January 18, 2007
Olber the top
It's been a long time since I've had any interest in MSNBC, if I ever did, and beyond Keith Olbermann's impressive Sportscenter duet with Dan Patrick I've never cared much about Olbermann, either. (Most of America seems to agree with me, at least if ratings are any guide.) But Olbermann's tirade Tuesday over the first four hours of 24 this season (he thinks screenwriters for 24 are hatching a sinister, pro-Republican plot) almost made me laugh out loud.
(More witty banter below the fold.)
It’s decidedly un-funny, of course, that any entertainment either (a) depicting terrorists as non-Caucasians; or (b) suggesting terrorism is a real threat, rather than a phantom one manufactured by the Bush Administration, is quickly dismissed by most media outlets as unserious and silly. This part makes me want to cry, not laugh, because it does not bode well for our country as we fight an insidious enemy in an uber-foggy war. Suffice it to say that if simple patriotism is loathsome to many people, we are truly in deep.
As the saying suggests, though, maybe it’s better to laugh instead. And Keith Olbermann seems willing to play the jester and the left’s most reliable buffoon. His outrage at 24, besides being directed at a television show, for Heaven’s sake, demonstrates the length to which this man has buried his head. But it’s laughable because it is founded on a patently, demonstrably absurd assumption – that the rest of television is – say it, Keith: “fair and balanced.”
Where to begin? The biggest problem with the idea of “media bias” is that it’s tough to prove – even if we’re limiting things to entertainment television. It’s one thing for this show or the next to portray a conservative or a Christian or a Caucasian in a negative light. That may be “unfair,” but it’s not proof of “bias” because it doesn’t rule out liberals or Muslims or favored minorities being portrayed equally unfairly the next week.
But then, reason rears its head, as does reality, and so figuring out “bias” is boils down an exercise similar to how Justice Potter Stewart famously determined what constitutes the “obscene”: we know it when we see it. And this is why we laugh and laugh at Keith Olbermann – because outside of his fantasyland, if he watched television or movies with anything other than that hell-bent disgust for Republicans, he’d know that 24 is a proverbial diamond in the rough in the war on Islamic fascism. But more importantly, if we assume Olbermann is correct that 24 is pro-American, pro-Republican, and anti-Jihadist, 24 is a liberals’ solitary dose of the hostility aimed at conservatives each and every day, on nearly every show on the tube.
On Tuesday, for example, Boston Legal spent roughly half an episode lambasting the Department of Homeland Security, and the federal “no-fly” list. The list is arbitrary and ineffective, William Shatner’s lawyer said, just before taking a few tidy shots at conservative “values” (those are a masquerade for hatred). And I don’t know if Keith Olbermann goes to the movies, but one wonders what he thinks of the reliable portrayal of Caucasian men as one or more of the following: drunk, undeservingly rich, dishonest, opportunistic, and slovenly (to name a few). Or the business world as being consumed with criminals and idiots rather than educated people simply trying to make a living.
On the flip side, keep the following adjectives in mind the next time you sit down to watch Hollywood’s newest and best: intelligent; honest; loyal; capable; and underappreciated. Then tick off a list of characters to whom those adjectives apply, and in front of you will be a list of favored minorities, illegals, Muslims, acknowledged Jihadists, and gays. (And they say liberalism isn't insulting to minorities.)
Maybe someday, someone will invest the considerable time needed to come up, once and for all, with a big list for one full season and see where the tick marks land. For now, we’ll just have to rely on our visceral response whenever a buffoon like Keith Olbermann tirades about a solitary show failing to keep up the charade – that is to say, laugh it off. After all, that’s all the jester wants or deserves.
Posted by bill at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)
September 18, 2006
World Ends; Poor hardest hit
This is astounding. There is enough negative spin in this piece to send the earth careening off into the sun. Note the lack of comparison to the economy when Clinton left office (including the higher unemployment rate). All during Clinton's terms, the press acted as his PR machine on the economy. Reading this article, you'd think we're in a deep recession and on the eve of a depression. The AP has no shame.
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 01:34 PM | Comments (0)
June 28, 2006
Where is the weapons story?
Brent Bozell on last week's developments (H/T - Gadsden Flag):
This discovery should be a crucial, corrective turning point to the stuck-in-2003, pre-war obsessives. The hardened historical narrative needs to be amended. There were WMDs in Iraq that could have been used against our troops or acquired by terrorists.
An honest, nonpartisan news media that cared about the facts without political calculation would have taken care to correct the record, even if the findings were comparatively underwhelming to the pre-war scenarios. A fair and balanced story could be done. But the reception of this declassified memo shows we do not have an honest, nonpartisan news media, and political calculation is everything.
Posted by bill at 09:21 AM | Comments (0)
June 26, 2006
News that's not fit to print by MSM
While the NYT is busy subverting anti-jihad programs, some real news today is likely to be ignored by MSM, namely, ugly evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations and Oil-for-Food corruption at a trial in New York. The UK Times reports, "The judge has ruled that prosecutors can present evidence of Dr Boutros [Boutros] Ghali's relationship with Tongsun Park, a South Korean businessman on trial in New York for acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Saddam's Iraq."
The truth here is hard to keep down, unfortunately for those who believe the French and Russian opposition to the war resembled anything principled. Of course the trial won't receive much attention, but these things tend to disseminate.
Posted by bill at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)
June 25, 2006
Something tells me we're onto something good
Bravo to New York Rep. Peter King, who became the first elected leader I'm aware of to call for a criminal prosecution of the NY Times following its disclosure Friday of the SWIFT anti-terrorism program, calling the Times "treasonous." Let's hope others follow.
