|
"Elections have been lost by just 537 votes." -Michael Moore |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Posts By Topic 2008 Election Baseball Beer Drinking Economics Global Warming Hockey Media-Local Media-National NARN Politics-Local Politics-National Religion Separated At Birth? Travel Contributors The Elder: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Saint Paul: saintp at excite.com JB Doubtless: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com Atomizer: atomizer77 at yahoo.com
FEATURES ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
At NRO, novelist Robert Ferrigno imagines an alternative reality DNC and how it would be covered on MSNBC World:
"Good morning, Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at sea, this is Keith Olbermann reporting from the sixth day Democratic convention. Overtime. Extra innings. Sudden death." Olbermann hunched over, the studio lights glaring off the sheen of sweat across his forehead. "It's 3 A.M. in Denver, the witching hour, and after 134 ballots, the convention is still deadlocked between the presumed nominee, Barak Obama, and the insurgent forces of Hillary Rodham Clinton. At this moment, three holdouts for John Edwards, three deadenders who evidently previously served on an Edwards's jury and remain hypnotized, hold the key to the nomination and the presidency." He held up a blank sheaf of papers, jiggled them. "Our latest MSNBC-NBC intelligence reports indicate that anything can happen, so please, stay tuned." Labels: Media-National Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday's Financial Times offered up a trifecta of much interest for our own Saint Paul.
First, a review of a concert by Saint's favorite Scottish rockers The Fratellis: Presumably the ham-fisted heraldry was supposed to underline The Fratellis' pride at being a people's band. Unfashionable but hugely popular--their first album sold 1.5m copies--the Scottish trio bash out unreconstructed bloke rock, all football terrace choruses and beer-spraying guitar solos. The singer Jon Lawler has a passing resemblance to Marc Bolan with his tumbling curls of hair but otherwise they're archetypal lads next door, dressed in dark jeans and casual tops and possessing not one ounce of charisma. They opened with "Mistress Mabel" from their new album Here We Stand. Pub rock piano and rhymes from Noel Gallagher's reject pile ("Mistress Mabel, you're seriously wrong/Clears my table, bang, and then she's gone") clattered from the stage. The words "Nae Dance" were spray-painted on a speaker stack. Beery men lurching around in the audience did their best to obey the injunction. The evening's course had been set. The songs were plodding and derivative: sub-Beatles melodies, unglittery glam rock (more Slade than T-Rex), rabble-rousing punk rock in the dubious mould of The Libertines. Lawler's vocals aped Liam Gallagher's growl and the Arctic Monkeys' phrasing. Britpop's life flashed before my eyes. But other than that, how was the show? Then we have Gideon Rachman comparing American and British journalism and the use of Saint Paul's favorite tool of the trade; the anonymous source: American journalists, I realised, regard themselves as members of a respectable profession--like lawyers or bankers. Their British counterparts generally prefer the idea that they are outsiders. They like to quote the adage of the late Nicholas Tomalin that: "The only qualities essential for real success in journalism are rat-like cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability." The British sometimes argue that because American journalists have joined the establishment they are easily duped by "senior sources". The US press's supine role in the run-up to the Iraq war is cited as evidence. Maybe so. On the other hand, it was painstaking and daring American journalism that uncovered the Watergate scandal. Certainly, after a while in Washington I began to develop a grudging respect for my neighbours at the Tribune. I admired the fact that their investigative team would work for months on a single article. On the British paper I then worked for, an "investigation" was something we started on Tuesday and published on Sunday. I was also sure that when American papers used the phrase "sources say", there really were some sources. I was not always so confident when that phrase appeared in my own newspaper. Later in my career, I found myself defending a British colleague in Thailand--who was being roundly criticised by some Americans for using quotes from the Bangkok Post, without attribution. I coldly informed my American colleagues that they were box-tickers, making a fuss about nothing. When the Americans left, my British colleague thanked me and then added casually: "Mind you, you might have struggled to find those quotes in the Bangkok Post." He had made them up. Finally, a look at Saint Paul's favorite Asian cooking instrument, the "hot wok." Okay, it's really more of look at China's "war on nature" and the spectre of rising Chinese nationalism by Niall Ferguson, who is one of Saint's favorite writers: China on the eve of next month's Olympic Games is like a "hot wok" of aiguozhuyi - national pride--according to Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese writer. The question is how far the Chinese government risks overcooking the popular mood. Wherever you go, there is no escaping the official slogan of Beijing 2008: "One World, One Dream". The five cutesy Olympic mascots known as Fuwa are equally ubiquitous, chirruping away on screens large and small, from Beijing's striking new international airport terminal to the humblest local railway carriage. ***** The trouble with a semi-planned economy, as soon becomes clear to the visitor to Chongqing, is twofold. First, in the absence of rule of law and meaningful private property rights, there are no real limits to the "negative externalities" of economic development. The air in Chongqing is as thick with pollutants as the local food is thick with hot chili peppers, frequently turning the city's natural mists into dense pea-soup fogs. Second, the semi-planned economy allocates resources to infrastructure investment but does nothing to mitigate social inequality. The economic gulf between insiders (officials and entrepreneurs) and outsiders (construction workers and the rest) is now huge. If this is the "harmonious society" of which China's leaders boast, then São Paulo is an egalitarian paradise. ***** Yet the new forms of electronic communication may just as easily act as channels for popular nationalism as for political dissent. "We Have Nothing to Fear", an unofficial video posted on the internet shortly after the unrest in Tibet, is almost hysterically critical of the western media.* With its ultra-nationalist imagery, its strident music and its defiant slogans--"China's sovereignty is sacred and inviolable"; "We have an obligation to safeguard the community's prosperity and stability"; "Do not provoke us!"--it perfectly captures the moment when Chinese nationalism met YouTube. On the eve of the Olympics, there is indeed something of the "hot wok" about the mood in China. But it is China's hot websites, burning with a new generation's nationalism, that should make the rest of the world feel uneasy. Labels: Media-National Friday, June 27, 2008
The people have spoken and not surprisingly you have said that Laura Ingraham has the worst guest hosts. This was actually the outcome I had in mind when I posted the poll, having spent the last several days suffering through Monica Crowley trying to fill in for Ingraham.
