Instead of apologizing to the American people for the lies and her disheveled management of the State Department, Hillary used her testimony to shout at Republicans with a teary eye on 2016.
Recently in Media Category
But once that kind of claim is made in the MSM, it becomes fact, at least for many of the evidence deficient Left. And as of yet there has been no apology for smearing Tea party member Holmes' name other than a brief editor's note on the ABC News website. Too many folks believing the "yet another mad dog Tea party member has been shooting up Colorado" meme will never see that note. Better that ABC News made the apology on the air.
And the hits keep on coming, even from left-leaning blogs, and rightfully so.
OK then! There's some guy on the internet with the same name. That is literally all Ross had--no other connection, not one reason to even remotely suspect that it's the same Holmes. Just that there is a guy with that name, on the internet.But the media in general has to take some of the blame, particularly television. Their obsessive need to be "first with the story", the ongoing 24-hour news cycle, and the search for ratings has been behind a lot of the problems. With these kinds motivations is it any wonder why Matt Welch has dubbed them as "half-assed media"?
That astonishingly stupid speculation led the geniuses at Breitbart to rebut the calumny with their own guy-named-James-Holmes, this one a registered Democrat. So there! "There are certainly more facts in our documents than in ABC News' irresponsible speculations," Joel Pollak wrote, hilariously and maddeningly.
Point being: Never, ever listen to anything Ross reports unless and until it has been confirmed by another, better, reporter.
Undeterred by how wrong they got the Columbine shootings 13 years ago, or how disgustingly politicized they turned Jared Loughner's 2011 rampage, the humans who work for and talk with journalistic outlets are again rushing to speculative judgment about Jim Holmes, the suspected Batman murderer in Aurora, Colorado.It's the old "If it bleeds, it ledes" mentality magnified. Take a tragedy, sensationalize the hell out of it, skip fact checking (or minimalize it at best), fling out all kinds of unsubstantiated theories and speculation, and then move on to other stories before the facts of the tragedy come out. They leave it to others to pick up the pieces of the truth they so blithely shattered in their need to get the story out before their competition. It doesn't matter to them that they may have damaged or destroyed the reputations of people unconnected to the tragedy.
We see this again and again and it's always the same. Too often the news operations try to make the news rather than just reporting the news. Along with that many reports resemble editorials rather than actual reports, with reporters and news anchors offering opinion as if it were fact. (I actually remember when the local TV stations here in New England aired editorials by their news directors and editors, labeling them as editorials. There was no confusion about them. That practice has all but disappeared, and with it, the viewing public's trust.)
And the MSM wonders why an increasing number of people have little trust or faith in them to report the news?
The two videos from O'Reilly's TV program show how one of his reporters in one day's gum-shoeing getting more info than everyone else in weeks. I love it when he interviews the newspaper's editor-in-chief, who isn't going to investigate any claims of a hate crime because he's not aware if there's been a hate crime. It hasn't been brought to his attention. Okaaaay. The second clip is a lively and accurate exchange with Bernard Goldberg on the slanted coverage of the media, shown explicitly in this instance. Worthy viewing.
UPDATE: The local news coverage of the Norfolk, Virginia, altercation mentions the possibility of the police looking at the incident as a hate crime. Like something from a George Orwell novel, however, the report declines to mention the race of the perps, prompting blogger Lawrence Auster to ask, "In all of human history, have there ever been human beings as cowardly and contemptible as contemporary white liberals?"
Far too many in the media still see Palin as a light weight, forgetting that she is a tough Alaskan woman, was once governor of Alaska, and (horrors!) a former TV sports reporter.
As DaTechGuy writes:
Why the hostility? I think the explanation comes from the movie The NaturalI think she could indeed do better than many on morning television, and possibly do really well with her own conservative talk show.
Pop Fisher: My gut tells me this and Red agrees, we feel Hobbs can fill your position very neatly...[A]fter today Mika Brzezinski and every single woman who makes her living in front of a camera on the Today show or MSNBC understands that line above applies to them.
Be afraid, be very afraid!
I see the double standard as applied to conservatives by liberals still stands.
Rush Limbaugh calls an advocate for employer provided birth control a "slut", and the leftist media goes nuts and he loses 9 advertisers. Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a c***, and not one word of protest is uttered by the Left, nor do his sponsors abandon him.
