Six Bogus MSM Stories in Six Weeks
A Mute MSM Portrays A Myth of Muslim Silence
Source TCS Daily
So many people I know and deal with online talk of silence in the Western Muslim communities. It isn't true at all, although one would never know it listening to the main stream media. But there is an Islamic "counter-jihad" in the Western world, a very vocal one, however they have no ear to speak to in the MSM. Worse is when the MSM prints misinformation, and without later corrections when they learn of them.
There is no more immediate or eloquent example of how these factors affect American public opinion than the recent MSM coverage of the arrests in a terrorist plot to attack Fort Dix, NJ. Four among the six suspects detained in the case turned out to be ethnic Albanians. Certain commentators rushed to declare they were all Albanians from Kosovo, and to reproach them as ungrateful refugees from a war in which the U.S. had intervened to save Muslims. A rage spread through the blogosphere against all Albanians - presumably including Albanian Christians, of whom few onlookers know much, notwithstanding the prominence of the most famous of all modern Albanians, Mother Teresa. It turned out, however, that the three Duka brothers indicted in the conspiracy, Dritan, 28, Shain, 26, and Eljvir, 23, are from the town of Diber in western Macedonia, and not from Kosovo. Nobody in the Western commentariat bothered to apologize to the Kosovar Albanians for their allegations against a whole community, based on supposition, alarmism, and spite.
Furthermore, the Duka brothers had nothing to do with the Kosovo war and refugee influx, but had been brought to the U.S. as small children. While their untrimmed beards appeared a sure marker for their having become adherents of the radical-fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, they did not attend an Albanian mosque in the U.S., but an Arab-Pakistani institution, the South Jersey Islamic Center.
Furthermore, the Duka brothers had nothing to do with the Kosovo war and refugee influx, but had been brought to the U.S. as small children. While their untrimmed beards appeared a sure marker for their having become adherents of the radical-fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, they did not attend an Albanian mosque in the U.S., but an Arab-Pakistani institution, the South Jersey Islamic Center.
Learning this the MSM goes to the mosque where the Duka brothers were taught their underworld Wahhabism, a faction that is not typical of American Muslims, and got the disclaimer of good moderate boys. Had they gone to the Albanian Muslims that they had smeared through ignorance or spite they would have got a denunciation instead of a disclaimer.
Within two days of the Fort Dix case arrests on May 7, the Presidency of the Albanian Muslim Community in the U.S. and Canada had published the following declaration: "we were shocked and appalled to receive the news of the possible terror act on Fort Dix Military Base in New Jersey. We strongly condemn violence and terrorist activities perpetrated in the name of Islam... we condemn all acts of terrorism. It is forbidden for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all humans... this alleged heinous act evokes an acute sense of grief... We are grateful to the US Government and its military forces for helping Muslims... The Presidency of the Albanian Muslim Community in the United States and Canada fully supports United States Government efforts to end terror. We pray for peace and stability in the world. We are against all those 'so-called Muslims' who misuse and humiliate Islam and create ugly images of the Muslim people... We pray to Almighty God to save and protect the United States."
It is this kind of silence by the MSM of Muslim moderates condemning acts of terrorism, that gives rise to so many ignorant Islamophobes in America.
CBS News Hits Twenty Year Low
See BS News in spite of Katie Couric's legs has their poorest weekly viewer rating in twenty years.
New York - It surely wasn't what CBS dreamed about when Katie Couric was hired: "CBS Evening News" last week recorded its smallest audience since 1987, and probably many years before that.
It also didn't help that the average of 6.05 million viewers came at the beginning of the important May ratings "sweeps."
It also didn't help that the average of 6.05 million viewers came at the beginning of the important May ratings "sweeps."
Maybe they should get Rosie O’Donnell, she is heavy enough to anchor anything.
A School is a School is a Madrasah
It has been said that Sen. Barack Obama attended a "madrassa." This has been reported by FOX news, The NY Times, CNN and others taking various sides and blaming various camps and party sources. Yet the whole thing is a misunderstanding, or maybe more correctly a recent (since 9/11) bastardization of the Arabic word "Madrasah." Variatious transliterations include madrasah, madrash, medresa, madreseh, madrassa, medrusha, and madressa. For the remainder of this post I will stick with the correct usage of madrasah.
CNN debunked the story. Or at least they think they did.
