March 27, 2010
So, I was reading this boring little AP article about a tea party protest in Searchlight, Nevada (home of the one and only Harry Reid). The gathering was headlined by Sarah Palin, and Andrew Breitbart showed up as well. I found one line in particular to be particularily ironic and especially stupid, so please note that it's my emphasis on teh stupid:
Conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart disputed accounts that tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets at black members of Congress amid the health care debate, although he didn't provide any evidence.
Really, AP? Really, you're going to slip that tiny, innocuous little phrase in there? You're going to be the ones saying that Breitbart didn't provide any evidence? Because, as I recall, it's you and your fucking cronies who are lacking in any damn evidence for anything.
Oh, but let's not stop there, AP. No, you're right; pointing out that there's no evidence for tea partiers screaming hateful slurs isn't nearly enough. You had to go and find a damn birther in the crowd, too, because we all know that no smear of the conservative group isn't complete without a birther quote:
Leonard Grimes, a 70-year-old retired logger, said the nation is drifting toward socialism, and he's not convinced Obama is eligible to be president.
"I'd like him to prove he's an American citizen," said Grimes, a registered independent who is originally from Michigan but now lives in Golden Valley, Ariz.
In summation, fuck you, AP. In a very, very uncomfortable place - and I don't mean the back of a Volkswagen.
March 12, 2010
For the want of a better two-second picture of a tachometer, ABC News has called into question its reporting on acceleration problems with Toyota vehicles.
I'm going a totally different direction from where I've seen others go and I'm kind of surprised by that.
This story shows exactly what's most wrong with "journalism" today
Notice the above beginning, "For the want of...", no, for using a fraudulent clip their 'reportage'/crap hit piece is in question.
The article is full of ABC saying, 'Sure it wasn't the right clip, here's some bullshit reason we're claiming is why we couldn't use the real clip, so it's all okay.'
None of the "journalists" involved in this story even see the fundamental problem.
Fake But Fucking Accurate is not journalism you dumb fucks.
How hard is that concept to understand? Seriously.
All you had to do was put in "dramatization" or some note about why you used that shot and problem solved.
Not a one of the idiot, "journalists" involved in this story, including the many layers of idiotor... err... editors probably even thought about it and if any of them happen to get lost and end up here instead of Kos and read this they will have no idea why this is a problem and they'll think I'm the idiot.
That's how journalism works these days, they'll think.
It's absolutely funny that as reporters started coming out of J-schools instead of just getting a degree and going into journalism their reporting ethics, abilities and diligence have gone right down the tubes.
We now have "fake but accurate", "too good to check" and "feels right" for journalistic standards.
Why, it's almost as if J-schools are teaching advocacy journalism instead of "just the fax ma'am".
H/T, I don't know, I've seen it all over.
Let's say....... Lemur King, I missed giving him one once.
March 09, 2010
March 05, 2010
(I'm going to guess that the LaRouche stuff doesn't get mentioned prominently.)
Update: Because of some personal stuff, I haven't watched much news over the past couple of days, so I didn't see this.
March 04, 2010
Current headline on an LA Times article: Is a Sarah Palin reality show about to become reality?
Oh happy day! Will we see Sarah jogging? Will we see Todd lifting heavy things? Will we see the Firestarter actually start fires? Will we see Sarah kill a wolf from a helicopter? Oh the mind it it it . . . .
Um. Wait just a second. Here's what the show is really about:
Do not taunt Happy Fun Alex like that. It won't end well.
But Barb luuurves the Coffee Party much more than the Tea Party, even though she thinks the latter (lamentably, in her eyes) has a better chance at changing the political landscape:
It's fueled by idealism. But idealism doesn't carry the same jolt as anger, which is stoking the tea party movement.
Idealism gets weary and watered down. But in these United States, anger is a bottomless cup.
It has so many targets. Wall Street bankers, illegal immigrants, climate scientists, Barack Obama. Health care reformers, stimulus packages, public education, Barack Obama. The Federal Reserve, John McCain, open borders, the United Nations, gun control backers, Barack Obama.
Um, Barb, do you notice a common thread in any of those "targets" that you just mentioned? Possibly that they're all, more or less, involved in the shitty economy that we've got right now? That we've got ten percent unemployment? That there's a government-run health insurance boondoggle that one of the "targets" you happened to mention three times there is trying to ram down the throats of a citizenry which has said over and over that it DOES. NOT. WANT. IT?
Oh, and this part is fun...
There are think tanks, lobbyists, consultants, magazines, talk shows, an entire television network, devoted to telling Americans that, even in the good times, we should be aggrieved.
Government is out to oppress the people of America. So say the captains of the aggrievement industry, speaking from their lavish office suites and their suburban Virginia mansions.
So she says, without a fucking trace of irony. When we had unemployment at around five percent and the economy was growing pretty well, we heard nothing from TIMENEWSWEEKNYTWAPOCNNNBCCBSABC, etc. and their buddies in liberal think tanks and on talk shows about how we were supposedly in the WORST ECONOMY SINCE HERBERT HOOVER!!!
Yeah, sorry if I don't take you particularly seriously now.
Oh, and if you'd bothered to mention the Coffee Party's founder, you might have had to mention that she was a progressive activist from (dun dun DUHHHHN!!!) suburban Virginia.
March 02, 2010
Oh, and this is a hoot:
But Ms. Park said that while the Coffee Party — and certainly the name — was formed in reaction to the Tea Party, the two agree on some things, like a desire for fiscal responsibility and a frustration with Congress.
“We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We’re a different model of civic participation, but in the end we may want some of the same things.”
You're a fucking liar, Ms. Park, and you fucking know it. You want the government to take over Americans' health care insurance, and the only thing preventing you from admitting it is the fact that the rest of us realize that it's a fucking boondoggle and a disaster.
And the NYT (and Jon Zak of the WaPo, as well) are fucking abettors of your lies, trying to make it seem that you're some kind of centrist who just wants the left and right to come together.
Update: By the way, Annabel Park is never mentioned even once in the same sentence as Barack Obama in the NYT article, even though she was an Obama supporter at least as early as 2008. And, while the WaPo didn't bother to mention that, they at least mentioned that she worked for Virginia Dem Sen. Jim Webb. The NYT glossed over that, too.
60 queries taking 0.0087 seconds, 143 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.