So by their rules, the Left and their minions are free to disparage any conservative woman, using the most offensive language. But should someone on the Right use a disparaging term that is orders of magnitude less offensive against a liberal woman, it's tantamount to rape and the tar and feathers come out.
These a**holes need to grow up.
On more than one occasion I have posted about how the government has gotten it wrong when dealing with the dollar coin. I've posted about it three separate times this year alone.
The problem isn't that the Treasury is making coins no one wants. It's that it's still printing dollar bills that last for a small fraction of the time that a coins lasts. The cost to print a bill is half that of minting a coin. A dollar bill lasts between a year and a half and two years. A coin lasts between 25 and 30 years. In the long run the coins costs less. But as long as the government keeps the dollar bill, no one will want or use the dollar coin...except maybe for commuters on certain public transit systems. (The 'T' in Boston uses dollar coins as change in its "Charlie Card" dispensers.)
The US taxpayer could save billions of dollars by getting rid of the dollar bill and switching to the dollar coin. But no one seems willing to make the switch, particularly when the vending machine companies start bitching about how reconfiguring their machines to accept the dollar coin will be expense. But expensive to whom, even if the claim is true? Why should the taxpayer subsidize that particular industry (for that's what it is if we stay with the dollar bill)? When Canada switched to Loonie (their dollar coin) and the UK switched to the pound coin, the vending machine companies did not fail. (Of course this part of the story is but a small part of the non-decision to stay with the bill.) All it takes is for someone in government to finally step up and say "Sorry folks, but it's costing everyone too much to keep printing this small denomination so we're switching over the the coin."
Oh, there will be the typical hew and cry by those who just don't like change of any kind (no pun intended). But eventually they'll use them just like everyone else.
The time to retire the dollar bill is long overdue.
I have to hand it to the state government folks in Alaska. While they made most of Palin's e-mails available (some weren't covered under the Freedom of Information Act because they were exempt under attorney-client privilege or revealed non-public deliberations not normally covered under FOIA), they didn't make it easy. All 25,000 pages were in hardcopy (no electronic versions were released) and those wanting them had to come pick them up in person (they wouldn't ship them).
Being in hardcopy meant there would be no easy way to search the documents. All 25,000 pages would need to be read by human beings in order find anything. (I'm sure somebody somewhere will scan them using OCR software and make them searchable, but even that will take a lot of time.) Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have asked readers for help delving through the thousands of pages of e-mails in search of dirt.
So far, the MSM has come up with...nothing. Or at least nothing they could use to discredit her in the eyes of the public.
Is this episode of media infected with PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) going to prove their undoing while boosting Palin's reputation and bona fides? So far it's looking that way.
A number of issues the MSM used to hammer Palin both during and after the 2008 elections have turned out to be much ado about nothing, with those already revealed showing Palin had been truthful about them all along. Among them Troopergate, predator reduction (the so-called 'hunting from helicopters' non-scandal), the media harassment of her family during the Presidential campaign (an unwritten rule that a candidate's family is off-limits the MSM chose to ignore this time around), ethics investigations, the oil and gas industry, and a whole host of other issues the media tried to turn into a scandal. But it turns out there was no "there" there.
Already some backpedaling has occurred with HuffPo opining "Like many other organizations that cover politics, we at The Huffington Post have made our arrangements to obtain the emails, have handed out assignments to reporters and are hopeful that a crowdsource army will help to pick up the slack. What are we expecting to find? Who knows? Maybe a lot of Comic Sans. Maybe some penetrating new story about Palin's Alaska reign. Maybe it will be a hot pile of nothing! Yeah, that's right: One possible outcome of this exercise is that it will be a complete bust." As their headline put it, "Sarah Palin Shall Have Her Revenge On The Mainstream Media." Indeed.
But even with all of these e-mails now made public and the truth being revealed, the Left will still do everything in its power to destroy this woman of whom they are so terrified.
Let the games begin!
