What media bias?

It was so perfect that that NBC woman was shown up over-dramatizing the heavy rain on the east coast nearly simultaneously with their piece about the president.

If the men were "coached" in the sense that they were told to say things they didn't believe, that's a major embarassment and an ill-using of our soldiers.

On the other hand, if this was just a pre-interview sort of thing -- for crying out loud, most people pre-interview.

I agree with Ace here, but my version of his first definition would be broader and include not just things that them didn't believe, but to also express opinions or facts that they did not have before the pre-interview coaching.

Of course the MSM is shocked! Shocked! by such a revelation. After all, only they in the MSM have the education and intellectual, visceral discernability to know that those being interviewed need to respond in a particular way that reflects the interviewer's point of view, and if it doesn't then the process is faulty and unreliable, i.e., it supports an obviously foolish point of view because it disagrees with their own.

I do not read the local papers any more, I watch little national television (news or other), and certainly wouldn't trust someone who "reports" the news by putting their personal spin on it. "Just the facts, Ma'am" apparently went out with Jack Webb.

You're on the losing side on this one, Ace.

It's really worse than even you grant as a possibility. A public affairs hack was posing as one of the soldiers. And in questioning, the WH spokesman told a few more fibs. More here (names, background) on the lying lies and the liars who lie about them.

But admittedly, it could be worse. I mean, it's not like they used our tax dollars to illegally peddle propaganda – and then didn’t get anything for it.

Link fixed for above:

But admittedly, it could be worse. I mean, it's not like they used our tax dollars to illegally peddle propaganda – and then didn't get anything for it.

Typical MSM boobery and only a boob would defend the boobs of the MSM.

"Typical MSM boobery and only a boob would defend the boobs of the MSM."

The MSM could have been calling the Bush admin on its BS from day one. But instead, as the Plame investigation is showing, the NYT and Tim Russert and plenty of others were complicit with the WH lies when Bush made the claim about firing anyone involved. THEY KNEW and did nothing -- zero journalistic principles.

It ain't ME defending the MSM. It's my hero Fitzgerald who is putting them on the hot seat.

"Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo"

Sounds like a "soldier" to me Tubino.

As I recall, Al Gore drove a typewriter during Vietnam doing this kind of thing...

Wasn't there a TV magazine-type news show that used an incendiary device to 'show' how a certain vehicle tends to blow up in an accident?

I think the hullabaloo was, they didn't mention during the show that they had modified the car, and got busted for trying to pawn off their little drama as 'real.'

Anybody remember what I'm talking about?

Tubino: "... zero journalistic principles."

At last, we agree on something.

If I'm not mistaken, lauraw, that was our own, beloved 60 Minutes and the Ford Pinto.

Good memory, Lauraw. NBC's Dateline rigged a GM truck to explode.
An article by Walter Olson for the WaPo illustrates several examples of the same type of fraud perpetrated by the always-trustworthy MSM.

http://walterolson.com/articles/wpexperts.html

http://walterolson.com/articles/crashtests.html

"Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo"

Sounds like a "soldier" to me Tubino.
-----------------

I guess you didn't read very far, or don't get it. She was posing as one of this group, and she is a regular at these poses.

To paraphrase Bart, it was your typical WH staged set sold as real, and only a boob would defend the propaganda of the WH.

I remember the US MSM coverage of Powell's appearance before the UN. I knew then it was the misleading, deceptive cooked-up set that he later admitted it was, but you would never even GUESS at that from the MSM coverage.

Liberal bias my ass.

Errr......anyone remember the reporter who fed a soldier a question designed to embarrass Rumsfeld?

I guess you didn't read very far, or don't get it. She was posing as one of this group, and she is a regular at these poses.

Well, I don't get it. She's a soldier, her job with the military is public affairs and she shows up at lots of...public affairs for the military. She wasn't "posing" as anything. When the press interviews the CEO of the company I work for, our head of Public Relations is always there, "posing" as an employee.

Geez, next you'll tell me they used a professional cameraman instead of just whistling up some enlisted guy with a camcorder.

Thanks Bart!
I knew somebody around here had a better memory than me.

If I had to guess, Tubino must be a J-prof at Columbia or NC or (insert nearly any J-school name here). Sounds like he's got it all figured out. Man, I'm sure glad someone in this crappy country can see the truth. Right.

And yes, it was one of our inkmasters that had the poor sucker ask the question that just happened to be very misleading because the guy's unit happened to be nearly 100% up-armored, had been for some time.

Scrapping 'round for rusty parts, my butt!!

