NGOMPOL: Mainstream Media

Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2009

John Edwards Affair: Grand Jury Decision Awaits Edwards

EDWARDS TO ADMIT PATERNITY
OF RIELLE HUNTER'S DAUGHTER, FRANCES QUINN

EDWARDS AWAITS GRAND JURY DECISION

MAINSTREAM MOUTHPIECE MEDIA (MMM) ALREADY INDICTED

THE 99% HONEST MAN:
"I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby." --John Edwards' statement to the press, August 8 2008.

THE TANGLED WEB

Q: How can you tell when a trial attorney-turned-politician is lying?
A: When his lips are moving.

John Edwards is reportedly finally to admit he is the father of [Sources: Edwards to admit paternity of ex-mistress' child] 18-month-old Frances Quinn Hunter.

What might compel former presidential candidate, John Edwards, to finally come clean about mistress, Rielle Hunter, and daughter, Frances Quinn? [John Edwards to Admit Rielle Hunter’s Love Child His: When Politicians Fail to Keep Their Pants on]. Maybe it's a sudden yearning to demonstrate he's tired of deceiving the public.

Or perhaps, it is the looming grand jury decision on whether he paid his mistress out of campaign funds.

JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL Library
Over 80 articles chronicling the affair from December 2007 to present.

IN GOD WE TRUST
ALL OTHERS (ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS & MEDIA), PAY CASH

In the John Edwards Scandal, the Mainstream Media truly became the Mainstream Mouthpiece Media (MMM), taking the side of a millionaire presidential candidate over their readers' interests; it found a plethora of reasons why it did not investigate the Edwards' allegations.

In Edwards' case, the story came out, not because of the media's handling of the story, but in spite of it.

During the months of the Edwards' scandal, the media instituted their own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Obsessed with managing the news instead of reporting it, in the MMM's eyes, the public's right to know became what was right for the public to know. In fact, it was the MMM's principal defense of their non-coverage of the story.

The attitude festered during the 2008 presidential campaign and continues to the present time.

There was a small segment of the public who didn't want to know; the comments section of many Edwards' articles reveals who those people were. They were, in most cases, blameless, Most likely, they were part of the dwindling readership of big city dailies.

That might be one reason that Public Attitudes toward the media show only one publication gaining in trust over the last 10 years--the National Enquirer.

The Enquirer continues to outperform the dinosaur media to this day. See any of the stories linkied at the bottom of JOHN EDWARDS SECRET DNA TEST PROVES HE'S THE DADDY!.

[image courtesy of http://www.stateofthemedia.org]

Edwards' own "Trend-line in Trust" will have to be guessed at by the reader.

Though not listed, another loser of trust was Wikipedia, which demonstrated that the on-line compendium is less-than-reliable on subjects political, especially contemporary controversial ones. [John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages and John Edwards Love Child: Wikipedia Editor Defends Go-Slow Policies On Edwards Entry]

ONE YEAR and NINE DAYS LATER

* In Mickey Kaus' Edwards' Love Child: Mandatory Gloating Edition, the Edwards scandal is broken down into several easily-digestible parts.

Kaus, one of the few who covered the Edwards' scandal, succinctly details the lies, damn lies and fall-back lies which Edwards hid behind. He also provides a "Historic Gallery of Kossack Krap" and asks plenty of questions. Kaus points out:

If Edwards is in fact the father this entire fallback edifice of BS crumbles. ... It's worth reading the transcript of the ABC interview--practically every sentence out of Edwards' mouth is a lie.

What, Me Lie?
Edwards' August 8 2008 national mea culpa on ABC Nightline
John Edwards Scandal: The Many Faces of Contrition

* DBKP pointed out several of these lies the day of the Edwards' "confession" to ABC [John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Admits Affair, Lies, to ABC News]. Two days later, in John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Continues Deception in Interview, we expanded the list.

A week after Edwards' Nightline appearance, DBKP's exclusive photo [John and Elizabeth Edwards with Rielle Hunter Dec 30, 2006] put the lie to not only Edwards' narrative of the affair, but also Elizabeth Edwards' statement.

The Mouthpiece Media might be excused for a similar quick reaction: it was too busy explaining why it had not asked a single question of Edwards from November 2007 until August 2008 about his curious connections with Hunter.

John and Elizabeth Edwards with Rielle Hunter
December 30 2006
Both Edwards led the public to believe that the affair was over and their "long period of healing" began in 2006.

