...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

May 16, 2006

I Love This...

Here's an example of media trickery in the choice of headlines. MSNBC (home of the Bush-hatin' tag team: Matthews and Olbermann) chose the following headline for their story on the president's immigration speech last night:

Bush talk of immigrant amnesty divides GOP
You might think, reading that headline, that Bush is in favor of amnesty. Yet nowhere in the story do the writers provide this important quote from the text of the speech, which might provide some important explanatory context to their headline:
[W]e must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.
Look, I know and you know that Bush's plan amounts to amnesty. But the press is supposed to be accurate and impartial. By crafting an inflammatory and misleading headline, and then "forgetting" to provide Bush's own disclaimer from the very speech that this story is supposed to be about, MSNBC is deliberately trying to pour gas on this GOP fire.

That's another reason why I never watch that channel.

Posted by annika, May. 16, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Nice catch, Annie. The problem with the MSM is that this sort of crap appears every single day. If it is not a headline, then it is the out-of-context quote. Or it is mixing opinion in with analysis and then pretending that it never happened.

On a slightly different subject, I was just watching Snow handle the press for (I think) the first time. He's did a good job. Made a few mistakes that the press guys/gals called him out on. Regardless of any small snafus, he is already more effective than that dork who held the job previously. And related to your post, the MSM journalists were cleary more interested in any perceived GOP split than in what Bush actually proposed. Question: Why doesn't security throw Helen Thomas' fat, old, ugly ass out of the press briefings. She is a fucking embarrassment. (Snow pretty much just laughed at her.) But, now that I think about it, she is the perfect embodiment of the arrogant, liberal media. OK, I've changed my mind, let the old bitch stay.

Posted by: Blu on May. 16, 2006

Good decision Blu, after all, if you could pick your enemies...

Posted by: Casca on May. 16, 2006

Monkey Boy David Gregory has been out with some sort of throat ailment; did he show up today?

If so, how was his deportment?

Posted by: shelly on May. 16, 2006

Yeah, Gregory was there asking his loaded questions and feigning righteous indignation each time he felt like Snow didn't answer his question sufficiently. What a prick. The guy is openly hostile. He used to scare the shit out of dork boy. Snow handled him fine.

Posted by: Blu on May. 16, 2006


Is it the job of the press to be adjuncts to the the WH's ministers of propaganda? Are they to simply report the slight of hand that the speech writers have crafted as if it is truth? Is it really a sign of impartiallity to regurgitate the double talk? Or conversely is it a sign of partiallity to deconstruct it? As you said, we all know it is an amnesty.

I really don't get the point you guys always make about the bias of the MSM toward this group of Orwellian thought shapers. ANd that goes for any administration, the press must interpret the bullshit and strip it down to what the proposal will mean in practice. Why would you want them to do less?

The WH does the distorting and the press tries to straighten it out. Bias occurs when a reporter does not cut through the bullshit and takes Bush's words at face value. Anybody who wishes to can read the transcript of the remarks. Are you suggesting the GOP is aligned behind Bush on this matter and they dipicted a fire that did not exist?

Do you want reporters or tape recorders?

Posted by: Strawman on May. 16, 2006

"I really don't get the point you guys always make about the bias of the MSM toward this group of Orwellian thought shapers."

Are you kidding me, Straw? Study after study completed on the MSM shows extreme Left-wing bias. It is not just an opinion. It is a documented fact. Around 90% of these people vote Democrat. Annika's post is just one example of what goes on everyday.

Here an interesting example - (I'm pulling this from memory so my numbers might be slightly off): after the campaign for President in 2004 an analysis was completed on news coverage of candidates. 2/3 of the coverageg of Bush was negative. 1/3 of the coverage was negative towards the Junior Senator from Massachusetts. (BTW, did you know he was a Vietnam veternan?)

Have you ever seen the equivalent of the CBS document fraud happen to a Democrat Presidential candidate - days before the fucking election? Indeed, the MSM did everthing it could to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans while playing up the Bush conspiracy therory about being AWOL. The SBV had eye-witness accounts and numerous sources. CBS (and the MSM) had jack shit on Bush.

Anyway, this topic is just too easy. The list goes on and on. And it is not just about asking tough questions: It is about what questions you ask and don't ask. It is about how you cherry-pick quotes for articles. It is about how you cherry pick economic statistics to try and convey a negative light on one the best economies in years. If you listened to the MSM, you'd never know that economy now is in many ways far superior to the Clinton years. The MSM doens't deconstruct, Straw. It distorts. And that is why fewer and fewer people take them seriously and choose to get the news from alternative sources.

You want Orwellian? Read your fucking New York Times. (How many retractions has the piece of shit had to put out in the last year? Of course, when they do, they are buried on page A32 - bottom of the fold.)