I don't notice anyone on the left bitching about the content of the opinions of those soldiers.

Q: Why is this?

A: Because they were entirely consistent with what soldiers are thinking, writing about, and documenting on their blogs.

This is just more whining about form rather than content. If you can't attack the product, complain about its packaging.

It must be very frustrating for the left when the reality in the field conflicts with their self-imposed ignorance.

Tubino, we do read your links, and they are the most unconvincing piles of bullshit, surpassed only by your own posts. Strip away all the language that refers to the Bush Regime on the mediacitizen blog and you're left with flimsy irrelevance. God forbid a military PR agent be involved in public relations. But man, they can sure go on with the saucy Bush-hating rhetoric.

Outrage isn't very convincing. That's why your side can't win a fucking election anymore. It's why you have to constantly change the subject when people respond to your arguments. And it's why no one takes you seriously.

Well, mine was half right. Twice!

It was 20/20 with the Pinto:

Newly aired film from tests done at UCLA in 1967 by researchers under contract with the automaker showed a Ford sedan being rear-ended at 55 mph and bursting into a fireball. [...] If ABC really analyzed those UCLA test reports, it had every reason to know why the Ford in the crash film burst into flame: there was an incendiary device under it.

It was a Jeep CJ and rollovers that 60 Minutes fudged:

Viewers might have profited by knowing, for example, that testers had to put the Jeeps through 435 runs to get 8 rollovers. A single vehicle was put through 201 runs and accounted for 4 of the rollovers.

And also one about big truck tire rims flying off and injuring bystanders:

Again, 60 Minutes did not see fit to tell viewers exactly why the metal happened to dislodge in the film clip. It turned out that, according to the Insurance Institute, the rims had been "modified" to get them to explode for the demonstration.

Worth reading the whole article. More examples there. It's from Walter Olson of overlawyered.com

Oh, shoot. Bart's link is the same as mine. I'm having a very stupid day. By which I mean, my day has been stupid and I've moved through it stupidly, doing deeds of stupidity and collecting stupid things unto myself.

Let me get this straight: when a military spokesperson poses as part of a group of soldiers, with no identification, as if she's part of a group stationed in Iraq, you actually don't see anything wrong with that? You only see a "military PR agent involved in public relations"???

What part of the Armstrong Williams story do you find unconvincing? You realize what the GAO concluded?

Which Colin Powell do you find unconvincing: the one at the UN, or the one who admitted the misleading later?

Heh.

Turbino - is this like all the "private moments" and "spontaneous" placing of rocks in the shape of a cross at the Normandy commemoration that the media just "happened" to catch. Or how about an interview with the candidate and his wife to reassure the little people about the strength of their marriage - even as his adultery was an open secret among the press. Oh, I see - as long as the press is complicit in the WH's staged events then it is all copacetic. It's not that you mind presidential propagada, it's that you require that the MSM be in on it from the start.

Well, guess what buddy - the MSM declared war on this administration a long time ago - and I EXPECT them to fight back. It's too bad that the truth tends to get trampled in the process, but when the guardians of truth and justice are just whores for the Democrat Party, expect the other side to fight back.

I gotta add, in all my years on this planet, I've never met a group more devoted to defending the "right" to use our tax dollars to be lied to.

And devoted to attacking those who are sick and tired of it.

Let me get this straight: when a military spokesperson poses as part of a group of soldiers, with no identification, as if she's part of a group stationed in Iraq, you actually don't see anything wrong with that? You only see a "military PR agent involved in public relations"???

Yep, that about sums it up.

A military spokesperson is a member of the military: she's not posing as a solder, she is a soldier, whose job is press relations. Given the way the it works, that might not even have been the job in the military she wanted. This was a press event. And she manifestly had to be part of the group stationed in Iraq to be in Iraq, didn't she?

Tubino, do you think "the military" and soldiers are two different things, at odds with each other? Do you think being a military spokesman doesn't also include helping the soldiers communicate what they think is important? Do you think Bush and "the military" wanted this event to go well, but soldiers didn't? Do you think soldiers, as a group, are anti war? Or anti this war? Or anti Bush? Or anti the CiC whoever it is?

"Oh, I see - as long as the press is complicit in the WH's staged events then it is all copacetic. It's not that you mind presidential propagada, it's that you require that the MSM be in on it from the start."
------------
Completely unrelated to anything I ever said or wrote. Definitely NOT based on anything I ever said or wrote.

What do you perceive as the role of the MSM when the WH is obviously trying to use it to "catapult the propaganda"?