Wizbang has links.
Meanwhile, don't question John Murtha's patriotism, but according to an Arizona paper he thinks the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran."
Funny that Murtha, Kos, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc. haven't said boo about the Times story - is it a Republican position to believe legal, civil liberties-sensitive classified American defense programs shouldn't be in the newspaper? Is this what Democrats' have been reduced to?
Posted by bill at 10:47 PM | Comments (0)
June 23, 2006
Is nothing sacred?
The NY Sun's Josh Gerstein has taken the lead on the NY Times' newest betrayal of American citizens -- disclosing, contrary to a request by the Bush administration, the feds' terrorist banking surveillance program, one described as affording the US a "unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks."
UPDATE (6/24) - My article, suggesting that the Attorney General pursue an indictment, has been published at the American Thinker. Thanks to Gadsden Flag for his input. Also, Pundit Review radio will be discussing the Times's latest subterfuge with Janey Levy of the Jihad Watch Project; and Realclearpolitics is stuffed to the gills with reaction to yesterday's story; and the commenters over at Hot Air offer some great insights.
Posted by bill at 09:24 AM | Comments (3)
June 22, 2006
Thanks for the memories
For all those looking for the infamous Connie Chung farewell-to-sanity video...
Posted by bill at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)
June 08, 2006
Suitably blunt
I don't care all that much for Ann Coulter, and her comments to Matt Lauer this week were in bad taste, if only because they were so carelessly stated. Anyone who visits this blog semi-regularly knows I'm not a fan of cliche and eupehmism, but Coulter managed to offend even me, which is no small accomplishment.
That said, Coulter's "liberal infallability" line is probably a valid one - we're not supposed to criticize John Murtha, because he served in Viet Nam; we can't question Markos' patriotism, either, or Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's insight on gun control, or Cindy Sheehan's anti-war nuttery; and remember Ron Reagan speaking at the 2004 convention? Don't you dare question his stem-cell insight!
Coulter is probably onto something. Sensitivity is nice, but it tends to squelch actual debate, and when we're talking about people - and Congressmen, for God's sake - who hold ridiculous views, we can't be expected to muzzle it.
And it is just infuriating to watch the Dems and their medialand cohorts trot out another token at every turn. Today, on the heels the Al-Zarqawi news, they turned to Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg (beheaded in Iraq in 2004) to blunt today's optimistic vibe. "I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq," he said. "I think George Bush is."
Whadda pantload. As I said I'm not a big fan of Ann Coulter's, but when the media resorts to this kind of nonsense, I suppose I am glad someone says the unsayable.
Posted by bill at 01:19 PM | Comments (0)
May 25, 2006
Oh please oh please oh please oh please
Will the New York Times be indicted? James Piereson says it's a "fair inference from the strange exchanges that have gone back and forth over the past few days between the Justice Department and the editors of the paper," i.e. AG Alberto Gonzalez's appearance last Sunday on "This Week" and Times' editorial the next day, which argued the Espionage Act of 1917 cannot be applied to punish journalists.
"The editorial reads much like a pre-emptive strike designed by lawyers to ward off impending indictment," Piereson notes. But then again, it doesn't - the Times editorial, he says, also says this: "the Bush administration was in no position to invoke congressional statutes since, in the view of the editors, it had routinely violated them in authorizing wiretaps without warrants and in failing to enforce civil rights and environmental laws. If the Bush administration can ignore the laws, the editors seemed to ask, why can't we?" This sounds like it's coming from an angry editorial board, not lawyers hoping to save the paper from federal prosecution.
The issue is the Times' story last December disclosing the Bush administration's instruction to the NSA to spy on suspected terrorists using wiretaps. Piereson's commentary is worth the read.
Posted by bill at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)
May 24, 2006
Ugly? Career-minded? That's unfortunate.
Uglo-phobia anyone?
Via Suitably Flip, we have this career advice, courtesy of the US News' Marty Nemko:
You're overweight. Of course, it would be helpful if you lost weight, but that's often easier said than done. So for now, avoid tight clothing and, on the other extreme, the muumuu look. Busy patterns also make you look fatter. Instead, consider monochromatic outfits in dark colors.You're balding. Here, I speak from personal experience. For a while, I tried combing my sparse hair forward or to the side. Forget it. Eventually, my friends told me that I wasn't fooling anyone. I then tried a hairpiece-for a few days. It looked good in the morning, but by day's end, unless I was willing to fuss with it every hour, its artifice started to show. Even one moment of detectability ruins months of perfect appearance. I rejected transplants because, except on a commercial, I've never seen one that looks good. I also decided not to shave my head-that is just another transparent attempt to hide thinning hair. Worse, it makes you look hard and unapproachable. Painful as it may be, it may be wisest to simply wear your hair fairly short and combed back.
You're getting (or feeling) old. Get at least seven hours of sleep a night–fatigue adds years to your face.
Walk purposefully, even quickly-that conveys youth and energy.
Stand straight. Legendary Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown once said, only half joking, "After 40, it all comes down to posture."
Age shows most in our eyes and hair color. So wear flattering glasses, and consider coloring your hair. Men, include your mustache or beard.
Your face is unattractive. Draw attention elsewhere. A great hairstyle or accessories such as jewelry, scarves, handbags, and shoes can refocus people's gaze.
If you're considering cosmetic surgery, here's one way to find a good doc: Call a cosmetic surgeon's office, then ask the receptionist to recommend a few plastic surgeons other than her boss. The names that come up multiple times are good bets.
Consider working alone or with the same people each day. If you've tried everything and still feel your appearance brings you down, you might be more successful in a job where you work alone or with the same group of people each day. That provides time for your personality and competence to override other negative impressions you're worried about.