* Deceiver comments on the recent events: Big Baby to Admit Paternity of Little Baby? and Least Shocking Edwards Story Ever?.

Recall that previously Edwards said he was eager to do the DNA test, but Rielle refused. Which sure was convenient. That’s the problem with hush money: When the money stops, so does the hushing.

* Edwards still harbors the delusion that he is not finished as a national political figure. Apparently, it has not occurred to him that whatever the grand jury decides, he's guilty: either of providing for his mistress with campaign funds--or of merely being just another deadbeat dad.

In either case, only the most narcissistic of politicians would be encouraged.

You know its a lost cause when even the Washington Post admits that John Edwards a Lot Short of 99%.

* Are the Edwards still together? Technically, they are.

DBKP interviewed some residents in the Edwards' neighborhood who say that the couple does not live together. One said that "John does not live at their home, but does watch the kids." Edwards spends a good deal of time during the fall and winter at their residence on Figure Eight Island. Figure Eight Island is a gated private oceanfront community close to Wilmington NC.

* Andrew Young, the political aide-cum-father, readies publication of a tell-all book, complete with John Edwards-Rielle Hunter sex tape revelations.

The basic problem with the book: how much can we believe from the man who (through his attorney in December 2007] claimed he was "the father of Ms. Hunter's unborn child"? [UPDATE: JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL!]

Strangely, at the end of the day, Young may come out the best of the bunch.

Though he lied, he only did so in that December 2007 statement and in exchanges with the National Enquirer's reporters. Both John and Elizabeth Edwards, Rielle Hunter and the media continued their deceptions--sometimes to the public and to themselves--repeatedly.

Andrew Young, though partially motivated by profit, could at least say that he did what he did because of someone in whom he believed.

by Mondo Frazier

Crossed fingers image, courtesy http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

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

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

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Papercuts Poll Results: MSNBC Judged 'Most Unreliable MSM Organization

PAPERCUT POLL Results:
Which Mainstream Media Organization is Most Unreliable?

The results of DBKP's poll, "Which Mainstream Media Organization is Most Unreliable?" are in and we have a winner.

35% of respondents chose MSNBC as the most unreliable, biased MSM organization. Fox News was second with 27%.

THE RESULTS:

MSNBC - 35%
Fox News - 27%
New York Times - 18%
CNN - 7%
Los Angeles Times - 4%
CBS News - 2%
Washinton Post - 2%
Newsweek - 1%
TIME - 1%

The ran from November 11-30 2008 and 741 people participated.

DBKP's current poll question, "POLL: Which NFL Team Will Win Super Bowl XLIII" runs until November 8 2008.

Currently, the NY Giants lead with 26%, followed by the Dallas Cowboys, Pittsburgh Steelers and the Tennesee Titans.

by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Monday, November 17, 2008

The Internet, The MSM: The Migration of Failure

Times' Writer Discovers The Internet:
"Professional Journalists" Seek Foundation Funding
Instead of Customers Seeking News

"They still don't get it, and never will. That's why when their stock value reaches zero, we'll still be here laughing at their demise."
--JammieWearingFool on the New York Times

Six Hundred Visitors a Day
--and All the Pixels You Can Eat

RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA of the New York Times ($7.00 NYSE, down from $21.14 a year ago) turned on his computer and discovered a non-threatening form of Internet--websites that are run by refugees of failed newspapers.

As America’s newspapers shrink and shed staff, and broadcast news outlets sink in the ratings, a new kind of Web-based news operation has arisen in several cities, forcing the papers to follow the stories they uncover.

Here it is VoiceofSanDiego.org, offering a brand of serious, original reporting by professional journalists — the province of the traditional media, but at a much lower cost of doing business. Since it began in 2005, similar operations have cropped up in New Haven, the Twin Cities, Seattle, St. Louis and Chicago. More are on the way.

Their news coverage and hard-digging investigative reporting stand out in an Internet landscape long dominated by partisan commentary, gossip, vitriol and citizen journalism posted by unpaid amateurs.

The San Diego site gets around 18,000 visitors a month--about 600/day--but it's run by "professional journalists" as opposed to "unpaid amateurs", so it's worth some ink in the NY Times. As Jammie Wearing Fool observes ['This Is the Future of Journalism']

Let's see: Partisan commentary, vitriol and gossip? Sounds like your average day on the Times op-ed page. Or, in some cases, what they run on Page 1.