Anyone know the origin of that phrase?

Obviously, Tubino never bothered to read about or believe the reports of FBI files and dosiers in the WH, Eyes Only, to be poured over by every BillyBub and Hellery staffer that could destroy any life they chose (like all the bimbos BillyBub chunked or women he raped).

'course, BillyBub was probably way too conservative for one like Tubino, so...tell ya what, Tubino, why don't you start a Michael Moore for pres campaign. You know, he's good, solid, mainstream.

Anyone know the origin of that phrase?

According to Google, Bush said it. Now, can you explain what you find sinister about it?

"This was a press event. And she manifestly had to be part of the group stationed in Iraq to be in Iraq, didn't she?"
------------
Uh... for the purposes of staging the event, I guess you could say she "had" to be part of the group, in order to make a convincing sell/manipulation of the public. I don't know what else you could mean.

HOLDFAST's example of the Clintons would make perfect sense -- if the beltway gang knew of adultery, and didn't mention it. IOW, it would make sense if you felt the MSM sat on the Monica story, and peddled the WH line.

Is that your version of history? The monica story was grossly underreported?

I don't think so.

Uh... for the purposes of staging the event, I guess you could say she "had" to be part of the group, in order to make a convincing sell/manipulation of the public. I don't know what else you could mean.

No, I meant she had to be a soldier stationed in Iraq in order to appear in a photo op in Iraq. This thing did happen in Iraq, didn't it?

She's a soldier, she's stationed in Iraq. Her job is PR, she was at a PR event. Christ almighty, what is your deal?

Tubino, you miss the point. We're not defending the Right--we're taking a massive shit on your head.

(Don't worry, I'm sure it's not worse than the other shits that life has undoubtably deposited on your flat head.)

I find your links to CrooksAndLiars.com unconvincing because I find CrooksAndLiars.com unconvincing. I find you unappealing and malodorous because you look like a two chicken-truck wreck and smell like a propane explosion at a whorehouse. I couldn't give a rats ass what you thought because undoubtably the syphillis has already eaten wormholes in your brain.

In other words STFU, n00bie. If you had a lick of sense, you'd have noticed the UNENDING STREAM of criticism of the White House when the White House actually does something worthy of criticism, such as nominating a frigid know-nothing for the highest Court in the land.

Is there any chance that you've got a conscience? If so, remember: get your whole head in front of the shotgun, and if you can't reach the trigger with your flipper, use your toes.

I cede the floor to rho. *bows*

I dunno, Sortelli. I want to know how rho came by the information that Miers is frigid.

Me, I'm guessing she's a shrieker. I guess it's all those exclamation points.

So, remind me, why wasn't CrooksAndLiars.com up and running when that fine, upstanding citizen of holiness BillyBub and his sidekick Upchuck were in the WH? Seems to me that anyone who has to define "is" is either stupid or an upfront lying weasel, and that's the least of the charges against that political whore. And oh, yeh, it was during the male slut's term Enron went wild, not during W's. But who would ever pay attention to a minor problem with that timing? Same with all the other major scandals that W's team has had to go in and clean up.

Libs and progressives will never get it because they believe in the superiority of their own intelligence, the inferiority of anyone who disagrees with their insightful analysis, and the stupidity of anyone who has a thought not generated by the desire to be a slave to god the state.

Ugh, I'd prefer to assume she's frigid.

Uhhm, I think it was ABC who blew up the GM (Chevy?) truck while pretending to demonstrate the allgeged "problem" with the side-mounted gas tank.

No link, though. Just a faint recollection.

I was refferring to the Walters interview when Clinton was still a candidate - his whoring around in his Ark days was well known to the press - yet the press totally covered for him.

Here's a question - why doesn't the of-so-holy press do more interviews with soldiers in Iraq? They can pick any that they want and ask anythig that they want - why don't we see more of this?

Just a guess - because they wouldn't like the answers.

Hey Carlos, did you happen to notice if Crooksandliars has anything on Sandy Berger?
How about our old friend, the late Ron Brown, the Commerce Secretary?
Hillary's Whitewater?
Terry MacCaulliffe's Worldcom stock sale?
Ted Kennedy's late night homocidal aquatic activities?
Chuck Shumer and his fascination of other's credit reports?

Are any of the Liberal's extra-legal activities covered on that website?