CNN goes further into the story but there is no point. In fact there nothing to debunk, and all sources as far as I have seen are reporting this story either wrong, or with a misunderstanding of what the word "madrasah" means.
Now let me stop right here and say that first I am not a supporter of Obama, and second that I don't have anything against him. In fact I think that he is a somewhat centrist Democrat. This isn't a post on my political views, it is a post on the correct usage of words.
Saturday Galt posted about using words "to convey exactly what one means," and how "words and their definitions have become prostituted." Well this is exactly what is happening on the "Obama attended a madrassa" story. Look it up.
Madrasah at Dictionary.com:
–noun Islam.
a school or college, esp. a school attached to a mosque where young men study theology.
Also, ma·dra·sa.
[Origin: < Ar]
Wikipedia has this to say:
So in reality a madrasah is just another name for school, and and translates as such to the english language. Obama did go to a madrasah, I went to a madrasah, and you went to a madrasah, or at least I hope you did.
AS Galt said in the linked post: "Learning to speak does not consist of memorizing sound's--that is the process by which a parrot learns to "speak." Learning consists of grasping meanings, i.e., of grasping the referents of words, the kinds of existents that words denote in reality."
It seems we have too many parrots and not enough journalists working for our nations news organizations.
CNN debunked the story. Or at least they think they did.
Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.
CNN goes further into the story but there is no point. In fact there nothing to debunk, and all sources as far as I have seen are reporting this story either wrong, or with a misunderstanding of what the word "madrasah" means.
Now let me stop right here and say that first I am not a supporter of Obama, and second that I don't have anything against him. In fact I think that he is a somewhat centrist Democrat. This isn't a post on my political views, it is a post on the correct usage of words.
Saturday Galt posted about using words "to convey exactly what one means," and how "words and their definitions have become prostituted." Well this is exactly what is happening on the "Obama attended a madrassa" story. Look it up.
Madrasah at Dictionary.com:
–noun Islam.
a school or college, esp. a school attached to a mosque where young men study theology.
Also, ma·dra·sa.
[Origin: < Ar]
Wikipedia has this to say:
The word "madrasah" also exists in many Arabic-influenced languages such as Urdu, Hindi, Persian, Turkish, Kurdish, Indonesian, Malaysian and Bosnian. In the Arabic language, the word مدرسة implies no sense other than that which the word school represents in the English language, such as private, public or parochial school, as well as for any primary or secondary school whether Muslim, non-Muslim or secular.
So in reality a madrasah is just another name for school, and and translates as such to the english language. Obama did go to a madrasah, I went to a madrasah, and you went to a madrasah, or at least I hope you did.
AS Galt said in the linked post: "Learning to speak does not consist of memorizing sound's--that is the process by which a parrot learns to "speak." Learning consists of grasping meanings, i.e., of grasping the referents of words, the kinds of existents that words denote in reality."
It seems we have too many parrots and not enough journalists working for our nations news organizations.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A School is a School is a Madrasah
- WORDS on Forums, Blogs and in Articles!
MSM and Enemy Propaganda
If you ever had any doubt about the mainstream media—in this case the LA Times—repeating insurgent propaganda, read this post at Patterico's Pontifications.
On November 15, the L.A. Times ran an article titled Iraqi residents say U.S. airstrike kills 30. The article emphasized that 30+ people, including women and children, were killed in an airstrike. A headline proclaimed: “Victims include women and children, witnesses in Ramadi say. The military has no immediate comment.” The story began as follows:
Last Friday, my reader Tom Blumer sent me a link to an interesting blog post, by a blog called “One Oar in the Water,” which attacked the L.A. Times story about the Ramadi airstrike. The post quoted what purported to be an e-mail from a soldier who was involved in the Ramadi incident. The e-mailing soldier claimed that the “Times correspondent in Ramadi” has ties to the insurgency, and is knowingly repeating enemy propaganda:
The soldier then disputed certain assertions made in the L.A. Times article. The soldier said that there had been no airstrike, and that only a few insurgents had been killed, by small-arms fire and tank fire. The solder concluded the e-mail with a slap at the L.A. Times:
BAGHDAD — A U.S. airstrike in the restive town of Ramadi killed at least 30 people, including women and children, witnesses said Tuesday.
The aerial attack, which took place late Monday, brought the number of violent deaths reported in Iraq on Tuesday to at least 91, according to military sources and witnesses.
. . . .