What to say. Flip is aghast (then again, he's running for office) but acknowledges these may be "useful" tips. I feel a bit like a frosted mini-wheat - my compassionate half feels sorry for the ugly ducklings; my pragmatic, less sensitive half realizes good looks has its perks. (So does being tall, or so I hear.)
Anyway, let's look around this week and see if we spot any well-rested, fat-but-monochromatic, unabashedly bald people who haven't become house-bound agorophobes.
Posted by bill at 12:27 PM | Comments (0)
May 19, 2006
When news is not news
Propaganda, masquerading as "news" - Michelle Malkin helps expose the LA Times' use of another insipid "man on the street" story, this time on the subject of immigration:
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece of open-borders propaganda masquerading as journalism, which featured a Riverside, Calif., landscaper named Cyndi Smallwood who claims she can't find workers to dig ditches even at $34 an hour.
The claim seems preposterous, but the Times assures us that Smallwood has no ideological ax to grind. She is "ambivalent on immigration reform," the Times reports. Just an ordinary landscaper, you know.
But it turns out there's a tiny bit more to the story that the LA Times isn't telling you. Reader Christopher L. wrote this morning to point out that a simple Google search shows that Cyndi Smallwood is president of the Orange County chapter of the California Landscape Contractors Association, and is a member of the association's "Immigration Task Force." The activist group opposes the "Punitive Immigration Reform Bill Proposed by Rep. Sensenbrenner."
Posted by bill at 11:08 AM | Comments (0)
April 18, 2006
"The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War"
At Gates of Vienna: France, headed for its abyss. Read the whole thing.
Posted by bill at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)
March 16, 2006
Against Old Spice
It's a buyer's market for a perversity that sounds much more casual than it is. These things come in waves, it seems. Anyone else feel ill?
Posted by James G. Poulos at 06:02 PM | Comments (0)
January 29, 2006
Some perspective, please
When Peter Jennings passed away last summer, I wrote this:
Call me callous, but I've never met Peter Jennings, and so when I heard that he'd passed away I reacted much as I do to news that other people I've never met have passed away – sort of vaguely wishing people didn't have to die, particularly young. I don't intend any disrespect towards Mr. Jennings, but I don't believe his passing is such a remarkable "story." His contribution to this world seems best judged by his family and friends, not by his media colleagues, or by people who watched him on television. I know his face, but I didn't know him any better than I know Abraham Lincoln or Elvis Presley, nor would I "mourn" his loss (how could I?) Along these lines there's something distasteful about the reporting today. His death was "breaking news" announced with the solemn sort of pomp that seems appropriate for great moral leaders, and it seems misplaced here, a mistake made capable by the media's self-important belief that Peter Jennings' innate worth was enhanced by his media status. But Jennings' contributions were those of a mortal man, just the same as the millions who toil every day namelessly, working to improve themselves, their place and their kids' future. By this measure -- the only one, really -- Peter Jennings wasn't any different than the rest of us, whether the elites want to believe that or not. The world lost a mortal soul today, not an elite one. May he rest in peace, and may his former colleagues learn to understand God doesn't differentiate.
I get the feeling the reporting on Bob Woodruff is heading in the same direction. Michelle Malkin offers some much-needed perspective, listing the names of four US military killed or injured by IEDs this week.
Posted by bill at 06:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Is it just me?
Haven't had time to scour the Internet, so it may be unfair to single out CNN but it's odd to me that the editors over there reported an audio tape with a video still:
I'm no journalist or anything, and I'm not accusing CNN (this time) of fabricating something to fit their view of the world, but does this say a thing or two about CNN's reporting?
UPDATE: Okay, maybe it is just me. RFDTH points out there's probably nothing wrong with using this shot, given that OBL isn't exactly a media hound these days - there aren't too many pictures available. Maybe....I....was....too....hard....on....CNN.....There, I said it.
Posted by bill at 05:12 PM | Comments (0)
December 26, 2005
Marketing Guerilla Or Capitalist Sellout? How About Both?
The corporate turn to "street" or, worse, "guerilla" marketing figures both an exhaustion and a transcendence of the old mass-market sales pitch, which could thrive in industrial societies where difference and change were not the reigning totem-idols. Now they are. The godheads are deviance and authenticity: yes, the real freak (opposite of our hallmark, the "real fake"), the guy or girl who is as "street" as they are "savvy." This is what McDonald's wants -- the genuine hipster who will sell out for a year's salary from pinkie finger-liftin'-good chicken sandwich ads. Read Mike Musgrove at WaPo ("What Looks Like Graffiti Could Really Be an Ad"):
In major cities such as San Francisco, Miami and New York, Sony has paid building owners to use wall space for the campaign, and the images have become a familiar sight. It's the latest effort by a big corporation to capitalize on the hot world of street art to reach an urban market that has learned to tune out traditional advertising.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)
December 22, 2005
Outward hostility
It's almost refreshing to me when the left's media whores abandon any pretense of objectivity and instead, indulge in gluttonous displays of outward disguist for the Bush administration. Let's be real, they sometimes seem to acknowledge. Today's example is this piece in the Wa Post ridiculing Scott McLellan for being (gasp!) an effective mouthpiece for the White House, by which Mark Leibovich of course means Andrew Card and Karl Rove - Bush's puppetmasters.
NOTICE: I will donate $100 to any reader who can point me to any MSM "news" piece taking this tack in writing about any of the several Clinton Press Secretaries. Email to: wlalor at citizen dash journal dot net.
