David Frum on CNN’s Reliable Sources: “People Who Watch A Lot Of Fox Come Away Knowing A Lot Less”

Media Matters touts the sensational headline above without a video link, embed, or download of the source material in any way. Not only is the quote inaccurate because it’s incomplete, but it likely stems from a weak survey first pushed by MMfA. They also neglect to inform their readers that Howard Kurtz called out Frum for his reckless statement in this very segment of “Reliable Sources.” This is how propaganda is made, thus making MMfA gulity of the very charge it dishonestly levels at Fox News.

NewsBusters has the complete video with a transcript. It’s also worth a closer look, as the “world events” could easily involve Egypt and Syria because of a previous survey also pushed by MMfA. In essence, Frum may have regurgitated some earlier MMfA propaganda, which they then recycled yet one more time, creating a disingenuous feedback loop purely to bash Fox News. More importantly, Frum was being just as critical of liberal outlets such as MMfA, and Kurtz admits that media outlets are, indeed, biased toward the left. Media Matters simply omitted that, as it isn’t what they wanted their readers to know. (more…)

- SNL parodies “resist we much.”

Is it really a parody though if it’s indistinguishable from the original content?

- “Face the Nation” expands to one hour.

- Television anchors and their mini me stand-ins. A cute art project.

- “Layoffs and cutbacks lead to a new world of news deserts” … or do they?

I had a discussion the other day about how new media, live media (i.e. Twitter) had taken the place of so much of our news diet. We were trying to recount the number of stories we first learned through traditional media. Neither of us could. Whether it was first learning about earthquakes, riots, scandals, we each learned of the biggest stories of the past couple of years via new media. Yet to hear the dying print newsies tell it, all of news is dying simple because of their lot in life. Look beyond your navel. Even in areas where governments cracked down on social media like Twitter, citizens still found a way around it with proxy servers and the like. News still leaked through the cracks, more urgently, grittier, and more immediate than the foreign correspondents, most of whom had been expelled from the country, to relay it.

- NYT shocked to discover that in 2011, some women anchors are working full time and juggling motherhood out in the open. How many male anchors are juggling fatherhood and work?

- If you tolerate Newt Gingrich but dislike Barack Obama, are you a racist? Or do you jut think that Gingrich’s brand of beltway is less heinous than Obama’s brand of socialism?

(more…)

This is not the real Anthony Weiner.

Somebody hacked him and this is an avatar named, Tony…uh….Tony….Whiner.

It’s a subtle difference in name, but makes all the difference in the world when it comes to what is going on here. Once you know what really happened, it will all fall right into place.

Anthony Weiner was a guy who attacked Republicans and made them cry when he went after them. This clearly was not that guy at the seven-minute news conference where he answered zero questions. He wasn’t asked what his name was, so since the media didn’t ask, we still can’t be sure who that was.

Even libs in the media are confused with who this new guy was who showed up at a news conference to talk about how Karl Rove, or somebody named Karl Rove, must’ve been looking over his shoulder while doing secret surveillance thanks to the Patriot Act and found his password (which BTW was “ImNotMarkFoley”) and hacked his Twitter account. (more…)

By now, you’ve all seen it.  Gawker has reported on it, as has Huffington Post and Jake Tapper, among others.

It was tweeted this afternoon from the official Secret Service Twitter account and subsequently deleted by its author.  But Twitter has no mercy … delete can only delete if no eyes ever saw it in the first place.  Unfortunately for one Secret Service employee, eyes saw it.

I called the Secret Service Office of Public Affairs to ask for a comment.  I asked the question and almost immediately after identifying myself, was transferred to the voice mail of spokesman Robert Novy.  Luckily, Jake Tapper had already reached the office and received an official statement:

“An employee with access to the Secret Service’s Twitter account, who mistakenly believed they were on their personal account, posted an unapproved and inappropriate tweet,” Special Agent in Charge Edwin M. Donovan said in a statement to ABC News. “The tweet did not reflect the views of the U.S. Secret Service and it was immediately removed. We apologize for this mistake, and the user no longer has access to our official account. “

My first question was, ‘why is the Secret Service monitoring FOX News in the first place’?  But then I realized that such agencies monitor news outlets all the time – if they didn’t, they wouldn’t know which person in Congress just said something stupid that might prompt a foreign entity, or perhaps terrorists, to get really pissed at us.  And for other generally harmless reasons, too, of course.  It’s their public affairs staff doing the monitoring.  And besides, it’s Twitter.  We all know, Twitter is a public sandbox – you get in and play, and anyone can see you, and play with you.