Posted by: Blu on May. 16, 2006


The swift boaters were bought and paid for by the gop and their history as Liars and partisans was documented back tot he Nixon days. Political operatives every one of them. SO when the press discredits them it is not participating in bias but rather bring the truth to the public. Bush was AWOL and never answered the questions of his service. He clearly got in to avoid VN and was moved to the top of the list due to his family's influence.

When did a person's party affiliation become grounds for discrediting their ability to do their job?

This is an easy one Blu, every time the gop yells bias you ismple have to look for the lies that are being challenged.

Did you know that 2/3 of the country thinks Iraq was an important agent in the 911 attack? Gee, how did a left biased press let that one go by unchallenged? And the other 20-30 lies told by the reich about 911 and Iraq. Yes Blu real lefty press.

Posted by: Strawman on May. 16, 2006

Interesting that MSM reporters rarely identify their political affiliation publicly - only anonomously. Why do you think that is? After all, if political affiliation doesn't matter, why not be up front?

Anyway, you didn't respond to my larger challenge which is well-documented press bias. Your slander of the SBV is hilarious. Their observations were never discredited - only their politics were and by the same MSM who nearly openly pulled for Kerry. And they were not all "political operatives." Their leader was politically active since he left the military, and he never said anything different. Their book, unlike your make-belive stories about Bush being AWOL, are well-documented. Dan Rather wasn't lying was he, Straw? Nah, not that pillar of left-wing propoganda. You wanted so badly for that load of crap to be true, didn't you?

The President was AWOL? Really? What military document shows that? AWOL is a real term with real consequences. Perhaps, you can show me where it has been documented that the President was AWOL. As far as I can tell, Bush met all his requirement for service. Can you show differently? No, you can't - and nobody else can either. And that is why David Gregory got himself in a hissy over the subject. He and his pals so badly wanted the make-believe to be true.
Anyway, it doesnt' matter. That pompous ass from Massachusetts lost despite having the MSM for cheerleaders.

The bottom line is that nothing you write will take away from the well-established facts. You can pretend it is not true and try to establish the exception as the rule but then you are just fooling yourself.

Posted by: Blu on May. 16, 2006


AWOL, is not correct. He simple didn't continue to completion.

What convinces you of the truthfullness of the SBV eye witnesses?

ANyway, I want to watch this NOVA on NET right now so I shall withdraw. The bottom line is that it may have been true that the predominatly democratic MSM was convinced that Bush was unqualified and had A bad character and it showed in their coverage. They were right, he has damaged this democracy, damaged our our rule of law, has damaged our relations with the world at large, has damaged our economic health, and has committed impeachable violations of law and has caused the death of by now I think it is fair to say 100 thousand Iraqi's and Amercans. He is the worst ever, a most hateful, henious criminal and I don't really give a fuck if the people who saw him and his crowd for what they were and lobbied for their demise. It was an act of conscience. I only regret they did not do more. It would have saved us all a lot of grief and misery.

Posted by: Strawman on May. 16, 2006

What flavor Kool-Aid do they give to Straw?

Posted by: shelly on May. 16, 2006

To strawdog, a lousy president like Bush is "the worst ever, a most hateful, heinous criminal" Based on policy disagreements, innuendo, and craptastic conspiracy theories. But a lousy president like Carter, is OK, because he was a well meaning Democrat.
And that is EXACTLY the same sort of bias the MSM brings to the table. Like when Newt Gingrich said that we ought to cut all funding to House caucuses and make the legislators pay for them form their own office funds. The WAPO lead with the story "Gingrich wants to cut funding for the Congressional Black caucus"
Yeah, technically they were correct, but they were also lying bastards. But any sort of hate, lie, self deceit or illusion is OK if it's against a republican right Straw?

Posted by: kyle8 on May. 16, 2006

Yo Blu,

He's a self-loathing pathetic personality who thrives on negative attention. Ignore him. The truth is not in him.

Posted by: Casca on May. 16, 2006


Here is a truth I don't always like to admit: Sometimes I just like to argue :-) Keeps my mind fresh and sometimes I learn something new.

But thanks for the advice - arguing in circles for a lengthy period doesn't make much sense. Sometimes that's just hubris kickin' in. And I know that I'm really fucking guilty of that way too much.

Posted by: Blu on May. 17, 2006


Why do you refuse to recognize the meaning of my name and reflect some light on your posts? You should by now have looked up what a straw man is after you were told it has meaning beyond the Wizard of Oz. So I'll ask you, if I must, to please stop putting words in my mouth and then railing like a wolverine with its foot in a trap about all the things you say I said that I haven't said. I have never defended Jimmy Carter, I have only, as far as you know, criticized GWB. He is my concern, nobody else. He is all the things I have said and pointing to the failings of JC won't make GWB a good man, a competent man, a truthful man, or a man of any caste above sweeper; he will remain, as his dad knew he would, the ignorant, angry, smirking, foul tempered front man he has always been. Have you ever heard the Lenny Bruce routine called "How Hitler got Started"? Its the GWB story. If you can't find it let me know.

