Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 24, 2014, 07:55:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79256 Posts in 2227 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Media Issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 27 Print
Author Topic: Media Issues  (Read 167685 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #700 on: April 25, 2011, 12:20:10 PM »

"He is obviously hiding something?"

The secret if there is one (just conjecture) is that Barack Sr. was not the father and wasn't the husband, which means the President is not really Barack Jr, though it would appear they used the name with permission.  Also maybe things were tampered or changed to allow for Indonesian citizenship later. 

Nothing that happened with him as a newborn is his fault (obviously), but it is his story and his knowledge of it all would make his best selling autobiographies into a pack of lies, instead of just racist-Marxist drivel.

"Do you think the Republican party can win chasing the "birther" issue?"

No.  He needs to be defeated straight on for his record and for the direction he still wants to lead the nation.  But the media lack of curiosity and lack of follow up is deplorable.  (Imagine if Palin's birth location with a foreign parent and records missing!) Besides his college record I never saw anything controversial dug up from his constitutional law lectures or law review writings while we now see results from his two disastrous high court appointees.

The constitution does not say 'long form' nor does it lay out a burden of proof, it just says 'natural born citizen'.  Arnold Schwartznegger and Madeleine Albright are examples that were passed over for not being born here. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #701 on: April 25, 2011, 12:37:47 PM »

On a more positive note (from my perspective) on the media, last week a WSJ editorialist won a Pulitzer for "against the grain" anti-Obamacare coverage.  The consistent downward movement of support for Obamacare since it passed would tend to show these concerns to be right.

"EDITORIAL WRITING: Joseph Rago of The Wall Street Journal.

Rago was honored for his editorials challenging the health care changes advocated by President Barack Obama.

In his "Review & Outlook" columns for the Journal, he deconstructed the results of similar policy in Massachusetts and its implications for Washington, warning that the changes would fail and do Democrats great political harm.

With a degree in American history from Dartmouth, Rago joined the Journal editorial page in 2005 as an intern."

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2011-Editorial-Writing
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP538c4b030ce8453293b96e42bc648fa2.html

(Looks and sounds like this guy is in his 20s.  You may hear from him again.)
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3793


« Reply #702 on: April 25, 2011, 01:47:33 PM »

"No.  He needs to be defeated straight on for his record and for the direction he still wants to lead the nation.  But the media lack of curiosity and lack of follow up is deplorable."

His personal likability (for whatever reason is still good) so we do need the politics of personal destruction (if we 'pardon' this phrase made famous by BJ bill jefferson Clinton), as well as beating him on the issues. 

We don't need to make anything the phoney one him up. It is all there, just being hidden.  We need to dig and dig and dig.  The more this guy gets exposed as a serial liar the better.

Nothing can be left to chance, no stone unturned in defeating this guy before he destroys this country.  The Obama rama drama must end on January 20, 2013.  BTW, say it does - mark my words - illegals will be pardoned on January 19th!!!

And not a damn thing anyone can do to stop it.

 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3793


« Reply #703 on: April 26, 2011, 09:41:08 AM »

Crying, not laughing out loud at the obnoxiousness of the journolist media, who still cover for Bamster.  Why just this morning we have some pundit on saying that Obama's issue of being born in the USA is "put to rest".  Oh really?!

Last night Anderson Cooper kept asking his guys including the liberal Harvard law guy (I can't think of his name) why doesn't Bamster just show his long certificate.  Again and again we hear every tangled legal reason why he need not do it, he doesn't have to, he shouldn't, it would take "hours" to locate, and every single twisted excuse except *THE REASON WHY HE DOESN'T JUST SHOW IT".  Every single fangled argument to avoid answering why doesn't he just show it.  What IS he hiding?  I guess the public does have enough savvy to see through the liberal media's persistance in doing everything possible to cover this up and to try to move things along.

This is not even a political issue or Republican issue.  This is an issue voters do have a right to know.  Many liberals think it great that we have a right to know every single detail about what our military is doing even if it risks lives yet they suddenly do not think these questions about the covering up of Bamster's history important.

Doug, Your right, whatever happened to bamseter at his birth is one thing but the cover up of the events surrounding his birth, employment records and school records and siliencing everyone who ever seemed to know anything about him certainly IS his fault:

****The real estate developer and reality TV star, who scores at the top in polls of the GOP field these days, falls to fourth when Republicans are asked to rate who among the contenders would be a “good” or “great” president in office.

Fifty percent of Americans, including 31% of Republicans, say Trump would make a “poor” or “terrible” president.

STORY: Donald Trump on faith and worship
MORE: Despite Barbour's exit, GOP field open for president
STORY: GOP's gamble on the budget pays off, so far
“Trump is filling a huge void in the Republican Party right now, and he’s gathering a protest vote: protest against the way Washington works; protest with the establishment Republicans,” says Scott Reed, manager for Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. “The jury is still out whether Trump can translate that into a real candidacy for president.”

His possible bid faces broad resistance: 63% of Americans, including 46% of Republicans, say they definitely will not vote for Trump for president. In comparison, 46% of Americans say they definitely will not vote for President Obama — significantly lower but itself a hurdle to winning the 2012 election.

Though Trump initially got attention by expressing doubts whether Obama was born in the USA, that issue is not driving his support. Among those who say they definitely or might vote for Trump, only about a third question whether the president was born in the USA.

Support from the “birthers” is stronger for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The issue has persisted even though Hawaii has released an official Certificate of Live Birth showing Obama was born there, a fact confirmed in non-partisan investigations by FactCheck.org and others.

Still, in the USA TODAY poll, only 38% of Americans say Obama definitely was born in the USA, and 18% say he probably was. Fifteen percent say he probably was born in another country, and 9% say he definitely was born elsewhere.

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll
Views already are polarized about President Obama and some major Republican candidates for 2012.****
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #704 on: April 28, 2011, 08:23:06 AM »

I didn't know where to put this, but "The Economist" here has been often referenced, recommended and maligned on this site.

But if you like it, or want to give it to anyone, you will not see a better price; 60% off and $51.00 for 51 issues.

http://www.groupon.com/los-angeles/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3793


« Reply #705 on: April 29, 2011, 10:09:23 AM »

""The Economist" here has been often referenced, recommended and maligned on this site."

The mag does have some interesting world wide articles though after reading it for a few years now it also does have a left bias and as Crafty described an elitist know it all kind of bent that usually leaks through in most of the articles.

Most if not all the writers are obviously liberals who seem to have a hard time being totally objective.  Perhaps if I were liberal I would welcome and not be offended by the bias.

After much thought I decided to renew my subscription because the value was greater then the (to me ) offensive nature of the information.

Perhaps this explains the reason why I have been posting the articles with different thoughts, pro and con, on this site.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #706 on: April 29, 2011, 11:04:56 AM »

I agree with CCP.  The Economist generally has good coverage of other regions of the world that US publications ignore.

I started my subscription to 'The Economist' when Bill Gates said it was his favorite read - back when he was interesting.  I thought it might be insightful and it was.   I canceled during coverage of HillaryCare, 1993?  They did a piece questioning whether this or that should be in the package, (bandaids and birth control?) without questioning whatsoever the desirability of a government takeover.  Even if you favor the takeover, any responsible analysis would at least question it. This was during 40 years of Dem congresses and before the idea that a major political ground shift was about to take place.

