY Times reporter, who improperly sought teens on Facebook.]


Kantor's negative profile on Ms. McCain would naturally lead one to question, post hoc, if her upbeat message to the teenagers, was pure deception from the start.

Just exactly what did Kantor write?

Continue reading: Parent Alert!


by Rhonda Roland Shearer
image/source: Stinky Journalism






Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Who Is Barack Obama: Library of DBKP Articles and Videos



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama:
Who Is Barack Obama? Library of DBKP Articles



UPDATED: December 4 2008
DBKP Stories on Barack Obama:

* The Obama Birth Certificate
* The Unreleased Records of Barack Obama
* Obama and Bill Ayers
* Obama and COusin Raila Odinga
* Obama's Relatives
* Obama and Socialism
* Obama and Larry Sinclair: Debunking Larry Sinclair
* Obama and Rashid Khalidi
* Obama's Global Poverty Act
* Related Stories
* African Press International: The Michelle Obama Tapes



Over 70 DBKP stories on "Who is Barack Obama?"



The OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE





compiled by Mondo
images: dbkp file




Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Obama Birth Certificate News: December 4 2008



Your Ad Here


Obama Birth Certificate:
Denofrio v Wells Referred to Conference
By Full Court--Not Just Justice Thomas



Obama Birth Certificate News:
December 4 2008



Leo Denofrio sued NJ Secretary of State Nina Wells over the eligibility of presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Roger Calero.

Calero isn't even a U.S. citizen, yet appeared on NJ's presidential ballot.

The Denofrio v. Wells case was actually referred to conference by the full Court, not just Justice Clarence Thomas.

From A little twist on Donofrio's case. Keep your eyes open on December 5th!:
12/1/08 - Donofrio's case in the Supreme Court was actually referred to conference by the full Court, not just Justice Clarence Thomas. Bob Vernon, from the Plains Radio Network, spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Pulic Information at the SCOTUS. She confirmed that Mr. Donofrio's application was first referred to conference by Thomas on the 19th, but after that referral, the full Court distributed the application for Conference on December 5, 2008. Unusual. The docket was not clear to these facts.



ALSO at DBKP:
The Obama Birth Certificate Questions
The Lack of Obama Records



* Obama Birth Certificate Controversy: Who Verifies a Candidate is Legit?
* Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Story Heats up at World Net Daily
* Obama Birth Certificate, Citizenship: SCOTUS Conference Scheduled for Dec 5
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records
* Obama Birth Certificate: Ruling in Berg v. Obama Expected In Next Two Days- UPDATED
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Video Released On YouTube
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Updates, News and Reactions
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: The Curious Behavior of the Obama Campaign
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation


Question

* Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Constitutional Eligibility?
A number of lawsuits have been filed over the birth certificate and citizenship of Barack Obama. Are the courts the right place to determine the answer? If not the courts, who, what or where? What’s the correct procedures? We asked What’s Your Evidence to get some some evidence on who or what determines Constitutional presidential eligibility.


* Obama Birth Certificate: Status of Major Court Cases
Obama’s birth certificate: A number of lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts. What’s the status on them? A look at four of the cases and where they are.

* There are fact-checking sites, and then there are sites that actually check facts. Annenberg FactCheck.org does a less-than-objective job of fact checking political questions: they're heavy on attitude, substituting disdain and snarkiness for facts.

However, another fact-checking site fact checked Phillip Berg (of Berg v Obama): What's Your Evidence?. It does a good job of sorting through the numerous claims with links to sources and WYE does a good job of sticking to the facts.



Who is Barack Obama?

WORLD NET DAILY DOSE

  • ANOTHER COINCIDENCE? 'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision': Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'.
    An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

    A little pre-2008 planning, perhaps?

  • MSM STARTING to NOTICE. The Russian MSM, that is: Pravda raises Obama eligibility issue
    "Even the Russian online newspaper Pravda featured a column about "the man with no visible past.""

  • WND Founder, James Farrah: Our system is broken.
    "...there is at least serious doubt about the constitutional eligibility of the man likely to be voted in as the next president by the Electoral College Dec. 15.

    If this happens, the question of eligibility for the highest office in the land will no longer even be a matter for concern. Precedent will have been established. Arnold Schwarzenegger will suddenly be eligible to run for the office in 2012. No new law will have to be passed. The Constitution will not need to be amended. The age requirement will also have to be set aside."




