Ellie Light sure gets around. In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical “Letters to the Editor” in support of President Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers.Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper’s circulation area. “It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything,”
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report
Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn on Monday hit 60 Minutes for spending ten minutes out of a 13 minute segment highlighting negative dirt on Sarah Palin. At the same time, the news magazine ignored racially charged remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Shawn analyzed Anderson Cooper’s January 10 interview with the authors of Game Change, observing, "...Most of the CBS story was critical of Sarah Palin."
The CRU Crew of liars and scientific frauds of the UK have been driving the climate fraud campaign for years. They shaped the corrupt and ridiculous IPCC UN report, designed to empower the Green Corruptocracy as the new international Ruling Class. Now that they have been finally, and devastatingly exposed to the world -- including the British media, the BBC (reluctantly), the Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph, and the Daily Mail, which is smelling a huge scandal that will bring down the Labour Party (socialist). The one thing the Brits still pride themselves on is their world class science. The CRU crusade shows that science, too, has become pervasively corrupt and sick in New Socialist Britain.
The hidden-camera videos by James O‘Keefe and Hannah Giles detailing the inner workings of the taxpayer-funded leftist racket known as ACORN have set off a storm of journalistic controversy, but not in the way one might think. Rather than engaging the substance of the stories first made available on Big Government and later on Fox News – that ACORN, to put it generously, seems to be staffed by an inordinate number of employees blithely willing to aid and, if possible, abet criminal activity – the dinosaur media has reacted not by investigating the message but by attacking the messengers, all in the name of “journalistic ethics.”
Exhibit A, The Washington Post: Salahis sought gala access through a Pentagon door...Couple asked Defense official for entree to state dinner via e-mail
The withdrawal of Dede Scozzafava from the special election for Congress in upstate New York has predictably set off another wave of media-led hand-wringing about the health of the GOP. These stories are like crack for reporters, especially those with a hard-left slant. It is always framed as a battle between ‘conservatives’ and ‘moderates,’ but the focus is actually much narrower.
The official monthly numbers will be finalized at 4 p.m. Monday and will include results from Friday. CNN executives conceded that will not change the competitive standing for the month. CNN will still be last in prime time.
That means CNN’s programs were behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but even its own sister network HLN (formerly Headline News.) Three of its four shows between 7 and 11 p.m. finished fourth and last among the cable news networks. That was the first time CNN had finished that poorly with its prime-time shows.
The most recent whine – the anti-Fox campaign – is, apart from anything else, unbecoming to the office. President Obama is the chief of state of one of the oldest free societies in the world, but his official White House Web site runs teasers such as: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter.'" It gives off the air of somebody only marginally less paranoid than this week's president-for-life in some basket-case banana republic ranting on the palace balcony because his interior security chief isn't doing a fast-enough job of disappearing his enemies.
Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said he remains unconvinced that broadband providers are engaging in widespread anticompetitive behavior that requires government intervention.
"I do not share the majority's view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it," he said.
Next up for the FCC is to actually craft the rules, with a vote on whether to adopt them expected to come by next summer.
I've come to the view that the real protection of press freedom is in the idea of private property. Press freedom in Soviet Russia was lost precisely on this issue when, as American journalist John Reed told the story in his famous book, "Ten Days that Shook the World," a proposal was put on the table to restore the press freedom that had been suspended on the first day of the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin shouted it down with a diatribe about how that would mean restoring to capitalists privately owned printing equipment, paper supplies and ink.
The Obama administration has attacked Fox News in order to prevent government corruption stories broken on Fox from bleeding into the other media, which are all-consumed with daily updates on Levi Johnston's Playgirl spread and Carrie Prejean's breast implants.
That's understandable. But I think the administration should have picked someone other than David Axelrod to deliver the claim that Fox News is "not really news," inasmuch as Axelrod was behind the leak of scurrilous allegations in Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers when he was running for a Senate seat against Obama. Talk about vicious personal gossip.
Now that Fox has been branded an untouchable, the teacher's-pet media are jubilant.
The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
If there was any question which side of the ideological blogosphere a lot of the inside-the-beltway media establishment go to regularly, Politico may have just cleared that up.
In an Oct. 11 Politico story headlined "Think Progress makes its mark," which was the top story on its Web site that evening, Daniel Libit paid reverence to the left-wing Center for American Progress' Think Progress blog.
Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news media’s performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.
Similarly, only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased. And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows.
We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation – or, at any rate, its "mainstream" media culture – declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's passing, America's TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household
In the early hours of Wednesday, reporter John Donvan narrated a tough, comprehensive look at the life of Ted Kennedy, one that went so far as to assert that the Senator was sometimes "a let down, an embarrassment to his family, to his party, to himself." However, this eight and a half minute segment, which looked into Chappaquiddick, Kennedy’s cheating at Harvard and other scandals, aired at 2:30 in the morning
Us right-wing nuts sure is scary! That's the message from the Washington Post. To put this in language a conservative would understand, the fourth estate has been alarmed once again by the Burkean proclivities of our nation's citizens. The Post is in a panic about (to use its own descriptive terms) "birthers," "anti-tax tea-partiers," and "town hall hecklers."