There is nothing the U.S. media wants more than something it thinks it can't have. Hence the power of news leaks that manipulate the thrust of their initial presentation. Hard-to-get is a rigid rule of human behavior. Ask any teenage boy or girl.If nothing else this "I don't care what you want" attitude of Palin's towards the media is driving them to distraction and frustrating them to no end. Her refusal to play by their rules has them unable to function in their usual manner and they're confused (and perhaps not a little frightened) by the prospect that she will be but the first to find that she really doesn't need them to get her message out. She can bypass their "helpful" filtering and make appeals directly to the public without the media interpreting her utterances into something that in no way resembles what it she actually said (as compared to what they want her to have said). They will be relegated to actually reporting the news rather than creating it or disguising their not unbiased opinions as 'news'.
And there are few things more sweet to Palin and her fervent supporters cheering their TV sets this week than the image of a hungry know-it-all "lamestream media" caravan of 15 or more vehicles traipsing along behind her red-white-and-blue bus enroute to they-know-not-where to do they-know-not-what.
To read some of those commenting on the Times piece, Palin should be held responsible for the extra work the media will have to do and the higher risk they'll be taking to keep up with her. That's right, the higher risk.
She's an irresponsible, egotistical woman who gives no thought as to how she could be endangering others through her actions. The article mentions the media caravan, but doesn't talk about the chaos created, as in Philadelphia, when the reporters don't know where she's going to show up and run madly about trying to find her. If someone gets hurt, guess who's going to deny she's responsible for any of it and cast aspersions on anyone who tries to say she is--just as she did when Kathy Gifford was shot. Such behavior would not be entirely surprising from an immature, aspiring Hollywood star; it is disturbing from someone who makes any pretense of aspiring to a responsible position.This California asshat has it exactly backwards. How is it she can in any way be held responsible for the actions of what are, to all intents and purposes, paparazzi? If she chooses not to clue them in as to her plans, it's her right to do so. The poor endangered media types don't have to follow her around, do they?
Too many of the other asshats who commented wondered why the media bothers giving Palin any coverage, and then they complain when the media has a more difficult time covering Palin. So I have to ask this question: Which one is it you really want - media coverage to report her every gaffe, real or perceived, or for the media to ignore her entirely? It has to be one or the other. You can't have both.
Of course we really know the answer to that question, don't we? Without Palin, the Left would have no one to complain about or to excoriate. I guess it must make them feel better to denigrate someone who refuses to fill the role they have decided she must play. Too bad for them.
And what would happen if she decides to run in 2012 and again chooses her own way of doing things without bothering to ask the media for their input, such as it is? I expect heads would explode in newsrooms around the country and the all-so-learned talking heads would be struck dumb by her unwillingness to consult with them.
One can only hope.
But from the Left comes a voice defending Fox News and condemning MMFA for its unconstitutional and un-American actions.
Norman Horowitz writes:
Many take the position that if you do not approve of what someone's press is publishing that it is acceptable to somehow destroy the offending press.Horowitz includes the letter from MMFA CEO Matt Butler, outlining MMFA's plans to silence Fox News by going after the advertisers supporting it. It almost sounds like mob tactics from past, inducing businesses to stop doing business with someone who has fallen out of favor with the mob bosses.
In the "pretend spirit" of free speech Media Matters for America (MMFA) wants to stifle the free press rights of Fox News. MMFA is not at all pleased with Fox News and has chosen to find a way to stop Fox News from publishing.
It is both sad and objectionable that MMFA objects to press freedom.
Why is the Left always falls back on tactics that are right out of the Mobster's Handbook if they feel they can't win support of the public based upon the merits of their arguments? Could it be because they realize they are losing public support for their morally and financially bankrupt political ideology and feel they must "Do Something!!" in order to prove their way is the right way, even though it isn't? It certainly seems that way to me.
Media Matters of course can take issue with what Fox News promulgates and can publish opposing opinions of its own.And wouldn't they scream loudly if someone were to try the same tactics against MMFA? Of course they would. But somehow only the anointed are allowed to advocate silencing dissent. And some of them would recommend using any means necessary to do so, just as has been done so many times over the past 100 years or so in places like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and a host of other nations around the world.
If you don't approve of it don't watch it, read it, or listen to it. Suggest that your friends and family might choose to do the same and that is fine.
But MMFA has crossed a line by trying to stifle a voice of which they don't approve. They suggest, in a manner of speaking, that the public destroy the Fox presses by removing the financial support of Fox News that comes from Madison Avenue.
What a horrid position it is for MMFA to take.