TWO-FER:

Various state cases filed against Barack Obama over citizenship: America Wants to Know!

ANOTHER PROBLEM: Dead California Elector: Irregularities Found in California



MSM Changes from Blackout to Apologia
Obama Birth Certificate:
In the News December 4, 2008



Ratings:
Pro-O: Pro-Obama story; not interested in Obama providing an original birth certificate.
Pro-D: Pro-disclosure; for the release of Barack Obama's original birth certificate; something Obama has not done to date.
MB: Mixed bag.

  1. CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office RATING: Pro-O

  2. KC STAR: Anti-Obama bloggers challenge birthplace
    Obama’s campaign tried to settle all doubts months ago when it digitally scanned for all Web browsers to view a “certification of live birth,” signed by Hawaii’s registrar of vital statistics and carrying the state’s seal.

    KC Star does not mention even non-residents can obtain a certificate of live birth. Also cites FactCheck.org, though the writer doesn't mention if he's citing the first FC article or their second one which fact checked their first one. RATING: Pro-O.

  3. DETROIT FREE PRESS: Supreme Court to consider hearing case challenging Obama’s citizenship
    Good article with nothing but the facts--a rarity.

  4. MINN-ST.PAUL STAR-TRIBUNE: Blog House: Born in the USA? Yes, he was Yesterday's warmed-over gruel of MSM rumors. RATING: Pro-O.



by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file




Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 17, 2008

Obama Selective Service Registration: Another Record, Another Question



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama, Selective Service Registration:
Questions, More Questions, Still More Questions



No Curiosity Excited in the Mainstream Media
About Obama's Selective Service Registration



Say what you will, Debbie Schlussel is interesting.

Last week, the motor behind debbieschlussel.com posted an interesting article about the Selective Service registration of Barack Obama. Multiple screenshots--complete with letters A-H highlighting areas that raised questions--make the provocative post must-reading for anyone who has wondered about the squeaky-clean, scrubbed Obama narrative.

In our opinion, Schlussel gets some things right, while other items are a bit less clear. One claim Schlussel makes that falls into the "dubious" category: Obama signed his name with a peace sign. Our view is that this is an overly-dramatic interpretation; interested readers can visit Schlussel's site, examine the BHO signature and make their own judgment.

DBKP attempted to contact Schlussel, but got no response.

From EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions:

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.


Breitbart TV's B-Cast did an informative show on the subject, interviewing Schussel, who walked viewers through the document and the questions about its authenticity.

Though the video is 30 minutes, it's well worth watching for those who are interested in our next Commander-in-Chief's past. Many pieces of the Obama puzzle are, and have been, hidden from public view--including birth, medical, college and university records.

During the campaign, the Mainstream Media exhibited a singular lack of curiosity about their Fab Fave candidate and his past, preferring instead to quote from Obama's two memoirs or the campaign's canned answers.

Inquires about actual records--which would've helped shed light on Obama's background--was a subject that, like the John Edwards' Scandal--remained off-limits in the polite MSM conversations that passed for election news.



ALSO at DBKP: The Missing Records of Barack Obama

* Unreleased Obama Records: Did Obama Attend Columbia?
* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records


Medical Records
Occidental College Records
Columbia University Records
Harvard University Records
Birth Records
University of Chicago Records
Khalidi Video





QUESTIONS:
Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration
The Video



Schlussel's document source--a retired federal employee--does enough detective work to excite interest in normally-inquisitive reporters. Normally-inquisitive reporters are in short supply in the MSM, however, when the subject turns to favored presidential candidates.

In a later update to Schlussel's original post, she provides some information on her source. Schlussel's source is no pajamas-clad basement dweller:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.


About the image at Schlussel's site: it was noted that the date stamped on the form provided by Selective Service and the date on the signature line were different. The differing dates between when the SSR form was signed and the date stamped on the form?

It could be just an honest mistake.

Several other parts of the document are not so easily explained away, particularly the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form.

Obama supporters have claimed that the documents are fake--what else would they say?--but Schlussel has updated her post today with a copy of the letter that Coffman received from the Selective Service Administration, along with the document.





Another Honest Mistake?