On Monday the Obama administration released a 2004 CIA inspector general's report on the agency's detention and interrogation program. Yesterday, the New York Times reported some gruesome abuses on its front page, above the fold: "Excessive physical force was routinely used, resulting in broken bones, shattered teeth, concussions, and dozens of other serious injuries over a period of less than two years, a federal investigation has found. . . . [D]espite rules allowing force only as a last resort. 'Staff at the facilities routinely used uncontrolled, unsafe applications of force, departing from generally accepted standards,' said the report."
Actually, these abuses were not committed by the CIA. They were committed by officials at four juvenile residential detention centers in New York state. The details came from a Justice Department report that recounted how "workers forced one boy, who had glared at a staff member, into a sitting position and secured his arms behind his back with such force that his collarbone was broken."
While officials at the New York state detention facilities failed to report the abuses ("the ombudsman's office charged with overseeing the youth prison centers had virtually ceased to function," the Times reported), the CIA inspector general's report describes a well-run, highly disciplined CIA interrogation program, where clear guidelines were established and abuses or deviations from approved techniques were stopped, reported and addressed.
The Boston Globe: "Obama shows an ability to transcend race”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “Obama's success suggests we can transcend race”
But of course that hasn’t happened. Jonah Goldberg writes:
It was Obama’s supporters who hinted, teased, promised, and prophesied that Obama would help America “transcend race.” But now, it is they who shrink from their own promised land…
From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.
It’s this week’s fashion on the left, and among such fashionably contemplative moderates as Mort Kondracke, to blast Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to the Nazis. It’s no surprise that the Obama hardcores are misrepresenting the sequence and substance of events, but I would have hoped that Kondracke would at least have noted that Rush’s comparison — even if Kondracke thought it unwise — was neither gratuitous nor demagogic.
To recap, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, started this episode by comparing American citizens who oppose Obamacare to the Nazis and asserting that her political opponents were donning “swastikas.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer simultaneously ripped Obamacare dissenters for their Brooks Brothers suits — it’s not altogether clear where on the twill the swastika goes.) Pelosi’s tactic was the shopworn smear we on the right have dealt with for six decades. There is no conceivable substantive connection between opposition to Obamacare and German National Socialism — they are antithetical. By invoking the Nazis, Pelosi was patently slandering dissenters as racist thugs.
Rush responded, and the response did not smear Democrats. He repeatedly and explicitly qualified that no one was saying Obama was Hitler, that Pelosi was Goebbels, or that the Democrats were engaged in the genocidal barbarity of the Third Reich. The comparison he drew was a substantive one: between the Democrats’ proposal for socialized medicine and the German installation of socialized medicine beginning with Bismarck and reaching its shocking apotheosis with Hitler’s National Socialism. (A transcript of what he actually contended is here, and his website has other relevant transcripts, since the argument was reiterated other times during the week.) The point was to show that if Pelosi wanted to engage in Nazi comparisons, the health-care policies of Nazi Germany had far more in common with the health-care policies of the Democrats than with those of the conservative opposition, which wants health care kept private and reforms to be market-based.
Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care 'reform' on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic.
Networks being pressured to provide more primetime airtime to the President: He's already had four in six months, President Bush had only four in his entire eight years
The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours. The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used."
While it is interesting to see how a president handles questions, Friedman says, "there was nothing" at the July 22 session, which was dominated by health-care questions. "There hardly ever is these days, because there's so much coverage all the time."
You may have missed it, but on Wednesday, Barack Obama held yet another so-called townhall meeting. This one was to discuss his health care plans and use the new tools of "social media" to do it. Although surrounded by a live audience, the main focus of the event was to reach people using the White House web site, Facebook, and Twitter.
The problem is that there should be some kind of standards when it comes to a townhall meeting. By labeling it as such, Americans get the impression that this is a meeting of average Joes (and Janes) -- people from all walks of life and all parts of the political spectrum -- who can throw out questions to the president. Well... not quite...
As we have seen in many Obama events already, the purpose is strictly to get his message out and NOT hear from the American people, even though that is the stage upon which his sales pitch is being delivered. The White House picks the questions ahead of time, and the audience is generally made up of Obama supporters. Does this sound like a townhall meeting to you?
Media: They laugh at his jokes. They say he's the smartest guy in Congress. And 90% of them agree with him politically. Small wonder the havoc Barney Frank wreaks on the economy gets so little attention.
The poll, administered June 12-16, found that 72 percent of respondents favored the creation of a government health-insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.
It also said 50 percent of respondents thought the government would do a better job providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in 2007; and that 59 percent thought the government would be better at holding down costs, up from 47 percent two years ago.
But critics including pollster Kellyanne Conway say the results are inaccurate because they are heavily skewed toward those who voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
In addition, other indicators point toward a repeat of the defeat Hillary Clinton's proposed government-run faced in the early ‘90’s.