No offense to the ladies out there, but there is a reason there aren't many successful female political talk radio hosts (or hostesses) in the land (Ingraham is the obvious exception). There's something about the tonal quality of their voices and tendency to chatter excitedly that usually has me reaching for the dial post haste. Hugh Hewitt finished second to Ingraham in the poll and had he decided to have Carol Platt Liebau fill in for him this week, it might have been enough to vault him into the top spot. Like nails on a chalkboard her voice is. Labels: Media-National Thursday, April 10, 2008
May 7th Debate - Medved/Schultz:
Join AM1280 The Patriot as we present our own Michael Medved in a spirited debate against liberal Ed Schultz on The Future of America. This event will be held on Wednesday May 7th at 8:00 PM at The Northland Inn in Brooklyn Park. General Admission is $25, but you can save $5 if you purchase in advance. A limited number of V.I.P. dinner tickets are available which include a photo opportunity with Michael Medved and Ed Schultz prior to the event. A picture with Medved on your right and Schultz on your left I presume. It's going to be a heavyweight talk radio showdown (Schultz's heavyweight status being relative to the world of liberal talk radio of course) that is sure to bring back memories of 1933's Baer-Schmeling match at Yankee Stadium. Only this time I imagine the Jewish contender will score his technical knockout much sooner. Get your tickets today. Labels: Media-National Wednesday, April 09, 2008
More from http://www.angryjournalist.com/
I am not a journalist--that is, not a reporter, editor or photographer--but I worked in a newsroom for many years and sat in on hundreds of morning news meetings, as well as every other kind of meeting a newsroom generates. Over the years, I had thousands of interactions with the people producing the daily paper.Reporters and editors let bias into news stories all the time. They vehemently deny it because they truly believe it doesn't happen. But they look at everything through a lens formed in the sixties and handed down almost unmodified by anything that's happened since. On certain subjects like the environment, or race, or big business vs. the little guy, or gay rights, the issues are always perfectly clear. White hats and black hats are firmly fitted onto the heads of stock characters, and here we go.The story is framed in the morning meeting or in the project proposal before a single fact is reported, and by God, that's the way it's going to be written. If the reporting doesn't support the premise, we can make it seem to with the headline, the art, burying or blurring the inconvenient facts, and a hundred other ways. We know we're right, even if we can't quite find the facts to prove it. For example: You've pitched a big project on lead in drinking water in a poor minority community, maybe on a tip from your environmental-lawyer-longtime-source and buddy. A lot of scarce resources will be spent on testing water and blood samples, etc., but this could be a Pulitzer entry. It's going to be a front-page multi-part series, with two or three open pages inside the first day, huge graphics and lots of photos of "victims." We'll have the greedy capitalist who owns the small water system, the dilatory and incompetent regulators, and the poor residents who only now realize, thanks to our crusading reporter, that they have been poisoned. It turns out that the lead levels in the blood samples are below what's considered dangerous. Okay then, we'll compare them to the national AVERAGE, a completely meaningless number. But now we've got our graphics, we've got poor black folks with mysterious ailments, a learning-disabled kid to feature, and an "embattled" (a loaded word if there ever was one) state agency. Run the series. Promote the hell out of it and order fifty extra copies for contest entries. I could go on about how intelligent reporters can still be appallingly ignorant on subjects like science and history, and the arrogance that keeps them from admitting it. You can't write a balanced story if you have no idea there could be another side. And on how advocates for the apple-pie causes we (doesn't everybody?) support aren't subjected to the same skepticism we apply to politicians and corporate spokespeople. And there's the conviction, expressed in our touch-feely editors' retreats, that the paper's role is to "lead" and "teach," and if the community protests, it's because they're "resistant to change". Translation: I'm trying to tell you how to be just like me and you won't listen. I loved working at the paper. There's no other job where you get to be around so many smart, funny people every day. But I'm a total cynic when it comes to the way news is gathered and reported, and I consume no journalism without my Skeptometer dialed to High. UPDATE: There are A LOT of journos on the site bitching about how little they are paid. One said she started at $22k right out of college and hasn't made much more since then (5 years later). Pity, that. This poster cracks these self-important wankos right atwixed the eyes with a little Econ 101: I'm a non-journalist who will try to explain why most of you feel--and are--poorly paid: You are a commodity.Commodities are price-driven. ANY unionized job--by definition--is a commodity. If you do not DIRECTLY contribute to some P&L, and/or easily replaceable, you will be paid...just enough. Applies to teachers too. Labels: Media-National Thursday, April 03, 2008
I'm getting a hoot out of reading the posts on AngryJournalist.com:
Many of these posts talk about balanced reporting. I spent a decade heading a public health agency and dealing with the "scare of the day" invented by you worthless losers. Journalists who had no concept of scientific studies would pick and choose from the info given them by our toxicologists and epidemiologists (who they refused to identify as Dr. because they had Ph.D or DVM degrees and their rules only use that title for MD degrees) and "balance" them with the alarmist drivel of some housewife who claimed the entire neighborhood had cancer. They could keep a story with no basis going for months or at least until the next housewife showed up. I have zero respect for anyone associated with the news media and do not consume the piffle they produce. FOAD and/or ESAD to all you journalists. Bwah! UPDATE: (Journalism is) a quasi-profession made up of a bunch of people who have tremendous self-esteem issues due to the fact that they are constantly forced to talk and write about people who are smarter, more interesting and more accomplished than they ever will be. Labels: Media-National Wednesday, April 02, 2008
...and they're not going to take it anymore. Mark e-mails to hep us to a story on a place where angry journalists vent their frustrations to the world:
They're angry at their demanding editors. They're angry about the mushrooming workload in shrinking newsrooms. They're even angry about other angry journalists. But these angry journalists are happy they can now vent their frustrations to the rest of the world, courtesy of AngryJournalist.com, a sort of online complaint board allowing ink-stained wretches to gripe anonymously. It's difficult to tell how many of the entries are the complaints of real angry journalists and how many are pranksters mocking their angst (sometimes to very humorous effect). Some of the ones cited in the story include: Angry Journalist #2559 seems to think that his or her newspaper serves for other purposes than informing readers: "Whatever I write ulimately (sic) either ends up as cage lining or as blankets for bums." At least he's got a realistic perspective on the importance of his work. And: "I'm angry because my company, just like the rest of the industry, wants me to do more with less. They've said, 'To hell with quality. Let's just fill the website with as much (expletive) as possible,'" gripes Angry Journalist #241. A Minnesota Monitor staffer perhaps? This my personal favorite: Angry Journalist #2927: I'm angry I got plagiarized by a blogger, and that other bloggers picked up "his" story. I've posted comments on the original and related blogs, linking to my story. But, what else can I do? F***ing bloggers. And I don't mean sites that have a staff or some kind of level of accountability, or are done by reporters working for news organizations, or are just purely entertainment/gossip news. But for God's sake: Why do readers think that some guy in his boxers sitting on his mom's couch can give them better news? At least we've moved up from the basement. It must come back to the fact that news organizations have done such a poor job, due to layoffs, mismanagement, and outsourcing customer service, that the average reader really cant tell the difference anymore. F***. Sound like any angry journalists you know? Labels: Media-National Thursday, March 13, 2008
Another shocking tale of corporate greed in America. A highly successful business, full of wealthy executives and staff, shaking down the local government of one of the poorest cities in America for millions in tax subsidies. The gory details from the Washington Post.
