I've been reading through official reports and blog posts about the anti-war ralley in D.C., and I've been getting increasingly grumpy. The google experiment posts really chap my hide. Are reporters really just glossing over Brian Becker's credentials, or saying that Cuddy is a "novice"? Aren't there any internet connections in newsrooms? All it took was ten seconds on google to show these people's true colors.

But what got me the most was this acute statement at Protein Wisdom:

[from the original AP article]

While united against the war, political beliefs varied in the Washington crowd. Paul Rutherford, 60, of Vandalia, Mich., said he is a Republican who supported Bush in the last election and still does except for the war.

“President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let’s move on,” he said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein “a noble mission” but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded.

“We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily,” she said.

Only in a story that is desperately trying to hide its bias would the author find, foreground, and quote, as her initial interviewees, a couple who are surely the least politically representative of all those attending this rally: a pro-Bush Republican tandem so unversed in the Administration’s reasons for being in Iraq that they believe we should pull out before the mission is completed, and are basing that belief on a tired liberal talking point that conveniently ignores all the other reasons the Bushies outlined for the Iraq campaign. So, while Ms Kerr is certainly correct to note that political beliefs among the rallyers varies, her choice to highlight the most unrepresentative of the variants to open the story betrays her own rhetorical agenda—and does so in a way that is so obvious I’d be surprised to learn she thought it might actually fool anyone.

That is just the thing that might slip by an unperceptive reader like me, but Jeff Goldstein is a top-rate grokker. Out of the thousands (maybe) of people at the protest, this reporter handpicks the one middle-aged Republican couple. As if they're even representative of the type of folks there in D.C. Come on, they're thrown in the article with Brian Becker and Cindy Sheehan, for pete's sake. You know this AP reporter had to interview dozens of people before she got this money-shot couple. Oooh, look, they used to support Bush!

God, this reminds me so much of Whittle's fable of Noam Chomsky and the Black Sand:

LetÂ’s say we stand overlooking the ocean along Pacific Coast Highway. From high atop the cliffs, we look down to the waves and the sand below. I ask you what color the beach is. You reply, reasonably enough, that it is sandy white. And you are exactly right.

However, there are people who cannot see the beach for themselves because they are not standing with us on this very spot. This is where Noam earns his liberal sainthood. Noam takes a small pail to the beach and sits down in the sand.

If you’ve ever run sand through your fingers, you know that for all of the thousands upon thousands of white or clear grains, there are a few dark ones here and there, falling through your fingers. With a jewelers loupe and an EXCEEDINGLY fine pair of tweezers, you carefully and methodically pluck all of the dark grains you can find – and only the dark grains – and carefully place them, one by one, into your trusty bucket.

It will take you a long time – it has taken Chomsky decades – to fill this bucket, but with enough sand and enough time, you will eventually do so. And then, when you do, you can make a career touring colleges through the world, giving speeches about the ebony-black beaches of Malibu, and you can pour your black sand onto the lectern and state, without fear of contradiction, that this sand was taken from those very beaches.

And what you say will be accurate, it will be factually based, and you will be lying like the most pernicious son of a bitch that ever lived.

This Republican couple was the black grain of sand at this anti-war ralley, but they're put in the article to create a fake sense of balance. Yeah, sure, the Mall is teeming with patchouli-smelling, underarm-hairy hippies, but hey, there's also a Republican couple from a blue state there! It's completely sneaky and false to claim that "political beliefs varied in the Washington crowd" because you found one couple who wasn't wearing a Rachel Corrie shirt or raving about how it's all the Jooooooos fault.

It all goes back to the premise of The Argument Culture: take every issue and show that it has two sides. But if there were 2000 protesters in D.C., and even 50 of them were former-Republicans, they're a small minority. Don't interview one moonbat and one Republican and then say that the anti-war rally represented a wide spectrum of beliefs. That's completely disingenuous, because the sands of this anti-war protest were not black.