Back in September 2007, Newsbusters' Tom Blumer made a quick fact check on another of Obama's Selective Service registration claims. From O-Busted: Selective Service Requirement Did Not Exist When Obama Says He Registered:

In his hilariously titled post ("Mighta Joined If He Coulda Capped Some Cong") on Barack Obama's interview in a barn this morning (not kidding) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, fellow NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported on Obama's answer to a viewer's question about whether he ever considered military service. You can read Mark's post for his overall thoughts, but I want to focus on something the Illinois senator said that several commenters at the post took exception to:

You know, I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. .... But keep in mind: I graduated in 1979.

There are only two "little" problems:

  1. Selective Service Registration was not possible in 1979.
  2. Bob Owens at Pajamas Media noted that Obama registered with the Selective Service with an effective date of September 4, 1980.


Could be another example of another honest mistake.



At least Selective Service has provided some documentation. Previously--at least in February 2008--there was no Selective Service number for Barack Obama at the Selective Service website.

President Bush released his Selective Service Registration Number, why won't Senator Obama?

His campaign just sidesteps the issues as to whether he did register.

The Selective Service, while not releasing his number, claim that the reason you get "No Record Found" when you check for his registation on their website (www.sss.gov ) is because of a dataprocessing error. It seems out of the millions and millions of records, Senator Obama's is the only one that does not show up!


Perhaps, it was just another honest mistake.



One More Honest Mistake?

Bob Owens at Pajamas Media addressed Internet chatter about the Obama Selective Service issue in August 2008, "Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?". It should be noted that Owens wrote his piece without benefit of the document provided by Schlussel's source.

It is a rumor that the Obama campaign has chosen to ignore despite numerous requests, and it is a rumor that even Snopes couldn’t seem to confirm or deny definitively.

After contacting the Selective Service System for an answer several times since late June, Pajamas Media obtained official confirmation from the Selective Service System via email that Barack Obama did indeed register for the Selective Service as required by law, and is eligible to run for the presidency.

Mr. Owens,

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist



While we agree with most of what Owens usually writes, he seems to belong to a subset of bloggers who ascribe all questions concerning the murkiness surrounding Obama's documentation as "rumor-mongers" or "conspiracy theorists".



Prior to September 2008, we included ourselves in this subset. However, the increasing questions about most things in the past of Barack Obama have moved us into another group: the "Missouri-minded".

As in, "Show me".

It seems to us that one, two, possibly three questions concerning Obama records and documents might be given a pass.

But, everything?

When dealing with Obama's background, an incredible pattern of coincidences--which we don't believe--occurs. Whatever the document, whatever the question: the Obama campaign ignored it--until the issue became troublesome.

Then, they would release only enough of an answer to satisfy the very few in the MSM who'd had the brass to ask. Supporters and apologists would then rush in to condemn anyone who wanted a follow-up answer.

Obama's campaign started a website to combat rumors: fightthesmears.com. The only problem, it didn't. Picking and choosing mostly straw-men, the website was a brilliant concept: label inconvenient information that didn't fit the campaign/media narrative about the candidate as "smears".

The Obama campaign used its Internet site to discredit other Internet sites with which it disagreed. Any story that threatened to gain traction was branded a "smear" and relegated to fightthesmears.com, where Obama's thin resume/record was repackaged as Internet fact, wrapped with a bow of indignation.

Harkening back to the 1990s, it's remembered that "conspiracy theorist" was applied to those publications (notably American Spectator) which uncovered uncomfortable questions concerning Bill and Hillary Clinton's past.

When Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination for presidency, a now pro-Obama MSM--which derided those with questions over Hillary's cattle futures and other bits and pieces from Arkansas when they mattered--suddenly ran many of those stories 10-15 years after the fact.

Barack Obama and his apologists apparently remember that particular lesson very well: like the 1990s Clintons, persistent questions about the sanitized version of Obama only come from "conspiracy theorists".


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file; wikimedia




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Papercuts Poll: Which MSM Organization is Most Unreliable?



Your Ad Here



POLL: Which Mainstream Media Organization is
The MOST Unreliable?

November 11-30 2008







With all of the true confessions now hitting the public about the off-kilter coverage of the election, we thought we'd ask a question.

Which "news" organization was the worst?

The Washington Post has already admitted that the paper's coverage heavily favored Barack Obama. Newsweek's editors then went on the record about their doubts about "media creation" Obama's "creepy" "cult of personality" supporters.

The LA Times--after trying out a variety of excuses--wouldn't release a video of Obama toasting former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 gala.

The NY Times has been silent, but that may be because the paper laid off its ombudsman in the latest round of lay-offs. We're only speculating.