[The District of Columbia] has negotiated a $40 million deal .... to keep the company's headquarters in the city, granting tax abatements over the next two decades You may think its only a matter of time before advocates for the poor are staging protest rallies and calling for Congressional investigations into this obvious misappropriation of the public treasury. Until, that is, I reveal what is behind the ellipsis in that quote above. That rich corporation was (drumroll, please) National Public Radio (ta-da!) Just when you thought the billions of dollars in direct government subsidies, tax advantaged contributions, and free use of government owned facilities and equipment might be enough to keep afloat "public" broadcasting in this country, their grasping hand reaches out and grabs the government of DC by the throat. Give us more money or we're taking your beloved institution and leaving! When did Carl Pohlad buy NPR? NPR could have gone "anywhere" the mayor said, adding that the 20-year tax abatements and planned street improvements in the neighborhood were necessary incentives. Anywhere? Our National Radio Station can cover news from our National Capital from anywhere? Paducah, Kentucky? Jerkwater Flatts, ND? East Bumblefark, MD? Close, on that last one: Montgomery County officials presented a package that "caused us to take a second look" at a location near the Silver Spring Metro station, he said. County officials spent months trying to lure the company, crafting scenarios including one that would have provided about $32 million in permanent property tax breaks because NPR is a nonprofit with an educational mission. [Laughter.] The county also offered to build a parking lot for the company that would have been worth about $18 million, said Diane Schwartz Jones, a top aide to County Executive Isiah Leggett (D). It seems they could have gone "anywhere" as long as the bid was at least $40 million of government money. But loyalty won the day! As the distinguished gentlewoman from DC, Eleanor Holmes Norton, put it: "I knew NPR would not do that to us," said Norton Do what? In addition to the money, demand the City Council members get Garrison Keillor's face tattooed on their rear ends? (Don't get smug DC, I hear Paducah Kentucky is seriously considering upgrading their offer to include this.) Neil O. Albert, deputy mayor for planning and economic development, said that NPR will not pay property taxes on the building for 20 years, saving $40 million. The city has agreed not to raise property taxes by more than 3 percent on the station's Massachusetts Avenue building for two decades, or until NPR sells it. A pretty sweet deal there. But it's not like DC actually has a need for $40 million or anything. They've solved all their problems with crime, education, health, welfare, and high tax rates, right? They were just looking for a way to distribute their vast surpluses. Actually, no. DC is like most urban, liberal enclaves, a vast, insatiable, sucking black hole of tax dollars. And the game of giving a tax free palace to NPR is not zero sum. If there are winners, there will also be losers, that money has got to come from somewhere. Believe it or not, that happens to be the ATM machine known as private business. Nicholas Deoudes, who owns three buildings less than a mile from the future NPR location, said that his property taxes increased last year from $13,614 to $36,151. Deoudes, who has owned the buildings for 29 years, said the city needs to help longtime business owners who stayed when the area was a "ghost town." "That's criminal," Deoudes said about the NPR deal. "My assessments went up . . . while somebody else got it for 20 years with no property taxes. They're handing out benefits to the big guys and leaving the small-time guys like myself and my tenant out of business. We're picking up the tab for somebody else." Let's not forget, the "big guys" in this case are the biggest guys of all, the government. Of course, the reason DC is giving NPR more money is to retain all those high price jobs within their borders. Those salaries all being dependent on other government handouts. A vicious little circle. But you can see why DC is happy to screw over private business. They have the unfortunate luck of having to produce something of value to stay in business. There's no guarantee they'll be around in 5, 10, 20 years. On the other hand, NPR, like most government programs, is forever. Labels: Media-National Thursday, March 06, 2008
After JB spotted an obvious error in a New York Post story the other day (recounted here), he e-mailed the reporter--Charles Hurt, the Post's DC Bureau Chief--to make him aware of his mistake.
Now, he has received a reply and an admission of guilt. Sort of: Doubtless, you are right. I promise you it was an error that was inserted at copy desk level. It will be fixed if it hasn't already. In any event, thank you for bringing to my attention and thank you for reading the Post. Those darn gatekeepers. When they're not asleep at the gate, letting all sorts of misinformation slip through, they're changing the reporters' work to introduce errors! This actually makes this instance an even more glaring example of media ignorance. The reporter correctly writes that McCain was held captive by the North Vietnamese (at least according to his claim). A copy editor then decides that's incorrect and changes it to Viet Cong. At that point, he had to be damn sure that the reporter was wrong. So sure, that he didn't bother to take ten seconds to verify the facts. It's bad enough for a reporter to make a mistake through carelessness, laziness, or ignorance. But it's even worse when a editor makes a mistake by changing the reporters' original work. If you're going to step in and make a "correction," you better be absolutely certain that you're right. Don't worry folks, the gatekeepers are on the job. Labels: Media-National Tuesday, March 04, 2008
JB may have nobly sacrificed blogging for Lent, but blogging hasn't quit him as evidenced by his catch of this rather obvious media error in the New York Post:
March 3, 2008 WASHINGTON--One of Hillary Rodham Clinton's best-known supporters, feminist author Gloria Steinem, belittled John McCain's ordeal as a prisoner of war and the torture he endured as a captured Navy airman. "I mean, hello?" Steinem told a Texas crowd Saturday night as she was discussing McCain's captivity by the Viet Cong. McCain of course was shot down over Hanoi and held captive by the North Vietnamese Army. As JB notes: Might sound like trifling, but it goes to the complete lack of knowledge they have about what happened over there. This isn't the first time that the media has been confused between the VC and NVA either. The differences between the two are significant to anyone with more than a passing understanding of the Vietnam War and it's just another example of the historical ignorance and intellectual laziness that is all too prevalent in the media. Labels: Media-National Friday, February 15, 2008
Last Friday, Susan Sataline penned a piece in the Wall Street Journal (sub req) that in my opinion grossly exaggerated the role of religious bigotry in Mitt Romney's failed bid to win the GOP nomination. It also grossly mischaracterized the position of Father Richard John Neuhaus on the possibility of a Mormon in the White House (that would make for a great book title, wouldn't it?) and lumped in him with people who truly were attacking Romney because of his faith:
On the Internet, the Romney bid prompted an outpouring of broadsides against Mormonism from both the secular and religious worlds. Evangelical Christian speakers who consider it their mission to criticize Mormon beliefs lectured to church congregations across the country. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the Catholic journal First Things, wrote that a Mormon presidency would threaten Christian faiths. Atheist author Christopher Hitchens called Mormonism "a mad cult" on Slate.com, and Bill Keller, a former convict who runs an online ministry in Florida, told a national radio audience that a vote for Mr. Romney was a vote for Satan. For the record, what Neuhaus said was that if Romney was elected President it would enhance the image and visibility of the LDS and likely lead to an increase in their numbers. And that it was something that could legitimately be considered by voters: It is not an unreasonable prejudice for people who, unlike Alan Wolfe et al., care about true religion to take their concern about Mormonism into account in considering the candidacy of Mr. Romney. The question is not whether, as president, Mr. Romney would take orders from Salt Lake City. I doubt whether many people think he would. The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism? The answer is almost certainly yes. Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? The answer is almost certainly yes. Is it legitimate for those Americans to take these questions into account in voting for a presidential nominee or candidate? The answer is certainly yes. But he was also very clear from the beginning of the campaign that he didn't believe that Romney's religion was more important than his political views and those views would be what determined who he would vote for. He said as much when we interviewed him last March on the NARN. To cherry-pick and mischaracterize his comment and include it in the same paragraph as remarks from Hitchens (an atheist) and Keller (an ex-con) was dishonest and disreputable. It was shoddy and sloppy journalism. To its credit, the Journal did allow Neuhaus to respond in yesterday's Letters to the Editor: I object to your characterization that I "wrote that a Mormon presidency would threaten Christian faiths." I do not believe that. What I did write on several occasions is that Gov. Romney is a very attractive candidate but we should not underestimate the number of people who would not vote for a Mormon for president. Nor, I wrote, should we arrogantly dismiss these people as bigots. My point was and is that for many of these people the religious factor trumps the political. I did not agree with them in the instance of the Romney candidacy, but theirs is a defensible position that should not be caricatured as an irrational prejudice, which is what, unfortunately, your story does. The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus Labels: Media-National Monday, December 10, 2007
Caught a couple minutes of the Stephanie Miller show today on Air America. Not usually part of my morning routine, but my dial was locked on 950 after listening to Saturday night's Gopher hockey game. Miller and her male sidekicks were mocking the theological beliefs of Mormonism and playing some goofy background music--just in case you didn't catch their tone. Of course, this wasn't really about Mormonism per se, it was an attack on Mitt Romney.
