Right off the bat C-SPAN should have aired this hearing. There is absolutely no excuse not to air it on TV. Since I had to stream it online I kept my TV on DirecTV News Mix to keep an eye on the news. The only network that had consistent coverage of the testimony was FOX News. I’m not shocked at all. I didn’t see anything about the testimony on the other channels. Jeff Poor from The Daily Caller helped me keep an eye on MSNBC and he didn’t see anything. He said they were hung up on Donald Trump all day. I was informed by a friend on Twitter, Doug Mataconis, that the hearing was discussed on The Situation Room on CNN for about 15 minutes. “Special Report” and The FOX Report both started off with Mr. Holder’s testimony.

Before I continue I noticed some friends on Twitter growing upset that headlines were partisan. The MSM was right: This was a partisan fight and every single Democrat coddled Mr. Holder. The Republicans were the only ones to demand withheld documents and answers from Mr. Holder.

Right after the testimony ended I began searching for coverage of the hearing on Google. First stop was Associated Press. Remember: If the AP doesn’t write anything on Fast & Furious more than likely the rest of the media won’t mention it. Pete Yost did write about the testimony, but hat’s where the excitement ends. Again, he distorts information to favor Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice. Mr. Yost fails to mention the subpoena was issued October 12, 2011. That’s 4 months ago. That is plenty of time to go through the hoops to release the documents. Mr. Yost says, “Though neither side said so, negotiations are almost certain to be the next step.” If you watched the testimony do you honestly think Mr. Issa or Mr. Holder will negotiate? Didn’t think so. Mr. Issa won’t accept anything less than the documents he needs. Then Mr. Yost describes a few dialogues, but doesn’t bother to get down to nitty gritty of the testimony.

(more…)

The modern Arab-Jewish conflict has played itself out on many fronts in the last 60 years. Israel has been vastly more successful on the field of battle, but the Arabs have managed to co-opt the media narrative. For a generation, the press has been sympathetic to the cause of those who strive to eradicate Israel. This has shown itself over and over again, not only in editorial decisions, but in the blind acceptance of reports coming from Arab sources in the region.
The problem is that those sources have repeatedly shown that they are not interested in reporting the news but, in many cases, in fabricating it. In many cases, these fabrications have been done with the active participation of “respected” news gathering organizations.

In 2006, during the Second Lebanon War, the term Fauxtography was coined to refer to either the embellishing of existing photographs or staging others for the best effect to discredit Israel. The uncovering of tampering resulted in both Reuters and AP disciplining freelance “reporters” as well as having to kill pictures that they had syndicated.

The staging of news photographs, and news in general, is alive and well in disputed areas of Israel even now.

What remains surprising is how otherwise discerning news operations such as the Wall Street Journal still accept, uncritically, the output of suspect sources. Just this past week the Wall Street Journal, as well as a range of other international news operations, posted a picture submitted by Hazem Bader for Agence France-Presse (AFP).

WSJ's "Photo of the Day," Jan. 25, 2012

The caption on the photo explains that the man seen writhing in pain on the ground was intentionally run over by a tractor driven by an Israeli soldier. That is to say that the international press reported, without questioning, that an official representative of the Israeli Government had, without cause, purposely caused a grave injury to an innocent man.
The only problem is that it never happened. There is no record of anyone being injured. CAMERA, a watchdog group that specializes in following anti-Israel media activity, followed all possible leads to find the injured man.

Yet, after checking with both Palestinian and Israeli sources, it seems that the man was not at all injured, and there is no evidence that he was run over. On the Palestinian side, Tthe Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which provides comprehensive weekly reports about all injuries, fatalities, incursions, and other incidents in both the West Bank and Gaza, makes no mention of this alleged injury in its report for Jan. 19- 25. In addition, the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency did not cover the alleged injury, even though it does report on Israeli army activity that day nearby in Tel Rumeida. And Ma’an also reported a hit and run incident, in which a Palestinian teen was hit by an Israeli driver at a checkpoint this morning. Presumably, then, had this worker actually been run over and injured on Wednesday, Ma’an would have carried the story. Nor does it appear that any English-language wire service or other media outlet covered the alleged injury.

