Liars and IgnoramusesWhat is one to conclude of our media today? Consider the following:
With regards to all of these stories, the media is either blissfully unaware of the world around them, or they are refusing to properly inform their readers of important information. In other words, they are either not doing their jobs, or they are intentionally withholding context from important news stories. It is important context to understand what kind of organization ACORN is in a year in which they are to participate in helping the Census get done. It is important to ask the attorney general questions about controversial cases and positions he’s taken in the course of his duties. It is important to know whether or not climatologists faked their findings in a year when the President is proposing a radical cap and trade policy based on the theory that carbon emissions are causing catastrophic global warming. And it is important to know whether or not media outlets are conspiring with each other and with certain political campaigns. All of this has a word, of course: Context Which of course brings us to Andrew Breitbart. Andrew Breitbart posted a video of a woman explaining to an NAACP audience how she was racist and disliked white people, after which the audience cheered. Deriving the wrong lesson from the video clip, her employer, the USDA, fired her. It later became clear that the story that the woman was telling was not over, that hers was a redemptive tale. She was no longer a racist, but was now a commie. Cries from across the media rang out, that Breitbart has failed to provide proper context, and had clipped the video unfairly. Jon Stewart had a different take. He declared Andrew Breitbart to be the most honest man in the controversy, because Breitbart was open about his partisan intentions from the get go. From this I would infer that someone who fails to provide context in their reporting and holds themselves out as something less than a raging partisan is either dishonest or woefully unaware of the subject on which he is reporting. In other words, they are either a liars or ignoramuses. Which brings us to Joan Vennochi:
There are, of course, two missing pieces of context here. First, the tax provisions to which she refers are a provision of Obamacare which requires the issuance of a 1099 for anything purchased over $600. Insofar as every Republican in the house and senate voted against Obamacare, they already voted against this nonsense. Secondly, in an effort to repeal the mistake which nearly every Democrat in the house and senate voted for, they proposed a bill repealing the provision, but enacting a large tax increase as well. It was for this reason that Republicans voted against the bill; because it was a tax increase. So which is Joan Vennochi? Is she a liar or an ignoramus? It is fair to mention that she is a commentator who makes no bones about her political leanings. Yet does that mean that she is an overt partisan, one who cannot be counted on to present all the facts, despite working for a supposedly objective news source in the Boston Globe? I suspect that this is part of a new liberal meme. So I decided to look and see based on a quick news search if I could find any straight news articles parroting this line. It didn’t take long. Newsbusters is already on the case. You can search for yourself to find more, I’m out of time. The good thing is that at this point the mainstream media have done such a good job portraying themselves as liars and ignoramuses to the American public that I don’t think this will have much effect. After all, nobody intentionally pays attention to liars and ignoramuses, unless it’s to laugh. UPDATE: Instalanche! Thanks to Glenn and welcome Instapundit readers. Tags: Andrew Breitbart, Context, Jon Stewart, Media, MSM, Obamacare, Shirley Sherrod |
||
One Response to “Liars and Ignoramuses”
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Dear Mr. Sama: The $600 provision you note is even worse than you think. It does not apply only to those vendors who buy items costing more than $600. No, the provision requires 1099s for any vendor who sells more than $600 in a year. Let me sell you $12 of books a week, and you have to provide the IRS with a 1099 for my sales. No wonder the accountants are smiling.
As to the fool or liar question, each individual case may have a different answer. But a blanket bet that any given journalist is a liar for liberalism will collect far more often than it will pay out. Journalists are in the business of finding out. Even more so are they in the business of suppressing what they find out if a) it doesn’t fit the liberal agenda at the moment or b) it doesn’t pay. Remember Anderson Cooper’s straightfaced assertion during the GOP debates of 2008 that the Hillary Clinton committee worker who had asked a question at a debate for “undecided” voters had slipped in by accident, and they certainly would have disclosed his affiliation if they had but known? There’s a shifty eyed goddam liar for you. To be sure, The One doesn’t trust him. This is why it’s so funny to here him bawling “We are not the enemy!” when the feds keep him and the press away from the BP spill. The One knows Coop went into the tank for him in 2008. As such, he’s not to be trusted. Hence, the banning. What did the fool expect?
My bet on Vennochi: liar. The Democrats are in poor shape, and if she can’t do her bit to help them, this Progressive Hour will have failed. But factor b) applies too: the GLOBE is losing a barrel of money, and is a prime candidate for a bailout. Her own paycheck depends on subserviency.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
Leave a Reply