Now I'll be the first guy to admit that some of the tenets of the Mormon faith provide fertile ground for ridicule (see South Park's hilarious episode on it for example). But there's still something unseemly about using it as an avenue to attack a candidate for president. I don't have a problem with people who are troubled by Romney's religion and want to take that into consideration when deciding whether he should be the next president. But openly ridiculing his faith (and that of his fellow Mormons) as part of politics seems a bit beyond the pale. I also think it reveals what Miller and many of her ideological bent really believe about religion in general. At the end of the segment--after laughing off the Mormon views of heaven--they summarized their take on Mormonism as "not all that more wacky than Catholicism." Nice outreach to the religious voters there. A couple of other points to consider: - Is Miller aware that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon? Or maybe she doesn't believe that he's a "real" Mormon sorta like how John Kerry isn't a "real" Catholic. - How many segments has Miller spent mocking the precepts of Islam on her show? Don't answer Atomizer. That's one of them rhetorical type questions Labels: Media-National Saturday, December 01, 2007
From the News in Brief section of this weekend's Moscow Times:
Journalists Help Spread HIV Journalists and homosexuals top the list of social groups that most actively contract and transmit HIV, Vadim Pokrovsky, head of the Federal Center to Fight AIDS, told the Novy Region news agency Thursday. He added that the most risky groups were the ones where homosexuals have the opportunity to actively socialize, and he also mentioned policemen, doctors and show-business figures as risk groups. Pokrovsky said, however, that public perception about high rates of HIV among the homeless had been proven wrong. "Bums don't have sexual lives, and they have no money for [injectable] drugs," he said. Labels: Media-National Wednesday, November 28, 2007
It sounds like local TV news in Atlanta is a little more entertaining than what we get in the Twin Cities:
A weekend Atlanta anchor was fired after she was said to have uttered the word "m-----f-----" during her newscast. Pow! That does sound a little beyond the standards of non-premium cable broadcasting. No word on whether there were mitigating factors, for instance, if she had been reporting on the performance of the Minnesota Timberwolves this season. Actually, Ms. Champion denies using the expletive. My co-anchor and I were talking about a mechanical screenwriter. It is difficult to use at times. The last part of our conversation was silly banter and barely audible, but it was picked up. I called the screenwriter a 'mothersucka' not the f-bomb. I did not curse on the air, and what happened should not have cost me my job. 'Darn,' 'shoot' and 'heck' are all words that a listener may see as substitutes for curse words. But, they are not curse words . . . and neither is 'mothasucka.' The penalty seems extremely heavy-handed. Back off you puritanical censors! She was only using a playful variation of the most obscene phrase in the English language. I'm not sure a plea to mainstream one of the few remaining nuclear options left in the world of profanity will be a successful defense. However, she does have precedent on her side for this kind of news reporting in Atlanta: Several years ago an Atlanta anchorman at another station actually said MF on the air and was merely suspended, not fired. Two of these dropped within a couple of years in the Atlanta market? It's a trend! I presume the consultants will be selling the locals on this and I look forward to someday soon sitting down to watch the touching presentation on Channel 11 of Eleven MF'ers Who Care. Post script: A Google search reminds us of this appearance by Cari Champion, back when she was a meteorologist at a station in Florida. CNN interrupted regular broadcasting to feature this commentary on the ravages of Hurricane Frances in September 2004: CARI CHAMPION, WPTV CORRESPONDENT: Do not go outside in Jupiter, if you live in that city, because of the flooding, downed power lines. The rain, I believe, honestly, the rain really had -- it did more of a job on the area as opposed to the winds because, again, it was a category two. The winds weren't bad. I mean, structurally, a lot of places were able to handle that wind, but... UNIDENTIFIED MALE, WSVN: Hey, Cari. I want a little figure -- I'm going to give you a little figure you can give to your newsroom. CHAMPION: Yes, tell me. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You had the equivalent of, I would say -- let's see. Two and a half inches of rain, you've had about 12. That's five. You had about 250 million gallons of water per square mile poured on you in a very short period of time. CHAMPION: And that's what they were saying. At the P.B.I.A., Palm Beach International Airport, they reported eight and a half inches, I mean, like three, in like three hours, maybe. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. CHAMPION: It was amazing. It was really amazing. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These two and a half inches of rain is 40 million gallons per square mile. CHAMPION: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Palm Beach right now has over a foot total; so, I mean, you're talking billions and billions and billions of gallons of water dumped in a very short period. That's why people underestimate flooding. [ED NOTE: I can identify that male, it's Carl Sagan.] CHAMPION: Your right. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, WSVN: Yes, and sadly, it's not safe for drinking. CHAMPION: Absolutely. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's just a mass. For her strength in resisting dropping an MF on this clown in 2004, she deserved at least a regional Emmy. Labels: Media-National Thursday, October 18, 2007
Breaking news from the Associated Press, on a certain unorthdox contributor to the political campaign of comedian Al Franken:
Liberal Al Franken is good enough and smart enough to win some of conservative Ben Stein's money -- and doggone it, Stein likes him. Stein, an actor, writer, economist and former Nixon speechwriter, has contributed $2,000 to Franken's U.S. Senate campaign. The two men have known each other for about 30 years. As a former "Saturday Night Live" star, Franken has received scores of contributions from people in the entertainment industry, but Stein's donation doesn't fit into the GOP's talking points about liberal Hollywood elites bankrolling Franken's campaign. Glad someone finally woke up the boys at the most powerful news syndication service in the world to this story. Of course, the cognitive elite comprising the readership of Fraters LIbertas already knew this, when I broke the story on June 12: Ben Stein - $1,000. Legendary Ferris Beuhler actor, game show host, and brilliant conservative. Former speech writer for Richard Nixon and columnist for the American Spectator and Yahoo Finance, among other outlets. One of the finest writers around on politics, economics, and culture, as demonstrated in this listing. In particular, he's one the most articulate and persuasive speakers advocating the pro-life stance in the country. And he's giving money to Al Bleeping Franken? A guy who's never found a liberal position on abortion he didn't like (as shown by the $5,000 contribution he also received from something called Washington Women for Choice.) How in the world can Ben Stein be supporting Al Franken? Then I went the further step of getting the first comment from Ben Stein on the subject. And I didn't burden the readers with unfunny references to Stuart Smalley. Members of the Academy, please remember this come Pulitzer time. Labels: Media-National Friday, September 28, 2007
Earlier this week I was listening to Rush during lunch and heard him discussing the case of Jesse Macbeth, the "phony soldier" who's tales of atrocities commited by US troops in Iraq were trumpeted by elements in the left and alternative media, until he was exposed as a charlatan.
