Ace of Spades HQ

« Ace of Spades HQ Gets A Little "Paper" (Sort of-- but I'll count it) | Main | I, the Liberal Media »

September 22, 2004

Mainstream Media: We Reserve the Right to Lie "For the Children," and We're Angry As Hell Some Dare to Challenge That Right

Right-leaning bloggers uncovered a serious hoax perpetrated by the mainstream liberal media -- so serious, in fact, it might just be an actual felony.

The mainstream liberal media insists it's 1) not liberal and 2) its politics (which, by the way, aren't liberal, but are straight-down-the-middle centrist moderate) had nothing at all to do with being so receptive to, and eager to republish, this libel by fraud. (See, e.g. Jack Shafer's "What Liberal Bias?" apologia in the amateur liberal webzine Slate.)

Well, by gosh and by golly. Since the media's so damn moderate centrist, and since the right-leaning blogosphere exposed the what is probably the biggest journalistic fraud in history (much bigger than the Hitler diaries, by the way-- last time I checked, Adolf Hitler wasn't running for President of the United States, although it seems someone named "Bushitler" is), of course New York Newsday would contact someone involved in exposing this transparent hoax for comment.

Well, not quite. Seems New York Newsday looked far and wide for a right-leaning blogger who actually had something to do with this story, but, goshdarnit, they couldn't find one. What they did find was the left-wing author of a left-wing website:

Danny Schechter is the editor of the Web site, Mediachannel.org. He is the director of "WMD," a new documentary film on the media coverage of the war in Iraq.

But of course! Who else better to comment on the blogosphere doing the Mainstream Liberal Media's job for them but a left-wing website editor!

And let's look at the scary-important observations of this undoubtedly fair-and-balanced independent-minded "I just vote for the man, not the Party" centrist moderate:

The reputation of veteran news anchor Dan Rather is lying on the floor, bloodied by a mistake he has now admitted, flanked on the political right by "we told you so" finger-pointers led by GOP operatives demanding his head.

See, Danny, the problem is that we did tell them so. We told you so, too. No one listened until Charles Johnson and others proved the case with smoking-gun evidence -- only a "preponderance of evidence" was required to support an anti-Bush hit-piece, but smoking-gun, irrefutable visual proof was required to debunk it.

A news outlet once headed by "the most trusted man in America" is accused of being the least trustworthy. With Rather apologizing for airing a story based in part on memos that CBS cannot verify, it looks bad for network news in general and critics of President George W. Bush in particular. And that fits the M.O. of the people behind the hit.

It's our "M.O."? Telling the truth and proving it beyond dispute is "our M.O."?

Praytell, Danny-- what's yours? Obviously you have a different "M.O.," or you wouldn't be whining about it.

...
Over at Fox News, they were breaking out the champagne when the admission of error came down from Black Rock. Fox, of course, has its own (wink, wink) "standards" and never makes mistakes worth acknowledging.

Care to list them, Danny? Do they include perpetrating a transparent fraud on the American public fifty days before a Presidential election?

Their playbook in this regard feeds and follows a well-established White House approach: When confronted by unwelcome truths, avoid them, deny them or tarnish the critic.

Or, you know: Prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that "documents" presented by the Mainstream Liberal Media are in fact forgeries.

Is proving forgeries for what they are now considered "tarnishing the critic"? I suppose it is, in Danny's world. In Danny's world, he and his fellow travellers have the right to lie "in the public interest," but no one has the right to expose their lies.

That, it seems, constitutes an "assault on their free speech."

Fox News branded this dust-up a scandal,...

What does Danny brand it?

This doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the veracity of Danny's little WMD documentary.

...a "Rathergate," using a familiar "change-the-subject" tactic to deflect attention away from persuasive charges that President Bush has not told the truth about his military "service." Allegations about a media misdemeanor were quickly blown up into a felony demanding Rather's career termination with prejudice.

Danny thinks that presenting forgeries as fact, while deliberately avoiding the sort of verification that would expose them as frauds in order to not "overcheck the story," is a "media misdemeanor."

"Business as usual," it would seem.

"Misdemeanors" are things like speeding -- a lot of us commit misdemeanors from time to time. So Danny would seem to be telling us that he engages in such petty little "misdemeanors."

On the other hand, Bush completing only the minimum number of points necessary in his last two years of TANG service -- more than thirty fucking years ago -- is a serious felony that has to be investigated vigorously for... going on five fucking years now.

