No MSM bias to see here... move along..

[AMDScooter]

When is the North pole not the North pole? When MMGW propaganda is involved.

Telegraph and BBC geography FAIL: “Row to the Pole” never made it to the “North Pole” – they are 790 miles short
Posted on August 26, 2011 by Anthony Watts

UPDATE: BBC commits the same FAIL. See below.

. . .

The Telegraph article says:

The successful trip to the Pole, described as the “greatest ocean rows of all time”, was only possible because of more seasonal ice-melt in the Arctic that has opened the waters up.

No mention of the fact that they aren’t even close. The actual North pole is 790 miles away:

. . .

Hey.. they only missed by about 800 miles. Right on par with the computer models that are perpetuating this hoax.

[AMDScooter]

I'm still unsure. Will he work on his working holiday where where it's been said he would work??

'President Works in Golf During His Working Vacation'

[AMDScooter]

Hey Jonathan Capehart.. if trying to get his speech on Wed was such a "hardcore/badass" move, what do you call him rescheduling to Thurs?

No debating Obama’s hard-core move on jobs plan [UPDATED]

[AMDScooter]

Open mouth.. insert foot. But I'm sure it's not because the MSM is agenda pushing or water carrying.. I often see hear libberal twits reporters speaking directly to repuggies like this. Passed by this half billion dollar fiasco today on my way to a pool party... good thing I was headed for cold beers.

Humiliating: Time Reporter Who Claimed Solyndra Was In Good Fiscal Health Nine Weeks Ago Is Forced To Report On Its Bankruptcy

They're not really paid to report facts; they are paid to reinforce the beliefs of liberals. So this isn't really as humiliating as it might seem -- he carried Obama's water. That was his job, his real job, and so he'll be forgiven for completely missing the actual story.

Here he was nine weeks ago, telling Republicans to suck it with their scurrilous claims of financial trouble and wasted government millions:

I happened to visit Solyndra’s headquarters today, so maybe I can help the Republicans with their investigation. For starters, the reports of Solyndra’s death have been greatly exaggerated. And while reasonable people can disagree about the loan guarantee program, it’s not the boondoggle its critics suggest.

[...]

As for Solyndra, I can report to the Republicans who seemed so concerned about the company’s viability that it no longer seems to be on the verge of a humiliating collapse. I’m sure they’ll be relieved.

Sarcasm... so reportorial, and not at all like a partisan liberal blogger.

And now?

Solyndra declared bankruptcy on Wednesday and laid off its 1,100 employees. I’ll have more to say about this after I chat with the smooth-talkers who got me to report in June that Solyndra “no longer seems to be on the verge of a humiliating collapse.”

Yes, we wait with bated breath for your outing of the sources who flat-out lied to you. Of course, you were complicit in your own beclowning. You wanted to believe, and you did; and you reported the claims of self-interested parties uncritically. And not just uncritically, but arrogantly, with a sarcastic f.u. to House investigators.

There's actually more news here: When the company was failing, two investors came in with $75 million in further loans. They'll get paid first in the bankruptcy, which means the odds of the government seeing a few pennies of it's $535 million loan are even lower now.

One of those protected, high-priority lenders was George Kaiser, the big Obama donor.

Sources tell me the Obama administration restructured the loan this winter, so taxpayers probably won’t even be the first creditors to get paid after Solyndra files for bankruptcy next week. The first $75 million will go to two Solyndra investors who poured in extra cash when the company nearly went bust in January. And one of them is a venture associated with the billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama campaign bundler.

What is that word "probably" doing in the first sentence? There is no "probably" warranted at all -- the rest of the paragraph indicates the government will not be the first creditors. They will be no higher than the third-- no "probably" about it.

What on earth is that doing in there, except to cushion the blow for Team Obama?

He goes on to make further excuses for this boondoggle.

I wanted to correct something I wrote: Several people have written to tell me that Solyndra's low interest rates are not necessarily that suspicious, even if they were much lower than the interest rates for loans extended to other solar ventures, because, they say, the loan terms were relatively short, and thus would carry lower interest rates than longer term loans.

This doesn't really explain it, though, because these were high risk loans, apparently misclassified as fairly low risk.

I believe what House investigators are trying to discover is what risk level these loans were represented as by Solyndra, and decided by the government -- which is what keeps getting redacted and hidden from them.

The Loans Had 100% Risk-- They Would Never Be Paid Back. Analysts have been questioning this "business model" for a while:

"Here's the bottom line," Lynch said. "It costs them $6 to make a unit. They're selling it for $3. In order to be competitive today, they have to sell it for between $1.5 and $2. That is not a viable business plan."

Other flags have been raised about how the Energy Department pushed the deal forward. The Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News and ABC disclosed that Energy Department officials announced the support for Solyndra even before final marketing and legal reviews were in. To government auditors, that move raised questions about just how fully the department vetted the deal -- and assessed its risk to taxpayers -- before signing off.

Of course, all those pesky questions assumed that Solyndra was selling a business product. It wasn't. It was selling a political product, one that the White House was in need of, some boondoggle it could pour taxpayer money into and then give a speech about.

No matter what the product, if a client wants it, it will get produced.

And if the product the client demands is a half-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money, the market will provide that.

[AMDScooter]

As with everything stupid and libberal.. it's someone elses fault.