Apparently later in the show, during a caller segment, Rush sardonically queried about this "phony soldier" phenomenon in regards to media reports on the status of American efforts in Iraq. It turns out the Media Matters monitor assigned to listen to Limbaugh flagged this as offensive and they reported on the comment, out of context, as equivalent to Republican accusations of the liberal tendancy to denegrate US troops. To anyone who heard any part of that broadcast, or cared enough to review it after the fact, the accusation is laughably disingenuous. But in today's media climate, laughably disengenuous and taken at face value in an attempt to destroy, are not mutually exclusive concepts. From Media Matters Democrat funded portal, to their local facsimilies, to US Congressmen, to a MSM reporter using it as a premise for a question during today's White House press conference, it's the cold hard fact of the moment for eager Democrats looking to smash a conservative icon. Fair-minded fellow citizens, please correct your future judgment on the credibility of those information outlets trumpeting this false controversy appropriately. Labels: Media-National Friday, September 14, 2007
Over the years, we've taken a lot of pride in the quality of interviews (or "gets" as they're referred to by us media industry insiders) that we've been able to land on the Northern Alliance Radio Network. Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Barone, Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Burleigh, Vox Day, Sewer Man...the list goes on and on.
But we can't hold candle to Alexis Debat. Over the years the former ABC news consultant has written up interviews with an impressive list of names including Former President Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and Sen. Barack Obama. Those are some tough gets. In fact, maybe they were a little too tough. Much easier to just make it all up: Former President Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have added their names to the list of people who say they were the subjects of fake interviews published in a French foreign affairs journal under the name of Alexis Debat, a former ABC News consultant. "This guy is just sick," said Patrick Wajsman, the editor of the magazine, Politique Internationale, a prestigious publication that has been in business for 29 years. Wajsman said he was removing all articles with Debat's byline from the magazine's Web site. Yesterday, a spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said a supposed interview with Debat, published in the June 2007 edition of Politique Internationale, never occurred and was a fabrication. They should have known that the picture of Obama wearing a beret personalized with his name was a Photoshop job. This incident raises some familiar questions about just what happened to those fact-checkers, gatekeepers, and editors. In fact, Stephane Dujarric, the deputy communications director for the U.N. secretary-general, said he called the fabricated interview to the attention of the editor of the magazine, Patrick Wajsman, in June 2005. "I told him that if he went ahead with it, we would denounce the interview as a fake," the U.N. official said. "This was not some obscure guy. This was the sitting secretary-general of the U.N., and the magazine was told it was a fake," he said. Despite that, Debat continued for the next two years to be cited as the author of interviews with a range of prominent U.S. public officials in Politique Internationale. The U.N. official said a second supposed interview of Annan by Debat, posted earlier this year by Politique Internationale, was actually portions of a speech the secretary-general had given at Princeton University. The magazine editor, Wajsman, told ABCNews.com he thought the problem with the Annan interview, one of the first he submitted, was "maybe a technical one" or a misunderstanding. Yeah, the technical misunderstanding was the he DIDN'T ACTUALLY INTERVIEW ANNAN! Nice to see the Sergeant Schultz defense ("I know nothing!")--a favorite of US editors--is also popular across the pond. That and pointing the blame elsewhere: Asked why he continued to use Debat after the warning from the U.N., Wajsman said, "Everybody can be trusted once. He seemed to be well-connected in Washington, working for ABC and the Nixon center." Eetz all zee Americans fault. I have a hunch that we'll be discussing this story further on tomorrow's NARN First Team broadcast from 11am-1pm. Tune in locally on AM1280 WWTC or listen live on the internet stream from anywhere and everywhere. Saint Paul is not going to joining the radio festivities as he and his new bride are departing on their honeymoon tomorrow. Not every guy is classy enough to take his true love on a romantic getaway to Tijuana, but our Saint Paul is sparing no expense. Lucky gal. Labels: Media-National Saturday, September 08, 2007
This nugget from The Numbers Guy (sub req) in yesterday's WSJ shows why all those fact-checkers, editors, and gatekeepers are needed:
Michael Ranney, a cognitive scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, says journalism students in his number-training class who should know the U.S. population is 300 million sometimes guess California has one billion people (instead of 36.5 million). Everything I needed to know I learned in J-school? Labels: Media-National Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Lunch time conservatives, at 12:10 PM (Central) Karl Rove being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh right now. Streaming here.
UPDATE: It's over! Not bad, but no new insights provided. All things considered my cheese and honey mustard sandwich was equally as compelling. Streaming here. Labels: Media-National Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Steven, a lawyer from some place called "Brooklyn" (never 'eard of it), e-mails to hep us to an interesting discussion in the comments section of a NY Times post by Steven. D. Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) called If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?. There are a lot of interesting ideas offered along with comments from a number of people who believe that it's a discussion that we shouldn't even be having.
Labels: Media-National Friday, July 27, 2007
What do you do with a young reporter who made a series of errors and showed obvious political bias while covering the national education beat? If you're the Washington Post, you send this "rising star" to Iraq to cover the war. Red State has the details:
Mr. Paley is a twenty-something Harvard grad who has been covering the U.S. Department of Education for the Washington Post. If his present track record of covering education for WaPo is any indicator, we can expect to get a fable, not facts, from Iraq. Getting his big break on the front page of the Washington Post in April, Paley wrote a host of hard hitting articles citing his leading source as a "senior official," "senior agency official," and even a "presidential appointee." Unfortunately, WaPo had to run a correction admitting that the source was none of the three. Okay, but anyone can make a mistake, right? Weeks later, Paley returned to the front page without fact checking. On April 21, 2007, Paley wrote, "The No. 3 official in the U.S. Department of Education, who oversees the student loan industry, had more than $10,000 invested in student lenders, according to documents released last night." The fact was that the husband of the official owned the stock via a 401(K) and sold it before his wife faced Senate confirmation. Instead of running yet another correction, WaPo just sneaked in two paragraphs in *a different story* mentioning these facts. This sneaky way to correct their prodigy's record even upset WaPo's ombudsman who called the handling "problematic" and wrote that the correction "should have had its own headline and more prominent display." As we've learned from years of following newspapers, anytime you can get an ombudsman (or "reader's representative") to actually fess up to a mistake, you know something's gone seriously wrong. Erick at Red State concludes: So, realizing they need to do something to get Paley off the Education beat and stop the embarrassing need to substantively correct his front page stories, WaPo has come up with a great idea. They are sending him to Iraq as a war correspondent. If this wasn't such a serious matter, it would be absurdly amusing. Jerry: So, what did you say? Elaine: Well, I called him all the way up to my office, so I had to tell him something important. So I promoted him. Jerry: What? What did you-- Elaine: Copywriter. Jerry: He's writing copy? Elaine: Well it can't be any worse than the pointless drivel we normally churn out. Labels: Media-National Tuesday, July 17, 2007
I see Michael Moore and CNN have been feudin' and fussin' over the alleged inaccuracies of the network's report about Moore's film Sicko. Can't say I watched the CNN report in question. Or Sicko, for that matter (only an authentic sicko would subject himself to both), so I cannot take sides in this dispute.
