Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Showing posts with label brain-dead journalists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brain-dead journalists. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Really slow news day
According to some TV news prog in Florida, dis guy is a hoarder. An e-hoarder to be exact. Perhaps I'm speaking for myself, but dat guy is an amateur. 3,500 emails in his Gmail? The HORROR! I know someone who had 100,000 UNREAD messages. And I'm pretty sure I have 6 computer carcasses in my apartment - it's called wanting to recycle them but not knowing where to go to recycle them and maybe there's a part in there that I may need or maybe some day it will be worth a meeelion dollars because by then a meeelion dollars will be an hourly wage. But certainly not e-hoarding. Now the Packer stuff? Yeah, that's a little nutz.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Regular-season game #82: Like a war, kind of
Kyle Hightower of the Associated Press just wanted everyone to know that, even in the post-Bush era, the tired practice of writing only "Mission accomplished" for the second paragraph of a news story was alive and well.
He succeeded.
He succeeded.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Robert Novak: Douchebag, Treasonist, Reality-Denier
No mandate for Obama, no lopsided Congress
November 5, 2008
ROBERT NOVAK* novakevans@aol.com
WASHINGTON -- The national election Tuesday was not only historic for the election of the first African-American president in the nation's history but also for how little the avalanche of Democratic votes changed the political alignment in Congress.
The first Democratic Electoral College landslide in decades did not result in a tight race for control of Congress.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.
*Douchebag.
________________
[11/06/04]
Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?
NOVAK: Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn’t a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. … So the people who say there’s not a mandate want the president, now that he’s won, to say, Oh, we’re going to accept the liberalism that the — that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday.
So in Bob's World, a Republican mandate comes from a win of any kind, but a Democratic mandate would have only come from Obama winning every state but Utah, Wyoming and Oklahoma...
~
November 5, 2008
ROBERT NOVAK* novakevans@aol.com
WASHINGTON -- The national election Tuesday was not only historic for the election of the first African-American president in the nation's history but also for how little the avalanche of Democratic votes changed the political alignment in Congress.
The first Democratic Electoral College landslide in decades did not result in a tight race for control of Congress.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.
*Douchebag.
________________
[11/06/04]
Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?
NOVAK: Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn’t a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. … So the people who say there’s not a mandate want the president, now that he’s won, to say, Oh, we’re going to accept the liberalism that the — that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday.
So in Bob's World, a Republican mandate comes from a win of any kind, but a Democratic mandate would have only come from Obama winning every state but Utah, Wyoming and Oklahoma...
~
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Fox News: where quality control isn't a problem
Braindead Media: Fox News Hires Disgraced Reporter Judith Miller
On Sept. 7, 2002, she and fellow New York Times reporter Michael Gordon reported that Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb." As proof, she cited unnamed "American intelligence experts" and unnamed "Bush administration officials." Subsequently, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld all pointed to Miller’s story as justification for war. On April 22, 2003, she told PBS’s Newshour that WMD had already been found in Iraq: "Well, I think they found something more than a ’smoking gun.’"
. . . . .
"She has a very impressive résumé," says Senior Vice President John Moody. "We’ve all had stories that didn’t come out exactly as we had hoped..."
On Sept. 7, 2002, she and fellow New York Times reporter Michael Gordon reported that Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb." As proof, she cited unnamed "American intelligence experts" and unnamed "Bush administration officials." Subsequently, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld all pointed to Miller’s story as justification for war. On April 22, 2003, she told PBS’s Newshour that WMD had already been found in Iraq: "Well, I think they found something more than a ’smoking gun.’"
. . . . .
"She has a very impressive résumé," says Senior Vice President John Moody. "We’ve all had stories that didn’t come out exactly as we had hoped..."
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Maybe because he gave them the money?
DRIVING THE CONVERSATION 3 – WashPost, front page, “Bundler Collects From Unlikely Donors,” by Matthew Mosk: “The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Rite Aid Pharmacy No. 5727, the 30-something owners of the Twilight Hookah Lounge in Fullerton. But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain -- he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla.
“Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion, is the archetype of a modern presidential money man. The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East and the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit -- who now serves as a consultant to his company -- Sargeant has raised more than $100,000 for three presidential candidates from a collection of ordinary people, several of whom professed little interest in the outcome of the election. …
“Some of the most prolific givers in Sargeant's network live in modest homes in Southern California's Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March. Both Sargeant and the donors were vague when asked to explain how Sargeant persuaded them to give away so much money.”
“Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion, is the archetype of a modern presidential money man. The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East and the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit -- who now serves as a consultant to his company -- Sargeant has raised more than $100,000 for three presidential candidates from a collection of ordinary people, several of whom professed little interest in the outcome of the election. …
“Some of the most prolific givers in Sargeant's network live in modest homes in Southern California's Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March. Both Sargeant and the donors were vague when asked to explain how Sargeant persuaded them to give away so much money.”
Monday, July 21, 2008
Charles Krauthammer: A Douchebag of Liberty
Obama isn't close to earning his stripes
...has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Smiff's response at the soon-to-be slimmer, news-free Trib:
That would be the current president, a man I am sure Krauthammer voted for twice. Bush 43 had ZERO accomplishments as governor or in business, but that was good enough for Mr. Krauthammer in 2000 and 2004. Bush proceeded to become the worst president we've ever had, and it's not even close. While Obama might be inexperieced, he at least has something that Bush has never had: intellect and a brain. McCain does have this, but agrees with Bush on nearly every issue. Krauthammer wants more of that? How do morons like this still have nationally syndicated columns??
...has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Smiff's response at the soon-to-be slimmer, news-free Trib:
That would be the current president, a man I am sure Krauthammer voted for twice. Bush 43 had ZERO accomplishments as governor or in business, but that was good enough for Mr. Krauthammer in 2000 and 2004. Bush proceeded to become the worst president we've ever had, and it's not even close. While Obama might be inexperieced, he at least has something that Bush has never had: intellect and a brain. McCain does have this, but agrees with Bush on nearly every issue. Krauthammer wants more of that? How do morons like this still have nationally syndicated columns??
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Cuomo '82: OF TO WE
Jon Stewart examines the media’s affinity for smearing Obama
Jon Stewart takes an in-depth look at the phenomenon known as Baracknophobia, defined as the “irrational fear of hope.”
“The Irrational fear that behind the mild-mannered persona, Barack Obama is intent on enslaving the white race. It’s true. Wake up, white people.”
Which attempt at smearing Obama is your favorite? Mine is a close tie between Sean Hannity calling Obama a “radical liberal,” and Steve Doocy claiming Obama plagiarized a speech from Mario Cuomo, despite only three words being the same.
Steve Doocy: possibly the most brain-dead man alive (non-Bush division).
And i don't care what anybody says, she did to:
Obama campaign: Wife never used the word 'Whitey'
Of course, this wouldn't be a problem from a certain bitter someone here (Fung).
Monday, June 9, 2008
Well, it was on Foxsports.com...
Found this link on the Fire Joe Morgan site. I didn't know that msn.foxsports.com stood for "The Onion" in sports journalism. And we all know what we think about sports journalism...
Will get a Fox noise label even if it's not quite Fox noise since it's noise coming out of Fox...
Will get a Fox noise label even if it's not quite Fox noise since it's noise coming out of Fox...
Thursday, June 5, 2008
We are living in a golden age (cont)
Jolie pals: 'ET' knew source fake
"Entertainment Tonight" did not name its source at the time. It later revealed that the report was based on e-mails from someone it thought was Jolie assistant Holly Goline.
Shortly after the story was posted but several hours before the broadcast aired, Goline told "Entertainment Tonight" that she was not the person with whom they had been corresponding, a person with direct knowledge of the conversation told The Associated Press. That account was confirmed by another person close to Jolie.
The TV show stood by its story Friday night, with host Mary Hart saying on the air, "Just this morning, a source who says she was inside the delivery room tells us yes, the babies were born and yes, mother and babies are fine."
The show said in a statement Wednesday that it first learned of an impostor from a letter from Jolie's attorney Monday -- three days after the broadcast.