TIME featured Obama on the cover more times over the last 42 weeks (10) than it did Princess Diana (eight) over her lifetime.

MSNBC's ratings are proof the network is not watched--and not to be taken seriously as a news source.

Pick a winner below. We'll announce the results after Thanksgiving in a few weeks.



"Which Mainstream Media (MSM) news organization was the most unreliable during the Election 2008?"


gambling Free polls


Poll opens November 11, 2008.
Poll closes November 30, 2008.

Posted by Mondo
image: dbkp file




Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Martin Eisenstadt-Palin Hoax: No Harm, No Foul



Your Ad Here


True Confessions:
Martin Eisenstadt Story a HOAX
The Hoax of Manmade Climate Change Still Not Reported







Sarah Palin Africa Story Leaker is a Hoax
--But, HOAX Quickly Discovered

Yesterday's story from an obscure blog, Martin Eisenstadt's Blog, claimed the author the source of the "Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent" news leak.

"Eisenstadt the source for Sarah Palin Africa leak...and Proud of it"

By now you’ve all heard the Fox News report last week that “unnamed” former McCain advisers
leaked that Sarah Palin was confused about whether Africa was a continent, and which countries were in NAFTA. I was perfectly happy staying under the radar as an anonymous source for Fox News‘ Carl Cameron, but now that Palin has accused her accusers of being “unprofessional…jerks…cowards… taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news” and begun to cast doubt on the Fox News report, maybe she’s right to a certain extent. For those of us on the McCain campaign who thought that she acted like a rogue diva and lost John the election, maybe we DO have a responsibility to come out in public. But Sarah… careful what you ask for: some of us may have more to reveal.

So yes, to be clear, last week I was the one who leaked those things to a producer at Fox News who works with Cameron. Carl and his producers are good guys, and I don’t want them to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer ala Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this.




The story turns out to be as believable as the original leaks were.

That is, they were a hoax.

Some reported on the Eisenstadt revelation; some didn't.

The hoax was caught fairly quickly and alerts issued. MSNBC broadcast the hoax as fact before they caught it. Anyone who watched MSNBC's election coverage couldn't tell any difference in the network's accuracy--either before or after the hoax broadcast.

But we say, whether you wrote or broadcast it or not: it was discovered quickly, so no harm, no foul.




Allah Pundit summed it up pretty well, Video: MSNBC falls for Palin/Eisenstadt hoax

Specifically, this hoax. I’d love to throw stones at them and TNR, but people on our own side were taken in too.

Guys? The post at Shakespeare’s Sister revealing the hoax is linked on the first page of the Google results for “Martin Eisenstadt.” Remember these goofball viral “ads” for Giuliani? Anything look familiar?

The “Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy”? Named after one of America’s worst presidents, whose term in office lasted two years with zero foreign policy accomplishments?


We'd agree with all of that and add one observation. At least TNR didn't take months to report that they'd been had--unlike the Beauchamp diaries fiasco.

Some of the places commenting on the whole affair--both pre- and post-hoax--are listed below.




One Hoax Remains Unreported by the MSM




At least the Eisenstadt story was exposed early on. Most of the places who reported on it were good sports, such as ACE: HOAX: Martin Eisenstadt Admits He's One of Palin-Smear Leakers; Threatens to "Reveal" More

Now that I put a face to the made-up persona, I can see it seems a bit unlikely that a 28 year old NYC hipster-wannabe is a major McCain foreign policy adviser.

Well, he got me.

TNR Retracts... But refuses to credit Allah for alerting them to the hoax.

Note: A dinky site would notice the Hot Air traffic. Not only is Michael Crowley a dupe (as I was), but now he's a dishonest one, pretending that he discovered the hoax on his own.



The only thing we'd disagree with Ace about is the "dupe" label.

Once upon a time, the media reported news. If the news turned out to be false, they reported that also. Then, the name of the media game became, "We're going to hold stories until every last detail can be confirmed".

Fine.

But that policy then morphed into, "We're going to hold stories that we don't think readers have the finely-tuned understanding and reasoning skills about which to make a judgment".

Finally, that policy became--at many MSM outlets--"We're going to hold stories that we don't agree with or that we think are detrimental to our editorial policy".

That policy was responsible for ABC's refusal to air one minute of coverage on the John Edwards scandal--until Edwards turned up on ABC's Nightline on August 8 and started talking about mistresses and babies and hush money and getting caught in the Beverly Hilton.

