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

[tucker]

Scooter ^^^ What a bunch of shameless dimwits. I guess they don’t understand there are different levels of disability one size doesn’t fit all. I guess they also failed to recognize McCain retired as a Navy Captain with 20+ years of service.

Aside from that it’s none of their f’n business.

[AMDScooter]

NYT.. PBS.. own "watchdoggies" say they went limp on Wright. Going to bat to save their messiah...

PBS and NY Times In House Watchdogs Bark at 'Soft' Wright Coverage

“Mainstream media coverage of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has drawn a round of barking from some of their own in-house watchdogs,” FNC's Brit Hume noted in his Monday night “Grapevine” segment. Hume started by highlighting how PBS ombudsman Michael Getler criticized the soft approach of Bill Moyers in his interview with Wright: “Inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged” and “there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft.”

Hume next turned to New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt's disappointment in the paper for putting a review of Wright's performance in appearances ahead of checking what Wright contended against the reality, scolding his employer: “It was a performance strangely lacking in energy at a potential turning point in the election.”

Hume's lead item in his Monday, May 5 “Grapevine” segment on Special Report wit Brit Hume:

Mainstream media coverage of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has drawn a round of barking from some of their own in-house watchdogs. The Bill Moyers interview of Reverend Wright on PBS drew heavy criticism from viewers and network ombudsman Michael Getler wrote, quote: "Inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged...There were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and [too] soft…This came across to me,” he said, “more as a conversation among theologians than it did as a truly probing interview with a truly controversial person who had said some truly inflammatory things."

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt also was critical of his paper which he said angered some readers by putting a review of Wright's recent appearances on its front page before ever reporting what the reverend actually said in a news story. Hoyt wrote, quote: "It was a performance strangely lacking in energy at a potential turning point in the election."

Getler's May 1 posting: “Too Much Reverence for the Reverend?”

Hoyt's May 4 column: “The Preacher’s New Pulpit”

[AMDScooter]

Tim Russert, "Objective Democrat"?

Drudge focused the World Wide Web on Tim Russert's arrogant "Arise, Sir Loin of Beef" declaration that the Democratic race is over and "no one's gonna dispute it." The first words out of Russert's mouth this morning on NBC were "I cannot find an objective Democrat who does not think this race is over."

Tim Russert is a Democrat, but not an "objective" one. This declaration is spin, not reality, especially when we know the Clinton Chutzpah Express can avoid the "reality" obstacles that cause every other political family to call it quits. I don't recall Russert telling the country that the Clinton presidency was "over" in 1998, and that only the Clintons didn't realize it, that "no one's gonna dispute it."

Regardless of where political reality lands, what people should see in that Drudge clip and the NBC clip this morning is Tim Russert asserting himself as President of the News. People should see that this is an intensely political press that calculates every word it says and every story it covers and every poll it commissions. Russert and his colleagues don't want to just observe. They want to run the country. They want to have the power to make and break presidents. They want to tell the people to follow their robotic orders and deeply drink of the "conventional wisdom" they manufacture. "Objective" is not an adjective to them; it is a noun. Their objective today is to clear the path and get the Democrats back in the White House.

[tucker]

^^^ Similar…

They sure were having a big Obama victory bash on MSNBC this morning. A couple of times that imbecile Mike Barnicle insinuated that all blue collar white people are racists because the majority didn’t vote for Obama. He didn’t even mention the 92% of blacks that voted for Obama.

That kind of biased untrue bulls**t drives me nuts.

Barnicle ought to stick to falsifying sob stories about sick little children.

[AMDScooter]

Our baghdad Bob media on it's toes shilling for terrorist murderers..

Nice Boy Update

Nice to see this story catching on - even if the spin begins...

Headlines:

CBS/AP:Ex-Guantanamo Prisoner ID'd As Iraq Bomber. The story includes a picture borrowed from this link (wonder how they found it?) along with this amazing spin:

Wilner called the alleged suicide attack a "tragedy" that could have been avoided with court hearings for prisoners held at Guananamo [sic], where the U.S. now holds about 270 men.

"The lack of a process results in tragic mistakes on both sides," the lawyer said.

Associated Press: US: Former Gitmo prisoner carries out recent attack in Iraq

Al-Ajmi's American lawyer said incarceration at Guantanamo may have turned the Kuwaiti into a terrorist.

CNN: Pentagon: Ex-detainees returning to fight

Al-Ajmi is not the first former Guantanamo detainee to reportedly return to the battlefield after being released. Pentagon officials say there are more than 10 people once held by the U.S. at Guantanamo who have been killed or captured in fighting after being released from the detention facility.