I will admit however, I was slightly irked when I saw this in Jake Tapper’s report:

(more…)

Within hours of the release of Lila Rose’s shocking and dismaying Planned Parenthood video, the leftist media trotted its favorite phrase for shutting out citizen journalists: “selectively edited.”  I suggested jokingly that it would happen, but sadly, the left is all too predictable.

Of course we see that smear from all the usual suspects:  Media Matters’ initial knee-jerk reaction was to dismiss the video merely for being “abridged,” then put in an update with a link to “what [Live Action] say[s] is” the full video.  The New York Times’ blurb coverage of the event repeated Planned Parenthood’s claim that the video was questionable because it was “edited.”  CBS News uses the phrase twice, first trying to associate the video with the discredited and unrelated allegations of selective editing levied against James O’Keefe, then as weasel-word insinuation: “Seemingly in response to criticism that it may have selectively edited the video, Live Action on Tuesday afternoon made public what it says is the full video of the New Jersey Planned Parenthood sting.”

First off, I would love to see what kind of “context” can justify recommending that a pimp have his post-abortion underage sex workers only perform sex acts “above the waist.”  Progressive commenters, please let me know what sort of ancillary statement can put that comment into perspective.  Second, it’s time to take that “selective editing” phrase and shove it back in the face of the MSM.

Editing, by its very nature, is selective and subjective.  You have too much video/audio for the time you believe your audience will pay attention to your message, so you select which footage you want to include.  “Selective editing” is as redundant as saying “jacket coat” or “blowhard Olbermann.”  But if the MSM believes that the very act of editing video immediately destroys its credibility, then we need to hold them to the same standard.

Take this recent news package from CBS:

(more…)

There is nothing more amusing than when two people known for being non-objective argue over objectivity . This is the summation of Keith Olbermann vs Ted Koppell.

Koppell name-checked Olbermann in his Washington Post editorial, writing:

To witness Keith Olbermann – the most opinionated among MSNBC’s left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts – suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.

Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?

[...]

They [Fox, MSNBC, CNN] show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

That slap had to sting, and sting it did. Olbermann countered by saying that Koppell wasn’t … partisan … enough.

Interesting strategy, let’s see how this plays out!

(more…)

The Left nauseatingly pays lip service to the terms “tolerance” and “diversity.” In reality, they are highly intolerant and they hate diversity, particularly diversity of thought. They hate free markets and really loathe free marketplaces of ideas. As such, the stompy foot temper tantrums were in full force when it was announced that Andrew Breitbart and Dana Loesch, would be participating in ABC’s election night coverage. A coordinated effort between the usual suspects immediately, and predictably, sprung up. How dare ABC include people who won’t merely spout the Left’s talking points and somehow blame George W. Bush and people too stupid to understand the “nuance” of Democrats and their policies?  Oh, and racists, natch.

The first usual suspect to start shrieking in typical intolerant lefty fashion was the ever-inane Media Matters. Media Matters, an organization filled with tools so sanctimonious that they give themselves titles like “Senior Fellow.” Dude. You are a blogger. They, of course, offered only ad hominem attacks on Breitbart, like calling him a “propagandist.” Hello, pot! Meet kettle.  Cowardly ABC  immediately started to spin, by offering Media Matters this wuss statement:

ABC News’ David Ford told Media Matters: “He will be one of many voices on our air, including Bill Adair of Politifact. If Andrew Breitbart says something that is incorrect, we have other voices to call him on it.”

Because, of course, the liberally biased Politifact would be the one to go to if Andrew Breitbart did something pesky like, you know, tell the truth. The ever buffoonish Keith Olbermann weighed in as well and, having no actual argument, resorted to fart jokes. No, really. The Huffington Post joined the fray and soon thereafter ABC spinelessly caved and issued a statement walking back Andrew Breitbart’s participation on election night; a statement full of lies, even going so far as to claim that Andrew Breitbart was never meant to be part of that night’s broadcast coverage. Alas, email is a funny thing. The emails sent from ABC to Andrew Breitbart expose the truth. ABC executives, in an attempt to cover their own hides out of fear of the Left not only caved to the Left’s intimidation attempts, but also lied when they did so. A snippet: (more…)

“Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings.” So said Cleric Sa’d Arafat earlier this year. Last month, a Wellesley, Massachusetts public school took a trip to a mosque, where the school children were taught to pray to that same Allah.

The result is stunning: an unabashed exercise in Islamic dawa, the “call to Islam” and the manner by which the Brotherhood’s spiritual guide, Yusuf Qaradawi, promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” Qaradawi — wonder of wonders — is a trustee of the Roxbury mosque (although he is banned from the U.S. for sanctioning terrorism). As the video relates, “Dawa Net,” one Islamic organization that instructs on how to use the schools to inculcate the young, explains that public schools in America are “fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students.”