ABC News has abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity in its bid to be the administration’s official salesman for ObamaCare. ABC flatly rejected Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay’s request to add opposition views to ensure all sides of the health care debate were represented in the “town hall” forum.
Not only that, ABC News Vice President Kerry Smith responded by saying, “ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President.”
As if that wasn’t enough, ABC then rejected an ad from a conservative group trying to counter the liberal health care agenda.
This is the week that we get our full dose of health care "news" on ABC. The special which airs on Wednesday is a townhall format in which Barack Obama will answer "tough" questions from the audience as picked by ABC News.
Conservatives and other media critics have been up in arms ever since ABC News announced the format. Diane Sawyer, co-host of ABC's "Good Morning America" recently went on the air to defend the program and deny that it was a glorified infomercial. She actually said she is proud of the program, because it's important to have a debate on this serious issue. Note to Dianne... it might just be me, but I thought it takes two opposing sides to have a debate. Right?
More>>>
*FLASHBACK* Courtroom explodes in laughter when Diane Sawyer says journalists are fair
According to Gallup, five months into the Obama administration — which The Times insists reflects the will of the American people — 40% of Americans call themselves conservatives, 35% moderates, and 21% liberal.
The radio personality, whose national audience exceeds 8 million, then asked the rhetorical question: If a plurality of Americans are conservative, why is there a “neo-Marxist in the White House” who’s successfully implementing a socialist agenda?
The answer, said Savage, is because we have a “neo-Marxist media.” This isn’t name-calling but an accurate assessment of what might be called a partnership in crime — Barack Obama and the mainstream media
As indignation turned to outrage Thursday among critics of an ABC News prime-time special on President Obama's health care policy, The Washington Times has learned that ABC employees gave 80 times as much money to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign for president than to his rival's.
According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.
I try really really hard to avoid the term "Orwellian," but I can't help it here: This is Orwellian word use on steroids to the googleplex degree. Byron York reports that the White House is calling the firing of AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin an act of "political courage." When thuggery is called courage, when corruption is called integrity, when ignoring the spirit of the law is called judiciousness.... well, then, that's when this firing becomes defensible. This is a sinister White House.
ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!
The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.
Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.
Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:
"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."
Before the war, the paper wrote article after article -- relying on both government and non-government sources -- that assumed the presence of stockpiles. Three of its reporters even wrote a book called "Germs," in which they discussed Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological programs.
But when the stockpiles failed to appear, the paper felt used, manipulated by the "devious" Bush administration. It promised its readers greater skepticism, more scrutiny, and no more at-face-value acceptance of assertions by the Bush administration. "The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter," wrote the Times in 2004, "but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. … Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations -- in particular, this one." Quoth the Times, "Nevermore"!
But with hard-left Democratic President Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities running both the House and the Senate, the mainstream media -- the ones that felt used and manipulated by the Bush administration -- now purr like a contented kitten after a hearty meal.
Not really. But the MSM did crawl all over Alaska during the campaign, as you know doubt remember, reporting every hushed whisper and backhanded accusation. Everyone from ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCCNBC to the NYTWaPoLaTTIMENewsweek giddily reported every tidbit, including casting aspersions on the Palin children, particularly Bristol, throwing good old fashioned investigative journalistic integrity to the wind. Yet, now that the probe has ended, clearing the governor of EVERYTHING, there's nary a mention. But, hey, who cares, right? Who cares that the entire fourth estate is in bed with the Obama administration and the Democrats and that it was never more evident than during the 2008 presidential campaign? Just so long as the "chosen one" was elected, nothing else mattered. Not the truth, not the Constitution, and certainly not integrity.
Nice going, "newsies". We despise you. We certainly do have a problem in this country, a big one, and it sure as hell ain't talk radio.
The content on Thesaloon.net, except all Submissions (defined below) is owned by or licensed to Thesaloon.net, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the United States and international intellectual property laws and conventions. Content on Thesaloon.net is provided for personal use only and may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any purpose without the prior written consent of the respective owners. You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, or distribution of Submissions of third parties obtained through the Thesaloon.net website for any commercial purposes.
Thesaloon.net permits the submission of text, photographs, opinions, comments and/or other forms of communication submitted by you and other users ("Submissions") and the hosting, sharing and publication of such Submissions. You agree that you are solely responsible for your own Submissions and affirm, represent, and/or warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize Thesaloon.net to use all patent trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the Submissions in the manner contemplated by Thesaloon.net. You retain all ownership rights in your Submissions. However, by submitting the Submissions to Thesaloon.net, you hereby grant Thesaloon.net a non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Submissions in connection with Thesaloon.net and Thesaloon.net’s business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of Thesaloon.net (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels/outlets.
Thesaloon.net does not permit or allow copyright infringing activities and/or infringement of intellectual property rights on Thesaloon.net's website, and Thesaloon.net will remove any and all content and Submissions if properly notified that such content and/or Submission infringes on another's intellectual property rights.