And if the investigation doesn't go anywhere-- contact an unhinged rabidly-partisan Texas Democrat and put the forgeries he provides on national television.

The right-wing attack machine works by personalizing issues and demonizing "enemies" with overheated language and cartoon-like characterizations. Osama "the evil doer" bin Laden

I wonder what Danny calls him. It's so judgmental to call a mass-murderer an "evil doer."

... gave way to Saddam "the butcher of Baghdad" Hussein

Danny prefers "Saddam 'The Romance Novelist' Hussein."

... and now John "the phony war hero" Kerry has been displaced with a "lather over Rather."

That last bit doesn't even make sense.

It's a textbook example of how attacks against journalists are used to denigrate news not to the right wing's liking by planting items in the media food chain and cranking up an echo chamber of feigned indignation.

Oh? We planted what, exactly? The forgeries?

It remains an amazement to me that every goddamned liberal reporter can go on TV and claim "we can't speculate about a connection between Burkett and the DNC, there's no evidence of that" -- despite the fact that there was a forgery Triangle Trade between Mapes, Lockhart, and Burkett, and despite the fact that Burkett is a very-active Texas Democrat -- and yet Keith Olbermann can go on the air every night and specualte without any evidence whatsoever that Karl Rove, or now Roger Stone, is behind this all.

...
It's possible that CBS was flim-flammed

It's possible, you understand. In theory. Hypothetically, there's an infintesimially small chance that these are forgeries. More likely, Jerry Killian had a MS Word computer fall through a temporal-distortion wormhole; he then printed up his "true feelings" on Bush and gave them to an unknown, shadowy livestock enthusiast named "Lucy Ramirez."

... but TV's need for visuals did them in.

This is so knee-jerk leftist. I swear, these people watch TV 24/7, but they carry on as if their noses never leave their dogeared copies of Ulysses or the collected poetry of Rilke.

Let me clue the New York Daily News, and the virtually illiterate Danny, on a few facts:

Bill Burkett is a left-wing "partisan political operative," although you all seem to refuse to acknowledge him as such.

Danny and the liberal media like to claim that "Republicans" are behind stories they don't like, with little or no evidence to back that allegation up; however, they seem to require much higher standards of evidence to impugn their precious Democratic Party.

No "Republican spin machine" pushed this story anywhere. No one from the GOP contacted me; indeed, I don't even think I know anyone in the party heirarchy. I'm registered independent and the last two presidents I voted for were, get this, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton (in 1992). I hate to admit it, but I haven't voted since. (I thought that would keep me off the jury rolls... but guess what, it doesn't.)

And lastly, Danny--

The proper reaction is this: "You uncovered a shameless and gross lie; congratulations. You are my political opponent, but I'll say good job as far as this matter goes."

Instead, you are whining and screaming and blowing spit-bubbles like an infant. You're angry that a useful liberal media tactic -- simply lying about the facts -- is now coming under attack, and is now much more hazardous to employ.

Well, Danny, no one ever granted you the right you believe that you, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes all have, the right to "lie in the public interest, lest they be deceived by 'distracting' facts, evidence, and truth." You've never actually had that right, although you've frequently behaved as though you had.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, Danny, but the days where you and your buddies can get away with this bullshit unchallenged are quite over.

There's a new sheriff in town, pardner. Get used to it, or else mosey on down the trail and into the sunset, if'n you can't handle that.

Okay, Danny?

posted by Ace at 05:44 PM

Comments

Ace,

While I admire and agree with the fervor with which you attack this ambulatory lump of offal, I must point out to you that while you identify the paper that published his "essay" as the DAILY NEWS, your link leads to NEWSDAY. Was it published in both?

Posted by: Il Padrino on September 22, 2004 06:16 PM

Dude. Relax. I like you, I like your writing, I agree with you 100%. And it was well written. But you're overstating this piece's significance. What he's saying isn't any different than what every other leftist has been saying. But people aren't buying any more. All of the bile being spewed by the MSM right now is nothing more than their version of "I'm melting! what a world, what a world!"

Seriously, slip into the PJ's, have a brew, and take a moment to gloat. No need to let him raise your pulse. This guy just doesn't get it, he never will, and he's preaching to a CHOIR that never will.