Well, does the Times ever bother to wonder whether some of us also have newspaper experience? Or is that too much for them to comprehend?

Most of us aren't doing this to pay the bills. We're doing it as a counter to the relentless bias brought to us by outlets such as the Times. And over the past several years, those whom they dismiss as unpaid amateurs sure seem to break more news than established outfits.

Bloggers Do the Jobs
American "Professional Journalists" Won't Do

It's not that the Mainstream Media--The NYT is the poster child for floundering fishwraps--can't do their jobs.

It's that they have refused to do their jobs.

MSM news customers obviously have tired of paying for psuedo-intellectual socialist drivel masquerading as "news": Times' customers have deserted the paper in droves. In response to declining circulation, the NYT has continued the same policies; NYT customers have continued their exodus.

There's certainly a demand for liberal, left-leaning, pompous, arrogant, sniveling newspapers in America.

Not just a very big one, apparently.

It's noticed that the "professional journalists" hope to eventually finance their Internet operation by one of the Left's favorite funding mechanisms: foundation grants.

That figures.

When their journalistic enterprise fails to attract real, live paying customers, their impulse is to ask some foundation to pony up some money to insulate them from the effects of a marketplace that is a regular "professional journalist" whipping boy.

If the Ford Foundation can't spare a dime, maybe these Brave New Journalists can get in line for some bailout moolah.

- - - - -

In the Times' mind, it's the medium, not the message that's at fault.

We would disagree.

MSM "Professional journalists"--whether they're pounding the pavement in search of another gig or pounding the keys posting on the Internet--will likely have trouble attracting new customers. There's only so much demand for their product and it's more than met by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, TIME, Newsweek, NY and LA Times, MSNBC and the Washington Post.

MSM "professional journalists" on the Internet?

Not a lot to get excited about.

Really.

After all, paraphrasing the Times' Fab Fave 2008 candidate: you can put lipstick on the NY Times, but it's still the Times.

by Mondo
image: dbkp

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Dog Attacks: Media Labels Other Breeds as Pit Bulls

RAW DEAL!
It's a Rottweiler Photo; Not a Pit Bull !
Media sensationalism leads to inaccuracy about dog attacks
by Rhonda Roland Shearer, StinkyJournalism.org
November 11,2008

[ABOVE: KRMG mistakenly used a Rottweiler dog to illustrate a story about a pit bull attack. Why does the press frequently misidentify non-pit bull dog breeds as "pit bulls"?]

Other Breeds Identified as "Pit Bulls"

The KRMG Local News AP headline blares--“Woman mauled by large pit bull'-- in Tulsa, Oklahoma, October 30, 2008. A photo of a black and brown dog's head accompanied the story. The problem was, the dog that attacked was described by the shelter as white and brown? A further problem was that the dog depicted in the photo, wasn't a pit bull, but a Rottweiler. StinkyJournalism has previously reported on this ongoing media error . The media often sees "mean dogs" as all the same, despite their distinct breed differences .

Indeed, the media loves pit bull news stories. Whether the story is about pit bulls attacking, or on occasion, rescuing people, the pit bull hysteria creates lots of web traffic .

After I informed KRMG editors of their error, the Rottweiler photo quickly disappeared and a notification was posted without explanation: “Editor's Note: Story/picture edited from original post.” But what does this mean?

So was it a pit bull that attacked as the story claimed or was it a Rottweiler ?

Continue reading: It's a Rottweiler Photo; Not a Pit Bull !

by Rhonda Roland Shearer
source/image: It's a Rottweiler Photo; Not a Pit Bull !

Papercuts Poll: Which MSM Organization is Most Unreliable?

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?"

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

Posted by Mondo
image: dbkp file

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Martin Eisenstadt-Palin Hoax: No Harm, No Foul

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.

PJ Gladnick, NewsBusters: Sarah Palin Leaker Outs Himself...and Turns Out to Be a Hoaxer!
Josh Painter, Red State: Eisenstadt outs himself as Palin leaker. Is he a Hoax?
The New Republic: Even More Palin Cluelessness [UPDATED]
HuffPo: Martin Eisenstadt Tricks News Orgs On Being Source Of Palin Dirt
Susan Duclos, Wake Up America: Palin-Eisenstadt Africa Hoax
Justin Gardner, Donklephant: HOAX: Palin "Doesn't know Africa is a continent leaker outs himself

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

Saturday, November 8, 2008

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

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

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Obama Campaign Tactics: Voter Suppression Depends on Media Help

PUMA Revelations:
Obama Campaign Secrets

The Obama Plan to Suppress McCain Voters

* Astro-turfing
* Poll-itics
* True Confessions

Mainstream Media: "We'll Help Wherever We Can!"