Posted by bill at 12:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 29, 2005
Lost Times
If you're like me and didn't think TimesSelect was worth your hard-earned dollar, Mickey Kaus says you were right. "Inhibited writers, inhibited linkers, inhibited dialogue," he writes, explaining why NYT's approach to fee-for-content may be doomed.
Posted by bill at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)
November 27, 2005
More of the same
If you were hoping that ABC's new Nightline would be watchable than Ted Koppel, Media Research Center's Rich Noyes says you'll be disappointed. Noyes takes a look at Nightline's three-headed liberalmonster of Martin Bashir, Cynthia McFadden and Terry Moran. Moran brings his admitted "deep anti-military bias"; Bashir and McFadden have less of a track record but probably won't be much better. Let's watch this train wreck, shall we?
Posted by bill at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)
November 22, 2005
CJ View: Technical glitches happen
It didn't surprise me that a "computer bug" caused CNN to broadcast a big, black "X" though Dick Cheney's head during a segment last night:
These things happen. As the proprietor of this fine website, I encounter computer bugs regularly. For instance, I was going to post a diddy about how much I'm looking forward to ABC's face-lifted Nightline, and look what a computer did to the picture I was going to use:
Damn computers.
Posted by bill at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 17, 2005
Pundit Review Radio - Sunday at 9:00 p.m.
Media Alert: My friends at Pundit Review Radio will be joined Sunday night by Michelle Malkin, who will be discussing her new book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. The show will air at 9:00 p.m. Check it out, and let's hope PR remembers us little people when it goes big-time.
Posted by bill at 08:09 PM | Comments (0)
November 15, 2005
Objectivity alert
Love this headline: "Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate." Oh? The White House is, at last, sharpening its talking points and responding to years of vitriol with some much-needed jabs. The AP's story continues, "Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war." More accurate: "Bush's recent counter-attacks respond to the newest wave of attacks by Democrats, whose view of the Iraq war hasn't changed since late 2003 but has been re-packaged several times since then, most recently following the indictment of Scooter Libby."
That's not objective either but I've never claimed to be a journalist. More to follow from the WH?
Posted by bill at 09:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 26, 2005
Media objectivity alert
Via Michelle Malkin, Fromthepen.com demonstrates USA Today's doctoring of a photo of Condi Rice which makes her look downright demonic. Just in time for Halloween!
UPDATE: Kieran from EVS provides this link. Variations on a theme. Check out the last picture in on that page. Priceless.
Posted by bill at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 24, 2005
Stupid is as stupid does
One of the delicacies offered by the Internet is the insight it offers into the minds of people we've long known to be buffoons. Huffington Post, e.g., offers idiot syndication, of sorts, recording that once-fleeting evidence in daily installments. Alec Baldwin's latest work demonstrates why Huff Post is indispensible. Baldwin, you see, is upset with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom Baldwin seems to perceive as something of a hypocrite. Baldwin quotes her downplaying a "perjury technicality" in the context of the Fitzgerald/CIA leak and digs up a statement Hutchinson made in connection with her "yes" vote on impeaching Bill Clinton in 1999, which indicated something of a contrary view.
One might imagine that Baldwin, as political thinker, might compare the contexts of the statements, parse Hutchinson's words, or otherwise offer some argument as to why Hutchinson is hypocritical. But one would be sorely mistaken; Baldwin doesn't do any of that. His analysis?
My question for today is: Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit? And a follow-up...How did the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and General Eisenhower get taken over by such lying, thieving, self-serving scoundrels?
And that's it. That's the whole analysis - the entirety of Baldwin's entry consists of two quotes and one paragraph that could've been pulled from a 7th grade history textbook. In the end, Baldwin's post is Michael Moore-ian "political pornography" -- it makes liberals feel good but doesn't really say anything. Who says Republicans are in trouble?
Posted by bill at 07:23 PM | Comments (0)
Subservient Chicken
Let's not even ask what Burger King is up to here.
Posted by bill at 03:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Exhibit A
Why the New York Times is all but unreadable to us red state types. (H/T: Alarming News.)
Posted by bill at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 21, 2005
MSM hearts communists
Is it just me? Violence at anti-war marches and WTO demonstrations is often described as "confrontations" whereas if it's neo-Nazis marching, the same awful, criminal beahvior is dubbed "rioting." When's the last time you read about a "Communist riot"? Usually, responsibility for those "confrontations" between police and leftists is with the police, not anything on the part of the helpless crunchy kids. A while back Gadsden Flag noted the oddity of Che Guevera chique fashion - communism, he pointed out, has been responsible for millions and millions of dead, and yet thoughtless (at best) endorsements by celebs and others of Che is given, more or less, a free pass. I supppse MSM's choice of words as to what happened in Toledo is an extension of the same double standard. I suppose, too, it's too much to expect a reporter simply to "report."
I'll anxiously await emails accusing me of defending Nazis.
Posted by bill at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 20, 2005
Koffi-proofing the Internet
Thank you, Norm Coleman.
Posted by bill at 01:32 PM | Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
Huff on Russ
Arianna Huffington gets it right with her post yesterday chastising Tim Russert for his cheeky evasiveness on Plamegate:
...it's at least obvious that the the [New York] Times has taken a big first step in trying to deal with these facts: (a) the Times is a major news outlet, (b) the Plame saga is a huge news story, and (c) one of the Times's own journalists is a participant in the story.
Well, the exact same conditions exist at NBC: Tim Russert is a participant. He was interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald. And, like Miller, he has an obligation to explain to the public just exactly what he knows as a result of his involvement in the story.
Huffin' Puff offers an intriguing timeline suggesting Russert owes has some 'splainin to do.
