Friday, November 05, 2010
Chris Matthews and Barney Frank
Is it just me, or are Chris Matthews and Barney Frank extraordinarily similar in both substance and style?
They're both lefties, they're both condescending, bombastic and arrogant, they both interrupt as soon as they hear something they don't like ... what's the dif?
So is Matthews a sock puppet of Frank's, or vice versa?
(0) comments
They're both lefties, they're both condescending, bombastic and arrogant, they both interrupt as soon as they hear something they don't like ... what's the dif?
So is Matthews a sock puppet of Frank's, or vice versa?
Labels: Democrats, media bias, politicians, the Left
Thursday, November 19, 2009
AP Fact Checkers
Late to the party as usual, I saw the story some days ago that the Associated Press tasked 11, yes, 11 reporters to comb Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue for factual errors.
The AP people came up with 12 "errors' as reported in the linked story. And as I read them, some of the supposed "gotchas" that the crack AP reporting team came up with aren't really "gotchas" at all. The ones about her hotel stays, Obama saying his climate change plan will cause electricity costs to skyrocket and the Vogue magazine interview seem to be particularly non-gotcha. Compared to the headline, the story is a yawner. I'm chalking it up to one more example of the in-the-tank-for-Obama media attacking Gov. Palin at any opportunity, even if they have to make up stuff to do it.
If this woman is so inconsequential, inept, stupid, annoying, simple, etc., etc. as they say, why is the left spending so much time and energy trying to tear her down?
I wonder how many reporters the AP assigned to fact check Obama's Dreams of My Father?
(0) comments
The AP people came up with 12 "errors' as reported in the linked story. And as I read them, some of the supposed "gotchas" that the crack AP reporting team came up with aren't really "gotchas" at all. The ones about her hotel stays, Obama saying his climate change plan will cause electricity costs to skyrocket and the Vogue magazine interview seem to be particularly non-gotcha. Compared to the headline, the story is a yawner. I'm chalking it up to one more example of the in-the-tank-for-Obama media attacking Gov. Palin at any opportunity, even if they have to make up stuff to do it.
If this woman is so inconsequential, inept, stupid, annoying, simple, etc., etc. as they say, why is the left spending so much time and energy trying to tear her down?
I wonder how many reporters the AP assigned to fact check Obama's Dreams of My Father?
Labels: media bias, Sarah Palin
Saturday, September 26, 2009
President Pantywaist?
Once again, more valuable insight into what Mr. Obama is doing to the United States is available from abroad than from our domestic "news" organizations, whose credibility is now approximately on the same level as whale poop in the view of many if not most Americans.
Here's Gerald Warner, writing in the UK's Telegraph:
When words like "President Pantywaist" appear in the public discourse taking place in the staunchest friend that the US has in the world, it can't be good.
(0) comments
Here's Gerald Warner, writing in the UK's Telegraph:
Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.I wish I'd said that.
If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.
###
Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world.
When words like "President Pantywaist" appear in the public discourse taking place in the staunchest friend that the US has in the world, it can't be good.
Labels: defense, Great Britain, media bias, Obama
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Legend vs. The Reality
The Times of London has a story by Gerard Baker analyzing the differences between some of Barack Obama's campaign positions and the reality of his political history. Not a whole lot of detail, but some (it's not a particularly long piece). Nonetheless, I've not seen anything this straightforward about Obama in the US print media. Here's the summation, but read it all:
(0) comments
Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.If Mr. Obama becomes President, his election will certainly embody the triumph of hope over experience.
It's been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here's an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.
The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.
Labels: Election, media bias, Obama, politics
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Obama: "My Muslim Faith"
By now, probably everyone who's interested has seen the clip of Obama's interview with George Stephanopoulus on ABC TV last Sunday, in which he refers to "my Muslim faith."
In context, it's clear that he is admitting that McCain himself has never said, or even intimated, that Obama is a Muslim. However, I think his use of the particular phraseology reveals something about Obama's mindset, although I'm not sure what.
For example, if I were being interviewed on that subject, I expect I would make the point more directly, as in, "... you're absolutely right that John McCain has not said I'm a Muslim ...," as opposed to what Obama said: "... you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith ...." Maybe it's that Harvard Law education coming out--you know, being able to argue all sides of an issue and all.
As many others have pointed out, when he's away from the Teleprompter, Obama is as prone to verbal gaffes as President Bush, or maybe even Sen. Dan "Potatoe" Quayle. But you don't see skits on SNL about his misstatements, and you don't see snarky opinon columns in the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post or Newsweek. I agree with many others that such verbal missteps by McCain or Palin would be discussed for days as evidence of their unfitness for office, their lack of intelligence, their inability to communicate, their stupidity or their true evil nature. (Don't believe me? Look what they've said about Bush.) This whole episode says a lot more about the media than it does about Mr. Obama.
(0) comments
In context, it's clear that he is admitting that McCain himself has never said, or even intimated, that Obama is a Muslim. However, I think his use of the particular phraseology reveals something about Obama's mindset, although I'm not sure what.
For example, if I were being interviewed on that subject, I expect I would make the point more directly, as in, "... you're absolutely right that John McCain has not said I'm a Muslim ...," as opposed to what Obama said: "... you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith ...." Maybe it's that Harvard Law education coming out--you know, being able to argue all sides of an issue and all.
As many others have pointed out, when he's away from the Teleprompter, Obama is as prone to verbal gaffes as President Bush, or maybe even Sen. Dan "Potatoe" Quayle. But you don't see skits on SNL about his misstatements, and you don't see snarky opinon columns in the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post or Newsweek. I agree with many others that such verbal missteps by McCain or Palin would be discussed for days as evidence of their unfitness for office, their lack of intelligence, their inability to communicate, their stupidity or their true evil nature. (Don't believe me? Look what they've said about Bush.) This whole episode says a lot more about the media than it does about Mr. Obama.
Labels: media bias, Obama, religion
Friday, September 05, 2008
US Weekly Subscription Cancellations
Michelle Malkin's site has a post about thousands of people canceling their US Weekly subscriptions because of the misleading cover about Sarah Palin. Michelle's post cites an article on MSNBC's Scoop page, containing the following:
Needless to say, the woman got her back alimony.
The point of the story is, of course, when the question contains too much detail, it's easy to give a technically truthful but misleading answer. Likewise when someone makes a statement that contains a precise number of any kind. People should keep that in mind, especially during election season.
The media are supposed to be smart enough to pick up on weasel words like this, and continue questioning until the facts are revealed, or the subject refuses to answer. From what I've seen, they're only that smart when they're interviewing Republicans and others who are "out of favor."
(0) comments
"A spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further."That statement reminds me of an anecdote from law school:
A deadbeat ex-husband was brought before a Michigan judge for failure to pay alimony. He (naturally) claimed he didn't have the money. The wife blurted out, "That's a lie! He has $100,000 in a bank account in Cleveland."
The judge turned to the man and asked, "Do you have $100,000 in a bank account in Cleveland?"
"No, your honor."
"Do you have a bank account in Cleveland or anywhere else in Ohio?"
"Yes, your honor."
"How much is in it?"
"About $98,500, your honor."
Needless to say, the woman got her back alimony.
The point of the story is, of course, when the question contains too much detail, it's easy to give a technically truthful but misleading answer. Likewise when someone makes a statement that contains a precise number of any kind. People should keep that in mind, especially during election season.
The media are supposed to be smart enough to pick up on weasel words like this, and continue questioning until the facts are revealed, or the subject refuses to answer. From what I've seen, they're only that smart when they're interviewing Republicans and others who are "out of favor."
Labels: Election, media bias, weasel words