A worthwhile read at times with its 'centrist' bias, along with my two favorite short books, 'The Core, Uncompromising Principles of Moderates' and 'The Great Moderates of History'   smiley
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #707 on: April 29, 2011, 02:58:46 PM »



http://michellemalkin.com/2011/04/28/obama-lied-transparency-died-part-9999/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3793


« Reply #708 on: April 30, 2011, 09:50:45 AM »

Well interesting a San Fran newspaper is saying this.  Most of us see he is a serial liar.
Consistent with his narc personality disorder.

They ARE liars and manipulators and arrogant, self absorbed and with tememdous self love and resistant and incapable of being objective in the face of any criticism.

The anger response we see from the phoney One is a typical it is 'you' who are wrong, not (never) 'me".  Yet they can often continue to lie, lie in the face of being exposed, continue to try to charm and manipulate and get everyone on board to adulate them.
We are dealing with a real personality disorder.  The guy is 'f' up.  The MSM still predominantly has the wagons circled around him though.  Perhaps this will be the start of a break from the lib media though I do not hold my breath.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #709 on: April 30, 2011, 02:00:29 PM »

Remember that it was also at a San Francisco fundraiser where Obama was surprised to hear his own quote hit the news: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment..."  http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-04-15/news/17143877_1_john-mccain-huffington-post-obama-s-comments

The lesson he should have taken from that was that everything he says everywhere has the potential of making news.

Instead, the lesson he took from it is be militant about who gets in the room.  Biden's staff was more careful; they locked the reporter in the broom closet for the speech.  The berating of the Austin TX reporter was also telling.  Obama was basically telling him he will never get this kind of access again.  That comment should have gone only to his own staff.  He didn't have the self-discipline to hold the comment when he thought the camera was off.  Let's see if that Texas reporter gets another one on one Oval Office interview, lol. 

Yes the reporters have a bias, but they also need to get quotes and break news to stay employed and sell newspapers.  Because of the bias, the reporter who broke the 'clinging' clip very likely did not know it would viral.  Condescending talk about people from across the heartland is what they do at breakfast, lunch and at the water cooler everyday, it made perfect sense.

This story has deteriorated down to two sides calling each other a liar.

Sometimes the small slip-ups (ask Clinton about spilling on the pretty dress) hurt a President more politically than choosing the wrong war or tax rate.  The small things that you think no one will see are the ones that can tell us who you really are.  In this case, a manipulative, deceitful phony.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #710 on: April 30, 2011, 02:53:39 PM »

Imagine the outcry if Bush/Cheney had done these things.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #711 on: May 05, 2011, 10:43:19 AM »

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/05/nyt-magazine-cover-story-a-beast-within-the-heart-of-every-fighting-man/

NYT magazine cover story: ‘A Beast Within the Heart of Every Fighting Man’

We’ll call this the mother of all narrative fails. The very week that the NYT magazine runs a negative, anti-military cover story with a brooding graphic on the cover, the beast within the heart of the US Navy SEALs takes down the world’s worst terrorist. No kidding.
 


Beneath that cover over at the mag’s web site, we get this for a teaser:
 

The case against American soldiers accused of murdering Afghan civilians turns on the idea of a rogue unit. But what if the killings are a symptom of a deeper problem?
 
Well. The case of the New York Times trashing the military the very week that it efficiently takes down Osama bin Laden turns on some yellow journalism and awful timing. But what if the Times‘ releasing of US war plans before the invasion of Iraq, its cheerleading for the Soviets and the Viet Cong and whoever else happens to be against America at the moment, is a symptom of a deeper problem?
 
(thanks to gus)
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #712 on: May 11, 2011, 01:19:46 PM »

Journalism and Generality

Posted by Jason Kuznicki

The media makes it hard for ordinary people to be libertarians. In large part, this is because journalism is in the business of selling panic—panic about terrorism, panic about drugs, panic about food, panic about pornography, panic about our health care system. If it’s not an emergency, it’s not news. To the lazy journalist, everything becomes an emergency—and emergencies always—always—demand state action.

The media makes things hard for the would-be libertarian in other ways, too. Consider this story from today’s Washington Post, about… well, it’s hard to say, actually:

Senate Democrats unveiled a plan Tuesday to save $21 billion over the next decade by eliminating tax breaks for the nation’s five biggest oil companies, a move designed to counter Republican demands to control the soaring national debt without new taxes.

With the proposal, Democrats sought to reframe the debate over debt reduction to include fresh revenue as well as sharp cuts in spending. For the first time, Democratic leaders suggested an equal split between spending cuts and new taxes — “50-50,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.).

That represents a larger share for taxes than has been proposed by either President Obama or the bipartisan commission he appointed to recommend how to cut the national debt.

So far, the Democratic tax agenda is focused on ending subsidies for big oil companies, a hugely popular proposal involving what Democrats see as a prime example of wasteful giveaways in the tax code. By raising the issue, Democrats are trying to force Republicans either to drop their rigid stance against new taxes or to defend taxpayer subsidies for some of the world’s most profitable corporations, including Ex xon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

The proposal came in response to remarks Tuesday by House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who said raising taxes is “off the table.” A day earlier, he gave a speech demanding more than $2 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for GOP support for an increase in the legal limit on government borrowing through the end of next year.


Where am I confused, you ask? On almost everything a libertarian ought to care about. I’ll explain.

One of the key aspects of any good law is generality—that is, equality before the law. As F. A. Hayek put it:

[T]hough government has to administer means which have been put at its disposal (including the services of all those whom it has hired to carry out its instructions), this does not mean that it should similarly administer the efforts of private citizens. What distinguishes a free from an unfree society is that in the former each individual has a recognized private sphere clearly distinct from the public sphere, and the private individual cannot be ordered about but is expected to obey only the rules which are equally applicable to all….

The general, abstract rules, which are laws in the substantive sense, are… essentially long-term measures, referring to yet unnkown cases and containing no references to particular persons, places, or objects. Such laws must always be prospective, never retrospective, in their effect (The Constitution of Liberty, chapter 14, section 2).


Now, with every passing day our government stomps all over this generality requirement again and again, chiefly in the economic sphere. But is it doing so on the front page of today’s Washington Post? That’s a good question.


I can think of lots of ways we might deny a tax break to a certain five oil corporations. Some are decidedly better than others in their generality. Consider the following, ranked from least general to most:

“The corporations known as Ex xon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips are hereby denied tax break X. All others still qualify, or not, as they did before.”
“Oil corporations with an annual revenue above $198 billion are denied tax break X.”
“We find that tax break X itself is lacking in generality. It is hereby repealed, and the overall corporate tax rate is increased accordingly.”
Which one are they proposing? From the story’s first paragraph, we could easily conclude that it was (1). Many people on the left would be happy with (1), because big corporations are anathema to them, and everything they do is evil, and punishing them—generality be damned—is just great.

But then, it could also be (2), and this measure is somewhat more general, even if ConocoPhillips—the smallest company on the list—just so happens to have an annual revenue of $198.655 billion. As Hayek noted, “[C]lassification in abstract terms can always be carried to the point at which, in fact, the class singled out consists only of particular known persons or even a single individual” (ibid., section 4). Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

And finally, there’s (3), clearly the winner in terms of generality. Is that in fact the proposal being discussed by members of Congress? Or is it still more general than that—something perhaps as described by my colleagues Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren earlier this month?

Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry…

[L]et the record show that President Obama is right… about these tax breaks. They make the economy less — not more — efficient and do nothing to reduce prices at the pump.

Rigging the tax code to make investments in manufacturing artificially more attractive than investments in something else is an enterprise designed to harm non-manufacturers for the benefit of … manufacturers. Conservatives who want government to leave markets alone have no business throwing their political bodies in front of this tax break. If their political rhetoric means anything, they would see the president’s bid and raise him by calling for total repeal of this tax break for everyone, not just for oil and gas companies.

If only we were so lucky! Getting back to the Post, we learn much later in the story—in the fifteenth paragraph —that the congressional proposal “would close several long-standing tax loopholes, yielding roughly $2 billion a year in savings to be applied to lowering the deficit. It would affect only the five largest oil companies, excluding smaller producers.”

This is confusing to the point of deception. Does it really “close” a loophole to take a few entities and exclude them from the prior exclusion from the tax? By my understanding, it makes the law less general, more convoluted and more arbitrary, than it was before. Close the loophole—or just don’t close it, I think a Hayek might say. Don’t make companies play human Tetris to figure out whether they aren’t not un-disincluded.

One day I think people will look back on our era—from roughly the civil rights movement to the present—and marvel. They will be amazed at how, while the law grew much more general regarding many non-economic matters, it became increasingly partial and favoritist when it came to running a business. At times our journalism and even our language seemed blind to this contradictory development, which only encouraged it. Even thinking about the generality of our laws is made difficult when it’s just not a topic on the national media’s radar.

But equality before the law should apply, well, equally. Shouldn’t it?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/journalism-and-generality/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #713 on: May 13, 2011, 04:49:20 PM »

Any conflict of interest there?  Nah , , ,  otherwise the Pravdas would be all over it-- but they are not so there mustn't be , , , rolleyes

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/05/13/cnn-host-admits-he-advises-obama/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #714 on: May 13, 2011, 04:51:04 PM »

Is this more hatred from Glenn Beck?  grin
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #715 on: May 16, 2011, 11:18:37 AM »

Any genocidal analogy to the holocaust is off-limits, but tying spending or budget reform to new debt authorization is Hostage Taking??
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #716 on: May 16, 2011, 11:47:50 AM »

One media story went by this winter without hardly a word, especially at the source.

Powerline blog is a very influential conservative new media outlet (they brought down Dan Rather for one thing), run by 3 guys, friends from college out of Dartmouth, 2 in Minneapolis and one in Washington, all attorneys sidelining in political commentary since about the beginning of new media, but the names changed a few months ago.

Paul Mirengoff wrote an off-the cuff reaction to the Tucson service for the fatalities of the shooting.  He wrote something like that he didn't personally care for the music at the service, lengthy and of some native American origin and didn't see how it fit - none of the victims were native American. 

The next day he apologized and very shortly after that the post was removed and he was out.  I read that post, found his music observation odd or unnecessary, but certainly an apology or retraction would have sufficed for those who were offended, if that was truly the issue.

Hardly an explanation and no public good byes were posted.  Apparently he works for a very influential law firm working some huge case and some client insisted him off of Powerline or the firm loses the mega-client.  He decided to keep his day job for now.  At about that same time Steven Hayward, formerly of Reason, AEI, Weekly Standard, National Review, quietly joined the group and started posting very ably.

I think Mirengoff will be back on Powerline at some point, when he is done with that law firm or when they are done with that client, and the rotten details of wrongful oppression of free speech in America will be told.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #717 on: May 16, 2011, 12:41:28 PM »

A must read IMO.  This comes from a competitor, an opinion column in the WSJ, but the points he ties together are damning, and cover a lot of ground.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576321313993024614.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Corporate Turkeys
The birdbrained phony populism of the New York Times Co.

By JAMES TARANTO

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a case the U.S. Supreme Court decided last month, deals with a somewhat obscure question of statutory interpretation--namely, the circumstances under which the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 permits states to supersede provisions in business contracts providing that disputes be settled by arbitration rather than lawsuits. The editors of the New York Times, in an overwrought editorial today, frame the decision as an act of class warfare.

The justices reversed a decision of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held California state law permitted Vincent and Liza Concepcion to launch a class-action suit against AT&T. The company had offered them two free phones as part of a service contract, then charged them $30.22 in sales tax on the devices. (It's unclear, and tangential to the case, why their grievance is with AT&T and not with the state of California, which presumably mandated the collection of the tax.) By 5-4, the court held that the Concepcions were bound by a provision of the contract in which they agreed to forswear class-action complaints.

That distresses the Times editorialists. They describe the decision as "a devastating blow to consumer rights" that entails "major setbacks for individuals who may not have the resources to challenge big companies." The subheadline reads: "The five conservatives of the Supreme Court chose corporations over everyone else."

At least the New York Times editorialists and the liberals of the Supreme Court can be counted on to choose the little guy over corporations. Except when they don't, of course. Contrast today's editorial with one from June 24, 2005, in which the Times cheered Kelo v. New London, another 5-4 ruling vindicating the interests of corporations against those of individuals.

Kelo was the decision of a liberal majority (including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also voted with the majority in AT&T Mobility.) It held that the Constitution permits the government to seize private land in the "public interest," then convey the condemned land to a private corporation so that a city "can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs."

In that case, the Times scoffed at individual rights, crowing that Kelo "is a setback to the 'property rights' movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations."

The Kelo decision prompted a political backlash, which the Times criticized in another editorial, on June 26, 2006:

    The ruling set off talk of "eminent domain abuse." What has been lost in the discussion is the good that eminent domain can do. It has long been a key tool by which cities can upgrade deteriorating neighborhoods and assemble land for affordable housing. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

Affordable housing for the New York Times Co. What great news for the little guy!

This is reminiscent of the Times's opposition to free speech in the wake of last year's Citizens United v. FEC decision. In that case, the Times's hatred of corporations led it to the bizarre position that, the First Amendment notwithstanding, government has the power to censor core political speech when corporations engage in it.

Well, most corporations. As we noted back then, the Times editorial did not mention that one class of corporations was exempt from the "campaign finance" law in question: media corporations such as the New York Times Co. Indeed, were it not for this special privilege, the Times would have been in violation of the law it championed every time it endorsed a candidate for federal office.

The Times editorialists pose as class warriors against corporations, but in fact are selective and self-serving. Never get into a foxhole with the Old Gray Lady; you will find she is an unfaithful ally.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #718 on: May 16, 2011, 12:47:46 PM »

Although I certainly agree with the point about the hypocrisy of POTH (Pravda on the Hudson) I will say that I am troubled by the holding of
"AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion", but that is a subject for the legal issues thread.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #719 on: May 29, 2011, 10:45:39 AM »

Loitering on the FringesBy ARTHUR S. BRISBANE
Published: May 28, 2011
THE culture is headed for the curb, and The New York Times is on the story.
.The Public Editor's Journal
.E-mail: public@nytimes.com
.Twitter: twitter.com/thepubliceditor
.Phone: (212) 556-7652

Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
.Readers' Comments

Recent examples include a May 19 article (“With a Harsh Light on Two Men, Much of the Scrutiny Falls on the Women”) about the privacy-invading media coverage of the women in the Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn cases, as well as a Sunday, May 22, investigation (“The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash”) into how pay-to-play tabloid journalism works in the digital age.