An interesting post which confirms talk on the PUMA sites. The view from both an anonymous former Hillary staffer/Obama campaign worker and other info posted on PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) sites jive.

The main points?

Don't believe the polls.
Obama's campaign main goal has been to keep conservatives divided.
Former Hillary voters are not meekly lining up behind Obama.
Democrats are actively working for John McCain in many areas.
The "Sarah Palin is bad" meme is wrong.
People do care about Obama's radical associations.

Who is this anonymous Obama workers?

"First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter."

From
What you were never intended to know in this election:

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now.

What's the Plan?

Friday, October 24, 2008

CORRUPTION: Obama Shady Contributions, Big Media's Lack of Reporting it

Obama Shady Campaign Contributions:
Serious Questions Surround
Almost Half of Obama Contributions
Credit Card Chicanery, Foreign Donations

Mainstream Media Not Interested

Back in May, Doug Ross made the discovery that Barack Obama was the only website that accepted foreign contributions without proof of US citizenship.

The Mainstream Press yawned.

"In May of this year I noted the fact that the Obama campaign ran the only website that permitted donations from foreign countries without any proof of citizenship."

The MSM is still yawning--when they take time out from digging through dumpsters looking for their next big break in the Joe the Plumber story.

Now, Ross is writing about the Obama campaign disabling safeguards so that even Osama bin Laden can make a credit card contribution to his favorite agent of 'Change!'.

From Doug Ross@Journal: The Obama Campaign's Massive Credit Card Scandal

You know how ACORN registered thousands of bogus voters like Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck? ACORN's handlers at the Obama campaign seem to be accepting contributions from Mickey and Daffy too.

It turns out that the Obama campaign's crack team of fundraisers decided to turn off all security validation for credit-card donations. Want to enter the name Pedro Martinez when the credit-card belongs to Arnold Fizbin? Need to use the ZIP code 99999 when the card owner's ZIP is 02154? No problem! The Obama campaign doesn't care!

In order for this to occur, the "Address Verification System has to be specifically disabled to allow this fraud."

If this happened on the McCain-Palin08 website, a gaggle of reporters would descend on the story and the BREAKING! graphic would likely melt down on CNN from overuse--if one can image that.

Andrew McCarty, Ross notes, has estimated that almost half of Obama's contributions--nearly $200 million--have questions surrounding them. Where are the vetting agents of Big Media?

Well, yesterday they were writing about the Republican National Committee's budget for Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

Estimates ranged as high as--brace yourself--$150,000. We'll be the first to admit that reporters are not always the smartest people in the world, so perhaps the large numbers involved in the Obama contributions story have given them trouble.

The New York Times, TIME and Newsweek might consider hiring math tutors.

Ross ends up:

In summary: the five-year stock price of the New York Times

While the Times' CSI unit probes Joe the Plumber's health records and scrutinizes Sarah Palin's shoe bills, an election is well nigh being stolen right under their very eyes. Although this scandal is a doozy, the Times is silent about this flagrant abuse of election law.

Eleven days remain until the election... hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal and foreign donations appear to have flowed into Obama's coffers... and Manhattan's Pravda can't rustle up a story. Not to worry. I give them six months.

Don't let these criminals steal the election. Vote.

The dereliction of duty in the Mainstream Press in 2008 has been breath-taking.

For students of history, one of the only advantages to living through times of great corruption is being able to say later, "I was there."

One only has to determine which corruption is worse: the Obama campaign's contribution mechanisms or the silence in the toothless watchdog press.

by Mondo Frazier
image: Doug Ross@Journal; dbkp file

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Obama's Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses Release of Medical, College Records

Barack Obama's Refusal to Release Records:
Medical, College, University Records Off-Limits
Why?

"Every time somebody turns over a rock of Barack Obama's past, something unpleasant crawls out."
--RE Bierce, in email to DBKP

The Obama campaign refuses to release Obama's medical records--as well as Obama's records from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard.

Why is that?

Perhaps it is because, as one reader put it, "Every time somebody turns over a rock of Barack Obama's past, something unpleasant crawls out."

The Mainstream Media refuses to press the issue.

Why is that?