Precedent suggests Moore's latest movie is cheap, manipulative propaganda. But I wouldn't be surprised if CNN also botched their report. As the long running "This Week in Gatekeeping" segment on NARN demonstrates each and every week, there is commonly a shortage of accuracy and a surplus of lazy reporting in news reports from Big Media like CNN. So what happens what a cheap manipulative movie gets subjected to a lazy, inaccurate critical review? Maybe it's like grammar with a double negative and something extremely awkward but ultimately positive comes out in the end. I'd say that's a fair characterization of Moore's latest threat letter to CNN. With both of these heroes of the left butting heads, it will be harder for each to, say, continue eroding America's will to win its wars, at least for the time being. I must say, the tone of Moore's letter to CNN exceeds even the hatred he's directed to people like George Bush and General Motors. Reading through it, it reminds me of only one thing, which leads us to this psychotic stalker rhetoric separated at birth: Michael Moore and his letter to CNN and Robert DeNiro as Max Cady in Cape Fear. Evidence: Moore: Dear CNN, Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes. I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away. Cady: You think a couple whacks to my guts is gonna get me down? It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than that, Counselor. ------------------------------------------------------- Moore: Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Cady: I'm thinkin' of settlin' here in New Essex, Counselor. It's a small town. Everywhere you turn, we're gonna run into each other. ------------------------------------------------------- Moore: After what the public saw with your report on "Sicko," and how many inaccuracies that report contained, how can anyone believe anything you say on your network? In the old days, before the Internet, you could get away with it. Your victims had no way to set the record straight, to show the viewers how you had misrepresented the truth. But now, we can post the truth -- and back it up with evidence and facts -- on the web, for all to see. Cady: It's not necessary to lay a foul tongue on me, my friend. I could get upset. Things could get outta hand. And then in self-defense, I could do somethin' to you that you would not like. ------------------------------------------------------- Moore: I won't waste your time rehashing your errors. You know what they are. What I want to do is help you come clean. Admit you were wrong. What is the shame in that? We all make mistakes. I know it's hard to admit it when you've screwed up, but it's also liberating and cathartic. Cady: I don't hate him at all. Oh, no, I pray for him. I'm here to help him. I mean, we all make mistakes, Danielle. You and I have. At least we try to admit it. But your daddy, he don't. ------------------------------------------------------- Moore: And now, for 5 days, I have posted on my website, for all to see, every mistake and error he made. You, on the other hand, in the face of this overwhelming evidence and a huge public backlash, have chosen to remain silent, probably praying and hoping this will all go away. Well it isn't. Cady: I'm better than you all! I can outlearn you! I can out-read you! I can outthink you! And I can out-philosophize you! And I'm gonna outlast you! --------------------------------------------------- Cady: I find you guilty, Counselor! Guilty of betraying your fellow man! Guilty of betraying your country and abrogatin' your oath! Guilty of judging me and selling me out! With the power vested in me by the kingdom of God, I sentence you to the 7th Circle of hell! Now you will learn about loss! You're gonna learn to be an animal! To live like one and die like one. Moore: I find you guilty CNN! Guilty of betraying your fellow traveler! Guilty of betraying the anti-Capitalist cause and abrogating your oath! You're gonna learn to be an animal, Wolf Blitzer! To live and die like one! --------------------------------------------------- OK, I made up that last Moore quote. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the next letter from the corpulent auteur. And if he starts tattooing Bible verses on his back, and broken hearts on his chest, CNN may want to think twice about renting any houseboats for a staff retreat. Labels: Media-National Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Yesterday, I heard a NPR news announcer somberly intone on the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance reform laws in these terms (roughly):
"The decision marked a change in direction for the court from support for campaign finance reform to deregulation." Deregulation? I suppose you could call it that, but we're not talking about airlines or telecommunications here. We're talking about a little something called the First Amendment and the rather well-regarded principle of "freedom of speech." Labels: Media-National Wednesday, June 13, 2007
On Monday, I concluded a post with advice to Nick Jr. writers to "unpack your adjectives."
On Tuesday, James Taranto leads off Best of the Web Today with a post on the New York Times titled "Unpack Your Adjectives." (Tip of the hat to Rick for the catch.) Labels: Media-National Friday, June 08, 2007
One of the small joys of subscribing to the Wall Street Journal is the Taste page in the Friday edition of the paper. The three articles featured there each week on culture, education, and religion are just about guaranteed to entertain and enlighten. This week's batch is no exception.
Dimitri Cavalli recalls a time when liberals cheered as the Catholic Church cracked down on those who went against its teachings (free for all!): Rummel and Archbishop Joseph Ritter of St. Louis had previously used the threat of excommunication to suppress lay Catholic opposition to civil rights. In 1956, Rummel warned Catholic lawmakers in the state legislature that they would face excommunication if they voted to mandate the segregation of all private schools, including Catholic ones. In the same year, he forced the Association of Catholic Laymen, which was established to oppose his initial desegregation efforts, to disband by threatening its members with excommunication. In 1947, when "separate but equal" was still the law of the land, Ritter threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who took legal action to block his plan to desegregate Catholic schools in St. Louis. How did liberals react to Rummel's actions? "We salute the Catholic Archbishop," the New York Times editorialized. "He has set an example founded on religious principle and response to the social conscience of our times." An editorial in the Nation applauded Rummel's initial excommunication threat and cited Ritter's action in 1947 as a precedent. Certainly, it seems, liberals don't really mind mixing religion with politics as long as it's their political agenda being promoted. Rep. DeLauro, Mr. Giuliani and other Catholic politicians may choose to see ecclesiastical punishments as blunt political weapons used to club them into submission on a controversial issue. For the bishops, however, such punishments are imposed as a last effort to be taken against those who, in their judgment, are publicly flouting the laws of the church. And Collin Levy notes that many environmentalists are really not happy to see energy companies playing ball on alternative energy: All of this is particularly amusing in light of the hype in California last year over a ballot initiative called Proposition 87, also known as the "Clean Alternative Energy Act." Under the act, oil companies, having failed to invest enough in research on alternative fuels, would face a tax on each barrel of oil taken out of California. The money would be used in part to start a research fund for alternative energy technology. Many of the state's environmental glitterati rallied to support the initiative, including honorary resident Al Gore, Julia Roberts and Hollywood gadabout and heir Steve Bing, who pledged more than $40 million of his inherited wealth to the cause. The proposition failed, but the big oil companies launched new alternative fuel research institutes on California campuses shortly thereafter. Instead of gloating, Mr. Bing lashed out at Stanford for participating, publicly taking back $2.5 million of a gift to the school in protest. The outrage of Mr. Bing and others is hard to fathom, but their chief concern seems to be that, between them, the universities and the energy companies have cut the political activists out of control of the investment dollars. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a liberal watchdog group, has set up its own "Project for Integrity in Science" to "scrutinize conflicts of interest" at those schools and other nonprofit associations that receive corporate funding. The basic principle is fine: Transparency in philanthropy is generally a good thing. But the agenda of Mr. Bing and his environmentalist friends seems confused. Are they against capitalism or against pollution? Have they figured out that the two are not (always) the same? Far too many greens are at heart against capitalism. Concern over the state of the environment has just been a useful tool to advance their ultimate goal. Labels: Media-National Monday, May 21, 2007
Last Friday, Bill Bennett's Morning In America radio show was a "best of." There's nothing more annoying than a radio show that thinks so little of its listeners that it simply recycles old material when the host wants a day off (by the way, tune in to a very special "best of" NARN broadcast this weekend).