The same Sunday paper brimmed with stories touching on the business and pop-cultural dimensions of a society that convicted Lenny Bruce in the 1960s for saying some words you can now hear every night on cable. Vampires and werewolves, Chelsea Handler’s sharp tongue, Charlie Sheen’s heavy-hitting lawyer, a cross-dressing memoirist and a two-page Sunday magazine essay on the semantics of women’s private parts — they’re all there for your consideration!

I can appreciate that, as a chronicler of the times, the newspaper has a mandate to cover events and culture wherever they may lead. As Jim Rutenberg, the author of the article on the cash economy behind tabloid reporting, told me: “We can’t pretend that this part of the world doesn’t exist. This is part of our culture.”

That said, it’s a challenge for The Times to preserve its dignified brand as it undertakes to cover the world as we have come to know it: high, low and, at times, suffused with vulgarity.

The “Harsh Light” article is a case in point. The story focused on how old taboos against revealing personal details are disappearing in today’s media environment. It also took note of the sharp disparity between the two men, who have wealth and position to deploy in their own defense, and the two women, who seem relatively powerless.

The article’s premise was, I think, a solid one and a good way to advance the Schwarzenegger and Strauss-Kahn stories. The question is whether it was necessary to actually put the seamy stuff in the paper.

To develop the personal-details theme, The Times started by describing a media mob camped out near the women’s homes, looking for dirt. The story named Mr. Schwarzenegger’s former housekeeper and quoted a disparaging comment about her appearance that had been published on a Forbes.com blog. It then added a second nugget from the gossip Web site TMZ that also cast her in a bad light. The Times took care to note that “several news organizations” had repeated the TMZ item.

In effect, the story took a kind of anthropological approach, donning latex gloves to report on how others were reporting the story — chronicling, as it were, others’ low standards.

Rick Berke, The Times’s national editor, said it was necessary to print the unpalatable details to document the premise of the piece. “If you cut it out, you are withholding from the reader what we are talking about,” he said, adding that this wasn’t a “backdoor” way of getting sleazy details into the paper.

It’s a fine line The Times walks. In Mr. Rutenberg’s story about the tabloid press, he eschewed what I am sure were many opportunities to publish choice samples of trashy journalism. As a result, the story — months in the making and ultimately pegged to the Schwarzenegger case — seemed more comfortably situated inside the boundary line of good taste.

The taste and standards issue isn’t static, of course, but moves with the times. Coverage of major public figures, like the former California governor and the former head of the International Monetary Fund, adapts with shifting social standards, and so does softer journalism that addresses popular tastes. What formerly existed off the page finds a way onto it.

In “An Unspeakable Word Is the Word That Has to Be Spoken,” published in the Sunday magazine, the author, Jenny Diski, rather creatively addressed a distinctly feminine obscenity: bits of literary history concerning it, BBC bloopers using it, the lingering cultural objection to it, and her own call to actually use it in print. All without ever using the word or resorting to asterisks or other such substitutes.

Accompanying the essay was an excerpt from The Times’s “Manual of Style and Usage” that included this admonition: “An article should not seem to be saying, ‘Look I want to use this word, but they won’t let me.’ ”

I suggested to Hugo Lindgren, the editor of the magazine, that the essay seemed to flout The Times’s guidelines, but he said that he and Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, had discussed the question and decided carefully on how to handle it. Mr. Corbett said, “I would view this as a carefully considered exception to the rules, rather than a flouting of them.”

So I suppose we can feel assured that this loitering at the edge of propriety is not done heedlessly. But it is done with some regularity.

An illustration comes from the checkered realm of memoir-writing. In the Book Review section on Sunday, The Times published a review of “The Man in the Gray Flannel Skirt” by Jon-Jon Goulian. This came on top of an earlier review of the same book in the May 18 Arts section, and an article in the May 19 Styles section about the fuss surrounding the book and its underachieving author. All this for a work summarized by Publishers Weekly as follows:

“A man wears women’s clothes, rejects a legal career, and otherwise baffles his parents in this flamboyant but callow memoir.”

Granted, there is another view: Mr. Goulian is a fascinating creature of the New York publishing scene who got a $750,000 advance for a book that plumbs his riveting psyche. But still, three print articles in five days?

The Times editors overseeing the various pieces told me they made their assignments without knowledge of the others. This makes sense in the surprisingly decentralized system that produces The Times in print every day and, online, all day. But the ubiquitous Jon-Jon is symbolic, I think, of the strong tug on The Times and other mainstream news media to follow society, sometimes eagerly, to its fringes.

My preference would be to see more restraint. True, other media are indulging in questionable journalism, and it is difficult to resist the downward revision of standards. But The Times could just as easily pull back, recognizing that its readers don’t need and aren’t relying on it to chronicle these badlands. Other news outlets are more than willing to go there.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #720 on: May 31, 2011, 09:11:43 AM »

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/05/help-me-bring-the-weiner-hacker-to-justice.html

Iowahawk with his sensitive and nuanced take on the story.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3793


« Reply #721 on: May 31, 2011, 04:26:48 PM »

Objective journoulism de jour: rolleyes angry

 By Walter Rodgers Walter Rodgers – Fri May 27, 10:16 am ET
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,” instructed the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, “people will eventually come to believe it.”

For 2-1/2 years, the big lie repeated about President Obama has been that he’s not a real leader. Responsible critics called him diffident, spineless, and rudderless. Irresponsible critics called him a socialist, a Muslim, and not an American. Now, even after his brilliant planning and direction of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, detractors are complaining that he didn’t have the guts to release photos of Mr. bin Laden’s corpse.

Outdated notions of leadershipSome of this maligning simply reflects the same savage partisan attacks leveled against every president (except Ronald Reagan) since Watergate. Some of it reflects darker bigotry toward Mr. Obama. But it also shows our outdated and wrongheaded notions of leadership.

American culture mistakenly prizes bravado and arrogance as sure signs of leadership. Public showmanship – like donning a flight suit in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner – is easy. Quiet, cool, competence that gets results – like pulling together an international coalition to protect civilians in Libya in record time – is hard.

It’s a bias we learn as kids. Our history books lionize war heroes, yet are often silent about the diplomats who prevented conflict.

QUIZ: What's your political IQ?

AccomplishmentsLet’s recall the herculean tasks Obama has already accomplished:

He stabilized the worst economy since the Great Depression. Though unemployment remains stubborn, the stock market is basically back to where it was before the global economic meltdown. His stimulus bill kept America humming and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, while his rescue of General Motors saved an industrial icon.

His administration kept thousands of over-extended Americans from losing their homes by laboring mightily to forestall foreclosures.

In spite of ferocious opposition, he passed long-overdue reforms of our health-care system that had eluded the reach of many past presidents.

He signed into law a bold package of regulations to boost consumer protection and restrain Wall Street’s greed.

He negotiated a historic nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev.