At Detroit rally, few signs of Obama-labor rift

. . .
Obama’s speech was political before he delivered it. In a “Labor Day Statement” released earlier Monday, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, “While the President champions regulations, mandates and tax hikes, Republicans across the country have stood up for American workers by supporting pro-growth initiatives.”

. . .

See.. it's the repuggies fault.

[AMDScooter]

"Media bias aids Democratic candidates by eight to 10 percentage points in a typical election,"... I would have guessed it in the 15~20% range. Still horrible by any objective standards.

Why The Bias Matters

Journalism: That the media reek of liberal bias has been proved so many times in so many ways it's now axiomatic. Less certain is whether that bias affects public opinion. Now comes a study that says it does — big time.

How big? Well, if not for the bias that benefits Democrats, Barack Obama would still be running for re-election — only the office to which he'd be seeking re-election would not be the presidency but the United States Senate.

That is to say, Sen. John McCain would have won the 2008 presidential election — and by a near-landslide 56% to 42% — instead of losing 53% to 46%.

This is the most startling of the conclusions reached by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA who has expanded on an innovative study he conducted from 2002 to 2005 and has put the findings in a new book, "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind."

As the study did (not only in the media but especially among social scientists), "Left Turn" will no doubt draw fire from the left. But the original research successfully navigated peer review, ultimately being accepted by the Harvard-based Quarterly Journal of Economics. So there's little reason to think the conclusions in "Left Turn" should be any less valid.

It isn't our purpose, however, to judge Groseclose's methodology. We just want to bring attention to conclusions such as: Media bias aids Democratic candidates by eight to 10 percentage points in a typical election, every mainstream national news outlet has a liberal bias, and only four of 100 news outlets examined lean right and even those can't be considered far right.

Having written hundreds of times on media bias over the last 15 years, and believing the country is ill-served by gatekeepers who let their politics affect their news coverage, we're pleased to see Groseclose comment as we have that the press is seen as the "fourth branch of government."

"But if the actual three branches were as unrepresentative of the people as the press is," he says, it would bring about a "revolution." "A government that unrepresentative ... cannot remain stable."

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Ah jeez. Now the journleestas will feel like they really do matter... and try harder.

[AMDScooter]

Just another day for the water carrying MSM...

While Unions Storm Businesses and Take Hostages, CNN Calls Tea Party “Angry”

[AMDScooter]

And libberals still wonder why we call the SCOAMF in the WH their messiah....

NPR Blogger: Obama Like Jesus with Call to 'Pass This Bill'

[tucker]

^^^ Gawd… I sure wish he would take another long, long vacation.

I’m so tired of SCOAMF flapping his frigging lips I could scream.

[AMDScooter]

Seems some of the shine has worn from the hopenchange label...

Obama Rejects Obamaism

. . .
When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

It recycles ideas that couldn’t get passed even when Democrats controlled Congress. In his remarks Monday the president didn’t try to win Republicans to even some parts of his measures. He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.

[AMDScooter]

MSDNC.. Solyndra... who dey??

Three Weeks After Solyndra Scandal Began MSNBC Prime Time Programs Still Haven't Reported It

Can you imagine the howls from the left had Foxnews enforced a similar embargo to the Newscorp bruhaha?

[Dutchcedar]

The Wall Street protestors are predominately white folks. More so than the Tea Party.

Its a secret. Don't tell anyone.

[madhatter256]

lol @ saying the Tea Party is more diverse than the WS protesters...

[Dutchcedar]

lol @ saying the Tea Party is more diverse than the WS protesters...

It is funny... and apparently, quite true...

Though a few representatives of minority groups have appeared among the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in New York City, photos and videos of the left-wing mini-throngs indicate they suffer from a serious lack of diversity. And the protesters themselves told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that they are conscious of the issue, if not the inconsistency it demonstrates. A 40-photo Washington Post slideshow showing hundreds of angry protesters in New York and other cities includes no more than 15 clearly identifiable minority protesters, and just six African-Americans. The rest of the protesters shown are white, and most are male. In 26 photos from San Francisco and Chicago gatherings posted on OccupyTogether.org, only one person from a minority group is clearly visible, and it’s unclear whether he is a protester or a bystander. Minority groups are similarly underrepresented in photos and videos posted on OccupyWallSt.org, the self-described “unofficial de facto online resource for the ongoing protests happening on Wall Street.”

…The protesters have taken to calling themselves the “99 percent” in the country, labeling the capitalists they wish to remove from power the other “1 percent.” Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin told TheDC that the Occupy Wall Street protesters’ self-description as the “99 percent” in America is ironic because the crowds are mostly white.

“When Occupy Wall Street activists call themselves the ‘99 percent,’ it turns out they mean 99 percent non-diverse (by their own politically correct measurements),” Malkin said in an email.

“It’s as pale out there at Camp Alinsky as MSNBC’s prime-time lineup or the New York Times editorial board. Not counting the cameos by Jesse Jackson and Cornel West, that is.”

…“The liberal media will only engage in racial bean-counting of protest crowds when it serves their political ends: Namely, painting the Right as homogenous and non-inclusive,” Malkin said. “We heard endless derision about the tea party’s lack of skin-color diversity from Hollywood and the national press. But not a peep about the Abercrombie & Fitch-meets-Apple central casting mob swamping lower Manhattan.”

link

Maybe its an illusion and the MSM is simply hiding the faces of black people toting holstered weapons like they did when making the case for racist, gun toting, Tea Party honkies.