Let's remember that he's wrong, this wasn't a vendetta, it was a crusade for the truth, and we want to KEEP it that way. As soon as we start trying to MAKE them wrong, we will become what he accuses us of, we will ourselves become Dan Rather.

The sad clown irony is that he fails to realize that Dan Rather and CBS are guilty of exactly what he accuses their detractors of.

Grain of salt, man.

Posted by: Brian B on September 22, 2004 06:24 PM

Il--

I screwed up on the NYDN/Newsday thing. You're right. I fixed.

Brian--

The piece isn't important, except that it shows that, once again, the liberal media immediately goes to a leftwing writer for comment, even when, quite obviously, you'd want a Rather-critic commenting.

No matter how inappropriate, their rolodexes only turn to the left.

Plus, this is yet another example of the left whining that their precious source of power-- the domination of the dissemination of information -- is slipping through their fingers.

Posted by: ace on September 22, 2004 06:43 PM

Ace,

I don't disagree with you at all. My only concern was that you seemed to be lettign it upset you too much. It's nothing new, and it's nothing but Sound and Fury. Just don't want to see you stress over another laughable leftist screed.

Posted by: Brian B on September 22, 2004 06:49 PM

Bravo!

I'll only pick up on one thing that irked me (beyond all the things you already mentioned):
"feigned indignation"
Feigned?

You have no idea Danny.

You have no f'n idea.

Posted by: Phil on September 22, 2004 06:49 PM

I wonder if Danny understands how very priveleged he is to even GET a superior ass-whupping by someone of your expertise. Damn fine work.

Posted by: Joan of Arggghh! on September 22, 2004 06:55 PM

This is off topic but in the local paper yesterday there was a story likening a hazing incident at John Kerry's old boarding school St. Paul's to Abu Ghairb. Having survived that school in the 90s I can say with some certainty that SPS is one of the most liberal high schools in the country. It looks like they completely overreacted to what these kids did, I'm still trying to find out exactly what happened but what I have so far is at.

http://curbsideprophet7.blogspot.com/2004/09/st-pauls-new-abu-ghraib.html

No question they deserved punishment but the correlation in the press to Abu Ghairb shows how disconnected from reality they are.

Posted by: James on September 22, 2004 08:18 PM

Ace,

No, a single can of Whupass is not sufficient.

One cannot understate how egregious and outrageous is this scandal.

A major broadcast network, willfully used forged documents in collusion with an opposition candidate's election team, to influence a Presidential election, at a time of war, and once exposed, there has been no retraction, or firings, or apologies to the President or to a deceased man's family, both of whom this fraud injured.

No, this is the most vile and contemptible abuse of broadcast news, ever.

To add to his almost immeasurable temerity, Dan Rather, still clings to the risible and reprehensible claim that the memos are, in fact, authentic!

And no, the anger here is both real and appropriate.

It.Must.Continue.

I do, however, take one small exception to the post.

Did you have to use Rilke as an example?

I love Rilke.

Posted by: MeTooThen on September 22, 2004 08:28 PM

A truly righteous fisking!

Posted by: Steve the Llamabutcher on September 22, 2004 08:44 PM

It amazes me that the DNC and their supporters thinks it somehow makes everything alright if they can make people believe this was a plot by the insidious Karl Rove.

Has it occurred to them that as more people become aware of how laughably poor these forgeries were, they will also become aware that the people who tried to pawn these off as legit have one of two problems.

They either:

1. Think the general public is intensely stupid.

2. They themselves are intensely stupid.

Either choice makes them unsuitable to run the country.

Posted by: Eric Pobirs on September 22, 2004 08:49 PM

Heads up ACE, There is a ROTFLMAO Dan Rather mystery novel afoot at IowaHawk. My Teleprompter is Deadly

You're in it.

Gumshoe Dan, legendary PI, is met by the familiar 32-30-41 silouette of his old squeeze Mapes, and starts on his latest adventure based on the words passing her sultry lips. But after starting, Dan quickly realizes this one is shaping up to be even more painful than a Texan man having to sit through an entire chick movie.

I think you are, ACE, unfortunately, a 2nd fiddle, described as one of the BlogWorld's Leader's "sadistic goons".

A Link:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/09/my_teleprompter.html

Posted by: Cedarford on September 22, 2004 10:33 PM

Reading that moron's comments reminded me of something I heard from a Hollywood nit-wit not too long ago.