Forgetting these and other accomplishments, the public has regrettably bought into the corrosive and dishonest campaign to degrade Obama. Goebbels-style nihilism that rejects anything Obama does as odious remains a powerful narrative.

The good news is that Obama’s shrewd and calculated management of the hunt for bin Laden shows how hollow these critiques are.

For months, Obama discreetly oversaw the raid. He should be praised for concealing US intentions from the Pakistanis, who seemed willfully blind about bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Compare Obama’s stealth with his predecessor’s search for bin Laden. George W. Bush was embarrassingly gullible dealing with the Pakistanis. According to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and senior adviser to four presidents on the Middle East, Bush 43 was too easily “dazzled” by Pakistan’s former president, Pervez Musharraf.

In 2002, Mr. Musharraf assured Washington that bin Laden was almost certainly dead. Later, Musharraf’s government hinted to the Bush administration that bin Laden was on a kidney dialysis machine, half dead in a cave in Afghanistan.

In his book “Deadly Embrace,” Mr. Riedel quotes former Afghan Foreign Minister Abdallah Abdallah saying, “Musharraf skillfully played the American administration, throwing ‘dust in Bush’s eyes.’ ”

Good tasteGood taste is another facet of leadership. Contrast the way the Bush administration orchestrated a public trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, turning it into a vulgar spectacle, with Obama’s shrewd refusal to publish photos of bin Laden’s body. His announcement of bin Laden’s death was restrained and sober, not at all celebratory – the right note to conclude a sensitive military operation. Obama’s later visit to ground zero was a fitting bookend to a sad chapter in United States history.

IN PICTURES: Obama in Britain

Obama’s hawkish critics chide him for allegedly “sitting on the sidelines” during recent uprisings in Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Take it from someone who has reported from across the Middle East: Sitting out potential Arab civil wars isn’t abdication of leadership; it is wisdom.

And yet, when facing near-certain humanitarian disaster, Obama wisely and rapidly put together a broad NATO coalition to deal with the Libyan revolt while keeping American involvement to a minimum – no boots on the ground and no dead Americans.

It’s true that Obama hasn’t made tackling the debt a priority. But when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for much of the past decade, US debt exploded. On that issue, the public will have to lead.

A friend, a center-right voter, told me recently, “The reason I voted for Obama is because he has no hatred in him.” In another era of divisive bitterness, Lincoln preached, “[w]ith malice toward none, with charity toward all.” It’s worth noting how closely Obama’s philosophy of leadership approaches that.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #722 on: May 31, 2011, 10:17:55 PM »

http://theothermccain.com/2011/05/31/weinergate-omfg-repweiner-gives-worst-press-conference-evah-video/

Must see!
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #723 on: June 01, 2011, 05:58:38 AM »

Walter Rodgers is a columnist for the Christian Science Monitor.  He gets paid to write opinion pieces, and his work is not intended to be "objective" any more than George Will, Mona Charen, or Charles Krauthammer. 

Objective journoulism de jour: rolleyes angry

 By Walter Rodgers Walter Rodgers – Fri May 27, 10:16 am ET
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,” instructed the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, “people will eventually come to believe it.”

For 2-1/2 years, the big lie repeated about President Obama has been that he’s not a real leader. Responsible critics called him diffident, spineless, and rudderless. Irresponsible critics called him a socialist, a Muslim, and not an American. Now, even after his brilliant planning and direction of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, detractors are complaining that he didn’t have the guts to release photos of Mr. bin Laden’s corpse.

Outdated notions of leadershipSome of this maligning simply reflects the same savage partisan attacks leveled against every president (except Ronald Reagan) since Watergate. Some of it reflects darker bigotry toward Mr. Obama. But it also shows our outdated and wrongheaded notions of leadership.

American culture mistakenly prizes bravado and arrogance as sure signs of leadership. Public showmanship – like donning a flight suit in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner – is easy. Quiet, cool, competence that gets results – like pulling together an international coalition to protect civilians in Libya in record time – is hard.

It’s a bias we learn as kids. Our history books lionize war heroes, yet are often silent about the diplomats who prevented conflict.

QUIZ: What's your political IQ?

AccomplishmentsLet’s recall the herculean tasks Obama has already accomplished:

He stabilized the worst economy since the Great Depression. Though unemployment remains stubborn, the stock market is basically back to where it was before the global economic meltdown. His stimulus bill kept America humming and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, while his rescue of General Motors saved an industrial icon.

His administration kept thousands of over-extended Americans from losing their homes by laboring mightily to forestall foreclosures.

In spite of ferocious opposition, he passed long-overdue reforms of our health-care system that had eluded the reach of many past presidents.

He signed into law a bold package of regulations to boost consumer protection and restrain Wall Street’s greed.

He negotiated a historic nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev.

Forgetting these and other accomplishments, the public has regrettably bought into the corrosive and dishonest campaign to degrade Obama. Goebbels-style nihilism that rejects anything Obama does as odious remains a powerful narrative.

The good news is that Obama’s shrewd and calculated management of the hunt for bin Laden shows how hollow these critiques are.

For months, Obama discreetly oversaw the raid. He should be praised for concealing US intentions from the Pakistanis, who seemed willfully blind about bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Compare Obama’s stealth with his predecessor’s search for bin Laden. George W. Bush was embarrassingly gullible dealing with the Pakistanis. According to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and senior adviser to four presidents on the Middle East, Bush 43 was too easily “dazzled” by Pakistan’s former president, Pervez Musharraf.

In 2002, Mr. Musharraf assured Washington that bin Laden was almost certainly dead. Later, Musharraf’s government hinted to the Bush administration that bin Laden was on a kidney dialysis machine, half dead in a cave in Afghanistan.

In his book “Deadly Embrace,” Mr. Riedel quotes former Afghan Foreign Minister Abdallah Abdallah saying, “Musharraf skillfully played the American administration, throwing ‘dust in Bush’s eyes.’ ”

Good tasteGood taste is another facet of leadership. Contrast the way the Bush administration orchestrated a public trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, turning it into a vulgar spectacle, with Obama’s shrewd refusal to publish photos of bin Laden’s body. His announcement of bin Laden’s death was restrained and sober, not at all celebratory – the right note to conclude a sensitive military operation. Obama’s later visit to ground zero was a fitting bookend to a sad chapter in United States history.

IN PICTURES: Obama in Britain

Obama’s hawkish critics chide him for allegedly “sitting on the sidelines” during recent uprisings in Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Take it from someone who has reported from across the Middle East: Sitting out potential Arab civil wars isn’t abdication of leadership; it is wisdom.

And yet, when facing near-certain humanitarian disaster, Obama wisely and rapidly put together a broad NATO coalition to deal with the Libyan revolt while keeping American involvement to a minimum – no boots on the ground and no dead Americans.

It’s true that Obama hasn’t made tackling the debt a priority. But when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for much of the past decade, US debt exploded. On that issue, the public will have to lead.