Well, except for the icky girls. Cooties, and all. They were not allowed to take part in the “tolerance” indoctrination. Have to teach these girls how to show respect! And teach them a little about  the benefits of misogynistic subjugation in the Muslim world, right? See, they were shockingly told – as they were shuttled off to an area away from males – that Islam is “pro-women” and “Islam was actually very advanced in terms of recognizing women’s rights.” They were also told this:

At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, women were allowed to express their opinions and vote. In this country, women didn’t gain that right until less than a hundred years ago.

Of course. Blame America and try to make some sort of sick moral relativism argument. What’s the matter with you rube Islamophobes? Muhammad let women vote and express their opinions. Of course, they were then beaten for them, but still. In Islam, it is an honor to be beaten by your husband! There is even etiquette and stuff. We honor women by beating the crap out of them. Sheesh!

I mean, just let the cleric S’ad Arafat explain further:

Car chases are the norm out west and no self-respecting urban news operation is without a chopper or two to track them from the air.  Audiences love them, in part because everyone secretly hopes for a spectacular crash or shoot-out, Hollywood-style, to bring the action to a satisfactory conclusion.

Sometimes even the reporters do, too:

One of the nation’s highest-ranking former spy hunters says that the individuals responsible for the theft and publication of tens of thousands of secret military documents should be prosecuted under federal espionage laws. The Obama Administration is pursuing the disclosure of more than 90,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks.org as merely the mishandling of classified information – a far less serious offense than espionage.

Administration supporters say that the leak was not espionage. But one of the country’s most successful counterintelligence officials argues the contrary – and says that legal precedent proves it.

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid

“We have an excellent precedent in the case of Samuel Loring Morison,” the naval intelligence analyst who compromised top secret U.S. imagery intelligence capabilities, says Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, who as Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive from 2004-2006 was the nation’s second-ranking counterintelligence official. Morison served a two-year sentence on conviction of espionage for having compromised U.S. secrets – not to a foreign intelligence service, but to a British publishing company.

“The Morison case was an espionage case. Morison was charged with espionage because he provided classified information to a foreign power,” deGraffenreid tells BigPeace.com. It doesn’t matter that the foreign power was a private media company housed in one of the most solid and reliable American allies: “Morison stole U.S. secrets and provided them to Jane’s, the British military publisher. It was like taking U.S. defense secrets and laying them out in the street in front of the Russians.”

(more…)

How quickly it all happened: five years ago, and certainly ten, the idea that the daily newspaper would no longer be part of our morning routine would have seemed unthinkable to the majority of Americans.  And yet, in retrospect, it was inevitable: the speed and versatility of the internet, plus its inter-activity, made the daily newspaper obsolete, racheted up the speed of news to near the speed of light and put a premium on old-fashioned journalistic virtues that had gotten lost in the “professionalization” of journalism during the latter half of the 20th century.

More about that in a moment, but first this breaking news from the Wall Street Journal:

The Internet is poised to overtake newspapers as the second-largest U.S. advertising medium by revenue behind television, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Global Entertainment and Media Outlook for 2010 to 2014.

The online ad business, excluding mobile ads, is set to expand to $34.4 billion in 2014 from $24.2 billion in 2009, according to the report, which PwC plans to release Tuesday.

Newspapers, meanwhile, continue to suffer from a decline in advertising revenue. According to numbers released by the Newspaper Association of America earlier this year, print advertising revenue dropped 28.6% in 2009 to $24.82 billion. The PwC report estimates that print advertising in newspapers will hit $22.3 billion by 2014.

(more…)

Should the National Enquirer get the Pulitzer Prize for its multi-year investigation of the John Edwards affair, scandal and cover-up? That’s a question that’s been asked lately: in some cases, at the same Mainstream Media papers which participated in the news blackout of the Enquirer’s Edwards’ coverage.

Edwards, who had been Sen. John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, was one of the front-runners at the time the Enquirer broke the second installment of the story on December 18, 2007.

The Enquirer released an abundance of easily-verifiable information at that time: Rielle Hunter, a former Edwards campaign worker, was pregnant with what the Enquirer reported was Edwards’ love child; she had been moved within five miles of the Edwards campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill, NC; Hunter was living an exclusive gated community, a few houses down the street from Edwards’ former Director of Finance, Andrew Young; and, she was driving around in a BMW registered to Young.  Add all this to the fact that information about Hunter had disappeared from the Internet and other publicly-searchable databases and the MSM was handed a great story. (more…)