"Our reports indicate that a number of former [Guantanamo Bay] detainees have taken part in anti-coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention. Some have subsequently been killed in combat," said Cmdr. Jeff Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

AFP: Suicide attacker was former Guantanamo detainee: US military:

The Pentagon has publicly identified 13 former Guantanamo detainees who have gone back to the fight since their release.

But a Defense Intelligence Agency report dated May 1, 2008 says that 36 former detainees are "confirmed or suspected" of having returned to terrorism, said a US defense official who asked not to be identified.

The Guardian: Ex-Guantánamo prisoner took part in Iraq bombing, says US

Fears case will harm civil rights bid to free inmates

The involvement of an ex-Guantánamo detainee will make it harder for civil rights lawyers in the US and Britain, who have been fighting for the release of the remaining prisoners at the camp complex in Cuba.
<...>
The Democratic and Republican candidates to replace President George Bush in January next year have promised to close the camp.

Hat tip: Tim Sumner of 9/11 Families - who are following this story closely.

Previous entry: Such a Nice Boy

[AMDScooter]

MSNBC.. let's discuss everyone's bias.. but our own.

MS-NBC debates media bias without discussing …. MS-NBC

If MS-NBC wants to wring its hands over media bias, they need look no further than their own anchorman and highest-profile pundit. Instead of talking about Keith Olbermann and Chris “Thrill Up My Leg” Matthews and their obvious tilt towards Barack Obama, the cable channel gathered a few talking heads to discuss whether pundits have committed bias by declaring Hillary Clinton’s campaign over after her big loss in North Carolina. The verdict? Her campaign is only mostly dead:

There’s a certain irony to the spectacle here as all four pundits completely manage to miss the elephant in the MS-NBC studio. How can MS-NBC discuss media bias in any credible fashion without noting that its own highest-profile “talent” has been so blatantly in the bag for Obama for months? For that matter, the channel has become so anti-Republican, and in Olbermann’s case so outright hostile to anyone on Obama’s right, that talking about media bias as a negative makes no sense at all.

The group concludes that pundits have a right to their opinions, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the process. Bully for them. Maybe they can tell that to Matthews and Olbermann.

[AMDScooter]

LOl.. ex-msnbc'er Tucker nails it...

MSM's Obama-love: 'Like a 9th-Grade Boy Embarrassed to Stand Up'

"Thrill up my leg"? Forget about it. Chris Matthews's famous description of the excitement he gets from Barack is nothing compared to the tumescent terms in which MSNBC senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson has depicted the intensity of the MSM's love affair with Obama. Tucker appeared on today's Morning Joe.

TUCKER CARLSON: It's gonna be such a great election; it has been so far.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Especially when you have the media loving one candidate as much as they love Barack Obama.

CARLSON: But it's more than love. I mean, it's the kind of love that anybody who's been a 9th-grade boy understands this species of love. Do you know what I mean?

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Wow.

SCARBOROUGH: No, it's the truth. It's all-consuming.

CARLSON: It's red-in-the-face, I-think-about-you-when-I-go-to-bed, too embarrassed to stand up, it's sealed-with-a-kiss love. I mean, it's real, it's palpable.

SCARBOROUGH: No, it really is.

BRZEZINSKI: Wow! What are you guys talking about?

Oh, I think Mika knows.

[AMDScooter]

Say it's not so...

Clinton Confidant: MSNBC, Chris Matthews 'Shamelessly Biased'



Had to add this quip..

Lanny Davis on CNN primary night: 'Worst experience I ever had on television'

Regarding CNN’s competitors, Davis said that MSNBC is “shameless about their bias toward Obama,” and Fox has been the fairest — which is saying a lot coming from a self-described member of the Democratic Party’s left wing.

“Fox, no matter how much you might criticize an ideological bent, in this campaign, they have been religiously middle-of-the-road, point-counterpoint,” Davis said.

[AMDScooter]

MSNBC... always good for a laugh..

Ultimate nuance: Fox News ripped for bias towards presidential candidate … by MSNBC

The exciting, predictable, spectacularly hypocritical conclusion to yesterday’s Headlines item about the FNC reporter who felt obliged to tell Maverick that she voted for him while interviewing him. Karl wonders why this sort of thing warrants termination while Chris Matthews admitting on air to having quasi-sexual reactions to Barack Obama elicits nothing but chuckles. What amazes me is simply that Abrams, a former general manager of MSNBC, would be so comically oblivious to his own network’s renown for egregious Obama worship that he’d have the balls to level this criticism in the first place. It’d be like if O’Reilly started doing “special comments” and Abrams ripped for him for engaging in such grotesque, self-consciously theatrical demagoguery. I realize it’s important to flatter the nutroots partisans occasionally by assuring them how partisan everyone else is, but good lord. A little humility, please.