A friend, a center-right voter, told me recently, “The reason I voted for Obama is because he has no hatred in him.” In another era of divisive bitterness, Lincoln preached, “[w]ith malice toward none, with charity toward all.” It’s worth noting how closely Obama’s philosophy of leadership approaches that.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #724 on: June 01, 2011, 08:13:28 AM »

It's easy to get confused, given the propensity of CNN to attempt to disguise opinion pieces as news.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #725 on: June 01, 2011, 09:08:07 AM »

It is also easy, since he works for CS Monitor to get confused about the news source.  You know, since he left CNN in 2005. 
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/its-official-walter-rodgers-leaves-cnn_b6703
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #726 on: June 01, 2011, 09:10:04 AM »

The point that it is merely opinion is fair enough.  

Rodgers apparently didn't get the memo that we weren't going to use Nazi analogies to describe people who haven't committed genocide. (Glen Beck was savaged for that.)  Rodgers stoops that low twice in the piece, once again in the middle for readers who may have missed the beginning - or was he committing a "Goebels-style" atrocity himself by repeating his falsehood?

Opinion piece yes, laced with false facts.  I hate to impugn her but maybe Rodgers piece is more in the spirit of Ann Coulter than George Will.  Does the the CSM or CNN run columns like hers often?  I have not known George Will to open his criticism with a blatantly false statement.  Seems to me he makes a painstakingly effort to quote his opponents accurately.

Rodgers opens his post-Nazi analysis with: "detractors are complaining that he didn’t have the guts to release photos of Mr. bin Laden’s corpse."

I have not seen that written, even in the vile comment sections of Like telling BD to read more case law, maybe I need to read more conservative commentary.  wink

Maybe in the spirit of Nazi analogies I will re-open my only partially flawed comparison of abortion to the holocaust that angered people here beyond words.  Add the corollary that roughly 5 Justices on the Supreme Court and nearly all liberals are modern holocaust enablers.  See if CNN will run with that.

Civil discourse in the Obama supporter era continues.

I would like to come back on other threads to discuss the merits of the piece, like touting "the herculean tasks Obama has already accomplished".  He skipped one; Obama has endeared us to the third world by mimicking their economic policies.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #727 on: June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM »

More on "Weinergate." make sure you watch the whole thing.  More on CNN's propensity to opine!  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-31-2011/distinguished-member-of-congress?xrs=share_copy
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #728 on: June 01, 2011, 09:14:09 AM »

"I have not known George Will to open his criticism with a blatantly false statement.  Seems to me he makes a painstakingly effort to quote his opponents accurately."

That is because George Will has a Ph.D. in political science.  You can trust those people.  And, believe it or not, I prefer the three I mentioned to Rodgers. 

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #729 on: June 01, 2011, 10:50:52 AM »

I prefer to see politicians like Rep. Weiner taken down based on the (lack of) merits in their political arguments, but must admit a little revenge-like pleasure in seeing this jerk distracted and squirming on a personal matter.  In the middle of his non-denial defense, he just can't keep himself from put out his personal attack against Justice Thomas' and his wife, regarding healthcare while he is allegedly trying to make a point on a debt ceiling vote. 

I wonder if Bob Schieffer or Dick Gregory will call that attack on Thomas racist.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/bob-schieffer-trump-racism_n_854817.html  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrich-i-have-never-said-anything-about-president-obama-which-is-racist/

I was more impressed with the sincerity of O.J. Simpson combing the world's golf courses for the real killer, and with the Roger Clemons, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong campaign against steroids, than with Weiner's effort to find and prosecute the real Twitter-hacker.

Who knew that liberals could also be targets of comedy. Letterman and others missed out on a couple of good years bypassing on these potential targets for ridicule.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #730 on: June 01, 2011, 10:54:24 AM »

More on "Weinergate." make sure you watch the whole thing.  More on CNN's propensity to opine!  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-31-2011/distinguished-member-of-congress?xrs=share_copy

I'm not sure Stewart's "His d*ck is too small" defense is very compelling. It wouldn't be hard, I mean difficult for the FBI to determine if Weiner's account was hacked. Funny how he hasn't asked for an investigation but lawyered up instead. It's almost like he has something to hide.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #731 on: June 01, 2011, 02:41:44 PM »


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/01/weiner-cant-say-with-certitude-that-photo-wasnt-of-him/

Weiner: “Can’t say with certitude” that photo wasn’t of him
 



posted at 2:31 pm on June 1, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

 
Really? If Anthony Weiner wanted to defuse this scandal, he seems to be using the gasoline-to-fight-fire strategy.  On the exact questions that call for clear and unequivocal answers, Weiner keeps backing away with vague and unresponsive statements instead  Click on the image to watch the RCP video:
 
 
 



NBC’s LUKE RUSSERT: “That’s not a picture of you?”
 
REP. ANTHONY WEINER: “You know, I can’t say with certitude. My system was hacked. Pictures can be manipulated, pictures can be dropped in and inserted.”
 
Shouldn’t this be a question where certitude is rather easily achieved?  How many pictures does Rep. Weiner take of his underwear to cause this confusion?  To “manipulate” a photo, there has to be a source photo with which to work.  If the picture was “dropped in,” then it should be easy for Weiner to say unequivocally, “I have never taken a photograph of my genitalia, with or without underwear.”  The inability to make that statement — and to tell an NBC reporter that he “can’t say with certitude” that the picture is a hoax — makes him look as though he’s hedging his bets.  Heck, he is obviously hedging his bets, and that gives a pretty strong whiff of guilt in these circumstances.
 
Ace has been asking great questions all along, so be sure to keep up with the story there, as well as at Big Journalism.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #732 on: June 01, 2011, 06:12:12 PM »

Of course it isn't compelling.  It is funny though.  And note that I said nothing about that.  I did note the CNN bit though, since this is the media issues thread. 

And I LOVE (please note the sarcasm) is inabilty to deny it is his junk.

More on "Weinergate." make sure you watch the whole thing.  More on CNN's propensity to opine!  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-31-2011/distinguished-member-of-congress?xrs=share_copy

I'm not sure Stewart's "His d*ck is too small" defense is very compelling. It wouldn't be hard, I mean difficult for the FBI to determine if Weiner's account was hacked. Funny how he hasn't asked for an investigation but lawyered up instead. It's almost like he has something to hide.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #733 on: June 01, 2011, 06:35:30 PM »

Anyone think the Mrs. Anthony "The Atlantic is cold" Weiner is buying the "hacked" story?  rolleyes
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #734 on: June 01, 2011, 11:01:29 PM »

You mean Stewart is wrong and that is Weiner's penis? cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #735 on: June 02, 2011, 01:45:28 AM »

Well, he seems to be unsure.  wink

If he really wanted to impress that co-ed, he should stretch some underwear over that schnoz and tweet that pic!
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #736 on: June 02, 2011, 05:42:30 AM »

 cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #737 on: June 03, 2011, 11:07:43 AM »

Apparently, it was a slow news week. Either that, or our culture has really sunk quite low. But the "biggest" news concerned New York Democrat Anthony Weiner's wiener. Or more accurately, the accidental/pranked/hacked Tweet of a man's underwear-clad genitalia that was intended for a 21-year-old college student Weiner was following on Twitter. Long story short, Weiner insisted that he didn't peck out that Tweet, claiming his Twitter account had been hacked, but when pressed for investigation or at least a strong reaction, Weiner backtracked and said it was a prank -- a far less serious thing. Then he admitted that he couldn't say "with certitude" that the offending image wasn't indeed his package, and he got rather stiff and prickly when questioned by the media. That hasn't stopped the press from centering the 24-hour news cycle on Private Weiner, who now claims his lips are zipped. To be frank, however, we think the congressman is in a real pickle, and the wurst may be yet to come.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #738 on: June 03, 2011, 02:06:34 PM »

