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

[AMDScooter]

More of the bravery and integrity shown by our MSM..

Lawrence O'Donnell: I'm Too Afraid to Criticize Islam

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: I don’t think he [Mitt Romney] believes everything in the Book of Mormon. I think he’s lying about that. It’s an insane document produced by a madman who was a criminal and a rapist. [...]

HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

O'DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.

O'DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

O'DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HEWITT: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

O'DONNELL: I agree.

HEWITT: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

[AMDScooter]

Media Yelps, America Yawns

The Associated Press, The New York Times and other media outlets are under the impression that Americans actually care about the harsh treatment of Al Qaeda terrorists.

The Times' own most e-mailed list tells us otherwise: As of early this morning, compelling stories such as a review of a recent Led Zeppelin concert were ahead of the nowhere to be found CIA story.

Indeed...

[BlackDragon24]

Media Yelps, America Yawns



Indeed...

Doesn't surprise me at all....I'd be willing to bet the media gets similarly low approval ratings as that of congress and the president. When crappy people report about the goings on of crappy people, you usually end up with....crap.

But please, keep informing me about how Britney's new man, what Paris Hilton says for advice to other "stars," and what OJ is up to. These are all things I really need to know (yawn)

[AMDScooter]

Doesn't surprise me at all....I'd be willing to bet the media gets similarly low approval ratings as that of congress and the president. When crappy people report about the goings on of crappy people, you usually end up with....crap.

But please, keep informing me about how Britney's new man, what Paris Hilton says for advice to other "stars," and what OJ is up to. These are all things I really need to know (yawn)

Anything beats reporting the surge successes in Iraq in their eyes.

[AMDScooter]

Democrats In Disguise

Democrats In Disguise

The NY Times editors deplore the fact that in the tug of war between honesty and electability, Democrats have to conceal their real vision of governance from the public in order to remain electable.

But what specific topic has furrowed the brows of the Times editors today? Could be immigration - the top Dems ran away from the Times-backed Spitzer plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. But it's not.

Could be gun control - Obama has shifted to the right from ten years ago and Hillary is bashing him from even further on the right. But it's not.

Could be gay marriage, or capital punishment, or abortion on demand for thirteen year old nuns... but it's not.

No, the Times is vexed because Democrats won't come out for even higher taxes:

If there’s one issue on which Republican presidential hopefuls should feel vulnerable, it’s taxes. The Bush tax cuts, more than any other policy, are crippling the government financially.

...or Democratic candidates, in contrast, taxation is the issue that dare not speak its name. With the exception of John Edwards, none of the Democratic candidates list “taxes” under “issues” on their official Web sites. Hillary Clinton buries various tax proposals in a category labeled “Strengthening the Middle Class,” while most of Barack Obama’s tax ideas are under “Fighting Poverty.” Even the also-running candidates subsume tax issues under broad, bland headings.

A charitable explanation for the Democrats’ reticence is that not much of substance separates them on the issue of taxes. The front-runners, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama, all pledge to end the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans — generally defined as people making upwards of $200,000 or so.

All three would keep the estate tax, but with multimillion-dollar exemptions to ensure that only the wealthiest Americans pay it. They’re also in general agreement on using the tax code to funnel more money to lower-income Americans — by expanding the child-care credit, for example, or boosting the earned income credit for low-income workers or introducing new tax breaks to defray the cost of college or make it easier to save for retirement.

All of that is laudable, especially when the candidates say they would target tax breaks based on fairness and need, both of which have been largely ignored in Bush tax policy. But with the nation in dire financial straits, serious tax talk circa 2007 has to do more than serve as a way to show a candidate cares about those who are struggling to make a living.

Which brings us to the less charitable, and more likely, explanation for the Democrats’ aversion to talking candidly about taxes: They don’t want to level with the American people, for fear of being felled by a barrage of anti-tax rhetoric from Republican opponents.

...

The Democrats are not as pie in the sky as the Republicans. Ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would raise about $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. Extending all the tax cuts and piling even more on top of them, as some Republicans propose, would only dig the budget hole deeper.

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I support the Times here - if Dems have grand tax-and-spend schemes, campaign on them them, get a mandate from the voters, and implement them. As if.

Instead, this will be one more issue on which the Dems appear to be phony because they are.

[AMDScooter]

Way to go MSM.. AQI appreciates your unwaivering support..

Its a Quagmire!... Media Reports 6 Bogus Stories in 6 Weeks!

[jimzinsocal]

Its time for Emperor Orang to harness the press.

[AMDScooter]

Its time for Emperor Orang to harness the press.

[jimzinsocal]

I saw that last night and nearly ruined another keyboard!!

[AMDScooter]

I saw that last night and nearly ruined another keyboard!!

Yup.. this should be labeled the MSM year of page 1 atrocities and page a14 retractions.