Posted by bill at 06:53 PM | Comments (0)
CNN: Boring, and awful
CNN's uninsightful look at the "eroding distinction between work and play [that] is one of the many paradoxes at the heart of our increasingly wireless world"zzzzzzzzzzzz. Yawn - what year is this? But take heart: terrible writing rescues us from boredom. Take this sentence, for example, which on the CNN article page captions a photo of a Palm Pilot set awkwardly against a laptop: "With the proliferation of laptops and e-mail-enabled cell phones, the ability to disconnect is becoming harder." Huh? No kidding, but, you know, Editor? Editor?
At one time I would've expected vapid prose like this in, e.g., the Smithtown Pennysaver, or from Newsday's awful Sheryl McCarthy. In fact when I think about it I don't know why I expected anything better from CNN.
Posted by bill at 12:20 PM | Comments (0)
October 17, 2005
Catching up
It's good to be blogging again. Much to discuss.
Michelle Malkin offers a thought-provoking look at the MSM's hostility toward bloggers, even though by most accounts the blogosphere, warts and all, is a far superior finder of fact, and more democratic media. Speaking of which, Pundit Review Radio recently interviewed Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation, who has pursued the OU bomber story relentlessly.
Meantime, Mark Steyn offers his take on UNICEF's Smurf-alating commercial:
...I can't help thinking that, if you are that concerned for children in war zones, you might have done something closer to what real conflict is like in those places. In Rwanda, Sudan and a big chunk of west Africa, air strikes are few and far between. Instead, millions get hacked to death by machetes. Even on the very borders of Eutopia, hundreds of thousands died in the Balkans in mostly low-tech, non-state-of-the-art ways.
Posted by bill at 10:17 PM | Comments (0)
October 06, 2005
Something stinks in Soonerville
Why we need the blogosphere - at Michelle Malkin.
UPDATE - As noted by Rob from down the hall, where is the MSM coverage? CNN has two stories on Hinrichs, both of which are fatuous - first quotes U. Oklahoma's president [to paraphrase]: "Just a suicidal kid"; and uses passive, non-judgmental voice, essentially: "the poor kid was detonated"; and another (2 days ago) provides more unsightfulness - "evidence points to suicide"; Dad [paraphrasing]: "he's all-American boy"; "not a poltical statement."
Fox News doesn't fare much better; I don't read MSNBC. NY Times? With all those bare-knuckle investigative reporters? Nada. Reuters? Zilch (literally), although I simply can't believe it.
Posted by bill at 01:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Shameless self-promotion
My article entitled, "No experience necessary?" has been published at American Thinker. The article discusses Harriet Miers' nomination and her lack of "white shoe" credentials for the job. Take a lookie.
Posted by bill at 09:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 02, 2005
Easy Assignment: Spot the bias
How does MSM feel about a Hillary Clinton campaign for the White House? Writing for the NY Times Magazine, Matt Bai gives a preview.
The first few paragraphs of Bai's piece reveal limitations as a "reporter." He starts the article discussing parallels between Clinton and RFK: "Like Clinton, Kennedy was accused of trading on his famous name when he moved to New York and ran for the Senate." A writer's use of the word "Accused" is a classic indicator of bias. Conservatives accuse; liberals are accused; the word also denigrates the subject of the accusation, implying it is unfair, unproven, unfounded (Hillary's traded on her name? Ha-rumph!). Bai continues: "Kennedy's campaign to cleanse the Democratic soul, and his own, took on almost religious overtones....Clinton, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with ideological crusades, and she has thus far resisted the pull of rising antiestablishment forces." More bias: the word "idealogue" is a negative one, and Bai links it with bloggers, those Internet descendants of HC's yesteryear "vast right wing conspiracy" who remain a thorn in Dems' side (and liberal bloggers - the "anti-establishment" Kos nuts), and buys into the Hillary-as-moderate myth.
Bai sounds more like one of Clinton's PR interns than a reporter and is obviously reluctant to question Clinton's version of her political story.
"Media bias" is hard to "prove" - instances of unfairness do not amount to "bias" unless one side is unfairly reflected or portrayed more than the other. In this sense bias is a bit like "pornography" - we know it when we see it. But with Bai working hard to please his anti-Republican editors we don't have to look very hard.
Posted by bill at 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 30, 2005
Tree falls in forest, believes it has made a sound
As if unsatisfied with its efforts to date in becoming unreadable in both function and substance, the New York Times laments the fate of the "International Freedom Center" at Ground Zero in Manhattan, to which New Yorkers bade adieu earlier this week. The editorial begins by shooting the proverbial fish in the barrel - George Pataki - but then leers leftward and wraps up as follows:
Nor does it seem to have mattered that the protest against the Freedom Center - or, more truthfully, against any cultural presence at the World Trade Center site - was based on false information and a profound fear of free speech.
At the root of that vitriolic protest was one question: "Why here?" Why imagine creating an institution that would celebrate freedom and foster discussion of its meaning, and the meaning of 9/11, within the memorial quadrant of ground zero? Wouldn't that dishonor the dead? We have never thought so. We believe that the site is sacred to more than death. It is sacred to life and to the principles - as well as the people - attacked there on Sept. 11, 2001. We believe that this country can be made stronger only by free speech. We believe that the power of that site should be used to consider what happened that day and to see what lessons we can derive from it, not only to mourn the dead.
This sounds an awful lot like Bob Herbert, NYT's standard-bearer for meandrous leftist nonsense, and in the end the paper has simply offered more evidence it has completely and utterly lost touch. More here.
Posted by bill at 02:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
So what else is new?
Since baseball metaphors seem to be in vogue of late, read here about the softballs that Bill Clinton swung away at when he shook his finger at President Bush yesterday morning on Meet the Press and This Week (with former Clinton senior staffer/Dukakis campaign worker and Democratic boy wonder George Stephanopoulos; read about that here); and Democratic consultant Tim Russert.