Apparently, it was a slow news week. Either that, or our culture has really sunk quite low. But the "biggest" news concerned New York Democrat Anthony Weiner's wiener. Or more accurately, the accidental/pranked/hacked Tweet of a man's underwear-clad genitalia that was intended for a 21-year-old college student Weiner was following on Twitter. Long story short, Weiner insisted that he didn't peck out that Tweet, claiming his Twitter account had been hacked, but when pressed for investigation or at least a strong reaction, Weiner backtracked and said it was a prank -- a far less serious thing. Then he admitted that he couldn't say "with certitude" that the offending image wasn't indeed his package, and he got rather stiff and prickly when questioned by the media. That hasn't stopped the press from centering the 24-hour news cycle on Private Weiner, who now claims his lips are zipped. To be frank, however, we think the congressman is in a real pickle, and the wurst may be yet to come.


Now THAT was offensive!  wink
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #739 on: June 03, 2011, 08:16:54 PM »

"...he got rather stiff and prickly..."

Not stiff and prick-y?  evil
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #740 on: June 04, 2011, 05:44:27 PM »

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/weiner-303092-american-people.html

Must read!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #741 on: June 05, 2011, 11:24:20 AM »

Thank god for the British media. The MSM here won't cover this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394099/Obama-eats-2-chili-dogs-fries-day-wife-Michelle-unveils-new-dietary-guide.html

What would Michelle say? President Obama wolfs down TWO chili dogs and fries... the day after his wife unveils new dietary guide


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394099/Obama-eats-2-chili-dogs-fries-day-wife-Michelle-unveils-new-dietary-guide.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #742 on: June 06, 2011, 05:38:25 PM »

http://www.therightscoop.com/andrew-breitbart-owns-the-media/

Click on the video and bask in the awesomeness!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3793


« Reply #743 on: June 11, 2011, 10:50:51 AM »

Question Bamster and you are a nut:

" Regardless of whether you thought the Palin email trove was a waste of time like many, or were obsessively live-blogging the events like us, you can't deny that the massive scanning and crowdsourcing of document review by major news outlets was a tremendous accomplishment."

Compare the above assesment to the MSM reports about the release of Bamster's long form birth certificate (if real).   That the poor man was subjected to unbearable disrespect, and harm because a bunch of crazy right wing radical loony birds "forced" him to do this painful thing.  and of course there is always the implication this was DONE TO HIM because he is half Black.


***The Top Ten Revelations from the Sarah Palin Emails
At 8:37 a.m. Saturday morning, the New York Times tweeted "After scanning marathon, all 24,000 #palinemail documents are in our searchable, interactive viewer." Regardless of whether you thought the Palin email trove was a waste of time like many, or were obsessively live-blogging the events like us, you can't deny that the massive scanning and crowdsourcing of document review by major news outlets was a tremendous accomplishment. While revelations from the cache may continue to trickle in over the weekend, at this point the bulk of the emails have been combed through, and this is what we now know about Palin that we didn't (necessarily) know before.

Related: Harry Reid and Sarah Palin Bicker Over Cowboy Poetry

Palin "joked" with George W. Bush about becoming Vice-President.

Related: Palin Accuses Obama of 'Pussy-Footing Around' Bin Laden Photos

Only a month before Palin was picked by John McCain as a running mate, she spoke with then-president George W. Bush, where she admitted to being unable to take a Vice Presidential position seriously. "The Pres [George Bush] and I spoke about military. He also spoke about (and we joked about) VP buzz."

Related: Palin Coincidentally Finds Key Primary States on Bus Tour

In fact, a mere two days before she was picked as Vice President, Palin was willing to help change signs at an Anchorage gas station to show lower prices. But unprepared though Palin was, Politico notes that she was soon forwarding encouraging notes to her staff from fans about the vice presidency.
One supporter of Palin’s from South Dakota wrote to a publicly listed e-mail address that was then forwarded to her official e-mail in late June that Palin would make “a first-rate running mater for Senator John McCain.”

“Please encourage her to accept if asked!” the supporter wrote. “What can we do to encourage Senator McCain to put her on the ticket?”

McCain's decision process took a matter of days.

Related: Sarah Palin Is Definitely Not Done Whining About the Press

It was not until Aug. 24 that there was any serious indication Palin might be be Vice President. That was when she asked her office in Juneau to send two years of her financial disclosure forms to Anchorage for unspecified purposes. The New York Times notes that "as many asserted at the time, the vetting process of the vice-presidential candidate appears to have taken just a few scant days."

Related: Condé Nast Office Politics; Bono Pushes Spidey

In late August, when McCain's choice was announced, Palin wrote “Can you believe it!” in response to a staff member. “He told me yesterday — it moved fast! Pray! I love you.”

She was once an Obama fan.

On August 4, 2008, Palin praised a speech given by President Obama as "great" and noted he "stole" some Alaskan ideas. "He did say 'yay' to our gasline. Pretty cool. Wrong candidate," Palin wrote.

She has never had much time to read the news.

Katie Couric's infamous interview with Palin, where the then-governor struggled to explain her media diet, may not have been the "gotcha" interview Palin later asserted it to be. It seems she really didn't have time to read the news, even to correct misinformation. By her own admission, her plate was too full. In one e-mail in February 2007, Palin wrote:

"i will try to carve out time in the day to more fully scan news clippings and try to catch some of the talk shows via internet, but so far I haven’t even found an extra minute to be able to tune into the shows unless I’m . . . driving in my car... i need folks to really help ramp up accurate counter comments to the misinformation that’s being spread out there.”

Palin asked God for guidance on the budget.

"I have been praying for wisdom on this ... God will have to show me what to do on the people's budget because I don't yet know the right path ... He will show me though."

She was intimidated by Alaskan Congressman Rep. Don Young.

In September 2008, a staffer e-mailed Palin that Young was trying to reach her. She replied: "Please find out what it's about. I don't want to get chewed out by him again. I'm not up for that."

Palin has always had a troubled relationship with the press.

Palin has always both courted and complained about the press. Her love-hate relationship is nothing new. On January 28, 2007, she disputed a report from the Anchorage Daily News that she'd put a "ban" on staffers talking to reporters. "I have NEVER banned any of our team members from voicing opinions on anything, she wrote. "I've asked that you all share your opinions, speak freely to press, public, legislators, one another, etc."she wrote to a staff member, “The double standard we face in so many areas is almost comical.” But she also vented that she was being criticized for speaking out, “The double standard we face in so many areas is almost comical,” she wrote to a staff member.

Palin ghostwrote a letter to the editor of the Alaska Daily News.

An email from July 2008 suggests that Palin ghost-wrote a letter to the editor of the Alaska Daily News that was to be sent under the name of a supporter. A critic had written to the Daily News about Palin's no-show at the 2008 Miss Alaska Pageant, and Palin wanted to "someone to corrct the letter writer's goofy comments, but don't want the letter in response to ADN to come from me." She drafted a letter and had her staff member sign it under the name of "Kristan Cole."