History Channel recently did a "True Story of William Wallace" piece. They had various specialists in Scottish history doing the rundown of his life story and comparing it to Braveheart, which touched off all the recent interest in the man.

During what seemed like an intelligent interview with the Randall Wallace, the guy who "adapted" the screen play, he said one of the most asinine things I've every heard.

When asked about all the cliche Hollywood drama BS he inserted into the story, his response was, "I don't let the facts get in the way of the Truth." And yes, that capitalization was quite obvious. He then went on to drivel on about how he beleived that because he had the same last name he was just sure he was a decendant of Wallace.

It was really quite pathetic.

Posted by: Yaminohasha on September 22, 2004 10:34 PM

Slightly OT :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716

The headline (which was on front of Yahoo news which I try and avoid) was 'Bush Mocks Kerry's Leadership Credentials'...

Now try and find an ounce of mocking in the article (except from Kerry where he refers to Osama Bin Forgotten)...The first half of the article is mostly Kerry quotes, and Bush talking about how evil the Iraqi beheaders are.

Posted by: DelphiGuy on September 22, 2004 11:35 PM

Ace,
Do not chill out. Do not have that beer. Do not relax.

I don't think Martin Luther would be remembered today if he didn't get pissed off and nail some new rules up on the church doors. Yeah, there was a lot of hand wringing from the powers that be then, but a lot of things changed and history was made. MLK, Jr. got really riled up too. He wasn't preaching sweet nothings to the masses in front of that reflecting pool. He was pissed. And damn it, he had a right.

Now, don't get me wrong, you're not in those two guys' class. But you're right to get angry, viscerally angry, about dishonesty. Angry about pride. Angry about stupidity. But, you're also really funny. And I for one come here to see that too. Just remember there's a realy good reason to be angry but an equally good reason to mock these hacks. Pinch off a little bit of whoop ass and a little bit of humor. Bring to roiling boil. Let cool. Serve your revenge really, really cold.

Birkel

Posted by: Birkel on September 22, 2004 11:38 PM

Another liberal fisked. BTW, notice at the bottom of the Newsday column the clever use of the "Republican Guard". Nice. So we of the VRWC are equivalent to Nazis AND Saddam's hitmen. Sure, that's it....

Posted by: mdatek on September 23, 2004 10:36 AM

Ace,

I see your other readers' points and stand corrected.

Posted by: Brian B on September 23, 2004 12:55 PM

Simply...You are the best!
Thank you, thank you...
I too, have been flabbergasted by the left wing talking heads on TV, who always seem to have the need to say "Conservative" or "Partisan"
or "right wing", "RNC attack machine" or even "republican" before letting anyone else have an opinion! I don't hear those same labels being slapped on their side!
I agree with EVERYTHING you said.
Awesome, I'm saving this. THIS IS A BFD.
Hey Left wing attack machine, get a clue, we won't let this go away.
I'm sick of being bullied by you, and also you telling me, what is important.
Thanks again for the great article!

Linda L

Posted by: Linda L on September 23, 2004 04:29 PM

"The right-wing attack machine works by personalizing issues and demonizing "enemies" with overheated language and cartoon-like characterizations."

But Bushitler is a term of endearment, right?

Gah.

Posted by: Jenna on September 23, 2004 04:36 PM

Dan Rather did not make a mistake, he was not bamboozled by a Bush hater, he was caught at what he always does. Take a point of view, surpress any facts or evidence that disagree with him and run with the story.

His people interviewed the colonel's son and ex-wife, both told the interviewer that the information about Bush was bogus, but since it did not support Rather's point, it was ignored ---only run with the facts that support our point of view. There were no errors, they finally got caught, and now the network is trying to run an ivestigation about the wrong thing, investigate why a reporter like Rather has been allowed to use 60 Minutes as a propaganda outlet for so many years.

Posted by: Bob on September 23, 2004 05:17 PM

BrianB,

Eh, you're not "corrected." It's a judgment call. I wondered if this post was a little too screedy and angry and unhinged when I wrote it; when you commented about my being a little too emotional, I was worried that shit, I really went all unprofessional and Michael Moore on everyone.

But I think sometimes people really do get angry and sort of want to see that anger expressed.

I don't know. I think it was cathartic, too angry, useful, and unprofessional all at once.

Posted by: ace on September 24, 2004 08:11 PM

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Posted by: Saavedra on October 6, 2004 07:22 AM