Somehow, it still surprises people.
Posted by bill at 07:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 17, 2005
Duty to distort
NBC's Brian Williams, reporting yesterday morning from NOLA:
I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it...jump to certain conclusions.
It's not clear whether what "Some of the folks" thought was being offered as "the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district." The latter indicates consensus, the former does not. More clear is Williams' cutesy implication that Bush's speech and the window dressing that came with it are unique to Bush and that somehow "the talk" (did Williams try to confirm there was a consensus?) fair. Hardly so, Bill Clinton would not have been subjected to MSM cynicism and "bias" rears its head once again.
Posted by bill at 11:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
Funny thing happened to me on the way to a wake today. That's not as insensitive as it sounds since the wake was for a great old guy who passed @ 92 after a long and productive life, and, best of all, it was a peaceful, pain-free "passing." There was no grief, just good memories.
The funny part had to do with Al Franken, whose Hot-Air America I only listen to in the bathroom--appropriately--and heard on my shower radio. Seems this Weird Al, frustrated that he couldn't b*tch at anything else in Bush's speech last night, focused on the phone number Bush offered for Katrina victims to use to call in for aid.
Do read on! It's priceless!!!
Well, Franken complained it wasn't a 1-800-Katrina number so he called 1-800-Katrina. Turned out, it was a phone-sex line and "Katrina" answered, after Franken gave his credit card info and agreed to pay for ten minutes. He then identified himself as "Al," and that he had a radio show. He also commended "Katrina" for being a hard working, decent person. What follows is condensed and isn't a verbatim transcript but pretty close. It all aired live on Hot Air America:
AL-- So, Katrina, you think it's fair that you have this number and not the government? I mean, for the victims?
Katrina-- I think it's fair.
AL-- Well, would you sell the number to the government for, say, $100,000.?
Katina-- No, it's not mine to sell because a company owns it, but I wouldn't anyway!
AL-- Why not?
Katrina-- Because I live in Louisiana and those "victims" have more than I have! I have a friend in Houston and knows for a fact those "victims" were using those $2000 checks [sic]to buy designer handbags and clothes and such.
AL-- Don't you have compassion?
Katina-- Umm, Al, if you have a radio show, you must be awfully bored to have to make this call.
After hanging up, Franken's cackling cohort said, "Such a lack of empathy! You can't make this stuff up!"
Al just said, "Well, that didn't turn out like I expected."
Damn right, it didn't Weird Al!! Better call the braindead next time. But, you can't make this stuff up!
Posted by Gene Blogger at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
Lambs to the Slaughter
Something for everyone:
- Victor Davis Hanson vs. Arianna Huffington (9/14 at 8:00 p.m.; webcast at gvsu.edu)
- Christopher Hitchens vs. George Galloway (9/14 at 7:00 p.m.; webcast at KPTFX.com)
- Penn State vs. Central Michigan (Sat 9/17 at 3:30 p.m. on ESPN Plus)
Posted by bill at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
AP: We're hip
In another sign the MSM has no idea about the extent of its own demise, the New York Times reports that the AP
On Monday, the 157-year-old wire service is to start its "younger audience service," offering articles and "experiences" in multimedia formats, with audio, video, blogs and wireless text aimed at reaching readers between 18 and 34 years old. The service, one of the most ambitious projects undertaken by The A.P., is called asap, pronounced letter by letter, meant to evoke the wire service's legendary speed.
The pilot project for asap was approved by The A.P.'s board of directors in April. Tom Curley, president of the wire service, said at the time, "As the audience turns to new platforms and adopts new habits, the news must follow."
An "A" for effort, I suppose, but AP is not going to re-claim much old ground as long as the blogosphere is around.
Posted by bill at 08:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 08, 2005
Gutfeld: Very Funny
Greg Gutfeld at Huffington Post takes down his loony colleagues over there in one of the funniest posts I've seen in months. I won't even attempt to excerpt. Just go read it.
Posted by bill at 09:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 06, 2005
After Britain, A Different Deluge
Not quite a cottage industry, the diagnosing of Once-Great Britain with terminal moral slovenliness and cultural exhaustion is certainly now a phenomenon. Peter Hitchens and Theodore Dalrymple have been published at book length on the subject, and the September issue of The New Criterion covers it in sorrowful, skin-crawling detail. "The End of Virtuous Albion," "The Real British Disease"--titles such as these follow fast on the heels of news that British schoolchildren will be granted a five-per-diem useage of the f-word, because surrendering to profanity will make students more manageable, or because it's lodged irretrievably in their vernacular, or for some other "reason." Meanwhile, among other embarrassments, British imams publicly announce they hold no allegiance to crown or country. And perhaps worst of all, most British seem to have lost all connection with the cultural, educational, and artistic heritage that made their nation count. [More at Postmodern Conservative.]
Posted by James G. Poulos at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
Blogging and the future of politics
I realize not everyone cares what papers are in those tacky bins on the city sidewalks, and to people who don't, I'll apologize for my last post. Who cares what New Yorkers are reading, aye? For those people I offer Hugh Hewitt's piece today for the Weekly Standard talking about the blogosphere's effect on political debate and such. Among the thought-provoking comments:
As the daily information avalanche keeps getting bigger and bigger, and the data mountains higher and higher, the need for sherpas increases. No one person can keep on top of it all, but the technology Power Line News harnesses puts the new media's best content in a compact and easy-to-use display--basically mirroring the function RealClearPolitics performs for old media. Reliable aggregation of content is a huge development, one which further weakens the mainstream media.