(more…)

The formidable Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal notes a glaring (im)moral equivalence in the New York Times’s obituary for Kim Jong-Il:

The real mystery is why, in free societies where few journalists and politicians are ever at serious risk of reprisal, truth-telling seems to be in relatively short supply. North Korea is a vast modern-day Auschwitz. Yet when George W. Bush named Pyongyang to the Axis of Evil, it was Mr. Bush who was roundly mocked. Note the balance of contempt in the New York Times’ write-up of Kim’s death from Sunday night:

“President George W. Bush called [Kim] a ‘pygmy.’ . . . Yet those who met him were surprised by his serious demeanor and his knowledge of events beyond the hermit kingdom he controlled.” O, misunderstood Dear Leader, if only we had known you better.

- Those supporting the Occupy Wall Street Movement are up in arms as 30-year Democratic Campaign Consultant Doug Schoen reported his polling data in the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 18th. Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at Schoen’s firm, polled about 200 OWS members at New York’s Zuccotti Park on Oct. 10th and 11th.

- Schoen described his findings as:

“Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.”

- Here is a breakdown of the polling data gathered by Schoen’s research. Tell me if this sounds like the way in which the Occupy Wall Street, as well as those in cities around the country, are promoting themselves:

• (52%) have participated in a political movement before
• (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals
• (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda
• A vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%)
• An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008
• (51%) disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won’t vote
• (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren’t represented by any political party
• (65%) say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.
• Protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%)

- Schoen summarized his polling data with this statement:

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

- On the same day Judd Legum at Think Progress came out with his view on Schoen’s polling data. One point of contention was Question 17 where Schoen described 4% of the polled OWS members believing in “radical redistribution of wealth.”

Schoen did not specify in the WSJ article that 35% of those polled would like to “influence the Democratic Party like the Tea Party did with the GOP.” Though I can understand Legum’s concern for that 35% figure not being included in the WSJ article, I am more alarmed by the other answers of the “Open Ended” Question 17. With the exception of a Flat Tax, all the other answers definitely tilt Left. What is even more intriguing is that two words are completely absent from this open-ended question in what the OWS movement wants to achieve; “Constitution” and “freedom.” Oddly enough even “Not Sure” got a greater mention as an answer than either of those two words.

What does this mean? It could be open to interpretation but what it appears to me is that those two words are neither in OWS’ mindset or even their vernacular. This further illustrates the clear difference in the OWS crowd and the Tea Party.

Legum also highlights Question 16, however he misrepresents Schoen’s data as it is presented in the WSJ article.

Schoen did not specifically and solely say that a “large majority express opposition to free-market capitalism.” Instead, Schoen described the information in a list of ideologies that “binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education.” The rest of that list is “support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.”

First off, the polling data already documented that (32%) admitted to being Democratic, while (33%) say they aren’t represented by any political party. In addition, (65%) said they believe “government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.” [my emphasis] In order to defend his argument I can only guess that Legum must believe that these ideologies are something other than “Left-Wing,” because that sure looks like a majority to me.

The article on Think Progress is representative of the radical Left’s frustration in trying to sell the astro-turfed “grassroots” movement as a mass, wide-spectrum People’s movement. In addition to failing to convince many Americans that they share our nation’s goals with some lost souls who are part-time activists & part-time street bums, the quantitative data exposes the facade of just how radical are the views of the OWS groups –and ironically, another WSJ piece shows that 48% of those protesting Wall street would vote for the Wall Street President. Lastly, if you have to call in the “rent-a-thugs” of big labor unions in order to try to give your movement momentum, then you really need to ask yourself, “If you are not motivated enough to leave the park when the owners want to clean it, then why should ANYONE follow you?”

In this weekend’s featured interview in the Wall Street Journal, Juan Rangel, the leader of United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), attempts to sanitize the history of what was once one of the most notorious Alinskyite “community organizing” groups in Chicago.

Rangel paints his group as the moderate, patriotic alternative to the victim-mongerers at the National Council of La Raza and other Hispanic groups.

WSJ: Juan Rangel of UNO

The truth is more complex.