A Times correspondent in Ramadi said at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment and families could be seen digging through the ruins with shovels and bare hands.
Last Friday, my reader Tom Blumer sent me a link to an interesting blog post, by a blog called “One Oar in the Water,” which attacked the L.A. Times story about the Ramadi airstrike. The post quoted what purported to be an e-mail from a soldier who was involved in the Ramadi incident. The e-mailing soldier claimed that the “Times correspondent in Ramadi” has ties to the insurgency, and is knowingly repeating enemy propaganda:
The [L.A. Times article] is an example of why you simply cannot believe most media reports coming out of Iraq. The LA Time[s] reporter, Solomon Moore, is not in Ramadi. He relies on an Iraqi stringer here who has ties to insurgents. In this article, Moore repeats almost verbatim, insurgent propaganda we have intercepted. The fighting in question occurred in my battle space within Ramadi and I was personally and intimately involved.
The soldier then disputed certain assertions made in the L.A. Times article. The soldier said that there had been no airstrike, and that only a few insurgents had been killed, by small-arms fire and tank fire. The solder concluded the e-mail with a slap at the L.A. Times:
Every target engaged was well within what our restrictive rules of engagement authorize. I am disgusted by the editorial slant of this article, by what passes from journalistic integrity at the LA Times, and by their complicity with our mortal enemies. My Soldiers fight with great precision and skill on a very difficult urban battlefield. The LA Times dishonors them and give aid and comfort to my enemies.
This isn't the first such incident, but why is there no outrage over this kind of reporting? I think because the left wants disparately to believe the propaganda to fit their agenda, while the rest of us have become so accustomed to extreme bias and slant that we shrug it off as expected behavior.
Fighting the War Against the War
Source The Strata-Sphere viaWatcher
Journalists are beyond ignorant regarding the current security threats we face, the programs in place to defend against those threats, and technology used in those programs. They create theories out of ignorant speculation to fill the gap in their knowledge and experience and attempt to claim this is all real and important. As we have seen, the only things they tend to get right are those details that can help terrorists.
The worst excuse is the laziest: the terrorists knew about the program so therefore nothing exposed increased the probability of attack. The arguments against this coordinated mantra (coming from the blindered hard left apologists for all things anti-Bush) are numerous, illustrating the desperation of the claim. Let’s explore these.
For one, the suggestion the terrorists knew is pure, unfounded speculation by the wannabe omnipotent one making the claim. Whoever makes this case is in the throws of a serious God Complex. No one knows if the terrorists had gotten lazy or, in a rush to meet a schedule, clumsy. As someone pointed out yesterday (sorry, cannot recall the link) criminals know about the hidden cameras and the wiretaps but they get nabbed by them all the time. Adding a gentle reminder during planning can make the difference in how the criminal deals with these. But while these people know in general, telling them were the cameras are and which phones are being monitored (AT&T vs. Qwest) gives them more than a general heads up.
The worst excuse is the laziest: the terrorists knew about the program so therefore nothing exposed increased the probability of attack. The arguments against this coordinated mantra (coming from the blindered hard left apologists for all things anti-Bush) are numerous, illustrating the desperation of the claim. Let’s explore these.
For one, the suggestion the terrorists knew is pure, unfounded speculation by the wannabe omnipotent one making the claim. Whoever makes this case is in the throws of a serious God Complex. No one knows if the terrorists had gotten lazy or, in a rush to meet a schedule, clumsy. As someone pointed out yesterday (sorry, cannot recall the link) criminals know about the hidden cameras and the wiretaps but they get nabbed by them all the time. Adding a gentle reminder during planning can make the difference in how the criminal deals with these. But while these people know in general, telling them were the cameras are and which phones are being monitored (AT&T vs. Qwest) gives them more than a general heads up.
Read the rest here.
Shaping Attitudes on the War - Required Reading
Stephen Green at Vodkapundit has written a great post The Arm of Decision that is a must read. He points out the power of the media in shamefully shaping attitudes on the war effort and how we got to where we are today.
This is just too good to excerpt and do good justice to Stephen's insight, so read it for yourself.
Another H/T to Nick
Any Important News From Iraq Last Week?
Report via The Boston Globe
Maybe, but what's important is framed by perspective and is in the eye of the editors, reporters and also the readers. Which of course also helps form agendas. So maybe you look for and hope to see reports similar to the following.