Anyway, at one point during the show Bill took a call from an eleven-year-old kid from Duluth, Minnesota. The kid had obviously called previously and Bill recognized him immediately. After a little chit-chat, Bill asked if the boy still subscribed to the Claremont Review of Books. Yes, at age eleven he was already a loyal reader of the heavy-weight publication. The child is obviously off to a great start. But how to ensure that he stays on the right track? He needs someone to take him under his wing, offer advice, and to guide him on his political path. He needs a mentor. But who could take on such an important role in this youngster's life, I thought? Then it hit me like a Ryan Getzlaf slapshot. Our own JB Doubtless has often talked about his own special relationship with the Claremont Review of Books. Who better to mentor this kid to the top? The first order of business for JB's new protégé will no doubt be learning everything he can about risk management. Labels: Media-National Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Wall Street Journal article Chad linked to earlier today sums up the difficulty in feeling emotion toward an event like the Virginia Tech shooting that seems so abstract, and paradoxically, so commonplace today.
A couple of pieces of journalism out in the past day had the ability to break through the wall. First, the harrowing, tragic summary by David Mariniss in the Washington Post of the killing timeline and its intersection with some of the victims. It's a masterful piece of reporting. Unfortunately, knowing what we know about newspaper reporters, any time you see such perfect writing of real world events, you have to wonder about the author's ability/willingness to separate his artistic urges from the truth. But this isn't some lazy, political hit piece by a metro columnist. It is a riveting, horrifying, ultimately elevating summary of what happened and any flights from gospel can be ignored. It should be appreciated as it is and its hard remain emotionless while reading it. The New York Times provides an equally emotional and excellent tribute with its pictoral gallery and bios of the victims. Labels: Media-National Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The pride of Lake Elmo, Mark Yost, sends another dispatch back from the culture front. This time the Wall Street Journal has him hanging 4,000 feet over a canyon in Arizona. Something his former colleagues at the Pioneer Press often dreamed of doing to him, I'm sure, but never had the guts carry out.
Actually, he's at the much hyped Skywalk dangling over a formerly ignored section of the Grand Canyon. All things considered, it sounds like it can remain ignored. Excerpts: Some of the shock was over the admission price. While widely advertised as $25, the real cost is $75. Yes, it costs $25 to walk on Skywalk, but you first need to pay $50 to get on the reservation. A woman in line in front of me calmly ordered four tickets for her family. When the cashier gave her the total, she shrieked, "Excuse me!" So, was it worth the long, bumpy trip to the reservation and the $75 in admission fees--not to mention the continuing debate its creation has stirred over Native American rights, economic improvement, the environment and all the rest? Well, for me, Skywalk was a bit anticlimactic. It wasn't suspended over the Colorado River, but a side canyon. And it didn't extend out as far as I'd expected. Yes, you had the feeling of being suspended in midair, but once your brain realized you weren't in danger, it was sort of ho-hum. Labels: Media-National Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Nomination for the Lefty Blogger Hall of Fame, in the category of commentary on religion and/or politics, goes to . . . Jill Pike of the AOL Newsbloggers, for this one for the ages:
The Pope Is Stupid Yes, it's got everything that title implies and more. In a mere three paragraphs of prose, we have teen-age impudence, name-calling, gratuitously insulting a figure millions consider sacred, using conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of not one, but two, primary texts (the Sacramentum Caritatis and the US Constitution) to illustrate why her target is "stupid," and of course, the mandatory claim that her Constitutional rights are being threatened. Excerpt: Pope-ster, you know what this means? We're not allowed to make laws and weigh issues by religious merit. I really appreciate your interest in our country but our crazy quota has been met. Maybe when Senator Coburn or Senator Brownback or even Jerry Falwell finally go away you can step back in and work on threatening our Constitutional rights. In the meantime, go spread your hate somewhere else. It's so perfect, if it weren't for the lack of explicit obscenities, I would suspect it's the product of some lefty blog automatic generating system. But it appears to be the real thing. Jill Pike is a member of something called the "Young Turks" - yet another charming product of Air America Radio. For a company primarily noteworthy for dismal ratings and going bankrupt, they sure generate their share of mainstream Democratic leaders. Al Franken, Wendy Wilde, and now these people, chosen to pontificate from AOL, a platform rumored to have daily visitation in the millions. As a former subscriber to AOL, I remember them as pioneering the per minute Internet charge and 45 minute wait to access it. With the Young Turks blogging for them, looks like their business instincts remain as sharp as ever. UPDATE: Some other bunch of obscure AOL Newsbloggers with ties to radio takes the She-Turk to task. Labels: Media-National Thursday, September 28, 2006
Reading this morning's WSJ, I was reminded of the Elder's tales of when he would end up literally throwing the morning Strib across the breakfast table as he encountered leftist bias that has made the paper infamous.