UPDATE:

Nearly everyone in the comments section is missing the point. Yes, I'm aware of the President's approval ratings. I do not deny the fact that some people who voted for him might not support the war. What I said, however -- if you actually listened to my words and didn't infer whatever you wanted so you could rant about approval ratings and WMDs -- was that those people are likely not representative of the folks who attend anti-war rallies. Look at any collection of photos from the rally and you'll see folks waving Palestinian flags and wearing keffiyeh and crap. That's the face of the hardcore anti-war protester, so it's journalistically dishonest to seek out the most mainstream protesters and paint them as the norm.

My post was about the journalist's manipulation; it had nothing to do with President Bush's approval ratings. Please stop taking my writing off into tangents I never intended.

MORE TO GROK:

Here's another example of "lying like the most pernicious son of a bitch that ever lived"...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:40 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1057 words, total size 7 kb.

1 I read that last comment, and I stand amazed that anyone can accuse "the Left" of repeating talking points. Didn't I hear that same screed from Ann Coulter on Fox last week? In the last two elections, the Democrat won a majority of votes in one and came extraordinarily close in the second. So tell me again how liberalism has been "rejected with prejudice," or whatever you said. Actually, this kind of ties into the main point that I wanted to make, which is that this Jeff fellow's analysis of how this reporter was manipulating the story is pretty manipulative in its own right. He calls the couple in question "a pro-Bush Republican tandem so unversed in the AdministrationÂ’s reasons for being in Iraq that they believe we should pull out before the mission is completed." Ah, so everyone who favors a pullout (which I don't---we broke it, we own it) is "unversed" in the reasons Bush gives for why were there. No possibility that someone could be familiar with those reasons and just not accept them? No room for honest disagreement? By the way, look at Bush's declining approval ratings. You think that people who voted for him but now oppose the war are really that rare?

Posted by: Pericles at September 25, 2005 09:19 AM (EpPuP)

2 It's unfortunate that anyone who doesn't think that you should be in Iraq is supposedly 'unversed' in US politics. From the outside, the biggest problem I see in US politics and political beliefs is that you guys never allow for the other side to have a point. That at this point it would be foolish and dangerous to remove the troops is damn right, the invasion did fuck up a country beyond repair; however, the country shouldn't have been invaded and just about everyone agrees that the reasons given were false. It follows naturally that some people, republicans and democrats alike, will think it wise to leave, and that others of both sides will think it wise to stay. They are opinions, and as such, neither is wrong. It's too bad you deny offhand anything that disagrees with your stand. I find I learn more from those that don't believe the same things I do, because they make me see sides of things that I wouldn't have thought of on my own.

Posted by: Julie at September 25, 2005 09:55 AM (9oT36)

3 I just find that "the other side" continually charges that the rationale behind the invasion was unjust and that our continued actions in Iraq are immoral, a little on the naive side. Just about everyone in the civilized world believed that Saddam had WMD, the capability to deliver them (be that at the tip of an illegally possessed missile system or in the trunk of a beater automobile), as well as the will to give their employment a try in the 2002-2003 timeframe. It's not as if the period between 1991-2001 had not given Mr. Hussein ample opportunity to open his nation to UN inspectors. He just chose to play a game of deception and obfuscation with them. If he didn't have them...he sure wanted the inspectors to believe that he did. The next item we should note is that there was a period where there weren't ANY inspectors inside Iraq. In that timeframe, isn't it possible that Hussein's regime did a little housecleaning and either hid them exceedingly well or shipped them off to a neighboring ally (cough...cough....Syria)? What opponents to the war seem to want to claim is that our presence in Iraq from 2003 to present has proved a negative...that Saddam didn't possess WMDs. I'm sorry, but I just seem to recall that proving a negative is something that is impossible to do. Be they buried in the remote sands deep underground or they're in some laboratory in Syria, I believe that they did exist...and one day will be found. Back to the anti-war movement. I would hope that those on the "other side" would be smart enough to realize that the die has been cast and we'll be there until the Iraqis can take over for themselves. You can rant and rave, but this president has made the call. Yes, it's like an umpire...but you cannot have the leader of the greatest nation on the planet play wishy washy games with our foreign policy. Can't the "other side" simply sit back and hope for the best? Leaving right now just isn't the best move available for us. We are doing good in the Middle East...if polls (the other side seems to love them when they back up their own ideas) are correct, the US has made a great deal of progress in swaying the Muslim mind. I say we keep up the fight...rebuild a human intelligence capability that will replace the one systematically dismantled by the previous administration and try not to make the same mistake twice. If there are some in this country unwilling to believe that this is "my country right or wrong" then let's be able to throw some definitive proof in their faces. Sorry for the rambling rant...but I thought it was time. See you on the high ground. MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at September 25, 2005 10:29 AM (tdEnf)

