PoliticsI Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: TimF2/23/2012 8:13:36 PM
1 Recommendation   of 35833
February 22, 2012, 8:19 am
This seems to represent the general MSM reaction to Peter Gleick’s fraud in obtaining Heartland documents:

Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents….

It’s very tempting for scientists and their allies to employ to tactics of their over-aggressive critics. Yet the global warming camp must make an affirmative case for ambitious action on carbon emissions. Critics need only poke holes in the scientists’ arguments, or, as is so often the case in global warming debates, merely insist they’ve done so. Manipulation and perfidy work much better for the deniers.

Whatever the misdeeds of those who attack climate research, however braindead the opposition to climate scientists appears to be, advocates degrade themselves when they allow their frustrations to get the better of their ethical responsibilities. They lend credence to the (wrong) impression that both sides of the debate are equally worthy of criticism, that global warming is another ideological war that both sides fight deceitfully. In that context, those who want to spend lots of money to green the economy lose, and those who want to do nothing win. As Rick Santorum tours the country accusing climate activists of treachery and conspiracy, this should be only more obvious.

In other words, shame on Gleick for stooping to the level of those corrupt and evil skeptics. A sentence or two of denunciation of Gleick for an actual crime, accompanied by 500 words of unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks on skeptics. Nice. I try to have a “ let’s play nice” response and this is what comes back in return? Very frustrating.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF3/9/2012 12:39:20 PM
   of 35833
Advertisers May Abandon NBC in Droves

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF4/3/2012 9:35:35 PM
2 Recommendations   of 35833
Charlie Brooker - How To Report The News!

Message 28052175

The video is embeded at that SI link, but I can't get it to embed for me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF7/9/2012 6:59:58 PM
   of 35833
My Review of Groseclose's Left Turn
David Henderson
Virtually all of us who identify ourselves as libertarians or conservatives (I'm the former) have believed, for as long as we have been paying attention, that the mainstream media, whether print or electronic, have a left-wing bias. The late columnist Edith Efron, in her 1971 book The News Twisters, documented that bias among the three major television networks of the time--ABC, CBS, and NBC. Now, University of California, Los Angeles political scientist Tim Groseclose has actually measured the bias, not just of the three traditional networks, but also their present-day network competitors and major newspapers. Most of his findings will probably not surprise most readers of this publication. Groseclose concludes that, indeed, the mainstream media do tilt left. Why then do I review a book that tells us what we already "know"? There are four reasons: First, most of us don't know it to the extent Groseclose knows it--his argument is an empirical tour de force. Second, he is so numerate that he makes clear with the data just how extreme the left-wing bias is. Third, there are some surprises in the data, particularly about the Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal. Fourth and finally, Groseclose shows that the biased information people get causes them to vote to the left of their true positions.
This is from my review of Tim Groseclose's Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. The review appears in the current issue of Regulation. Some further excerpts:
The bias shouldn't be surprising given the political views of reporters. Surveys show that Washington correspondents vote for the Democratic candidate at a rate of 85 percent or more, Groseclose notes. Studies of contributions to presidential campaigns have found that more than 90 percent, and as many as 98.9 percent, of journalists who contribute to a presidential campaign give to the Democratic candidate. These overwhelming numbers mean, Groseclose says, that residents of left-wing academic communities like Cambridge, Mass. and Berkeley, Calif. are, on average, much more conservative than Washington media correspondents.

Groseclose examines a few issues to show the bias at work. The first item he discusses is a Los Angeles Times article on the number of black students at UCLA. Groseclose dissects the story to show that the reporter, Rebecca Trounson, presents the data and reports interviews in a biased way. For instance, to buttress her case that the UCLA admissions process discriminates against black people, she cites six people, five of whom are on the political left, and only one of whom is conservative. Moreover, she pulls a favorite trick of left-wing reporters: identifying the ideology only of the conservative. Trounson's L.A. Times colleague, Ralph Vartabedian pulled the same trick on me--although, unlike Vartabedian, Trounson at least got the ideology right. (Vartabedian described me as a conservative. See my August 18, 2010 blog post, "Media Bias and the L.A. Times" for more.) I should note that the UCLA admissions process is racist. As Groseclose notes, UCLA discriminates, probably illegally, in favor of black applicants. One problem he identifies with Trounson's approach is that she missed the big story: the rising percentage of Asians at UCLA and the falling percentage of whites.
And finally:
In an interview with the Hoover Institution's Peter Robinson, Groseclose explained it another way: Currently, the average U.S. voter has the same political quotient as the average Iowa voter. But with no media bias, the average U.S. voter would, instead, be like the average voter in Kentucky or Texas.
I do have one criticism, early in the review, of Groseclose's misstating an important bill before Congress and a couple of criticisms at the end. But the bottom line is that Left Turn is an outstanding book.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF7/10/2012 8:15:58 PM
   of 35833
Hey Chris Matthews: Can You Stop Talking About Nonexistent "Cronkite Moments" Already? Nick Gillespie | July 9, 2012