... Do you see the war against radical Islam and Ba'athist fascism as the most urgent conflict of our time? Do you believe that replacing tyranny with democratic self-government is ultimately the only antidote to the poison that has made the Middle East so dangerous and violent? If so, you'll have no trouble identifying the most significant development in Iraq last week: the landslide victory of the new Iraqi Constitution.
The announcement on Oct. 25 that the first genuinely democratic national charter in Arab history had been approved by 79 percent of Iraqis was a major piece of good news. It confirmed the courage of Iraq's people and their hunger for freedom and decent governance. It advanced the US campaign to democratize a country that for 25 years had been misruled by a mass-murdering sociopath. It underscored the decision by Iraq's Sunnis, who had boycotted the parliamentary elections in January, to pursue their goals through ballots, not bullets. And it dealt a humiliating blow to the bombers and beheaders — to the likes of Islamist butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who earlier this year declared ''a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy" and threatened to kill anyone who took part in the elections.
The announcement on Oct. 25 that the first genuinely democratic national charter in Arab history had been approved by 79 percent of Iraqis was a major piece of good news. It confirmed the courage of Iraq's people and their hunger for freedom and decent governance. It advanced the US campaign to democratize a country that for 25 years had been misruled by a mass-murdering sociopath. It underscored the decision by Iraq's Sunnis, who had boycotted the parliamentary elections in January, to pursue their goals through ballots, not bullets. And it dealt a humiliating blow to the bombers and beheaders — to the likes of Islamist butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who earlier this year declared ''a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy" and threatened to kill anyone who took part in the elections.
On the other hand, if you are a leftist or progressive you may think like the The Washington Post who burried the ratificaton of the Iraqi constitution story on Page A13 saving the first three pages for whatever makes the war and chances for an Iraqi democracy look bad.
Consider The Washington Post. On the morning after the results of the Iraqi referendum were announced, the Post's front page was dominated by a photograph, stretched across four columns, of three daughters at the funeral of their father, Lieutenant Colonel Leon James II, who had died from injuries suffered during a Sept. 26 bombing in Baghdad. Two accompanying stories, both above the fold, were headlined ''Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq" and ''Bigger, Stronger, Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of US Deaths." A nearby graphic — ''The Toll" — divided the 2,000 deaths by type of military service — active duty, National Guard, and Reserves.
From Page 1, the stories jumped to a two-page spread inside, where they were illustrated with more photographs, a series of drawings depicting roadside attacks, and a large US map showing where each fallen soldier was from. On a third inside page, meanwhile, another story was headlined ''2,000th Death Marked by Silence and a Vow." It began: ''Washington marked the 2,000th American fatality of the Iraq war with a moment of silence in the Senate, the reading of the names of the fallen from the House floor, new protests, and a solemn vow from President Bush not to 'rest or tire until the war on terror is won.' " Two photos appeared alongside, one of Bush and another of antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan. And to give the body count a local focus, there was yet another story (''War's Toll Leaves Baltimore in Mourning") plus four pictures of troops killed in Iraq.
From Page 1, the stories jumped to a two-page spread inside, where they were illustrated with more photographs, a series of drawings depicting roadside attacks, and a large US map showing where each fallen soldier was from. On a third inside page, meanwhile, another story was headlined ''2,000th Death Marked by Silence and a Vow." It began: ''Washington marked the 2,000th American fatality of the Iraq war with a moment of silence in the Senate, the reading of the names of the fallen from the House floor, new protests, and a solemn vow from President Bush not to 'rest or tire until the war on terror is won.' " Two photos appeared alongside, one of Bush and another of antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan. And to give the body count a local focus, there was yet another story (''War's Toll Leaves Baltimore in Mourning") plus four pictures of troops killed in Iraq.
Do you expect or at least long for the best possible outcome or do you take the gloomiest possible view and dwell on the negative? Oh it's much more than just optimism or pessamism.
More views at Dean's World
WaPo's Attempt To Rehabilitate Joseph Wilson
It seems rather amusing that reporters like WAPo's Walter Pincus hate the administration enough that they would try to rehabilitate Joseph Wilson's credibility after being duped into writing Wilson's earlier proven frabrications. Especially after Wilson accused Pincus of sloppy reporting to cover up his own misrepresentations.
Stephen Hayes at the The Daily Standard fisks WaPo's feeble attempt by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus to put life back Wilson's credability.