4 I'll be honest about it: before the war, I certainly assumed that Saddam still had WMDs. It was a reasonable assumption to make. However, before you invade a country, surely you ought to check your assumptions. It appears now that the intel community had a lot of doubts about the existence of the WMDs, but the administration (especially Cheney's office) didn't want to listen and made sure that intelligence briefs would de-emphasize this side of the story. Our major source for the presence of the WMDs is now in an Iraqi prison on fraud charges! Besides, even if the WMDs were there, there was never a plausible story about why exactly they posed an imminent threat to us. It wasn't like they had just been developed; if they were there, they would have been there for a long time. If Al Queda was going to use them against us, which flies in the face of the relationship between Saddam and Al Queda, why hadn't they done so already? Finally, suppose Major Dad is there and the weapons are now in Syria. Well, then the war didn't accomplish much, did they? The WMDs would still be in the hands of a Baathist dictatorship, only now it would be one with much stronger ties to terorist groups than Iraq ever had. If that is where the WMDs went, why the heck wasn't there a plan in place to prevent it?

Posted by: Pericles at September 25, 2005 12:24 PM (EpPuP)

5 The funny thing about the internet is that it creates these echo chambers where people of some political persuasion can visit and imagine that they are getting the whole story. Anyone who can stomach going to Little Green Footballs/Free Republic/Atrios/Democratic Underground/whatever-extremist-site and imagine that they are getting a fair view of things has a problem. They are all partisan and all carefully present a view of things that fits their limited set of preconceptions. Worse, The right wing sites have a strong habit of making up facts when they can't find any they like, while the left just tends to skew things. With support for the war hanging around 40%, and presidential approval around there too, there must be a fair number of people who changed their minds. Those numbers used to be much higher. So if a story finds a some of those people who changed their minds, it shouldn't be surprising. It's not a grain of black sand in a white beach, it's an example of real world people who fit the other data we have. The fact that you (Sarah) can imagine that it is a bit of black sand suggests that you spend too much time reading extremist views. Oh, and WRT the war, anyone who looks at this objectively will agree that the war was fought on the basis of many lies. The most serious lie that Bush et al. repeated over and over was the suggestion that Iraq was somehow connected to terrorism. Bush always parsed his words carefully (perhaps he learned from Clinton), but Cheney lied flat out. But if you visit LGF/Freep you still see people asserting that Iraq supported terrorism, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Where do the get these weird views? From extremist echo chambers where they can validate each others false beliefs. The other lie was that Iraq was an immediate threat to the U.S. Nobody bothers with that one anymore, now that we see how weak they were, but still goofy conspiracy theories like the 'smuggled into Syria' meme pop up, which Pericles already took to task. I am saying this not in a spirit of aggression, but out of concern. It is the responsibility of all of us in a Democracy to understand political matters as clearly as possible. While it is more comforting to visit propaganda factories like LGF/Kos that support whatever beliefs we have, it is better to have the courage to be honest and look at these matters critically. Jeff Golstein is the absolute opposite of a grokker - he is a partisan seeking out whatever facts support his beliefs and dropping the rest. Grokking is finding the facts and finding a model that fits all the facts, and if the fact does't fit not ignoring it or glossing it over, but improving the model and dropping beliefs that have been shown to be false.

Posted by: VOT at September 25, 2005 06:51 PM (usuh/)

6 The war was to oust Saddam from Kuwait. That war, like the Korean war, had never ended when continuous violations of the cease fire agreement necessitated a resumption and termination of the war. Our victory in that war was overwhelming and unprecedented. The post war is as rough as Bush said it would be, and reconstruction is going as well as can be expected when the enemy is given hope that just a few more bombs and they win.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis, P.E. at September 25, 2005 09:41 PM (wDJE+)

7 So critics of a war are giving hope to the enemy? Then let's start the trials for these traitors, who gave comfort to the enemy in Bosnia: "You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, "[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Posted by: Pericles at September 25, 2005 10:16 PM (EpPuP)

8 great post, Sarah.