[AMDScooter]

How good news, political victories and rising poll numbers is bad if your initials are GWB. Brought to you by the useful idiots in the MSM. Had the Dimocrats been able to pull off wins on the same legislation would we be reading a similar story about Congressional Dimocrats?? Ya.. I do not think so either.


Bush's 'Wins May Cost Him' -- News or Wishful Thinking?

The top headline in Saturday's Washington Post underlines the tendency for displaying bias by practicing future-tense journalism. "Bush's Budget Wins May Cost Him" is the headline on Jonathan Weisman's report. Inside, the headline is similar in tone: "President Could Pay a Price for Victories Over Democrats." He may -- or he may not. He could -- or he could not. But it's hard to escape the notion that the Post thinks he should. Or perhaps the Post is afraid that a series of wins by Bush may make him look powerful and boost his approval rating, and they want to keep following his image around with their own cherished personal collection of dark clouds of text.

Why can't the newspapers simply report what has already happened, and not bog down the reader with their own biased impressions of what could or should happen next? Why must reporters always get out a crystal ball and wear a silly fortune-teller's hat? Weisman's soothsayer story began this way:

As Congress stumbles toward Christmas, President Bush is scoring victory after victory over his Democratic adversaries. He has beaten back domestic spending increases, thwarted an expansion of children's health insurance coverage, defeated tax hikes, won funding for the war in Iraq and pushed Democrats toward shattering their pledge not to add to the federal deficit with new tax cuts or rises in mandatory spending.

But the cost of those wins could be high, both for the federal debt and for the president's own priorities.

Bush's steadfast stand against Democratic spending, coupled with his equally resolute opposition to tax increases, could raise the federal debt this fiscal year by nearly $240 billion. As Democrats struggle to meet his demands, they are jettisoning renewable-energy and conservation incentives that Bush championed, and they may ax some of his most cherished programs.

Even some Republicans bristle at the president's inflexibility. Bush has pledged never to sign bills with tax increases, even tax increases that he once supported.

The "even Republican" in this story is Sen. Chuck Grassley, who seems especially willing lately to be a thorn in the president's knuckles. (Far be it from any conservative, though, to protest Republicans who chide President Bush for failing to veto a single bill before the Democrats came to power.) Weisman lamented that the deficit is about to widen again because of Bush. His attempts to keep Democrats from adding $11 to $22 billion in new spending are completely nullified by his own agenda, Weisman protested, including his fight to prevent a tax hike to offset relief of the "alternative minimum tax" now threatening double-income couples at the bottom of the six-figure range:

If, as expected, Congress passes a bill without making up the lost revenue, the cost to the Treasury would swamp the savings from Bush's spending fight.

The president also has taken to the White House's bully pulpit week after week to demand nearly $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, without tax increases or spending cuts. If the president prevails on all three fronts, he will end up adding about $239 billion to the federal deficit this fiscal year.

"I have difficulty seeing how $11 billion or $22 billion in discretionary spending on the domestic side of the equation is so fiscally irresponsible when juxtaposed against these major AMT provisions of $50 billion, or certainly against the $70-plus billion they want for the global war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan," said G. William Hoagland, a Republican budget adviser to former Senate majority leader Bill Frist (Tenn.). "It doesn't pass the sensible man's test."

Right there, in a nutshell, is where Weisman and the Post want the reader to focus. Bush is not a sensible man. The sensible man in Washington aims to do exactly what The Washington Post wants. Hoagland, a long-time budget aide to Sen. Pete Domenici, is also an unofficial spokesman for Permanent Washington. He has affixed his name to recommendations from the Brookings Institution, a liberal-to-moderate think tank, that the next president try a roughly 50-50 mix of tax increases and spending cuts to pare the deficit.

President Bush the Younger ought to have a healthy contempt for that proposal -- President Bush the Elder broke his no-new-taxes pledge for that kind of a "sensible man" deal in 1990, and federal spending (and the deficit) exploded.

Bush would prefer that voters focus on a different crystal-ball story. The federal deficit may decrease by more than a third in this fiscal year.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center

[Dutchcedar]

"President Could Pay a Price for Victories Over Democrats."

At least that explains the philosophy of the Miami Dolphins... lose, so you don't have to pay the price of victory.

[AMDScooter]

At least that explains the philosophy of the Miami Dolphins... lose, so you don't have to pay the price of victory.

Fins owner actually cried after yesterdays win. TBH I've always liked the fins and have been rooting for them to win one for weeks now. Good for them.

[AMDScooter]

Not just Iraq... the stringers have been all but willing accomplices supplying exactly what the MSM wants to hear/see/report. You need go no further than the reporting of Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians to see glaring examples of how it has worked for years. The story of course is slanted in the defense of Hussein... try to contain your shock as I did..

Case Lays Bare the Media’s Reliance on Iraqi Journalists

[AMDScooter]

7 for 7... anyone want odds that next week will be 8 for 8?

Media Quagmire Continues... 7 Bogus Slaughter Stories in 7 Weeks!