Update: The American Thinker reports:
Being on the payroll of the French intelligence, I suppose the French won't be too pleased about Martino being exposed.
Stephen Hayes at the The Daily Standard fisks WaPo's feeble attempt by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus to put life back Wilson's credability.
Update: The American Thinker reports:
Russo Martino, the man behind the forged documents indicating Saddam had purchased uranium from Niger, which Joseph A. Wilson falsely claimed he had seen and warned the Administration about, has come forward and admitted that he did this in the pay of France to undermine the British and American justification for the war in Iraq.
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that – by commissioning “Giacomo” to procure and circulate documents – France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
Being on the payroll of the French intelligence, I suppose the French won't be too pleased about Martino being exposed.
Media cooked up a storm over Katrina
Victor Davis Hanson takes the media to task over what happened, what was cooked up, and what was reported.
H/T Charlie Sykes at Newsradio 620.
Congressional Smackdown!
This is just too funny a read. Ronald Wieck writing for The American Thinker compares the current circus in congress to World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. The ref of course is the main stream media lying on the mat pretending to be unconscious so as not to notice any flagrant fouls.
Deadly Propaganda and the First Amendment
Report via The American Thinker
In the wake of Newsweek’s retraction of its May 9 article, Noel Sheppard makes some sound arguements for putting a stop to the rise in inflammatory "yellow journalism" with laws similar to other business. We have truth in advertising, truth in lending, truth in savings, and ever other group.
Sure you can say that the deaths were the rioters fault and the blame lies with them. It's true the rioters are to blame, but Newsweek's report was the match that lit the fire. If the story were true it would be a little more acceptable, but people died because of a report that as far as we know wasn't true to begin with. If CEO's put out wrong information they are held responsible, so why shouldn't the media be accountable too?
For instance, if a company in this nation is found to have intentionally — or, even accidentally — misinformed the public about its products or services, it faces serious fines and the possible revocation of its business licenses from a variety of regulatory agencies. This is true of every major industry group: law; medicine; stockbrokerage; real estate; banking; telecommunications; electronics; technology; lending; insurance; advertising; manufacturing; pharmaceuticals; automobiles; you name it.
On the other hand the news media can vomit invective fraudulent information about America, the military, politicians and or anything else they want with impunity. Why? Does the press have special rights of freedom of speach that the rest of America doesn't?
Hardly. According to Cornell Law School, the First Amendment offers no additional protection to members of the press concerning freedom of speech than it does anybody else:
“Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.”
Given this, if such concepts as truth in advertising, truth in savings, and truth in lending in no way impinge upon the first amendment rights of the industries governed by such regulations, shouldn’t we be able to require truth in reporting without violating the freedom of the press?
“Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.”
Given this, if such concepts as truth in advertising, truth in savings, and truth in lending in no way impinge upon the first amendment rights of the industries governed by such regulations, shouldn’t we be able to require truth in reporting without violating the freedom of the press?
Sheppard makes a good case that I have a hard time finding an arguement with, yet I find myself loath to lend support to fines or jail for journalists that indulge in inaccuate reporting.
When I ask myself why, I come up with reasons like intent, or difference of opinion. Yet in order to have those reasons to begin with there would usually be a shortage of, or shaky facts. In that case the report is unreliable and shouldn't be printed or aired. There can be different interpretation of facts, and thats a different story, but even advertisers while they get to embelish claims about their products without legal reprisals, they can't make outright false claims.
For now I shall remain undecided and have to think on it some more. In the meantime, it would be a good idea if Michael Isikoff and John Barry resigned out of respect for the Muslim community. What do you think?
Maureen Dowd's Tantrum on Social Security
Report via The New York Times Febuary 24
While I know I shouldn't be supprised anymore, Maureen Dowd still amazes me with her acerbic dogmatism on anything the Bush administration does.
Instead of trying to destroy AARP, Republicans should be signing up the seniors' lobby to find Osama.Just to keep the record straight Ms Dowd, the AARP was drug kicking and writhing to get on board the prescription drug plan. Let me also add that AARP is the largest liberal lobby in washington, and that AARP gets it's power from its ability scare, then herd old people to the polls to vote Democrat.
AARP's super-relentless intelligence network is certainly better than that doddering C.I.A's. Osama has to have turned 50, and AARP somehow knows where everyone who has turned 50 lives.