Posted by: annika at September 27, 2005 11:43 AM (8aWdz)

9 I agree with annika, Sarah, you have a spot-on post here that makes a very important point.

Posted by: Dave at September 27, 2005 12:33 PM (6GFTi)

10 Oh now come on... I read the "other example" analysis of a photograph, and it is laughable. Suppose that we assume that the woman in a red t-shirt is a member of a Communist group involved in organizing the march---and I haven't researched it enough to know who the organizers were, so I'm only agreeing that they were Communists for the sake of argument. The fact that she is photographed telling these teenagers where they were supposed to stand---and he looks like a teenager herself, by the way---does nothing to suggest that she "recruited" them to attend. The photograph says nothing about why the marchers are there or how they got there. It seems perfectly reasonable that the organizers of any rally or march would have people there to direct traffic and tell thevarious groups taking part where they are to stand and when they should march. That is all I see in the photograph, and I say that anyone who claims to see more is "lying like the most pernicious son of a bitch that ever lived." It isn't that I want to defend people at the march, most of whom I probably wouldn't agree with about a lot of things. It is just that when someone is being criticized for a lack of intellectual honesty, the person doing the criticizing had better hold themselves to a pretty high standard. This page reads to me like the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Pericles at September 28, 2005 11:11 AM (EpPuP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I got a big smile when I heard these evacuees on the radio Friday night. I'm glad Newsbusters got the story online. (And I'm thrilled with Hawkins' Conservative Grapevine, where I often find such gems.):

ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials.
[...]
Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts.

Go read the transcript and see how bamboozled Reynolds was that these evacuees have faith in our president.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

I read the book Bias in two days; I couldn't put it down. Goldberg's argument is that the media skews left not because of some conspiracy but because those in the media don't recognize their worldview as being liberal; they simply see themselves as rational and reasonable. The problem is that a big chunk of America doesn't see the world the way they do.

My husband and I saw a good example of this subtle liberalism in the media on our vacation. We were watching Dateline in the hotel, a segment on gay adoption. The story of two lesbians opened with "It was a fairy tale romance..." My husband guffawed, "I don't know what fairy tales they've been reading!" I personally don't have any problem with homosexuals, and in select cases I don't have a problem with gay adoption, but I do raise my eyebrows at lesbian romance being called "fairy tale". Who wrote that line? And how many people let it slide? Did no one see how odd it sounds? Roughly half of the US population doesn't support gay adoption and probably doesn't consider lesbians to be the stuff of tales and legends. But to the liberals in the media, this statement was unobjectionable.

Yesterday I saw a Law & Order: SVU that made me cringe. The episode, called "Hate", featured the death of two Muslims. Guess who did it? Yep, some crazy white kid. Oh, and not like sleeper-cell Muslims; these two were members of an organization where Muslims and Jews work together in harmony. So this white kid kills two of the most sympathetic Muslims in NYC, and then in his uncontrolable rage he stomps to death another Arab in his holding cell. See how racist white people are?

And then the kicker. The DA's office is discussing whether they should charge this guy under hate crime laws. The police captain says that they should because obviously this man "acted out of hate, that matters." The ADA balked, saying that she hesitates to invoke the hate crime legislation too often because of the slippery slope effect. "What if a black man kills a klansman or a gay man kills a homophobe -- where do we draw the line?"

Come again?

Obviously I'm not as rational and reasonable as the show's liberal writers. I personally subscribe to the South Park school of thought when it comes to hate crime laws, but if we're going to have them, then of course I think a black man killing a klansman or a gay man killing a homophobe should count. The underlying message this ADA was sending was that there's a right and wrong way to hate: if a klansman kills a black man, well that's atrocious, but if the black man kills the klansman, well that's justified. What a bunch of BS.