Hewitt also says blogging has pulled Democrats leftward, which is probably a more significant point, and I'd guess he's right. It's exposed much of the un-intellectual left as a fraud and in the process, I think, fed that Deaniac anger. In terms of reasoned debate, there's simply no comparison between the most popular lefty blogs (Kos, Crooks & Liars and Kos alum Atrios with their conservative counterparts: Instapundit, Michelle Malkin and Powerline)(traffic stats here). I realize I'm making generalizations but this is only the beginning. Others - for example, Markos is incredibly popular but also incredibly immature, and one can't dismiss this altogether. Also compare comments at Free Republic with those at the Democratic Undergound. Every side has its shills and maniacs, but the left certainly seems to be tipping the scales.
Posted by bill at 01:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Media Watch
I just wrote a witty and insightful diddy on the forthcoming makeover at the NYC alt-weekly NY Press, and my desktop went kaput for a moment, pissing all of my work away. So read about it here and here and form your own damn opinions.
Posted by bill at 01:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
Lies, damn lies, statistics...
..and Associated Press stories. Newsbusters catches them. (H/T: Rob from down the hall.)
Posted by bill at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
The future of news...
Congrats to the folks at Powerlineblog on their newest offering, Powerline News.
Posted by bill at 09:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I have a fever, and the prescription is more cowbell!
It's August, and let's face it: politics can bore. An antidote: here's a classic from Saturday Night Live ("The last I checked we did not have a lot of songs that feature the cowbell. I'd be doing myself a disfavor, and everyone in this band, if I didn't perform the hell out of this"). (H/T: Michelle from law school.)
Posted by bill at 03:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 09, 2005
Another ally for the American left...
...in their vaunted "international community." Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, speaking to a communist youth gathering of sorts, called the U.S. "the most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." Apparently, he was serious. CNN's headline for the AP story was "Chavez: U.S. will 'bite the dust' if it invades Venezuela," which seems to miss the real story: that Venezuela is under the spell of a lunatic - while lending credence to Chavez' incendiary gobbledley-goo, which is that the U.S. is actually considering an "invasion." What bias?
Posted by bill at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 03, 2005
Why blogs are better
Yesterday a report circulated that was said to debunk the left's "GOP voter suppression" storyline. It says, essentially, that initimidation and such more often took place at the hands of Democrats, not Republicans. Captain Ed caught on here. Soon enough, though, as Ed lated updated us, one blogger realized the report's authors, though claiming to be a non-partisan organization, hardly appear to be that. Admirably, the Moderate Voice apologized and swiftly issued an unambiguous mea culpa, pointing out that the "NEWS VALUE in that original post was a neutral group saying the Democrats suppressed the vote more than the Republicans. But it now turns out that (a)a controversy has raged about this group being a GOP front group (on liberal blogs and on Air America) for months, (b)its legal advisor worked for the Bush-Cheney campaign."
Cf., e.g., CBS/Dan Rather. I still don't believe most of the left's whining about systemic unfairness, etc. It's the sing-song of party that doesn't win much anymore, and so is left to complain that the system is rigged. But the story here, for now, is the Blogosphere versus MSM, and once again the Blogosphere prevails.
Posted by bill at 02:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Who said they said the Senator said?
As it turns out, what Jonathan Turley said his sources said their sources said might not be correct after all. Hmm.
Posted by bill at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 25, 2005
Flinging labels
Not too long ago I wrote here that:
I don't like the fact that I cannot post anything here on the Middle East, September 11th and Israel without running the risk of being labeled an "anti-Semite" if I'm not exquisitely sensitive to the words I use and the range of inferences a reader might make. It's a sad truth that even foreign policy can be a casualty of speech policing inasmuch as Israel is involved....Like a lot of conservatives I support President Bush and his conduct of the war on terror, and I don't subscribe to Tin Foil Hat Brigade conspiracy theories. But if we're to have a worthwhile debate about what wars to fight, and how and when to do so, it'll have to account for the U.S.' unique relationship with Israel and the extent to which our interests are co-extensive with theirs, and when they diverge. One of the vastly unexplored issues of the last few years is whether, as to Israel, we're reaching a point of divergence, or are at or beyond it, as are sub-points such as: the idea that September 11th united much of the world against Islamofascim; questions about what Israel stands to gain from regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Today, Littlegreenfootballs underscores the problem. Responding to this post at Huffingtonpost:
little green footballs is a site of the Likud Party, they are not for America, for them Israel comes first.
LGF says:
Ariana opened the door to antisemites like Paul Findley and Justin Raimondo, and now their friends are showing up. The delicious irony, of course, is that the terrible secret of LFG is far stranger than their puny Earth minds can comprehend.[Link omitted.]
Anti-Semitism? How's that exactly? Sounds more like speech regulation by the right - no better than when it comes from the left.
Posted by bill at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 20, 2005
This just in...
"Battle Over Nominee May Center on Abortion," reports the AP.
Posted by bill at 08:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
One man's terrorist...
Below the fold is a memo distributed by the Canadian Broadcast Corp. on the use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism." (Thanks, CBC Watch/via LGF.)
'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': Exercise extreme caution before using either word.
Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)
Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it's a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.
By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem of calling one incident a "terrorist act" (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere "bombing" (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).
Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.
For example, "A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people." The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.
Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.
It's not practical to draft a list of all contexts in which the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are appropriate in news stories. For instance, we might write that Canada and other countries have passed "anti-terrorism" legislation, or that intelligence agencies have lists of groups that they consider "terrorist" organizations, or that the U.S. government has issued another warning about an increased risk of "terrorist attacks" in the next few weeks, or that certain people have been charged with acts of "terrorism." Use common sense.