But no. The same Republicans who used to love AARP when it helped them pass the president's prescription drug plan now hate AARP because it is against the president's plan to privatize Social Security.
Un-Packaging The News
US News & World Report has a good story by John Leo on how the MSM pagages the news for consumption, while to their dismay the bloggers "un-package" it.
[M]ost people realize that the news media do not just report. They frame and package the news. Stories reflect the mind-set and values of the newsroom. This packaged world is now under heavy assault, partly because different packaging is available (Fox News, talk radio), partly because a strong unpackaging industry has arisen (bloggers, bolder anti-Establishment voices in academia and traditional media).Thankyou for your unbiased opinion John Leo.
In the Eason Jordan story, we have something new: retroframing, or the sad attempt to reimpose a discredited frame. Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, said something on a panel (we still don't know exactly what), the gist of which was that U.S. soldiers had deliberately shot at journalists in Iraq. This was a serious charge, particularly coming from one of CNN's high priests, but the major media essentially looked the other way for many days, thus signaling that nothing important had happened. But bloggers descended quickly, demanding to see the unreleased videotape of the panel and asking about Jordan's evidence. Jordan "walked [the story] back," as one commentator said, meaning that he softened what he apparently had said. But he resigned, essentially because of the case made by the bloggers.
Blog flap. Here's the retroframing: Some mainstream media fell back on their traditional view of bloggers as inaccurate, upstart nobodies who dare to criticize their betters. Last week, for instance, the New York Times, which had looked the other way for two weeks, ran a story dripping with disdain. Headlined "Bloggers as News Media Trophy Hunters," it offered a simple-minded view of bloggers as wild conservatives out to collect liberal scalps. The story was laced with quotes assuring us that bloggers are a "lynch mob" of "salivating morons," fanning fears of "the growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue" on the Internet (as opposed to the completely reliable and unrampant reports in mainstream media).
Why some in mainstream media keep depicting bloggers as inaccurate is a mystery. In the blogs I follow, accuracy is crucially important, and errors have to be admitted quickly, usually on the day of the mistake. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com suggests that mainstream media might want to hire some bloggers to check their stories before publication. This is a cheeky but polite reminder that bloggers are in the checking business and big media should get used to having someone looking over their shoulder.
Does the MSM Suffer From Freedom Envy?
For the most part criticism of blogs from the MSM has long been abusive. The Eason Jordan's exit at CNN seemed to push many over the line of self-control unleashing a tirade of vituperrious attacks.
But not all media journalists have such ill feeling towards bloggers. Peggy Noonan has a column in todays Opinion Journal that is refreshing, and points the problems behind the name calling the elite media has been engaged in this week.
But not all media journalists have such ill feeling towards bloggers. Peggy Noonan has a column in todays Opinion Journal that is refreshing, and points the problems behind the name calling the elite media has been engaged in this week.
When you hear name-calling like what we've been hearing from the elite media this week, you know someone must be doing something right. The hysterical edge makes you wonder if writers for newspapers and magazines and professors in J-schools don't have a serious case of freedom envy.Ms Noonan goes on to discuss seven items of power and freedom that bloggers have that the elite media is angry about. Here are the first three, but read the whole article and her predictions in conclusion.
The bloggers have that freedom. They have the still pent-up energy of a liberated citizenry, too. The MSM doesn't. It has lost its old monopoly on information. It is angry.
But MSM criticism of the blogosphere misses the point, or rather points.
Blogging changes how business is done in American journalism. The MSM isn't over. It just can no longer pose as if it is The Guardian of Established Truth. The MSM is just another player now. A big one, but a player.
The blogosphere isn't some mindless eruption of wild opinion. That isn't their power. This is their power:
1. They use the tools of journalists (computer, keyboard, a spirit of inquiry, a willingness to ask the question) and of the Internet (Google, LexisNexis) to look for and find facts that have been overlooked, ignored or hidden. They look for the telling quote, the ignored statistic, the data that have been submerged. What they are looking for is information that is true. When they get it they post it and include it in the debate. This is a public service.Captain Ed has done an excellent expanded piece on this at Captain's Quarters with links to, and comments about some angry elites. Also Michelle Malkin has a good post after being unfairly slapped around by the media elites.