We all need to support the right to publish commentators such as Glenn Beck and many others at Fox News. I personally find what they are spewing noxious. But that's the point. As distasteful as it might be, we all need to defend speech we don't agree with as long as it's not inciting people to riot and things of that nature.
If MMFA doesn't like much of what is said on Fox News, they can say so, and they can say it quite LOUDLY.
But their shouting emits a foul odor when they are advocating the suppression of views expressed on Fox News along with the suppression of Fox News itself.
It seems they would like to add the United States to that list. But then far too many statists like the extreme Left in this country would see that as a Progressive paradise.
At least one "raging liberal" sees the danger in that.
Kudos to Norman Horowitz.
It never ceases to amaze me the level of vitriol leveled towards Palin, or at her family. It shows how far manners and adherence to the unwritten rules of politics have fallen among the Left. This may end up coming back to bite them in the ass, as it should.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, both the Democrats and their bought-and-paid-for media went after Sarah's family, a long standing taboo. Candidates were always considered fair game. Their families were not. The Dems crossed that line and now they may never be able to step back across it. Even now they continue to hammer her and her family as if they are deathly afraid of her. Maybe it's because they are.
Apparently quite a few others feel the same way about how Sarah and her family are being treated. Others miss the point, like this person:
For example, when Bristol Palin said winning Dancing with the Stars, would be a middle finger to her and her mom's critics.If people had been criticizing just Sarah, that's one thing. But they went after Bristol, her baby, and her baby brother. No one did that to Chelsea Clinton when Bill was in office. It's an apple and oranges comparison.
Try as I might, I can't see Chelsea Clinton saying that about her parents' critics (in public).
But for a lot of those slamming Palin, it comes down to this: The problem with our society in this media-soaked age is that we equate glibness with intelligence and cynicism with wisdom.* It certainly explains Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the usual suspects.
*This is a composite of two different comments from Ann Althouse's post on the subject.
Will the intensity of PDS continue to increase as we approach the start of the 2012 presidential campaign season? Without a doubt. Will the invective aimed at Sarah Palin by the Left reach a level of hysteria not seen since Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds? Absolutely. Will any of it stop Sarah from moving forward, regardless of her plans or political ambitions. Absolutely not.
They accuse conservatives and Tea party supporters of such rhetoric when it is the very thing they themselves are spouting. That sounds like projection to me.
How is it we never hear conservatives or Tea party supporters actually saying the things the progressives have accused us of saying? Because as a rule we don't. But the progressives sure as hell do, and they do it often and loudly.
[Christian Hartsock's] coverage of the rally opens with an ingenuous twentysomething white woman holding forth: "There's a devastating influence in our country, and it's coming from fear and anger and widespread misunderstanding of what's actually causing the problems in our society. And I think that the racist Tea Party is one example of that, and it makes me feel ashamed to be an American."So much for dialing back the intensity of the rhetoric and being more civil. I guess that call was meant just for the Tea partiers. For the progressives, anything goes and civility be damned. What's worse is that the MSM has been complicit with the progressive agenda, "reporting uncorroborated claims as if they were established fact."
That said, it appears from [Hartsock's] video that the violent and racist sentiments originate with the Common Cause supporters; Hartsock prompts them with relatively innocuous cues about [Clarence Thomas's] impeachment and Anita Hill. And there is no question that the Common Causers express their ugly sentiments with great relish.
"Yes, House Republicans have been in power for 5 hours and they have not passed their entire agenda. The New York Times thinks they should be canned and Democrats put back in charge."I figured the Lame Stream Media would do something like that, so it's no surprise.
This summer's weather has caused a bit of amnesia about the previous two summers, where the weather was mostly cooler and wetter than normal. During those summers, here in the northeast we didn't really experience summer weather until August. June and July were cold and very wet, seriously affecting the farm industry and the tourist trade. On the farms, crops ran late and some were drowned out altogether. And who wants to go to the beach or go hiking or boating or hit the tourist spots when it's in the 60's, cloudy, and damp?
If we have a string of summers like the one we've been experiencing this year, then we might be able to attribute it to global warming. But if it's just this summer, and the following summers are 'normal' then wouldn't we have to say it was just weather and not climate? If you're like most folks, I'd say the answer would be yes. But knowing the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans global warming folks they will ignore the normal summer pattern and focus intently on this summer as proof of AGW. Never mind there's been a decade long cooling trend.
