October 06, 2010
Sometimes the guilty don't flee even when pursued
Heh.
And this is how I can be allies with social cons.
When Brent Bozell is not talking about the media, he's usually annoying me. But when he talks media, well, he's usually entertaining me.
In today's exciting episode, his Media Research Center is starting a campaign to try to shame Minitru (they don't have any, but I'm rooting for him anyway).
He actually has a bunch of trucks circling the block around a bunch of Minitru outlets in NY and DC with signs telling them to stop lying.
Update: The campaign is not just the trucks, there are TV, intertube and radio ads and billboards. They accept donations.
According to this CNSNews article, it's not just broadcast Minitru outlets but print like the Wash Post and intertubing Minitru tools like Politico and, my personal favorite, they're even circling the Newseum.
For those who don't know, that's a museum about journalists where today's "journalists" can go to pretend they're all brave and smart and stuff.
I went once with a producer friend of mine. I'll go again when they have exhibits on Walter Duranty and/or Dan Rather and his Microsoft memos from 1972.
Bravo Brent.
H/T chain, Nice Deb to Gateway Pundit (she's before GP on my intertubing) to the CNSNews article, h/t on the MRC link to Veeshir.
And this is how I can be allies with social cons.
When Brent Bozell is not talking about the media, he's usually annoying me. But when he talks media, well, he's usually entertaining me.
In today's exciting episode, his Media Research Center is starting a campaign to try to shame Minitru (they don't have any, but I'm rooting for him anyway).
He actually has a bunch of trucks circling the block around a bunch of Minitru outlets in NY and DC with signs telling them to stop lying.
Update: The campaign is not just the trucks, there are TV, intertube and radio ads and billboards. They accept donations.
According to this CNSNews article, it's not just broadcast Minitru outlets but print like the Wash Post and intertubing Minitru tools like Politico and, my personal favorite, they're even circling the Newseum.
For those who don't know, that's a museum about journalists where today's "journalists" can go to pretend they're all brave and smart and stuff.
I went once with a producer friend of mine. I'll go again when they have exhibits on Walter Duranty and/or Dan Rather and his Microsoft memos from 1972.
Bravo Brent.
H/T chain, Nice Deb to Gateway Pundit (she's before GP on my intertubing) to the CNSNews article, h/t on the MRC link to Veeshir.
Posted by: Veeshir at
08:23 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That's full if win, that is. If only he were taking donations so that we could keep this going for, like, ever...
Posted by: HayZeus at October 06, 2010 08:53 AM (ITqXk)
2
To their mild credit, ABC and WaPo do seem to have certain lines they don't like crossed, and will run stories that harm liberals from time to time. It's still biased, but compared to the other outlets it makes them look downright Tea Party-ish.
Posted by: Wolfwood at October 06, 2010 08:58 AM (yX4Kd)
3
WaPo's pumping of Creigh Deeds in the VA Gube race was pretty shameless.
Posted by: JoeCollins at October 06, 2010 09:16 AM (Vtdvs)
4
I should have made it plain, he is taking donations.
As for the Wash Post, who cares if they occasionally put out one story that goes against their biases?
The rest of their coverage is full of lies. As the NY Times sunk into irrelevancy, they had a chance to become the Paper of Record. Instead, they doubled down on their lying ways and went full BDS.
The last time I read the paper they had an article headlined something like, "Teams unanimous, the mobile labs were not for WMD", talking about the mobile labs Powell talked about at the UN.
Bush Lied in other words.
If you read the whole article, near the end of that 20+paragraph article, long after the jump, they noted that there were three teams. One was mostly sure they were for WMDs, maybe one person didn't agree. Another team was about split, but most were saying they were for WMDs, the third team was "unanimous" they weren't.
Then, a couple days later, they had another story about how even that supposedly "unanimous" team wasn't. It wasn't a correction, it was just another story with a line in the middle saying, "Oh, by the way, that unanimous team wasn't unanimous".
So in other words, there were three teams. One was almost unanimous they were for WMDs, one was split with the majority saying they were for WMDs and the third was split with a bare majority saying they weren't for WMDs.
I ain't linking to the lying POSs just like I won't link to Politico, but here's a Confederate Yankee post taking them to task for their lies.
And yes, it was lies. They had all the facts and still put out the story to push along the Bush Lied meme. Fuck them.
Between their lying lies and allowing Hamas and Hezbollah to spew more hatred and lies on their op-ed page and their coterie of tools calling me a racist every Monday morning, well, I'll pop a cork on some darn good champagne the day they go bankrupt.
I certainly won't read them. Why bother? I can get my hate, bile and lies from the NY Times of Kos and they're more entertainingly frothful.
As for the Wash Post, who cares if they occasionally put out one story that goes against their biases?
The rest of their coverage is full of lies. As the NY Times sunk into irrelevancy, they had a chance to become the Paper of Record. Instead, they doubled down on their lying ways and went full BDS.