2. Bloggers, unlike reporters at elite newspapers and magazines, are independent operators. They are not, and do not have to be, governed by mainstream thinking. Nor do they have to accept the directives of an editor pushing an ideology or a publisher protecting his friends. Bloggers have the freedom to decide on their own when a story stops being a story. They get to decide when the search for facts is over. They also decide on their own when the search for facts begins. It was a blogger at the World Economic Forum, as we all know, who first reported the Eason Jordan story. It was bloggers, as we all know, who pursued it. Matt Drudge runs a news site and is not a blogger, but what was true of him at his beginning (the Monica Lewinsky story, he decided, is a story) is true of bloggers: It's a story if they say it is. This is a public service.
3. Bloggers have an institutional advantage in terms of technology and form. They can post immediately. The items they post can be as long or short as they judge to be necessary. Breaking news can be one sentence long: "Malkin gets Barney Frank earwitness report." In newspapers you have to go to the editor, explain to him why the paper should have another piece on the Eason Jordan affair, spend a day reporting it, only to find that all that's new today is that reporter Michelle Malkin got an interview with Barney Frank. That's not enough to merit 10 inches of newspaper space, so the Times doesn't carry what the blogosphere had 24 hours ago. In the old days a lot of interesting information fell off the editing desk in this way. Now it doesn't. This is a public service.
CBS Memogate Fallout Back In The Spotlight
Reported in the New Your Observer Febuary 16
A little more than a month ago after a report of the independant investigation into CBS News' 60 Minutes was completed, Lislie Moonves issued a statement blaming employees involved in production of the news segment. Executive producer Josh Howard and others were asked to resign.
Moonves sail Mr Howard, "did little to assert his role as the producer ultimately responsible for the broadcast and everything in it. This mistake dealt a tremendous blow to the credibility of 60 Minutes Wednesday and to CBS News in general."
It was reported Tuesday that Howard isn't going peacfully or quietly.
Five weeks later, the crisis is not yet behind Mr. Moonves. And far from resolving the problem of the network's credibility, the independent report commissioned by CBS appears instead to be leading to a confrontation, with defenders of both the ousted CBS staffers involved in the debacle and top CBS management asserting two different truths from the same document.Until Mr Howard's contract runs out it appears to be a stalemate for the present. If CBS continues to pay Howard until the contract expires then I have a hunch there will be a deflamation suit.
Mr. Howard and two other ousted CBS staffers—his top deputy, Mary Murphy, and CBS News senior vice president Betsy West—haven't resigned. And sources close to Mr. Howard said that before any resignation comes, the 23-year CBS News veteran is demanding that the network retract Mr. Moonves' remarks, correct its official story line and ultimately clear his name.
Mr. Howard, those sources said, has hired a lawyer to develop a breach-of-contract suit against the network. Ms. Murphy and Ms. West have likewise hired litigators, according to associates of theirs, and all three remain CBS employees and collect weekly salaries from the company that asked them to tender their resignations.
None would agree to participate in this article.
But Mr. Howard's complaint about Mr. Moonves' remarks could pose a serious problem for CBS. Sources close to Mr. Howard said he believes that the report—which was assembled by an outside team of former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press head Louis Boccardi Jr.—contradicts Mr. Moonves' statement about Mr. Howard's share of the blame.
Mr. Howard also believes, those sources said, that the report itself excludes evidence that would implicate top management at CBS and restore Mr. Howard's reputation in the television news business.
Mr. Howard has also indicated to colleagues that he would subpoena specific CBS documents, including the e-mails of top executives. That might shed further light on what members of management were saying to each other on Friday, Sept. 10, two days after the segment aired—a day that Mr. Heyward and Mr. Schwartz were making important decisions about CBS's defense strategy.
Power Line also has the story from another source.
Media Hatred of the Administration
This article from WSWS (World Socialist Web Site) as hateful as it is, is no worse than many US news media.
Gonzales confirmed: war criminal to head US Justice Department
5 February 2005 - On February 3, the United States Senate confirmed former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to be the new attorney general. With the vote, an individual closely associated with the most criminal actions and decisions of the Bush administration will fill the chief law office in the land.Sort of proves Sigmadog's theory from one of my earllier posts here.
A total of 36 Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, but the vote against Gonzales was largely for show. The Democratic leadership had already declared before the vote that the party would not attempt to filibuster the nomination, thus ensuring that Gonzales would be confirmed. A filibuster would require the support of only 41 of the Senate's 44 Democrats and would have prevented Gonzales from receiving an up-or-down vote.