Bart,

I barely made a notation, you've just scratched the surface. When the press that Tubino thinks is so conservative starts reporting such misdeeds as you bring up about moonbats and not just conservatives, then I'll be much more likely to think the pendulum is swinging back. Meanwhile, let intellectual giants like him figure out why Michael Moore is a deceptive piece of tripe, the Rev Jesse is a looter that can't stand the thought of "his people" being "free at last", and his Rev cohort thinks nothing of lying to the press about a rape he knows never occured, and couldn't stand the thought of not being a victim himself.

As far as Ted "the swimmer" goes, his drunken exploits in FL and MA are barely mentioned even in conservative circles, probably because the reprobate can't sober up long enough to defend himself.

The NYT Chews Off Arm to Save Itself.

By now, most of you have read the NYT's CYA/damage control piece on Judy Miller.
If not, here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html

The story is badly written. One would think that three writers collaborating on one story could at least produce a coherent account of the Judy Miller saga. The title, however, is cute. Props for that, NYT.

The story starts off with this half-truth:
At issue is whether Bush administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, to reporters as part of an effort to blunt criticism of the president's justification for the war in Iraq.

At issue is Who, including White House officials, leaked Plame's identity. And whether or not that Plame was indeed , at the time, undercover.

The writers go on to paint a heroic picture of Miller and the NYT. When faced with revealing a source, Judy was "resolute."

"She'd given her pledge of confidentiality," said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher. "She was prepared to honor that. We were going to support her."

Okay. I'll have to take your word for it, Pinch.
It's true that Judy stuck by her guns...until...

"[S]he did not want to pressure a source into waiving confidentiality. But in the end, saying "I owed it to myself" after two months of jail, she had her lawyer reach out to Mr. Libby."

Apparently Judy's resolve has an eight-week shelf-life. As one might expect, Judy must spin her dishonor and shame into a show of courage and indignation. She declares, ""We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for."

Nothing except that you weren't really willing to Never divulge your source and compromise your integrity as a journalist and all that great stuff.

At this point in the story, the writers feel it is time to switch gears. While building up Miller's character they need to portray her as the victim. She was duped:

"Ms. Miller had written a string of articles before the war - often based on the accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors - strongly suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction."

The writer's continue to restore NYT's credibility by channeling the spirit of the late Don Adams and using the old "would you believe?" ploy.

Would you believe we tried to tell Judy all along?

"I told her there was unease, discomfort, unhappiness over some of the coverage," said Roger Cohen, who was the foreign editor at the time. "There was concern that she'd been convinced in an unwarranted way, a way that was not holding up, of the possible existence of W.M.D."

No? Then would you believe Judy was a long-time pain-in-the-ass whom we couldn't wait to be rid of?

"Inside the newsroom, she was a divisive figure. A few colleagues refused to work with her.
"Judy is a very intelligent, very pushy reporter," said Stephen Engelberg, who was Ms. Miller's editor at The Times "

In conclusion, I am left with the impression that Judith Miller is an outstanding journalist, a rogue journalist, a witch, stubborn, has strong ethical convictions, has no resolve to see her convictions through, is easliy duped, and besides, it's all Bush's fault. Haliburton!

Hi, thought I'd drop in again. I'd sum it up thusly:

Few of you notice that the pattern here is the Bush administration using a compliant media to catapult its propaganda. This admin spends 4 times as much of our money to do this as previous admin.

Not one of you minds that your taxdollars are used to produce partisan propaganda, even when it's been illegal since 1948, and the GAO says that's what happened with the Armstrong Williams case:

The Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind Act without requiring him to disclose that he was being paid.

If that pisses you off, you can sign a petition.

The fact that some of the media called BS this time (i.e. did its job) is -- for you -- a reason to attack it.

Not one of you will touch Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, or the MSM coverage of it.

Bart gets it, though. The NYT *is* tying itself up in knots to justify its role in catapulting partisan propaganda.

OH, and of course, it must be tied in somehow to Clinton's penis. Help me out here: Godwin's Law is to Nazis as ???? is to Clinton's penis?

Good enough for me to claim victory on this one.

OH wait, almost forgot Weasel: "She's a soldier, she's stationed in Iraq. Her job is PR, she was at a PR event. Christ almighty, what is your deal?"

Her real role wasn't disclosed. She lives in a fortified base (not anything wrong with that!!!), but she was pretending otherwise. Gotta run, but here's a quote from the story:

Lombardo's only first-hand knowledge is in spreading propaganda. David Axe, the Village Voice's reporter in Iraq, told Harkavy: "Her job when I was with the 42nd Infantry Division included taking reporters to lunch. She lives in a fortified compound in Tikrit and rarely leaves. Many public-affairs types in Iraq never leave their bases, and they're speaking for those who do the fighting and dying."