UNO is the Mexican-American ACORN, founded in 1980 by radicals who were tied to the left-wing academic/activist Chicago clique that would later produce Barack Obama. (more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Don Irvine and Michael Watson:

In an article published on July 24^th on New York Magazine’s website, writer Seth Mnookin says that The New York Times is no longer on the verge of extinction, thanks to recent efforts of longtime publisher and Chairman Arthur Ochs “Pinch” Sulzberger, Jr., claiming that the “digital subscription plan—the famous ‘paywall’—was working better than anyone had dared to hope.”

Mnookin focused on the latest quarterly earnings report from the paper to back up his assertion that the worst is over for the Times, despite what critics thought would sink the paper. Unfortunately for Sulzberger, the markets are not nearly as convinced as New York Magazine is of the success of the Times’ new business model. Although the Times’ parent company, The New York Times Company, has seen the value of its stock rise slightly in the past few days as its losses were lower than Wall Street projected, the company’s stock has still lost 13% of its value over the past six months. For comparison, the S&P 500 index has gained 4% over that interval.

According to the website, News&Tech, The New York Times Co. said it lost more than $119 million in the second quarter of 2011, largely because of a write-down of $161 million, reflecting the declining value of its Regional Media Group, which runs its regional papers. It said that excluding the write-down, the Times posted a profit of $82.9 million on revenues of $576 million.

Mnookin also mentioned the early repayment of a $250 million loan that the Times received from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu in 2009 as another sign of improving health. But as Times CFO Jim Folio noted on a recent earnings conference call, this was largely due to the fact that the company raised an additional $225 million last year through the sale of bonds, combined with the net proceeds of $117 million from the recent sale of a portion of their ownership in the Fenway Sports Group, which owns the Boston Red Sox. The repayment of the loan will cost the company $279 million in total and will reduce the cash on hand to approximately $240 million, or about $160 million less than they had at the end of last year.

(more…)

The phone hacking scandal that has killed the News of the World will surely engulf the entire Murdoch empire.

Could there by any greater cause for celebration? Could there be any news more gleeful? Is any other news worth reporting?

Let the Geraldos and the Hannitys and the van Susterens keep grasping at the unraveling threads of the Casey Anthony trial. They will not report–but you and I can decide: Fox News is done!

The foot soldiers at Media Matters for America, who did such sterling work in exiling Glenn Beck to the castaway island of Internet television, now have a new mission: to haunt every advertiser on the Fox networks, in every slot.

Do you know that by putting your products and services on Fox, you are subsidizing a global criminal enterprise? (more…)

I haven’t subscribed to the New York Times for several years. Recently, while killing time at a local Starbucks, I bought a copy to see what, if anything, I had been missing.

Answer: not much. On the front page, there was only one hard-news article that actually hit the traditional 5 W’s of journalism up front. The other articles each started out describing broader trends and opinions before reaching the critical news details, often on the inside pages.

WSJ Sports: Animal Gestation vs. Modern Playoffs

Unlike the Wall Street Journal, which includes a helpful news summary on the front page and confines human interest stories to one article at the bottom, the NYT highlights trends and themes rather than events.

The NYT method in reporting news is often to introduce readers to a particular context or viewpoint before telling us what actually happened. It is possible to read the entire first section of the NYT and not have much idea of what is going on in the world, but to have a very clear idea of what attitude its editors want us to adopt towards it.

(more…)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s gave a speech to the Knesset yesterday, seen by many as a precursor to his Congressional address next week. The PM outlined his parameters for a peace plan with the Palestinians.  However, if you went by the press reports you would think  that peace was the last thing on Netanyahu’s mind.

The AP story carried by most US papers said, “Israel’s Netanyahu takes tough line toward Palestinians, Hamas ahead of trip to White House.” The NY Times called it “hawkish.” Both sources reflect their bias against Israel in general and more specifically Netanyahu, who they see as a right-winger (and you know how the mainstream media feels about right-wingers).  The Wall Street Journal called  the speech a “stark assessment,” and the Los Angeles Times piled on with

In a speech Monday before Israel’s Knesset, or parliament, that some saw as a preview of his planned May 24 address before the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu offered no new peace initiative and faulted Palestinians for the collapse of U.S.-mediated talks.

