Posts Tagged ‘MSM’


Liars and Ignoramuses

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

What 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:


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:

While Republicans drape themselves in middle class values, they are sticking it to the middle class. It’s all in the effort to deny Obama and the Democrats any positive political message.

Last week, Senate Republicans rejected a bill to aid small business with expanded loan programs and tax breaks.

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.


Saying It Makes It So

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

There are instances where positing a theory directly interferes with your ability to measure it’s usefulness (or truthiness if you’re some kind of asshole). It’s like how in physics, quantum theory states that the act of measuring the smallest particles in the universe directly effects those particles’ behavior. Much the same can be true with people. The most basic example is how people try to psyche each other out by telling each other not to choke, or how in baseball people chant “Sawwwwing, batter batter batter batter…”

The same thing happens in politics. Dan Quayle was a perfect example of it. They kept saying he was stupid. And so when he, like every human, makes the occasional dumb utterance, it got magnified, reinforcing the belief that he was stupid, which in turn made him nervous around the cameras, thus increasing the likelihood that he would say something else stupid. And so a self fulfilling prophecy is born.

Much the same thing is happening with Gov. Palin right now. The press grossly mistreats her, by among other things calling her inexperienced and a fool. This, in turn, leads her to not want to conduct press interviews with people who she (rightly) views as inherently hostile towards her. And when she does conduct the occasional interview, she gets nervous and seems to lack confidence, which causes the press to exclaim, “Ah Ha!!! We told you she was out of her depth…”

That’s how saying something can often make it so.


Meep Meep

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

Metaphor of the week from Eric Raymond:

The attempt to smear, discredit and delegitimize Palin has steadily become more intense and more damaging — to the Democrats. She’s become the Road Runner to the Democrats’ Wile E. Coyote; they keep devising ever more ingenious and elaborate traps for their proxies in the MSM to spring on her, only to wind up having them blow up spectacularly and autodestructively.

Read Eric Raymond. His metaphor is actually taken from Iowahawk. But the essay is the best one summarizing the current political scene I’ve seen. Be sure to read the whole thing.


If You Want To Get Pregnant…

Thursday, June 19th, 2008

Then you’re going to get pregnant, regardless of whether or not contraceptives are provided. Seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it?

So I see this news article on Drudge about this incident in Gloucester:

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies—more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there’s been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, “some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant than when they were,” Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. “We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head.

Right. Get it? Some girls decide to get pregnant, and proceed to do so. Naturally, one’s thoughts turn to what could have been done to prevent these girls from being so foolish. Probably giving some counseling on what life is like as a single mother, how hard it is to raise a child, alone, at age 16. But no. Time magazine thinks it’s the lack of available contraception that’s to blame.

I’m not even kidding.

The rest of the article basically scolds the people of Gloucester, describes them as white, Catholic, and blue-collar, and against contraception. But what available contraception would do to prevent girls who wanted to get pregnant from doing so is beyond me. The article doesn’t try to make the case that explicitly, but here, read the closing paragraphs:

But by May, after nurse practitioner Kim Daly had administered some 150 pregnancy tests at Gloucester High’s student clinic, she and the clinic’s medical director, Dr. Brian Orr, a local pediatrician, began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women’s health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has met with hostility. Says Mayor Carolyn Kirk: “Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children.” The pair resigned in protest on May 30.

Gloucester’s elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won’t do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers': “No one’s offered them a better option.” And better options may be a tall order in a city so uncertain of its future.

Boy, I just love the MSM. Even when they explicitly know their pre-written narrative doesn’t make sense, they stick with it anyways. Nice work.