Things like this are the subtle liberal ideas that pervade our media. It is accepted as a given that lesbians live happily ever after and black men should be given some leeway if they kill a racist. Those are the little digs that make me want to shut the TV off and stand barefoot in the kitchen.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:50 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

I agree with Lileks that this is just absurd. The flip-flops were too informal, but John Roberts' family was too formal? What on earth does that mean? Their children looked nice, for pete's sake. My brothers and I used to wear stuff like that regularly when occasion called for it, like church or family photos. I darn sure think my mom would've made us dress up when we went to be on TV at the White House! And the caption under the photo is just plain snarky: "Even the clothes are conservative". What could the children have worn to make them look less right-wing, tie-dye and peace signs? Give me, and the Roberts family, a freaking break.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:29 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It is a stupid column, unworthy of a great paper like the WaPo. At the same time, though, I have to admit that I raised an eyebrow at their clothes too, especially the way they dressed their son. Formal versus informal isn't the issue; of course this occasion calls for "conservative" formal dress. The issue is what decade the clothes come from. These folks look like they stepped out of the Eisenhower era. When was the last time you saw a seersucker suit with short pants? At least it isn't a sailor suit, but still...

Posted by: Pericles at July 25, 2005 05:38 PM (hHudX)

2 I saw the photos too, and my thoughts were: "Gee didn't Jackie Kennedy and the kids wear stuff like that back in the day?"

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 25, 2005 11:13 PM (aHbua)

3 How silly. The children and his wife look classy and very nice. Since when has being well turned out become a crime? I think the reporters need a course in Etiquette! Geesh.

Posted by: Holly at July 26, 2005 12:48 AM (geFXN)

4 You know what I thought when I saw the picture? Looks like a French family. I swear, that is how loads of French people dress their kids...totally cute, totally 50s. The last time I saw pants like that was on my French friend's nephews at her wedding 3 months ago. That is not a flashback to the 50s, it's an ode to France. Seriously...I bet you that those clothes came from France, or some French childrens' clothes boutique in D.C. Anyways, funny how they are just grabbing at straws here.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at July 26, 2005 01:46 AM (zTqcv)

5 I think the reporter, Robin Givhan, needs to get a life! If he/she can't find something of substance to write about other than what the Roberts children were wearing and how outdated they were (which obviously he/she doesn't have young children, and if he/she does, obviously they're not being invited to the White House), I think he/she might consider finding a new profession. I see children dressed like that in church every Sunday; but then, church may be a little too conservative for Robin. Good grief! Nancy

Posted by: Nancy Dunn at July 26, 2005 03:03 AM (DljPa)

6 Not to be catty... Hell, let's be catty! Robin Givhan doesn't need to get a life, she needs to get some fashion sense.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 26, 2005 04:56 AM (RbYVY)

7 In fairness, she is the fashion editor. It isn't like one of the political writers penned the column; talking about how people are dressed is her job. Whether a paper needs someone to do that job is another question.

Posted by: Pericles at July 26, 2005 07:35 AM (hHudX)

8 Sometimes you just have to get out the old horsewhip and go visit the editor. Didn't Robin used to be married to Mike Tyson?

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 27, 2005 03:50 PM (xX0fS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You know what really bugs me? The media bends over backwards to recognize knighthood, but they constantly belittle our president. They make sure to always say Sir Paul McCartney, but I can't even count the times I've heard the media refer to our president as "Bush". His name is President Bush, you clods.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:40 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Stars and Stripes issues a forthright retraction of incorrect data. The mainstream media should take notice of what a real retraction looks like. Stars and Stripes looks classier every day.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Make sure you read Michael Yon's post on how the media get their news in Iraq (via LGF). Remember it the next time you read an article about "what's going on" in Iraq.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

(via Bunker) Bush Country: The Middle East embraces democracy--and the American president by Fouad Ajami

Posted by: Sarah at 06:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

So 20/20 runs the story of Abu Ghraib, and that photo of the hooded fellow shows up on every news site and I-told-you-so blog. It's on the cover of newspapers and magazines, so everyone knows the Official Symbol of Abu Ghraib Torture.

Friday night, 20/20 ran a story about the UN workers who are raping children in the Congo. They have photos of a French man having sex with hundreds of girls. And what is on the main page of the 20/20 website?

Corey f-ing Feldman.

Oh sure, after you click around, you get some fuzzy photos of freaking nothing at all. I'm not saying we should see this monster with a little girl, but surely there's something a little more damning than that purple wallpaper. Surely there's a Defining Photo that should go on the front page of newspapers and magazines.

