Who Is Michael Copps and Where Has He Been?

"The media in America has a substance abuse problem. They're not producing news like they were 15 years ago."

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!?!?!?!?!?

The Double-Standard of Media Perception

Tainting the Tea Party
By Brent Bozell

During the Bush years, the news media were the promoters of protest, the champions of dissent. Denouncing the president as a brain-damaged warmonger was the most patriotic thing you could do (just ask the Dixie Chicks), and it was guaranteed to please the press.

On MSNBC before the Iraq War in 2003, David Shuster elevated the "anti-war" movement as the equivalent of the United States military, only with a higher morality: "The size of the demonstrators, at least here, at least in Europe, seems to underscore that there are now perhaps two world superpowers," he told Chris Matthews. "There's the United States, and then there are those millions of people who took to the streets opposing U.S. policy."

My, how times -- and standards -- change. On the weekend of the vote for a massive government intervention in the health-insurance market, these same reporters had a different take. The Tea Party protesters were not going to be hailed for their courageous and patriotic use of their free time. They were going to be smeared for daring to be.
/snip
Shuster asked black conservative Robert Traynham to blame the conservative media for these overheard outbursts (not that any network had them on tape): "Do any conservative media outlets, Robert, bear any responsibility for that? Because when people hear over and over that this is Nazism on the march, or fascism, or that Armageddon is coming, of course some people are going to flip out."

The whole smear turned ridiculous when conservative radio host Mark Simone told Shuster that every protest has some overenthusiastic people yelling stupid things. Shuster insisted the left had never behaved in that fashion in the Bush years: "Nobody spit on a lawmaker. Nobody used a N-word. Nobody used an F-word."

Shuster wasn't with me on numerous occasions when the anti-military leftist wacko nutroot asshats were spitting on soldiers and calling them baby-killers, marching with signs showing President Bush being beheaded, showing up in committee hearings with bloody hands to accost the Secretary of State, or being generally obnoxious, dis-tasteful and disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with them.

Nope, no double-standard here.

Delusions From a Parallel Universe

Dezinformatsia
Delusions from a parallel universe: "Campaign promises are about getting elected; once there, they are quickly forgotten. Courage is not a word you hear very often in discussions about politics. Not Barack Obama. Whether or not you support or even understand his health care plan -- and the polls suggest that right now most Americans don't -- you must admit this: Obama is a man who does everything humanly possible to keep his promises. He promised health care reform, and he is risking his presidency to deliver it. If that's not courage, what is?" --political commentator Susan Estrich (Try blind ideology.)

Oh no! "Now that we have finally arrived at the do-or-die moment for Obama's signature issue, we face the alarming prospect that his presidency could be toast if he doesn't make good on a year's worth of false starts. And it won't even be the opposition's fault. If too many Democrats in the House defect, health care will be dead." --New York Times columnist Frank Rich

Propaganda FAIL: "John Patrick Bedell, whom authorities identified as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting on Thursday, appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings." --Christian Science Monitor staff writer Peter Grier (Oops, Bedell was a registered Democrat and an anti-Bush 9/11 "truther.")

Rather racist: "One, part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. 'Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.' And a version of, 'Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate' -- this is what's been used against him -- 'but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.'" --HDNet's Dan Rather trying to put words in Republicans' mouths

When News Becomes Propaganda

From Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center:

President Obama is trying to put our nation on the fast track to socialized health care, and on June 24, the ABC network will help him sell this bill of goods to the American people. Tomorrow night, ABC News will transform the White House into their newsroom for what has been described as an unabashed infomercial promoting the Democrat agenda; more specifically, government-run health care.

ABC News Emphatically Rejects Opposing Views

ABC News has abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity in its bid to be the administration's official salesman for ObamaCare. ABC flatly rejected Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay's request to add opposition views to ensure all sides of the health care debate were represented in the "town hall" forum.

Not only that, ABC News Vice President Kerry Smith responded by saying, "ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President."

As if that wasn't enough, ABC then rejected an ad from a conservative group trying to counter the liberal health care agenda. They clearly are not interested in a balanced presentation on this subject.Void of opposing views, this "news special" becomes nothing more than an extended infomercial designed to scare and manipulate the American people into supporting a trillion-dollar government takeover of the highest quality health care system in the world!