Imagine ABC viewers' surprise when they learned that the story had been on-going for ten months and they were kept in the dark.

The New York Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, CBS, and the LA Times, among others, duped their readers/viewers for months during the primary and general elections on any number of unreported topics concerning Barack Obama.

They are duping them still on the issue of climate change, though that will be harder to pull off--especially when their news customers are digging out from underneath three feet of global warming.

So, the Eisenstadt 'confession' about the Sarah Palin leaks was a hoax.

Big deal.

It was quickly exposed in the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the other hoaxes which pass for 'news' in daily Mainstream Media reporting continue.

The Eisenstadt hoax was discovered and reported upon. It's a mistake to think that anyone reporting on the original story somehow had their credibility harmed when they quickly reported that it was a sham story.

The man-made climate change hoax has been discovered, but remains largely unreported in the Mainstream Media.

It's when long-running stories have two sides and readers/viewers only hear one of them from supposed "objective news sources" that credibility--and bottom lines--plunge.

Getting hoaxed? Big deal.

Continuing to report a hoax after there's doubt the story is true?

That's everyday policy at most MSM organizations.



by Mondo Frazier
image: kucheats




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 8, 2008

MSM Obama Confession Time: WashPo, NewsWeek, MSNBC, LA Times



Your Ad Here


Bias on Record:
Washington Post
Chris Matthews
Newsweek
Los Angeles Times







Mainstream Media: Yes We Can!

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post completely agrees [An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage]:

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


Human Gaffe Machine Joe Biden?

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


John at Power Line wasn't surprised [Ho Hum] and offers a possible solution.

Howell finds that the Post's coverage of Sarah Palin was especially biased. To which my response is, tell us something we didn't already know. Anyone who can still be shocked by newspapers' liberal bias hasn't been paying attention for a long time. The Washington Post is a Democratic newspaper, and a good one, for the most part. As I've said before, the Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party. But it would be foolish to expect objectivity from what is essentially an arm of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives should stop talking about media bias and start founding (or buying) some newspapers of our own. Of course, until that happens we'll probably still complain about bias from time to time.


Ed Morrissey at Hot Air [Right on time!] sums up DBKP's position on the matter exactly.

Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column. We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media. And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself.




Gateway Pundit has a video of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. [Now That the Election is Over... Media Admits Bias For Obama] Matthews declares that his job as a journalist is to continue his Grand Obama Pimp he perfected during his election coverage.

There will be no traditional press honeymoon between Chris Matthews and Barack Obama, Matthews already having been guilt of the press equivalent of premarital sex.

Journalists not only love new...
They love Democrats.
Sarah Palin was new but they raked her over the coals.
Such is the demise of our mainstream media.
The one thing that is clear after this election-- If you want to find the truth you will have to go elsewhere for your news.

Two words-- Rashid Khalidi.



Jammie Wearing Fool, WaPo Ombudsman: Yes, We Were Completely In the Tank for Obama :

They found plenty of space to go over McCain's health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama's drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I'm sure they'll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.


It's to the Washington Post's credit to admit that its coverage emanated from within the tank. We may see more stories like this.

More likely, we'll see the usual apologia from the MSM about how they were non-biased stalwarts looking out for the interests of the unwashed sheeple who remain as their customers.



NEW YORK Times



Since the NY Times ceased being a serious journalistic endeavor some time ago, we'll let its horrific coverage of Election 2008 pass without comment.




LA Times and the Khalidi Video

The Lost Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of the Obamas, Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers is well-documented. The LA Times previously had ordered its reporters not to write on their blogs about John Edwards getting caught leaving his mistress Rielle Hunter's room at the Beverly Hilton--even after it had been confirmed by Fox News.

* Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED
* John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story

As the LA Times mulls over further lay-offs, it might examine its refusal to provide its remaining customers with a product they seek: news.



NewsWeek Keeps its Obama Thoughts to Itself--until AFTER the Election

Mikes America, at Flopping Aces, tipped off a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek on Charlie Rose: Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):



FA provides the Brokaw video, as well as a transcript, ending with the following observation by MA:

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama? Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?


Yes, they kept all of this out of their publication before the election.

Again, we'll give Meachum and Thomas credit for admitting their bias.

As with the others, they get absolutely no credit for being journalists--their professed profession.



by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)