The last time I read the paper they had an article headlined something like, "Teams unanimous, the mobile labs were not for WMD", talking about the mobile labs Powell talked about at the UN.
Bush Lied in other words.
If you read the whole article, near the end of that 20+paragraph article, long after the jump, they noted that there were three teams. One was mostly sure they were for WMDs, maybe one person didn't agree. Another team was about split, but most were saying they were for WMDs, the third team was "unanimous" they weren't.
Then, a couple days later, they had another story about how even that supposedly "unanimous" team wasn't. It wasn't a correction, it was just another story with a line in the middle saying, "Oh, by the way, that unanimous team wasn't unanimous".
So in other words, there were three teams. One was almost unanimous they were for WMDs, one was split with the majority saying they were for WMDs and the third was split with a bare majority saying they weren't for WMDs.
I ain't linking to the lying POSs just like I won't link to Politico, but here's a Confederate Yankee post taking them to task for their lies.
And yes, it was lies. They had all the facts and still put out the story to push along the Bush Lied meme. Fuck them.
Between their lying lies and allowing Hamas and Hezbollah to spew more hatred and lies on their op-ed page and their coterie of tools calling me a racist every Monday morning, well, I'll pop a cork on some darn good champagne the day they go bankrupt.
I certainly won't read them. Why bother? I can get my hate, bile and lies from the NY Times of Kos and they're more entertainingly frothful.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 06, 2010 09:18 AM (D6PI4)
5
Joe, their attacks on George Allen and McDonnell were shameless too.
They did probably 1348 stories on "macaca" and every story about McDonnell had a bit about some thesis he wrote 20+ years ago in college.
I mean every story I saw linked had a line something like, "He's doing well despite growing unease with a thesis he wrote....."
Lying, partisan sacks of shit is all they are. I'll occasionally read an article someone else links if I don't realize the link goes to the Post and I read a bunch during the election even if I knew it was them to marvel at the lies.
They lie.
They did probably 1348 stories on "macaca" and every story about McDonnell had a bit about some thesis he wrote 20+ years ago in college.
I mean every story I saw linked had a line something like, "He's doing well despite growing unease with a thesis he wrote....."
Lying, partisan sacks of shit is all they are. I'll occasionally read an article someone else links if I don't realize the link goes to the Post and I read a bunch during the election even if I knew it was them to marvel at the lies.
They lie.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 06, 2010 09:26 AM (D6PI4)
6
This.
Sure, the Pravda on the Potomac will run some editorials in the offseason that are far enough away from Dem talking points to be able to pass a college-level plagiarism filter (which is to say that they might be a bit more truthful than truthy and they might even be gently critical) and then congratulate themselves for being so honest and hard-hitting but whenever it comes down to actual election season it's nothing but wall-to-wall agitprop.
Once upon a time I was having a disagreement with a very dear friend of mine (it was about the accuracy of the 2007 NIE report on Iran's nuclear program IIRC) in which I explained that the Sunday Post, which to her was an in-depth and informative read was in my eyes nothing more than a propaganda organ for the Democratic party and that furthermore all MFM to me was in the same boat and varied only by degree. When she asked about NPR, I told her that they were of the best of that crowd, right up there with Fox news. We still go around about that every once in a while and she still only sees the backhanded part of that backhanded compliment.
Sure, the Pravda on the Potomac will run some editorials in the offseason that are far enough away from Dem talking points to be able to pass a college-level plagiarism filter (which is to say that they might be a bit more truthful than truthy and they might even be gently critical) and then congratulate themselves for being so honest and hard-hitting but whenever it comes down to actual election season it's nothing but wall-to-wall agitprop.
Once upon a time I was having a disagreement with a very dear friend of mine (it was about the accuracy of the 2007 NIE report on Iran's nuclear program IIRC) in which I explained that the Sunday Post, which to her was an in-depth and informative read was in my eyes nothing more than a propaganda organ for the Democratic party and that furthermore all MFM to me was in the same boat and varied only by degree. When she asked about NPR, I told her that they were of the best of that crowd, right up there with Fox news. We still go around about that every once in a while and she still only sees the backhanded part of that backhanded compliment.
Posted by: HayZeus at October 06, 2010 10:30 AM (ITqXk)
7
@Veeshir - by "pumping Deeds", I really meant "smearing McDonnell". So yes.
WaPo is still slanted, just ever so slightly less so than NYT. WaPo sometimes pretends to be a real paper, but that's the exception rather than the rule anymore.
WaPo is still slanted, just ever so slightly less so than NYT. WaPo sometimes pretends to be a real paper, but that's the exception rather than the rule anymore.
Posted by: JoeCollins at October 06, 2010 12:52 PM (Vtdvs)
8
branl brands o wearing a fake watchy Handbags for years without even knowing that it is a fake designer handbags outlet There are
Posted by: Hardy Mens at March 15, 2011 02:29 AM (isPhW)
25kb generated in 0.1799 seconds; 68 queries returned 167 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