And if you think the slaughter of Iraq is a policy difference, and suspending the constutional protections Americans have against government surveillance is inuendo, and the uranium in Iraq was crap conspiracy you are brain dead or Casca went too far into your ear last night.

Posted by: Strawman on May. 17, 2006

I believe people have made points on all sides of the debate here; yes, the SBV exposed information that would not have otherwise been exposed, though they took a kernel of truth and began wrapping layers of innuendo around it.

The MSM (I hope someone will define that more clearly here; does that include Fox?) in regards to CBS, NBC, and ABC does have a liberal bias; that's why I became a Republican many years ago.

That being said, the WH and conservative news outlets also twist and distort the news to their ends. One of the most disappointing times of the day for me is when the WH daily press briefing came on CSPAN. Very little content and a lot of misdirection and stonewalling. Fox and the Washington Times don't even try to hide their bias very often.

If we are seeking the truth, we will realize that it takes reading both sides to have a more complete picture. Distorted around the edges and blurry, but a more complete picture nonetheless.

THAT being said, just like a jury decides who has the best lawyer, public opinion tends to be swayed by the best propagandists, each struggling to etch their scenario into the public's mental perception of reality.

Posted by: will on May. 18, 2006


I don't read the Washington Times often. I do know, however, that they are very up front about their editorial bias. Fox also is very clear when the are doing a a new analysis show, which is clearly biased or has a slant and when they do straight news. I don't care what slant folks have as long as it is made clear. That is why I get so frustrated with the MSM: They absolutely refuse to acknowledge what is readily apparent to any observer with even half a clue.

Posted by: Blu on May. 18, 2006

"and the uranium in Iraq was crap conspiracy you are brain dead"


You were saying?

Posted by: reagan80 on May. 18, 2006

> I don't read the Washington Times often. I do know, however, that they are very up front about their editorial bias.

Do you mean the overall paper's content, or just editorials? Because I see it in the former (especially when I had a subscription).

>I get so frustrated with the MSM: They absolutely refuse to acknowledge what is readily apparent to any observer with even half a clue.

I'll agree that CBS, NBC, and ABC are often subtle about their biases. Subtle to all but Annika, I should add...

> Fox also is very clear when the are doing a a new analysis show, which is clearly biased or has a slant and when they do straight news. I don't care what slant folks have as long as it is made clear.

I don't tend to see as clear a distinction at Fox. I also see subtle (or not so subtle, i.e., subliminal "Fox Facts") bias in their 'straight' news. The 'balance' presupposed by having a Hannity and Combs matchup is slewed by the selection of a weak, stereotypical liberal (Coombs). I was able to have a side chat with Phil Keating on this overall topic when he came out to my place for a shoot, and though initially guarded, he was forthcoming on the difficulties of (or reticence to) removing bias. So IMO both sides of the MSM are guilty of the same tendencies (or, more apropos, machinations)

Posted by: will on May. 18, 2006

Have to take your word for it on the Times. I've never read that paper regularly. The only paper I read somewhat regularly having a "conservative" editorial bias is the WSJ, which is a very different paper than, say, the Washington Times or Washington Post.

Regarding FOX, after watching all the major networks plus CNN, PBS, and MSNBC, it seems to me that any FOX bias pales into insignificance. But, I am watching with a clear bias myself, so perhaps I miss it.

Whose Phil Keating? (I realize that I could Google, but I'm feeling lazy and would prefer a first-hand description.)

Posted by: Blu on May. 18, 2006


I read your link and find it to be irrelavent. We always new this material was in Iraq and we always knew it was NOT bomb grade or anywhere near. Notice how the article calls it "enriched" but does not mention the percentage. The other 1000 sources could be rice sized grains used to treat prostate cancer for all we know or sources for bacterial eradication in food processing, or radio active iodine or barium used for medical tracing. It is all bullshit when you listen to the hyperbolic crap that COndaliar and Chaney spewed to scare the public into a belief that a "mushroom cloud" was a distince possiblity when it absofuckinglutely was not. They lied, they knew they were lying and they did it with bad intentions disguised as good. Ray, were you scared they could make a bomb? Any BTW 1.77 tons of uranium, enriched or not does not even fill 6 5 gal buckets. 1.77 x 2000lbs /8lbs/gal H20 x 19.5sg U =22.6 gal.

Getting yellow cake from Niger would have meant nothing yet they made it seem important only to scare people WITH their half truths and lies.

Were you scared Ray? Or did you just think it was a good idea to topple Saddam and the consequences be damned.

Posted by: Strawman on May. 19, 2006


Phil Keating bio;

Where we talked;

Posted by: will on May. 22, 2006