And then of course, there's this. But let's not let facts get in the way of our opinions, right?
Poor Nicholas. Apparently he can't tell the difference between access to health care and health insurance.
Everyone in America has had access to health care by law since the the 1980's. No one needing care can be turned away, even if they can't pay for it. ObamaCare has nothing to do with access, at least not directly.
According to the Democrats ObamaCare is all about is health insurance, something entirely different. Of course once everyone has insurance there will be an effect on health care access, just not the one they expected - there will be less of it. Doctors will be unwilling or unable to take on new patients, just like in Massachusetts under RomneyCare. So even if you have insurance there's absolutely no guarantee you'll be able to find a doctor to take you as a patient.
See the difference now, Nicholas?
ABC World News was going to do a story about ClimateGate.
I thought, "Gee, at least someone other than Fox is paying attention." But that thought faded away as I watched the report, a piece that covered the hacked files and the so-called "smoking gun". Call it a CBS-Lite version of the scandal.
The only part of ClimateGate they covered were the incriminating e-mails, something they tried to explain away. No mention was made about the FORTRAN source code used to create results the CRU crew wanted to see, or the Read Me text file accompanying the computer code. No mention was made of destroyed data nor machinations to prevent skeptics from being able to question CRU's conclusions or publish dissenting articles. Nor did they say anything about Jones stepping down as head of CRU or of the UK government investigating the affair. There was also no mention of Penn State University investigating another member of the CRU cabal, Michael Mann, he of the discredited Mann "hockey stick" graph.
Instead they tried to make AGW skeptics seem deranged, even more than the AlGoristas have tried to do.
From comments made to the ABC News blog post about the report, it appears few are buying ABC's attempt to minimize the story.
So, he's saying now that Fox News isn't a news station? It's "operating as a talk radio", but not news? Last I knew, most of talk radio dealt directly with news and commentary on said news. Well now... Let's see if we can't dig a bit deeper into this interesting idea...Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio," President Obama suggested in an interview airing today.
Aha! Fox News isn't a real news station... Because... They don't agree with President Obama's way of doing things? Last time I checked, news stations were supposed to report things as they were, one might even say "fair and balanced".After weeks of public feuding between the cable news channel and the president's top aides, Obama seemed to agree with statements by his advisers that Fox is not a real "news station."
"I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."
Take media as it comes? Hmmmm... If we take a moment to think on that, one might remember that fateful day in which President Obama appeared on FIVE Sunday "talk shows", but yet somehow left out Fox News. Now, this leads one to wonder why? What do these five networks that President Obama deemed worthy of his presence have that Fox News does not? Evidently, even the senior white house correspondent for ABC News isn't even sure. I'm sorry, but when a senior correspondent in your news station doesn't see a difference, chances are, there are none. In my opinion, the only difference between the news organizations the President visited (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc) and Fox is that Fox News may actually have a dissenting view.
But wouldn't one think that the President would be able to support his views with fact? Couldn't his plans for healthcare and the economy withstand some simple questioning? Evidently not. Again, in my (not so) humble opinion, this country reached it's greatness because of debate and clash of ideas. Is that not what we were founded on? There were vast amounts of debates that went into any and all of the founding documents, and right from the start of this great country there were dissenting views on how things should be run. If one can not support an idea with fact, and/or is not willing to openly clarify or defend their opinion, it should not be said. One can not just dodge an issue by denying its existence. Just because officials choose to label Fox News as something other than a "news station" does not lessen its credibility, in fact, I would think it lessens the credibility of those who commented. If an idea can not be supported, it is worthless. Denying that your opponents exist will not make them go away, it will make them stronger. Denying that the dollar isn't falling won't bring back the super dollar, it will just make it fall farther. Denying the seriousness of our credit crisis (and then just trying to band-aid with stimulus package after stimulus package - note the attempts at stealth while pushing through *another* failing stimulus idea) won't fix anything, it'll just get us more in debt. In summary, I would offer them a history book. Clearly, history repeats itself, and their denial of Fox News' identity as a news broadcaster will not silence them at all. In fact, I believe it will only lend them strength and credibility in their opposition.
I know I'm a bit late piling on to Ms. Dunn, but she hasn't received anywhere near the abuse she deserves.