In the Chicago Tribune's case, it's because they have a vested interest: the Tribune asked Obama to run for president in 2006. Obama's campaign mastermind, David Axelrod, used to work for the Chicago Tribune. One would assume he still has a few friends that work at the paper.

And friends do favors for friends.

The following video details a few unpleasant facts about Barack Obama and what little is known about his past: his association with Bill Ayers, ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and the list continues.

We saw the video on a post entitled, "The Smoking Gun Obama Post" at Infidels are Cool site.

The "smoking gun post" has a collection of links that ask a host of questions that would most likely make the Obama campaign uncomfortable--if they were pressed on the issues by MSM reporters.

But, they haven't been.

Among some of the links in the IAC article (comments below the links are by IAC's Infidelesto:

Video: Dear Mr. Obama: Who are you?
"This one absolutely knocks it out of the park. One of the best videos I’ve seen this whole campaign. Watch it…"
Video: Flip Flop Barack
"A recent article at Real Clear Politics lays out Obama’s “pivots” on a huge number of issues. I think the thought here is that now that Obama has won the Democratic nomiation, it is essential to politically move towards the center if he is to seem somewhat credible in the general election."
Devastating Video for the media to ignore: Obama talks about job Bill Ayers Gave him as qualification for US Senate
"How did Obama’s time on the Annenberg Challenge board go from being a key bullet-point in his resume — by his own accounting — to one the media refuses to even mention?"
Another radical connection to Obama: Rashid Khalidi
"Wow, I can’t even keep track of the number of radical connections Obama has that have come out in the recent months."
Obama wants change including $845 billion more for global poverty Why Obama’s circle of friends matter

The post at Infidels are Cool lists another 11 links in their list.

DBKP has written on many of the subjects listed above. Some are listed below.

ALSO at DBKP:

* Obama, Bill Ayers: Ayers Wanted to Kill 25 Million Die-Hard Capitalists
* Raila Odinga: Obama Campaigned for His Cousin Odinga; Violence Against Christians After Loss
* Joe Biden: Elect Obama and We’ll Have an International Crisis
* Obama, Cousin Raila Odinga: Obama’s Foreign Policy Experience
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Legacy: Obama Disenfranchised Voters in Illinois to win State Senate Seat
* Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky: Chicago Godfather of Community Organizers
* Ohio Presidential Election News Roundup: Think Tank files RICO Suit Against ACORN
* Obama Tax Plan: We’re Going to Spread the Wealth Around

* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Barack Obama, Socialist: Obama a Member of Socialist New Party
* Barack Obama, Bill Ayers: NY Times Continues to Whitewash Obama-Ayers Connection
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation
* McCain Works on Financial Crisis While Obama Touts $845 Billion Global Poverty Bill Funded by US Taxpayers
* Obama, Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers: The ‘Tangential’ Bill Ayers

Plenty of questions about the ever-shifting narrative offered by Team Obama.

NewsMax investigated the claims made on Obama's "fightthesmears.com" and found that the 'Smears' About Obama Largely True.

"Smear" being the word for any uncomfortable information that has surfaced in the media or on the Internet.

Why does the Obama campaign refuse to release Obama's medical, college and university records?

Two reasons: one, the Mainstream Media allows them to get away with it. It's unthinkable what the outcry would be if John McCain had refused to release his records. In fact, in May, because McCain delayed in releasing his medical records, there was such an outcry.

The second reason for the refusal?

The refusal suggests the Obama campaign is afraid of what those records might reveal.

by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Mainstream Media and Socialism: The Education of John Q. Public

Leftist decry "socialist" as code for Black
Consevative Punk

The "Racist" Meme Continues

They're reaching on the "code word" smear more and more. You knew it was only going to be a matter of time until some schmuck said that "socialist" is code word for Black. Well, the wait is over. This from The Star in Kansas City:

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

This most laughable aspect of this charge, is that author Lewis Diuguid expects us to believe that something like J. Edgar Hoover's use of the word socialist to describe blacks is somehow fresh in the minds of Americans, leading it to be the natural connection we make when we hear the word. Not to mention that W.E.B. Du Bois was in fact a socialist.

Bravo on being the first to the bottom Mr. Diuguid.

WANT MORE of rizzuto and Conservative Punk? Try these recent posts:
* Code Pink attempts to arrest Karl Rove
* Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in NY

by rizzuto
image: nextup
Source: Leftist decry "socialist" as code for Black