Hold ABC News Accountable
Health care is an issue of life and death. If you don't want politicians and faceless bureaucrats making your personal health care decisions, which medical procedures you need, which treatments are affordable, which medications you can have; then stand with us and demand the media present a balanced view on how to reform health care.That's why we are asking MRC Action team members to do two things TODAY. First, take a moment right now to call ABC News executives and demand balance in the health care debate. Ask them why they won't allow the conservative point of view on this show. Second, click here to submit questions to be asked at this "town hall" on Wednesday “questions the liberal media aren't asking. Questions like:
1· How much will your plan cost?
2· How will it be paid for?
3· Can you name one example of the government taking over an industry and the costs falling as a result?

Here is your contact information:
David WestinPresident, ABC News(212) 456-6200
Anne SweeneyPresident, ABC-Disney Television Group(818) 569-7700
anne.sweeney@disney.com

Alert your Friends and Family
A firestorm of protest can bring about quick change. That's why after taking action, we're asking you to forward this update to 25-30 friends and family members. Let them know what is happening, and how they can play a pivotal role by calling as well.President Obama has already taken over the banks, and General Motors; now he's using ABC television to ram his socialist health care plan down our throats unabated. Make your calls, and forward this important message today!

Thank you in advance for taking action with the MRC.

To help you track all the news surrounding ObamaCare and the liberal media slant on health care reform, we created a special website where we will post all the latest news and stories in the coming weeks. Please visit it often to stay on top of this life or death issue.

The Face of Courage

From Michelle's site this morning. I just found this:

I have never before written to express a political opinion in my life. I was skeptical but very interested in McCain’s VP pick. I hoped she would turn out to be the real thing and not just knee-jerk expression of gender politics.
I have two special needs children, (boys 4 and 2), and a 2-month-old daughter. I’m a lawyer and my wife is a doctor. This morning we watched Fox News’ recap of Palin’s speech as my wife breast-fed the baby and I fed the boys.
My wife has been appalled at the depths too which the reporters have sunk and the so-called women’s rights advocates who have attacked Palin’s choices.
I was struck by Palin’s Courage. I don’t say that lightly.
Here’s what happened: the media attacked a postpartum mother of a DS kid, who also has an unwed teen daughter who is pregnant. Thye attacked her at her weakest in her most vulnerable spot. They tried to humiliate, shame, and intimidate her before she ever took the podium. Palin looked like they never laid a glove on her. Wow. I think the message she sends is “don’t be afraid.”
Don’t be afraid of the media attack machine that has all but called you and your family every name in the book.
Don’t be afraid to face down the challenges that life throws you: Dr. tells you that your baby has DS. Don’t be afraid. When you have a kid with special needs you WILL meet a better class of people - the parents of those special needs kids for one - and the people - therapists, teachers, doctors - who devote their lives/carriers to help those kids. Oh by the way - what’s the bonus that comes with your special needs kid?
Lifelong unconditional love. So your kid isn’t going to be perfect. Okay, whose kid is?
Don’t be afraid to be a woman with kids and go to work every day.
Don’t be afraid to be a soccer mom and run for mayor with ZERO support against an incumbent to try and make your town better.
Don’t be afraid to succeed - don’t stop at your town improve your state. Run for Governor and win.
Teenage daughter gets pregnant. What to do now? Erase the mistake? Hide? Get out of politics? Or teach your kids the toughest but most important lesson of all: that decisions have consequences. If you make a bad decision, you don’t run away from it. You face it. You face it. Not alone, but with your family standing right next to you. What do you want to teach your kids: the easy way out or moral courage? You teach your kids what real courage is by example. (My God, her father must be a very proud man today.)
Michelle, tell your kids that’s what courage looks like. Michelle, you tell America that this is what courage looks like. Between McCain and Palin, these may be the two toughest people we have ever nominated.
I donated to McCain today. For the first time.

Collateral Tragedies My Big Ole Butt

My friend CJ has a post up at A Soldiers Perspective, with pictures and everything.

It infuriates me when I read stories like the one in this week's Time Magazine called Collateral Tragedies. The article rails against our air campaign against the Taliban as responsible for killing more and more "innocent" civilians.
The tent stake holding the line on this story is the August 22nd airstrike in which the military claims only 7 civilians and 35 insurgents were killed. However, the Afghani government and a United Nations "inquiry" claim that up to 90 "civilians" were killed. These types of stories work wonders for enemy propaganda and they use it to their utmost ability in Afghanistan (and in Iraq).
The problem here, again, is that the Taliban does not abide by the rules of war or the Geneva Conventions. They use civilian buildings and locations to conduct and launch military operations. They use children as cover for their activities knowing that if a targeting gunship sees them, the airstrike will be called off.

Did you just hear what I said? We will NOT kill the enemy if there are visible civilians, especially children, at the target location!!