Back for a quick one. I just want to point out what must be a RECORD number of desperate attempts to change the subject from the obviously central one:

the WH using the media to promote partisan propaganda.

I don't think the undisclosed use of a PR flak in a staged photo-op here is major league by a long long shot. Worse was done in New Orleans, where real firefighters were tied up for hours for a staged photo-op with Bush, rather than allowed to do what they volunteered for.

MUCH worse was done in the promotion of the war, for months, prior to the invasion and in the months following. I'm guessing that what scares the admin now about the Plame investigation is the big story underneath: where did the forged documents come from, and how did they get planted? what OTHER stories and documents were planted? What role did the WHIG group play? How many other stories are unreported of taxdollars used to pay journalists to take a pro-repub spin? What would be uncovered if agency heads were required to testify yea-or-nay on the topic under oath?

Our Constitution requires that all govt spending be made public. It would be fair to say that my most radical notion is that we should observe that aspect of the Constitution very faithfully.

I believe that notion is completely consistent with real conservatism.

The one that got exposed were side-saddle gas tanks on Chvy pickups. GM's atorneys scanned the film minutely and found the incendiary going off.

This event was as staged (pobably less staged) than the last few presidential election "debates".

Way back when, I mentioned the rise in terrorist events, and the fact that the current administration decided not to publish the stats.

I was roundly ridiculed, called a conspiracy theorist etc.

Found the story here.

Why was this so poorly-reported that the very truth could be denied so easily?

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
[...]
The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

----

Bart said, "The NYT Chews Off Arm to Save Itself."

It just keeps getting worse:

There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.

This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. It is all the more puzzling that a reporter who as a matter of principle would sacrifice 85 days of her freedom to protect a source would so willingly agree to be officially muzzled and thereby deny potentially valuable information to the readers whose right to be informed she claims to value so highly.

One must assume that Ms. Miller was required to sign a standard and legally binding agreement that she would never divulge classified information to which she became privy, without risk of criminal prosecution. And she apparently plans to adhere to the letter of that self-censorship deal; witness her dilemma at being unable to share classified information with her editors.

In an era where the Bush Administration seeks to conceal mountains of government activity under various levels of security classification, why would any self-respecting news organization or individual journalist agree to become part of such a system? Readers would be right to question whether a reporter is operating under a security clearance and, by definition, withholding critical information. Does a newspaper not have the obligation to disclose to its readers when a reporter is not only embedded with a military unit but also officially proscribed in what she may report without running afoul of espionage laws? Was that ever done in Ms. Miller's articles from Iraq?

It is not hard to imagine a defense lawyer being granted a security clearance to defend, say, an "enemy combatant." When the lawyer gets access to classified information in the case, he discovers it is full of false or exculpatory information. But, because he's signed the secrecy oath, there's not a damn thing he can do except whine on the courthouse steps that his client is innocent but he can't say why. A journalist should never be put in an equivalent position, but this is precisely what Ms. Miller has opened herself to.

There are other questions. Does she still have a clearance? Did she have it when talking to Scooter Libby? Is that why she never wrote the Wilson/Plame story?

I am a former White House and national security correspondent and have had plenty of access to classified information. When I divulged it, it was always with a common sense appraisal of the balance between any potential harm done and the public's right to know. If I had doubts, I would run it by officers whose judgement I trusted. In my experience, defense and intelligence officials routinely share secrets with reporters in the full expectation they will be reported. But if any official had ever offered me a security clearance, my instincts would have sent me running. I am gravely disappointed Ms. Miller did not do likewise.

It strikes me that Ms. Miller's situation is the flip side of the NYT's Jayson Blair coin. He and the Times were rightly disgraced for fabricating. In my opinion, Miller also violated her duty to report the truth by accepting a binding obligation to withhold key facts the government deems secret, even when that information might contradict the reportable "facts."

If Ms. Miller agreed to operate under a security clearance without the knowledge or approval of Times managers, she should be disciplined or even dismissed. If she had their approval, all involved should be ashamed.

Dance, tubby, DANCE!

Hm. Anyone notice tubino seems to have abandoned the field and simply thrown out more accusations on different subjects. Because, ya know, if you throw out enough of them and they're all on different subjects, then the target is automatically guiltyguiltyGUILTY of them all.

Waiting for cries of "Halliburton," "Enron" and "plastic turkey."

In ten...

nine...

eight...