Wow, you would have thought, Netenyahu came out in a Patton costume,  stood in front of a giant Israeli Flag and opened with something such as:

Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

The truth is if they fairly reported the Prime Minister’s words, they would have reported that not only were they reasonable,  but they included more concessions than the supposedly moderate Palestinian President Abbas had ever offered to Israel.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Washington Post chairman Donald E. Graham, a former police officer, said on Thursday at the company’s annual meeting that he had no comment on the White House hosting a rapper who had performed a song praising a convicted cop-killer, Joanne Chesimard, who escaped prison and fled to Cuba.

“Thank you for informing me of something that I didn’t know,” he replied. “The question is an interesting one.” But he had no comment.

For someone in the news business, it was an embarrassing moment. A story about the rapper’s White House performance was on the front page of the “Style” section in papers handed out to shareholders and others attending the meeting.

AIM, a Post shareholder, questioned Graham about various news-related matters.

Further embarrassment ensued when Graham essentially took the Fifth and refused to name the members of the House and Senate he has personally lobbied in order to stave off proposed federal regulations that will cut into the profits of a Washington Post Company subsidiary, Kaplan. “No,” Graham curtly responded, when asked if he would name members that he has met with.

Graham acknowledged that the Post has been hurt financially by recent congressional hearings and negative publicity over the controversial business practices of Kaplan and other for-profit colleges and universities, which are accused of ripping off students, many of them disadvantaged and poor. Kaplan “has provided the handsome profits that have helped to cover this newspaper’s operating losses,” admitted Post reporter Steven Pearlstein in an extraordinary August 11, 2010, column. “Although we in the Post newsroom have nothing to do with Kaplan, we’ve all benefited from its financial success.”

Hence, the need for Graham to personally lobby for the survival of his company.

(more…)

Over the weekend, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, Scott Adams, graced us troglodytes with his condescending wit in the Wall Street Journal with a piece entitled “How To Tax the Rich.”

Extolling the creative virtues employed by comedy writers to stimulate new story lines, Adams blithely suggested a myriad of “bad ideas” to tax the rich so that We The Lowly might come up with even more novel and “better” ways to soak those who already fund the public coffers to an inordinate degree (Adams has been pondering this for months, having written what amounts to an earlier draft on his blog).

He’ll reprise his WSJ gig next weekend to discuss those lucky few whose ideas amuse him.  Instead, Mr. Adams should retire from comedic political musing, return to his drawing board and stay there.

(more…)

The other day I pointed out that Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers should really fact check any talking point coming from the White House and held her responsible (fair is fair) for her own ignorance of the end-of-life provision that she debated on Hannity.

To review, Powers said that President George W. Bush’s veto of the bill that included the end-of-life provision was “not true.”  I reported at Big Government, Big Journalism, and HotAir that Bush vetoed that bill which Powers, the MSM, and lefty bloggers tried to use as cover for the end-of-life provisions in the newly revamped wellness visits paid for by Medicare.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop the left and MSM from continuing to use that false talking point given to them by the Obama administration as seen in The Hill’s piece.

(more…)

Yes, the MSM is at it again — and really should do their research before sticking to a narrative floated by the most incompetent White House ever.  While the Obama White House spoon-feeds the narrative that the end-of-life provision first appeared in a 2008  Bush-era law, the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, they forgot that the particular bill they reference was actually VETOED by President George W. Bush and the veto was OVERRIDDEN by the Pelosi-led Democrats and some willing Republicans. The Hill’s Jason Millman, along with the WSJ repeat the false narrative:

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled. However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

Now, the WSJ has corrected its earlier version to include the information on the veto, but The Hill has not. Millman did not mention the veto or the veto override and pins the blame right on the Bush administration. That 2008 bill that dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.

(more…)

Upon reading Slate writer John Dickerson’s breadcrumbs piece attempting to provide backup to Sudeep Reddy’s shark jump in response to Palin’s QE2 remarks.

Palin’s call yesterday for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to “cease and desist” with a second round of deliberate inflation and simplified the far-reaching effect the devalued dollar has on average Americans:

I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air.

[...]

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings.

Sudeep Reddy couldn’t tangle with Palin’s correct assertion that the Fed’s choice of inflation (one of a couple ways this administration believes to be the panacea for a recession: inflation, tax hike) actually contributes to the toxic environment which has scared businesses and investors from further revenue growth and job creation, so Reddy relies on straw man to afford the jab.

(more…)

Too funny for words:

But go ahead and try. As usual, we’re open all night.