Lazy Media Gets It Wrong

July 21, 2008:

American troops in Afghanistan are not happy with how a July 13th battle with the Taliban was reported. In that action, some 200 Taliban attacked a U.S. "base" and killed or wounded more than half the 50 or so U.S. and Afghan troops found there. Actual U.S. casualties were nine dead and fifteen wounded (including walking wounded).
U.S. troops were irked that, once again, the mass media got lazy and didn't bother to report the action accurately. For one thing, there was no "base". What the Taliban attacked was a temporary parking area for vehicles used to conduct patrols of the area. These are set up regularly, and have been used for years. These are secure areas, but basically a parking lot surrounded by barbed wire and several sandbagged observation posts.
This one was set a few days before the attack, and was due to be taken down soon, as the patrol activity moved to another area. Such defensive precautions are taken any time U.S. troops stop for more than a few hours. That's a tactic pioneered by the Romans over two thousand years ago. In this case, it paid off. The Taliban infiltrated several hundred fighters into a nearby village, and opened fire from homes, businesses and a mosque. The U.S. and Afghan troops called in air support and kept fighting until the Taliban fled, taking most of their dead and wounded with them.

The troops are angry because, while the Taliban got lucky (such attacks are rare), the enemy did not succeed in taking the U.S. position, and fled the battlefield after suffering heavier casualties. The U.S. troops are much better shots, and know they killed far more of the Taliban. Moreover, they saw smart bombs and missiles hitting buildings that Taliban were firing from. From long experience, they know that people inside bombed buildings rarely survive the explosion. Finally, the troops involved were from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and paratroopers do not like anyone implying they were beaten at anything.

Especially because, in this case, they weren't.

I have met members of Chosen Company 2-503. Drank beer with them; broke bread with them. They deserve better than this. They would not "abandon" anything, and they will fight to the last man if that is what it took. The 173DABN has a storied history. They are the best of the best. I have a friend who was on Guam when this unit was reformed in 1963. He regaled us with stories of troopers, "temporarily assigned" to the stockade, who would jump a 12 foot fence and laugh at the guards. He recounted an incident of one trooper who refused to report a broken ankle because he would have missed a jump. "I'll land on my good foot" is what was reported to have been said.
These men are "b-b-b-b-bad to the bone" in a GOOD WAY. Dedicated, insanely patriotic and loyal.