Babs Not Willing to Pull Punches
Story via the Los Angeles Times January 30
This post probably should be in the "Entertainment" catagory instead of "Media Bias." But I will give the LA Times the benefit of the doubt because I know they are still trying to pick themself up after their heros took such a beating last November (yes I'm biased, but not against Democrats typically, but against political stupidity).
Read the whole story for your self but here is a good falvor of it:
Websites call it the Boxer Rebellion.The bloggers who said, "a true liberal, unlike the weenie-Dems in the Senate and House," is typical as one part (far left) of the multiple base that is causing the "divide and render conquerable" reality of the Democratic party.
To others — and many in Washington suspect that California's other senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, is among them — her lambasting of Rice casts Boxer as an attack dog whose tactics will alienate mainstream voters. Feinstein had introduced Rice at the confirmation hearings.
But whatever others think, to those who have watched Boxer's political career over almost 30 years as a Marin County supervisor and a member of the House and the Senate, the only difference this time is that the whole nation may have been watching. The rest is vintage Boxer, the signature style of her whole career.
"This is just Boxer being Boxer," said David Sandretti, the senator's communications director.
Or, as Bruce Cain, who heads the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, put it: "It's very simple. Boxer looked like Feinstein until the election. Now she's Boxer again."
Boxer professes to marvel at how she has suddenly become the hot Democratic celebrity. She is lionized by her blogger fans as "a true liberal, unlike the weenie-Dems in the Senate and House. " She "has the courage of her convictions," one blogger wrote, comparing her favorably to the "conscience of the Senate," the late Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.).
"I'm rather amazed at the response," she said in an interview. "I've been this way all my life."
And she was amused when "Saturday Night Live" parodied her questioning of Rice and her hair, which Boxer, 64, recently frosted, so that "if and when the gray starts growing in I don't have to worry." The skit lampooned her use of charts during the Rice hearings by, among other things, placing a miniature volcano on her desk and having it erupt periodically.
She also may be giving Democrats political cover — playing the bad cop to help party leaders like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) avoid the fate that befell former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who was defeated after Republicans targeted him for blocking judicial nominations.
Unlike Reid and Daschle, Boxer (like Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York) comes from a solidly blue state where her fervent liberal views are less likely to provoke a backlash.
It may be true that Babs will give some political cover to Reid and others to indulge in obstructionism, but it probably will do more harm to defeating unity within the Democratic party. Aslo there are plenty of conservative blogs out there to blow the lid on any political cover she may provide.
Ted Turner Compares Fox News to Hitler
Broadcasting & Cable 25 January
Ted Turner has his mouth in gear again while his mind is elsewhere impressing a crowd at the National Association for Television Programming Executives's. And again for making a comparison to 'Hitler'.In 1996 Ted Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing Rupert Murdoch to Hitler.
Now again, this time comparing FOX as an arm of the Bush administration, and FOX NEWS' popularity to Hitler's.
Ted Turner called FOX an arm of the Bush administration and compared FOXNEWS's popularity to Hitler's popular election to run Germany before WWII.Maybe Turner isn't aware of the fact that FOX beat CNN and MSNBC combined for Bush's Inaugeration.
While FOX may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said.
A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind — we wish him well."
Firing Up The Anti-War Left
Hat tip to Power Line for this Minneapolis Star Tribune unwholesome piece of journalism by Susan Lenfestey.
It's time to party.There is a lot more, but you have probably had enough.
As the families of bomb-flattened Fallujah huddle in make-shift refugee camps, drinking from sewage-filled streams, Iraqi policy mastermind Paul Wolfowitz fastens the last stud into his starched collar.
As the Iraq Survey Group ends its search for WMD, concluding that there was no imminent mushroom cloud or even a smoking gun, Condi Rice draws herself a hot bath.
As Dan Rather retires in disgrace over forged documents, former CIA Director George Tenet, proponent of forged documents about Iraq's nonexistent nuclear program, adjusts the Medal of Freedom around his neck.
As Osama bin Laden chuckles in his cave to see America's fortunes sink in the morass of Iraq and as fresh recruits to his cause multiply like flies, Dick Cheney pops the cork on a bottle of Dom Perignon.
As Pfc. Francis Obaji, oldest son of an immigrant Nigerian family, is zipped into a body bag for the sad journey home, Laura Bush zips up her Oscar de la Renta gown.