Heaven forbid that an investigation of 50 aid workers involving hundreds of raped children -- while Kofi himself said that sexual abuse has "haunted peacekeeping operations for decades" -- should be bigger news than Abu Ghraib.

I guess Corey Feldman's more important.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:01 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Appears there's an air of mystery surrounding LTG Sanchez's vist to our post, though I didn't get that impression. He did ask at the beginning of the briefing if there were any journalists present, and when there weren't, he said, "Good." I took that as dislike for the press, not that he was being secretive, but that's probably due to my own dislike. At any rate, whatever your secret is, LTG Sanchez, it's safe with me.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Wish I'd thought of what Thomas Sowell said:

Real insurgents want to get the occupying power out of their country. But the fastest way to get Americans out of Iraq would be to do the opposite of what these "insurgents" are doing. Just by letting peace and order return, those who want to see American troops gone would speed their departure.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:31 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN is running an article called Bombers target Iraqi voters: Polls open in country's first free vote in a half-century. I wish those two phrases were flip-flopped. Put the emphasis on the voting, not the bombers.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's one guy who was at the inaguration that the MSM didn't introduce us to:

Nearby, Zeqir “Ziggy” Berisha, a native of Kosovo and now a citizen with two sons in the U.S. Army and two in the Marines, waved his flag and shouted support for Bush.

“This nation underneath God is best on Earth!”

Asked about the protesters, he shrugged them off.

“Disagree is good! I disagree with my wife 35 years! Disagree is OK.”

Berisha spoke of how different it was when he was living in Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito.

“Tito used to shoot people for speaking against them. He shot two of my friends.”

Berisha is a little more reserved about free speech when it comes to his boys.

“I tell them, you speak against this country, you speak against me!”

Hilarious.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:47 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Blackfive has an article called Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq. LTC Ryan doesn't say anything we don't already know and hate, but he says it all well.

In a similar vein, see VDH's Triangulating the War.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

I just watched "We Interrupt This Program" in the From the Earth to the Moon series. It's reason number I-lost-count why I hate reporters.

Following the Apollo 13 tragedy from the perspective of news reporters, this episode is another one of the most memorable in the series. While some reporters try to keep their distance from the families of the astronauts on Apollo 13, others set out to exploit the raw emotion from those families to gain better ratings. This episode nicely displays the change in journalism ethics that occurred in the late '60s and early '70s, and how it directly affected the Apollo 13 news story.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Election blogging has now been replaced by Marine-shooting-in-Fallujah blogging. Rightwingsparkle asks some interesting questions concerning omniscient reporters.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Many people have pointed to Kevin Sites' explanation to the Marines (he's the one who taped the Marine shooting the wounded terrorist). I don't doubt that Sites felt a sinking feeling in his stomach as he witness the scene. I also tend to believe him that he wasn't out looking for Woodward/Bernstein-type fame. But here's what I don't like.

In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both -- though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as unique to a group as the darker deeds. But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective - will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge.

When we look back on Operation Iraqi Freedom, what are we going to remember? What are the memories that the Mainstream Media has drilled into our heads? Abu Ghraib. This Marine shooting a wounded terrorist. Jessica Lynch. The lack of WMDs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't watch news on the TV, so maybe the airwaves are bombarded with hero stories I just haven't heard yet. But I sincerely reject the idea that the Media is balancing "the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of" in the daily news. They instead take something like Abu Ghraib and give it flashy banners and expert guests, run the story on a loop every 15 minutes, and drill the "atrocity" into our heads. Did they present the full atrocity of Nick Berg's beheading? Of the children's jails and rape rooms and mass graves uncovered after the war? Did they make a nice flashy banner for the torture chambers and half-dead prisoners that were just found in Fallujah this week?

Where's the flashy banner for CPL Yeager? Where's Pat Tillman's story on a loop over and over? A few clips at the end of your segment pointing out some Hometown Heroes does not a balanced scale make. The Media defends itself by saying, "we have to show the good and the bad." Please, show me when you've given half the airtime to good as you have to bad.