The Media Still Lies When It Suits Their Agenda

Ignore The Media: Al-Maliki Did Not Embrace Obama's Withdrawal Plan
Patrick Casey
It's an established fact that the drive-by media is supporting Barack Obama's candidacy this election cycle (just ask previous media fave Hillary Clinton). But in the last few weeks, as Obama attempts to redefine himself before the voting masses begin to pay attention in September, the media has gone from being merely biased to advancing false propaganda on behalf of the Obama campaign.
The latest incident has to do with the apparently fictional article published in yesterday's Der Spiegel magazine in Germany: Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans. The piece, released to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq, purported to 'quote' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying that he supported Barack Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months after Obama assumes office. In addition, al-Maliki was 'quoted' as saying that he "apparently" opposed John McCain's "open ended" Iraq policy. The article goes on to claim that al-Maliki complained about President Bush's reluctance to agree to a withdrawal timeline, and also points out that the comments allegedly said by al-Maliki come immediately after the two countries released a statement Friday agreeing on a "general time-horizon" for removing troops from Iraq - thus suggesting that even the Bush Administration has seen the error of its ways and is beginning to see the world through Obama's majestic eyes.
As soon as the Der Spiegel article hit our shores, it was the top news story on all the news outlets. This morning, predictably, reports on the article made it onto the front pages of newspapers around the country: New York Times - Maliki Backs Obama's Troop Withdrawal Plan, Chicago Tribune - Maliki backs Obama troop pullout plan, Los Angeles Times - Iraq President Maliki embraces Obama withdrawal plan. Notice anything similar about the headlines, although all of the articles are by different reporters?
Then something remarkable happened. The Iraqi government came out Sunday morning, after the Sunday newspapers were printed and delivered, and issued a statement of their own announcing that the Der Spiegel article and its allegations about statements made by the Iraqi Prime Minister were false. Not that it matters much - in general, American news consumers remember the first, original news accounts, especially those concerning a story as topical as this. Unless readers are intimately involved in the subject matter, most such news consumers aren't even aware of subsequent corrections to a false story, unless the media gives those corrections as wide a play as the original report. With something like this, where the original story was so obviously beneficial to Barack Obama, this entire affair will probably vanish by Monday morning.
This incident is virtually a duplicate of another that happened a little more than a week ago, after the drive-by media breathlessly reported that the Iraqi Prime Minister was demanding that any bilateral security agreement between Iraq and the United States include a firm date for withdrawal: NPR - Al-Maliki Demands Timetable For Iraq Withdrawal. The only problem with that story was that it was false, as well. The BBC's Baghdad bureau reported that when they listened to their recording of what al-Maliki actually said, they discovered that he never mentioned withdrawal at all - and that all subsequent reports in the Western media were based on a "mistranslation".
The drive-by media in the United States didn't think that such a mistake on their part was worth a correction - they just ignored the new development from the BBC calling their original reporting (and methods of verification) into question. The equation for the drive-by media was simple. Original story = benefit for Obama. Correction = benefit for McCain (and President Bush). Therefore, no widespread dispersal of a correction is warranted.
Even though the domestic media didn't correct their accounts on the al-Maliki withdrawal mistranslation, as the primary correction of the story was put out by the liberal BBC, I'm certain that American journalists were well aware of it. With that in mind, I'm stunned that the US media wasn't more careful about going with yesterday's reports of the de facto endorsement of Obama (or at least of his plans) by the Iraqi Prime Minister. Two simple and basic facts should have given the media ample reason to pause - first, that there was a translation error less than two weeks earlier, and second, the fact that Der Spiegel, a virulently anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War publication, didn't link to or provide either a transcript of the interview with al-Maliki or - taking into consideration how the original "mistranslation" was discovered - a recording of the interview. At the very least, other media outlets should have verified the substance of the report with the Iraqi Prime Minister or his office before going with the story at the top of the news. The media, however, saw this story as a perfect accompaniment to Barack Obama's Middle East Victory Tour - so they went with it before checking it out, again.
It appears as if another reliably liberal media outlet, CNN, was the first to report on the problems with the Der Spiegel article: Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan. Ironically, that should lend credibility to the correction, since Obama supporters and the left will not be able to claim that this latest "mistranslation" incident is another right-wing plot by Fox News:
A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months...But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.
Surprisingly, CNN does not acknowledge that this is the second serious problem with a mistranslation of remarks made by the Iraqi Prime Minister appearing in the Western media over the past few weeks. But as both mistranslations obviously benefited Barack Obama and his campaign, perhaps CNN doesn't really want to point that out at this time.
For the record, here is an excerpt from the official statement from the White House, released jointly by Iraq and the United States on Friday, concerning points in the bilateral security agreement between the countries that have already been settled:
In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.
In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces.
This transition and the subsequent reduction in U.S. forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the President and the Prime Minister in January 2007.
Pay careful attention to the highlighted sentence above. The drive-by media also attempted to claim (before the Der Spiegel story hit the wires yesterday) that since Friday's official White House statement included the words "time horizon", it meant that President Bush had flip-flopped on his long-term position on troop withdrawals from Iraq. Obviously, the subsequent line destroys that line of reasoning by the media. The position of both President Bush and Senator John McCain has remained the same throughout this entire war. Reduction of our troop presence, including that of combat troops, is predicated on the improving security situation on the ground. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agrees with that, no matter what propaganda the media distributes suggesting otherwise.
In fact, we've always had "time horizons" in Iraq - we just completed one involving thedrawdown of the surge forces that was originally planned and shown to Congress (in an easy-to-read slide format!) by General Petraeus back on September 11th, 2007. We were able to complete that drawdown within the "time horizon" plan from ten months ago because the security conditions on the ground created by our new strategy - a strategy promoted by President Bush and Senator McCain but opposed by Senator Obama - permitted it. If the security situation hadn't improved, the drawdown would not have been completed as planned, as it just was.
The media should be ashamed of itself. They won't be.

Nick.com is pushing slime...and its not Spongebob

ArmyWifeToddlerMom has the info and the links. Nick.com has a "news" show for kids. This one's theme was "Rebels with a cause." Needless to say, none of the kids are conservative rebels. One is a 14 year old boy that has attached himself to World Can't Wait. I won't post a link to that disgusting site. Their lawyer is Lynne Stewart. The same that was convicted for conspiracy with the 1993 WTC bomber. Linda Ellerbee, the liberal news woman, is the host for Nick.com.

Take a look at what Nick.com considers "news" and good causes.....

What's Wrong With This Picture?

afp photo by Wissam al-Okaili
AFP caption: An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City.

I love the NEW MEDIA! Click the photo and you'll see why.