[AMDScooter]

The AP.. having their cake.. and eating it too...

First up.. the AP claims recruiters are meeting their goals for no other reason other than the economy sucks.

AP: All News Is Bad News

A sharp-eyed Southern correspondent points this out: The Associated Press reports that the Marines and other branches of the armed services are outperforming their recruiting goals. The AP tries to explain this away as — what else? — a consequence of the terrible, awful, no-good, very bad Bush economy:

WASHINGTON (AP) ‹ The Marine Corps far surpassed its recruiting goal last month and could eventually be more than a year ahead of schedule in its plan to grow the force to 202,000 members.

All military services met or exceeded their monthly recruiting goals in April, with the Marine Corps signing 142 percent of the number it was looking for, the Pentagon said.

... Recruiting is easier in a slow economy, which limits other job possibilities that are available. But officials also noted that the Army and Marines have added recruiters as well as bonuses and other special benefits to attract more recruits in the midst of the unpopular war in Iraq.

Patriotism? Love of country? Young men's inborn desire for new places and experiences? Nah, these new Marines are just a bunch of patsies who couldn't get hired at the local filling station. How about asking some new recruits why they signed up, and see how many say, "For the money"?

Then we have this AP article telling us the economy is ok(low unemployment).. which is why recruiters are having a hard time meeting their goals.

AP Hides Good Economic Numbers In Military News

The Bush unemployment numbers continue to best the numbers from the Clinton years.
But, you would have to search the military news to find out how the low unemployment rate is affecting society.

The Pentagon opposes Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) legislation that would guarantee a full-ride scholarship for service members to any in-state public university after only 3 years of service. The Pentagon said it would hurt its ability to retain service members.

This seemed like an odd place for the Associated Press to hide the good economic numbers:

The Pentagon's opposition to Webb's bill underscores the difficulty the military has had in recruiting and retaining an all-volunteer force at a time when it is engaged in a war that is deeply unpopular with the American public.

Adding to the military's dilemma is the larger number of soldiers and Marines needed to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, the Pentagon recommended that the Army be increased by about 65,000 soldiers to a total of 547,000, and the Marines be increased by 27,000 to 202,000.

(The Associated Press omits the fact here that the Pentagon released figures this week showing that both recruitment and retention continue to meet or exceed goals for the year.)

The difficulty in finding young people also can be attributed in part to low unemployment numbers in recent years. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, unemployment dropped from 6 percent in 2003 to 4.6 percent in 2007.

In recent months, the military has had to take creative steps to reach its desired troop numbers. A year ago, when Army recruiters didn't meet their goal, the service announced new $20,000 bonuses for recruits and up to $40,000 if an enlistee signed up for at least four years.

[jimzinsocal]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...le-attack-happ

[AMDScooter]

They should CC NPR who has been pitching the same bias on our dime..

Letter from the White House to NBC News

For Immediate Release May 19, 2008

Setting The Record Straight:

The following is a letter from Counselor to the President Ed Gillespie to NBC News President Steve Capus:

Steve Capus
President, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and “appeasement,” rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

In the interview, Engel asked the President: “You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?”

The President responded: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”
This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the “appeasement” line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not “negotiating with Iran,” (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, “Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?”

The President replied, “You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them.”

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that “negotiating with Iran is pointless” and amounts to “appeasement.”

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: “We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.’”

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a “civil war.” Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: “If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession.”

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a “recession” with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the “government number” to go by? Is there reason to believe “the government number” is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop “just short of the official declaration of a recession”?

Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the “news” as reported on NBC and the “opinion” as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,
Ed Gillespie
Counselor to the President

[jimzinsocal]

http://minx.cc/?post=262860

[AMDScooter]

The Farm Bill (McCain Opposed It... Shhhh)

Congress has sent to Bush a new farm bill. Let's see, the NY Times editors think it is "disgraceful"; the LA Times editors describe it as "pork, not policy". The LA Times closes with this:

There are a few senators who recognize this bill as the bloated monstrosity it is. The last hope is that there are enough of them to uphold Bush's veto.

"A few Senators"? Are any of those Senators named John McCain? Yes, indeed. Are any of them named Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Uhh, no. Neither papers' editorial noted that fact, but this is from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, on Monday said he agreed with President George W. Bush's decision to the $289 billion farm bill because it did not cut subsidies to wealthy farmers enough.

"I would veto that bill," McCain said, calling the farm bill an unwarranted handout to corporate farmers and an obstacle to freer agricultural trade worldwide.

...

None of the three senators running for president -- McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois -- voted on the bill. Clinton and Obama applauded Senate passage of the bill and said Bush should sign it.

more..

[AMDScooter]

Iraq.. what dat?

SUCCESS IN IRAQ: A MEDIA BLACKOUT