The guiding principle should be that we don't judge specific acts as "terrorism" or people as "terrorists." Such labels must be attributed.
As CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman has pointed out: "Our preference is to describe the act or individual, and let the viewer or listener or political representatives make their own judgment."
Posted by bill at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 10, 2005
Jaw-dropping
Somehow the NY Times' latest blunder escaped much scrutiny in the blogosphere (understandable given last week's events). This is a correction that ran last week:
The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error. A corrected version of the article appears below.
Hmm. So an editor fabricated a quote - for reasons that are obvious and patently un-objective - and the Times is only apologizing that it wasn't deleted from the final? How about firing the editor for the fabrication?
Posted by bill at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 30, 2005
The Unconstructive Herbert
I've never believed Bob Herbert to be much of a writer, but his column today is a doozie. As far as I can discern, its thesis is that "Iraq is a quagmire because the war has been prosecuted incompetently." But then it's hard to say, because it's such a jumbled mess.
Let's take a lookie at this journalistic catastrophe. Following are the subjects of the 12 paragraphs in Herbert's column, in order:
1. The President had to make a speech about the war. [Ha ha.] 2. The definition of "quagmire" is "a situation from which extrication is very difficult." 3. Over 1,730 American soldiers have died in Iraq. 4. One of them was really young, and she's from the Bronx. 5. Two years ago the President foolishly said of insurgents, "Bring' em on." 6. Senator Frank Lautenberg didn't like that comment. 7. Bush didn't have a plan then, and he doesn't have a plan now. 8. High-level incompetetence is undermining the troops' effort. 9. Too commonly, areas are freed from insurgents, only to be re-taken because of our lack on manpower. 10. The White House believes Iraqi troops will help defeat the insurgency. 11. This is stupid. 12. Because of incompetence, we can expect to be in a quagmire for a while.
(MORE AFTER THE JUMP)
Herbert’s thesis appears, I think, in the 12th paragraph: "the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future."
As for the other paragraphs: We can toss out paras. 3 & 4 immediately (not to be forgotten, but nothing to do with Herbert’s thesis); as well as 1 (unadorned ridicule). Para. 6 is not relevant, and 8 simply repeats his thesis.
Leaving in the rest, then, and re-ordering things for logic's sake, we have this:
Because of incompetence, we can expect to be in a quagmire for a while (12).
The definition of a "quagmire" is "a situation from which extrication is very difficult" (2). The Iraqi people will not be able to contrbute meaningfully to defeating the insurgents, and this is true because I say it is, and it is typical Bush stupidity to believe my conclusory prediction is untrue (10 & 11).
I believe the Bush crowd is incompetent because: the President foolishly said of insurgents, "Bring' em on" (5) and because Bush has never had a plan and I know this because I say it frequently (7), and because American troops have often freed towns from insurgents, only to see them retaken because they have to leave (9). They are stupid if they disagree with my conclusory prediction about the Iraqi people (10 & 11).
So even after we winnow this mess down to its logical core, Herbert offers no facts and no evidence to support the first half of his thesis (incompetence) other than that Bush once taunted the insurgents (which was indeed foolish). He attempts to support the “quagmire” part with misdirection (Bronx soldier) and an unfortunate and apparently common occurrence in Iraq, but no logical connection is offered.
I mean, really -- what rubbish. So much for a constructive opposition.
Posted by bill at 01:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 29, 2005
No Bias Alert - Part I
Today's unbiased journalism comes from the BBC, which reports the results of a poll conducted by AOL and the Discovery Channel, in which President Ronald Reagan was voted the "greatest American" of all time:
Some observers suggest the image of Mr Reagan, who was criticised as an intellectual lightweight during his presidency, has been enhanced following his death as millions of Americans cast a rose-tinted look back at his presidency.
His two terms in office (1981-1989) coincided with a period of economic prosperity, the crumbling of the Soviet bloc and a renewed sense of pride among Americans still reeling from the Vietnam War.[Emphasis mine.]
Yep, just a coincidence.
Posted by bill at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 27, 2005
Years Late and Millions Short
Occasionally the MSM's pomposity is a source of entertainment, rather than mere annoyance - today, for example, CNN blared the ridiculous headline (it was on its front page), "Internet Transforms Modern Life," plugging a mindless article that would have been almost un-readable if it'd been published in 1998. It wasn't, but if we trudge through, we quickly come upon the following non-news:
The World Wide Web has transformed the way people live, work and play. People can play travel agent and book all the elements of a vacation online. They can arrange for their bills to be paid automatically while they are gone. They can put a hold on mail delivery, find directions to tourist attractions and get a long-term weather forecast before they pack.
Even on vacation, they can log onto the Web to keep up with news from their hometown paper or TV station, and stay connected with friends and family. In its first decade, the Internet altered the pace of popular culture. It made distance less daunting, rendered information instantly accessible and revolutionized communication.
(Anyone else thinking of Austin Powers air quoting the word "Lasers"?) The absurdity here reminds me of a three-night segment, years ago, in which NYC's local NBC news anchor, Chuck Scarborough, regurgitated some old footage into a 3-night series entitled, "Who really killed JFK?"." I was about 12 years old when it aired and even then, it was condescending. Scarborough wasn't exactly breaking new ground, and any dufus with a library card knew the series was neither "investigative" nor "journalism." (Packaged with the Zapruder tape and some historical footage, though it was evidently passable as such by Channel 4's standards.)
Also laughable is NYT executive editor Bill Keller's observation, apparently not from 1993, that the paper should "stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
Thanks, Bill.
Posted by bill at 03:20 PM |