The rumor that Trig Palin is Bristol's son has been going on for a while.

Guardian uncovers the following quote from Palin

Hate to pick this one up again, but have heard three different times today the rumor again the Bristol is pregnant or had this baby. Even at Trig's doc appt this morning his doc said that's out there (hopefully NOT in their medical community-world, but it's out there). Bristol called again this afternoon asking if there's anything we can do to stop this as she receive two girlfriend-type calls today asking if it were true.
Palin has remained firm on Troopergate from the beginning.

On July 27, 2008, Palin's supporter Debbie Joslin sent a her saying that "If you did fire WM (Walt Monegan) in part or in whole because of the brother in law, just admit it and make it right. Hire him back if that makes sense and even if it doesn’t, just say you are sorry you let personal feelings get in the way and move on. People will forgive you." But Palin reponded, “I hope you’ll trust me that I’d be the first to admit if I made a mistake two weeks ago in offering Walt a different job aside from Commissioner...No personal feelings ever influenced my recognition."

Two days later, on July 29, she wrote again, “I prefer speaking to these reporters who want comments on the issue, I invite the investigation but it's obvious we could get to the bottom of it all if leggies and reproters would just ASK me further questions instead of spending $100g on a fishing expiditoin” 

In a later email she expressed increasing frustration:

"I do applogize if I sound frustrated w this one. I guess I am. Its killing me to realise how misinformed leggies, reporters and others are on this issue. The accusations and false assumptions are mind boggling.
"He's still a trooper, and he still carries a gun, and he still tells anyone who will listen that he will 'never work for that b*itch' (me) because he has such anger and distain towards family. So consistency is needed here. No one's above the law. If the law needs to be changed to not allow access to guns for people threatening to kill someone, it must apply to everyone."****
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5540


« Reply #744 on: June 29, 2011, 11:05:10 AM »

The guys at Powerline IMO are thoughtful conservatives, insightful and objective in my opinion, [of whom] wink I quote or source often.  Just a note here to point out they upgraded from a blog to a newspaper format today to make the site more readable: http://www.powerlineblog.com/
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 08:53:02 AM by DougMacG » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #745 on: July 02, 2011, 10:36:17 AM »

Tim Rutten is an (liberal) editorial writer for the LA Times.  But I think this is a fair summary of today's media and politics.

Also, I like Axelrod's comment, "David Axelrod, the president's closest political advisor, told the Washington Post that though he disagreed with Halperin's comment, "He's a decent person and a good journalist."

Not a bad comment....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0702-rutten-20110702,0,1487754.column
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #746 on: July 15, 2011, 12:22:28 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exposed-white-house-press-e-mails-reveal-anti-fox-news-bias/

Waiting for firestorm of indignation , , ,
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #747 on: July 16, 2011, 09:48:59 AM »

Although as my inserts below indicate I have some disagreements with the following POTH piece, I do agree with its general thrust that Murdoch has been bad for the WSJ, a paper which I used to love dearly.
=========================================

It’s official. The Wall Street Journal has been Fox-ified.
Earl Wilson/The New York Times

It took Rupert Murdoch only three and a half years to get there, starting with the moment he acquired the paper from the dysfunctional Bancroft family in December 2007, a purchase that was completed after he vowed to protect The Journal’s editorial integrity and agreed to a (toothless) board that was supposed to make sure he kept that promise.

Fat chance of that. Within five months, Murdoch had fired the editor and installed his close friend Robert Thomson, fresh from a stint Fox-ifying The Times of London. The new publisher was Leslie Hinton, former boss of the division that published Murdoch’s British newspapers, including The News of the World. (He resigned on Friday.) Soon came the changes, swift and sure: shorter articles, less depth, an increased emphasis on politics and, weirdly, sometimes surprisingly unsophisticated coverage of business.  (Marc: Agree!)

Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. (Marc: Disagree!  Lots of Dem blather that would never have seen the light of day began appearing!) The Journal sometimes took to using the word “Democrat” as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, “War at The Wall Street Journal,” Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase “assault on business” in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification.  ("Conservative" does not mean "pro certain busienss interests, and as noted the papaer moved leftward, not rightward)

The other half is that Murdoch’s media outlets must shill for his business interests. With the News of the World scandal, The Journal has now shown itself willing to do that, too.

As a business story, the News of the World scandal isn’t just about phone hacking and police bribery. It is about Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation, being at risk — along with his family’s once unshakable hold on it. The old Wall Street Journal would have been leading the pack in pursuit of that story.

Now? At first, The Journal ignored the scandal, even though, as the Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff pointed out in Adweek, it was front-page news all across Britain. Then, when the scandal was no longer avoidable, The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way. Blogging for Columbia Journalism Review, Dean Starkman, the media critic, described The Journal’s coverage as “obviously hamstrung, and far, far below the paper’s true capacity.”

On Friday, however, the coverage went all the way to craven. The paper published an interview with Murdoch that might as well have been dictated by the News Corporation public relations department. He was going to testify before Parliament next week, he told the Journal reporter, because “it’s important to absolutely establish our integrity.” Some of the accusations made in Parliament were “total lies.” The News Corporation had handled the scandal “extremely well in every way possible.” So had his son James, a top company executive. “When I hear something going wrong, I insist on it being put right,” he said. He was “getting annoyed” by the scandal. And “tired.” And so on.

In the article containing the interview, there was no pushback against any of these statements, even though several of them bordered on the delusional. The two most obvious questions — When did Murdoch first learn of the phone hacking at The News of the World? And when did he learn that reporters were bribing police officers for information? — went unasked. The Journal reporter had either been told not to ask those questions, or instinctively knew that he shouldn’t. It is hard to know which is worse. The dwindling handful of great journalists who remain at the paper — Mark Maremont, Alan Murray and Alix Freedman among them — must be hanging their heads in shame.

To tell you the truth, I’m hanging my head in shame too. Four years ago, when Murdoch was battling recalcitrant members of the Bancroft family to gain control of The Journal, which he had long lusted after and which he viewed as the vehicle that would finally allow him to go head-to-head against The New York Times, I wrote several columns saying that he would be a better owner than the Bancrofts.

The Bancrofts’ history of mismanagement had made The Journal vulnerable in the first place. I thought that Murdoch’s resources would stop the financial bleeding, and that his desire for a decent legacy would keep him from destroying a great newspaper.

After the family agreed to sell to him, Elisabeth Goth, the brave Bancroft heir who had long tried to get her family to fix the company, told me, “He has a tremendous opportunity, and I don’t think he’s going to blow it.” In that same column, I wrote, “The chances of Mr. Murdoch wrecking The Journal are lower than you’d think.”

Mea culpa.

Gail Collins is on book leave.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #748 on: July 16, 2011, 09:54:43 AM »

The NYT accusing anyone of lacking journalistic ethics is like Charlie Sheen lecturing anyone on substance use.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29663


« Reply #749 on: July 16, 2011, 10:48:55 AM »

True!  Pravda on the Hudson most certainly lives in a big glass house, but the question presented here is the WSJ.  I think I posted here at the time that Murdoch took over of my concerns; also to be noted is that the Pravdas will be using all this to continue their attack on non-Pravda sources and beliefs.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 27 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!