I usually don't see that in the WSJ, which is one of the reasons I subscribe. But today's paper featured a doozie worthy of our local rag or even the AP. It's a story about various activist groups that have come together to do something about illegal immigration since the government doesn't seem to care. Notice how I said ILLEGAL immigration? Just checking. Right off the bat, the writer cannot help herself from trying to downplay the popularity of the first group described: Armed with a computer and less than $100, Joseph Turner two years ago formed a group called "Save Our State." His goal: save California from turning into a "Third World cesspool" of illegal immigrants, he says. The group doesn't have a formal membership,and Mr. Turner counts barely 2,000 people on his email list and message board. Why "barely"? Why not "more than"? And why does formal membership mean anything? The clear message being conveyed by the language is that this is a meaningless little group of wackos who don't mean anything. But who is the leader of the group? "My idea of activism is aggressive, street-level and in-your-face activism," says Mr. Turner, who strikes a clean-cut look with slicked-back black hair and icy blue eyes. He adds: "I don't believe in turning the other cheek." The icy blue eyes of a cold, hard, unfeeling racist perhaps? The next little trick the writer employs is to portray the group as being against immigrants in general as opposed to ILLEGAL immigration--which is the entire reason for the organization. The Center for New Community, a Chicago organization (ed: just an "organization" how about a liberal organization?) that tracks immigration issues, says there are 211 so-called nativist groups -- groups that advocate protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants -- across the U.S., up from 37 two years ago. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, also says nativist groups are on the rise and that several are hate groups, including Mr. Turner's Save Our State. The law center defines a hate group as one that singles out and promotes hatred of another group, based on ethnicity, language, religion, sexual inclination or immigration status. Mr. Turner denies he runs a hate group. So now she has successfully labeled an anti-illegal immigration group as a "Nativist" group. From there, she hits a few left-wing activists in the golden rolodex and they make a case that they are a "hate group". THEN, instead of letting the leader of the group make a decent rebuttal of the false and inflammatory charges, she simply writes "Mr. Turner denies.." Is there any doubt about how she is manipulating the reader and how she wants the reader to feel? She goes on with the template: Several budding groups receive funding from older, well-endowed national organizations, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has been battling immigration for decades. Are they battling immigration or illegal immigration? The distinction does not seem important to our scribe. Anti-immigrant sentiment has swept the U.S. before, targeting Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese and Japanese newcomers Good Lord. "Anti-immigrant sentiment"? Who is anti-immigrant? Again, I love how she turns anti ILLEGAL immigration into anti IMMIGRATION. Also note the heavy-handed and loaded use of the word "Targeted" as one might do with say a gun. She goes on: William Gheen, a former conservative campaign strategist and legislative assistant, formed the Americans for Legal Immigration-PAC, or ALIPAC, on Sept. 11, 2004, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks... So this guy gets labeled as a conservative, which is a way of saying "Don't listen to this guy, he's one of those kind of people" and the Southern Poverty Law Center gets no label whatsoever? The technique of presenting very inflammatory, specific charges and then not letting the attacked have a say (as seen in the earlier example) is repeated again here: Mr. Luebke also says Mr. Gheen preyed on the discomfort felt by many white North Carolinians over the increased visibility of Latinos -- the spread of Mexican restaurants and stores, Spanish-language signs and Spanish-language movies at video stores. With manufacturing jobs also moving overseas, "the brown immigrant was an easy scapegoat," says Mr. Luebke. Mr. Gheen says his is a "moderate group" and denies trying to stir up racial animosities. Why did moderate group need scare quotes? Ahhhh...there's plenty more, but this is representative of the piece. The sheer audacity that the writer has to think they can pull this kind of crap off in the WSJ amazes me. Labels: Media-National Friday, May 19, 2006
Jonathan Last has a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal (available to all) on the dubious merits of J-schools:
Those of us saddened by the declining fortunes of the newspaper industry had hoped that shrinking newspaper staffs would have at least one salutary effect: fewer journalism-school graduates. This has not proved to be the case. In 2005, newspapers cut 2,000 jobs; this spring more people graduated from journalism schools than ever before. On the education of young journalists, there has been much recent debate. There is one argument over whether or not journalists should aspire to objectivity and another about the liberal bias that permeates journalism programs. But the problem isn't that journalists are being taught improperly; it's that the foundations of journalistic education are faulty. The notion of a special program for journalists first surfaced at the turn of the century, when Joseph Pulitzer dreamed of founding a school of journalism at Columbia. In 1902, he offered the university $2 million to establish one. The administration wavered; Pulitzer's peers thought the idea ludicrous. As Michael Lewis once reported in The New Republic, a New York newspaper editor "suggested that one might as well set up a graduate school in swimming." Last goes to suggest that instead of teaching students how to be journalists, schools should focus on providing them with real knowledge: Instead of educating future journalists on the nuts and bolts of journalism--because let's be honest, it isn't rocket science or even carpentry--it would make more sense simply to teach them things. Facts, it turns out, are useful. Most people can write a nut graph after 30 minutes of practice, but comparatively few people can explain, say, econometrics, or fluid dynamics, or the history of the French Revolution. Aspiring journalists don't need trade-craft--they need a liberal-arts education that gives them a base of mastery in actual academic subjects. Such knowledge might help journalists avoid such embarassing mistakes as not being aware of the political views of John Kenneth Galbraith or knowing that the American military decoration for being wounded or killed in action is the Purple Heart, not the Purple Star (to cite two recent examples from the corrections page of the "paper of record"). Labels: Media-National Tuesday, February 07, 2006
If you missed the second hour of the Hugh Hewitt show tonight, you missed some fast-paced and fun radio. Hugh invited fellow Salem talk radio hosts Michael Medved and Dennis Prager as well as noted blogger Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost fame, to appear on the show to discuss the "cartoon wars."
I think that Hugh intended it to be a roundtable forum, but instead it quickly became apparent that it was more like a tag team wrestling match with Hewitt and Carter arguing that supporting the cartoonists would damage the GWOT effort while Prager and Medved's position was that we should not compromise our freedoms to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities. It was a rough and tumble affair and quite entertaining for the listening audience. Joe deserves a lot of credit for agreeing to step into the ring in the first place and he hung in as best he could. But he was in an impossible situation. He was going up against Andre the Giant and Hulk Hogan with Bobby The Brain Heenan as his partner. After a bit of messing around, Prager and Medved took control of the match and were bouncing Hewitt and Carter off the end ropes like rag dolls. Many Double Gut Busters, Sandwich Clotheslines, Irish Whips, and Spiked Brainbuster Suplexes later it was clear that Medved and Prager were just toying with their opponents. The coup de grace was administered when they backed Hugh into a corner and administered the legendary Piggy Back Off the Second Rope Double Stomp. He barely had the strength to tap out and Joe had to help him out of the ring. The belt is now in the hands of Prager and Medved and I don't see a lot of challengers on the horizon stepping up to try to take it away. UPDATE--Vox e-mails to suggest a possible match: I'd be more impressed with Prager, Hewitt or Medved if they ever dared to mix it up with me or Pat Buchanan. Pat can be a little strange at times, but his column today on WND destroys the Prager-Medved position that was being argued in the show you described. It's hard to argue the sanctity of "press freedom" in Europe when they're tossing people in jail for merely asking uncomfortable questions about the Holocaust, among other things. Of course, most Americans pontificating about Europe have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Michael Ledeen being the obvious exception, it's not like they ever read the Corriere della Sera or the Neue Zuercher Zeitung. These are two little resources for English-only speakers, however: Corriere della Sera - International swiss information In fairness to Prager and Medved, my summary of their argument was greatly simplified. If you missed the show, you can now read the transcript at Radio Blogger. But Vox is on to something. I would love to hear him and Buchanan mix it up with Medved and Prager. We could bill it as a Paleo vs. Neo smackdown. Are you ready to rumble? Again? Labels: Media-National Thursday, January 05, 2006
I promise, at some point I'll cease heralding the failures of the MSM in executing their gate keeping mission of ensuring the truth appears in their news reports. Believe it or not, even I'm growing bored with it. But their their recent follies and continuing arrogance have been too extravagant to ignore. I'm now convinced you could spend all day, every day, documenting these errors which appear prominently in the paper and on TV. Once news consumers realize the level of unreliability delivered by the institutions of media, they might seek out better options and the monopolistic journalism trusts will be broken, for the benefit of us all. But, since not everyone is yet convinced of this unreliability, it's on with the show ... First, let's recall one more time the warnings about blogs from the Pioneer Press and U of M Professor Larry Jacobs: Along with partisanship, credibility is another problem for blogs. There's nothing in the First Amendment about the need for an editor. Bloggers can write anything they want; they can spout fact or fiction. Jacobs advises readers to beware: "There's no gatekeeping here." And now a couple of breaking stories from the last 24 hours: Baltimore Sun columnist resigns in scandal. A longtime columnist for The Baltimore Sun resigned Tuesday amid allegations of plagiarism from other newspapers, The Sun said early Wednesday. "I made mistakes," Olesker said as he cleaned out his desk in the newsroom, according to an article in The Sun's editions published Wednesday. In addition to plagiarism, those "mistakes" included incidents like this: The [Maryland governor's] staff had complained about a November 2004 column in which Olesker described a meeting that he did not attend. Olesker ackn |
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