Over the past two years, I have developed a sense of utter revulsion for reporters and journalists. I don't want to feel like that, but they've made their own bed. I don't blame Kevin Sites for shooting the footage, but I blame the Media Monster for the way it's presented and distributed.

John Kerry killed a wounded enemy in Vietnam and got the Silver Star. This Marine killed a wounded enemy in Iraq and will face the death penalty. It's all in how you package and sell it.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

Charles Johnson writes a lengthier post on the liabilities of having embedded reporters. I can't stress enough how everyone should watch Ethics in America: Under Orders, Under Fire. It's two hours long, so the next time you think about popping in a movie, consider watching this instead.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Every time I watch the news on TV, I remember why I hate watching the news on TV. I just watched the end of the rerun of the presidential debate, and I wanted to drop a 'bow in Tom Brokaw's face. What on earth is wrong with these news anchors who think that the appropriate way to phrase a question is "Well, my guess is that the majority of Democrats think that President Bush is a complete moron who may possibly still wet the bed. Your thoughts, Karen Hughes?" OK, so it wasn't that bad, but Brokaw might as well have substituted "I think President Bush has lost credibility" instead of pinning his biased and speculative nonsense on the "majority of Democrats." Ugh, I'm staying away from the TV for a while.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:12 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

After having finished re-reading The Fountainhead, this story -- a newspaper editor going against public opinion -- made me chuckle. I had to register to read it, so now you don't have to.

Crawford wants newspaper to eat its words

Rebeca Rodriguez
San Antonio Express-News

CRAWFORD — Photos of President Bush hugging diners and mugging for the camera adorn the walls of the Crawford Coffee Station, a popular cafe in this small Central Texas town Bush calls home.

Just a few miles from the Bush ranch, the spot is a popular place for locals to gather in the morning for coffee, breakfast and a glance at the day's news.

But the rack that once held the Lone Star Iconoclast — Crawford's weekly newspaper — now is empty, thanks to a blistering indictment in Tuesday's paper of Bush's presidential record and a call to elect Democrat John Kerry in November.

For a town drenched in Bush, the editorial is practically political heresy.

"Not only is he the president of the United States, he's my neighbor, he's my customer," Coffee Station owner Nick Spanos said. "We're not carrying that paper after today."

The firestorm began Tuesday morning, when readers opened up the newspaper to Page 2 and found an entire half-page criticizing the president for a variety of failings, and calling for the election of Kerry.

By the afternoon, news of the editorial was burning up Internet blogs and e-mail boxes all over the country.

Iconoclast publisher W. Leon Smith, who co-wrote the editorial with two other writers, is unapologetic.

"We're just trying to point out the direction the country's going in, and it's not good," he said.

Smith is majority owner of the Iconoclast, the Record of nearby Clifton and the Bosque Globe. He's also the mayor of Clifton and a Democrat who was defeated twice in campaigns for the Texas House of Representatives.

Now, Smith has become an iconoclast in his own right, challenging the widely declared belief that Crawford and its environs are "Bush Country."

[snip]

As of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen readers had canceled their subscription and six advertisers had pulled their spots from the paper.

Smith expects there will be more, and he's preparing for the worst.

"It will probably put us under," he said.

Smith's desk at the Record offices is piled with paper, and his cubicle is filled with Mickey Mouse paraphernalia — two clocks, posters and even his computer screensaver.

He pulled up his computer e-mail inbox, filled with messages of varying intensity.

Smith said about 75 percent of them applaud the editorial, but the remaining fourth border on vitriol.

"It really appears to be me that we no longer live in an open society," he said. "When you get to the point where you can't express an opinion, then you're in trouble."

I really hate when people pull the "police state" b.s. when their opinion is unpopular. You can write whatever you want in your newspaper, dude. People don't have to pay to read it if they don't like it though. That's not crushing dissent; that's the textbook definition of an "open society". In an open society, people disagree. And they vote with their wallet. If you "go under" because of this editorial, then you need to reevaluate your priorities. Either you give the people what they want in Crawford and make money, or you stand up for your principles and "go under" if that's in the cards. But don't complain that American society is in danger because people don't want to give you money to stand on your soapbox and say things they disagree with.

Long live capitalism!

(thanks to Dagney's Rant for the heads up...and the continued Ayn Rand connection)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.