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF9/27/2012 10:01:22 AM
   of 35833
The Media's Role in Promoting the Corporate State

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF9/28/2012 10:34:47 AM
   of 35833

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF10/27/2012 2:05:28 PM
1 Recommendation   of 35833
'Ultimate News Goof?'
Two Stations Call Presidential Race for Obama Weeks Before Election

If you're a Democrat who's been stressed out regarding the electoral battle between Democratic incumbent President Barack Obama and his GOP challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, you can now rest easy because KPHO, the CBS affiliate in Phoenix, and WCPO, the ABC TV station in Cleveland, have already called the election with Obama as the winner.

During Friday's edition of "The People's Court" at 3:30 p.m. on the Phoenix station, a "lower-third graphic" scrolled across the bottom of the screen and stated that Obama had won with 43 percent of the nationwide vote, compared to Romney's 40 percent with 99 percent of all precincts reporting.

In addition, the graphic indicated that the incumbent had received 40,237, 966 votes while the GOP candidate got 38,116,216 ballots in his favor before the banner disappeared after 17 seconds.

Soon after, the Cleveland station posted a list of vote totals for the Nov. 6 election that again declared Obama the victor in the presidential election and even stated that Democratic incumbent Sherrod Brown was re-elected to his U.S. Senate seat.

It didn't take long for people to start criticizing the stations for trying to predict the future.

At, which is an affiliate of the MSNBC cable channel, a blogger called the situation in Phoenix the "ultimate news goof" made by "bozos" and resulted from "dreamy calculations."

"We bet Romney's wishing he could take these idiots to 'The People's Court' right now," the poster added.

The blogger at stated that he believes " something very fishy is going on with the corrupt state-run media."

Do these media hacks have some sort of time machine they hopped in and went forward to Nov. 6?

Also chiming in on the time travel aspect of the controversy was the producer of the Walter and Johnson radio program on Classic Rock 93.7 in Houston, who said that:

I'm sick and tired of having news outlets who predict the news instead of telling you what happened. It used to be that the media would explain the outcome of recent historical events. Now they just pretend they're psychic TV journalists and take turns guessing at what will happen.

"This is why the rest of the world thinks we're all idiots: because we put idiots on TV as our spokespersons," he added, "and that's what they see when they look at American media."

However, Matthew Boyle -- an investigative reporter for the Daily Caller website -- contacted Michele Wallace, an executive assistant at the Phoenix station, who said:

On Friday, October 19th, during a test of KPHO-CBS 5's election returns software, we inadvertently aired a test graphic for about 15 seconds during an episode of "The People's Court." The mistake was caught quickly and taken off the screen.

With the election about two weeks away, the TV station routinely tests its equipment to ensure our viewers have the very latest results on election night. We regret the error and apologize to any view who was confused by the mistake.

Even if the "election predictions" are simple mistakes, they provide us with an interesting glimpse into how the people at these stations behave when they don't think anyone is watching or listening.

After what happened to David Chalian when he made a racial slur and lost his job as a result, I hope that "discretion is the better part of valor" is adopted as their new motto.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF12/2/2012 6:33:44 PM
8 Recommendations   of 35833

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: TimF12/6/2012 10:09:50 PM
   of 35833
Government Influence Over the Media
November 28, 2012, 9:07 pm
From Walter Olson
According to the New York Times, French Socialist president François Hollande demanded and received the dismissal of the editor of Le Figaro, the country’s leading conservative newspaper. If that sounds impossibly high-handed, consider the background, as reported in the Times:

The publisher, Serge Dassault, is a senator from [ousted President Nicolas] Sarkozy’s political party [and thus opposed to Hollande]. But Mr. Dassault also heads a major military contractor, and there was widespread speculation that [Figaro editor Étienne] Mougeotte’s ouster was meant to put the Dassault group in good stead with the new president.

For an American reader, it would be natural to turn the page with a murmur of thanks that such things don’t go on in our country. Don’t be so sure:

[Since-convicted Illinois Gov. Rod] Blagojevich, Harris and others are also alleged [in the federal indictment] to have withheld state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field. The statement says this was done to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who were critical of Blagojevich.

Read the whole thing. He has an interesting story about Ted Kennedy passing legislation to force a change in ownership of the Boston paper most consistently critical of him.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.