" 'Entertainment Tonight' takes this very seriously and is, of course, concerned that the show may have been victimized by someone allegedly posing as a member of Ms. Jolie's team," the statement said. "We are actively investigating the matter and are reaching out to law enforcement agencies."
The show has not mentioned the story on the air since the initial report, and the story has been deleted from its Web site.
Is it any wonder why and how this current administration was able to con the MSM into falling for their bull$#!+ hook line and sinker? And now we depend on blogs (like dis one) and comedy shows to give us the real news? This report stuff first, investigate later attitude that the whole industry seems to have fallen into needs to stop. Now. I love how they're blaming an "imposter", while if they'd done their JOBS as JOURNALISTS an imposter would not have mattered at all.
"Entertainment Tonight" did not name its source at the time. It later revealed that the report was based on e-mails from someone it thought was Jolie assistant Holly Goline.
Shortly after the story was posted but several hours before the broadcast aired, Goline told "Entertainment Tonight" that she was not the person with whom they had been corresponding, a person with direct knowledge of the conversation told The Associated Press. That account was confirmed by another person close to Jolie.
The TV show stood by its story Friday night, with host Mary Hart saying on the air, "Just this morning, a source who says she was inside the delivery room tells us yes, the babies were born and yes, mother and babies are fine."
The show said in a statement Wednesday that it first learned of an impostor from a letter from Jolie's attorney Monday -- three days after the broadcast.
" 'Entertainment Tonight' takes this very seriously and is, of course, concerned that the show may have been victimized by someone allegedly posing as a member of Ms. Jolie's team," the statement said. "We are actively investigating the matter and are reaching out to law enforcement agencies."
The show has not mentioned the story on the air since the initial report, and the story has been deleted from its Web site.
Is it any wonder why and how this current administration was able to con the MSM into falling for their bull$#!+ hook line and sinker? And now we depend on blogs (like dis one) and comedy shows to give us the real news? This report stuff first, investigate later attitude that the whole industry seems to have fallen into needs to stop. Now. I love how they're blaming an "imposter", while if they'd done their JOBS as JOURNALISTS an imposter would not have mattered at all.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
McBush's free ride (cont'd)
New Chapter - How the media has covered McCain since Free Ride went to press
Many may have forgotten by now that the Iowa contest was actually won by Mike Huckabee, but the media proclaimed McCain -- who came in fourth place, with 13 percent of the vote -- the actual winner. "A fantastic night for John McCain," said the Politico's Mike Allen. Tim Russert immediately booked McCain, and not Huckabee (or second-place finisher Mitt Romney, or third-place finisher Fred Thompson), to be the guest on that Sunday's Meet the Press. Matthews seemed to sum up the media's thoughts about the senator in a January 28 interview: "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart."
"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina [sic] came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."
-- John Hagee, whose chickens never seem to come home to roost
Many may have forgotten by now that the Iowa contest was actually won by Mike Huckabee, but the media proclaimed McCain -- who came in fourth place, with 13 percent of the vote -- the actual winner. "A fantastic night for John McCain," said the Politico's Mike Allen. Tim Russert immediately booked McCain, and not Huckabee (or second-place finisher Mitt Romney, or third-place finisher Fred Thompson), to be the guest on that Sunday's Meet the Press. Matthews seemed to sum up the media's thoughts about the senator in a January 28 interview: "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart."
"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina [sic] came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."
-- John Hagee, whose chickens never seem to come home to roost
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Final Word Is Hooray!
"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
Thursday, May 1, 2008
If bulls#i++ing were an Olympic event, we'd show those Red Chinese a thing or two...
Ms. Perino: Look, I don't...I didn't know...look, I think you guys should take a step back and look at this op...look, DOD's made a decision, they've decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something. And I don't think that that should be against the law. And I think it's absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and who are going to be providing their opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk to people.
So there. Never mind that it is against the law. Dana doesn't think it should be, and that's good enough for me. Meanwhile, can't we all just get back to hating Emmanuel Goldstein?
Why Big Media Is Mum About Its Propaganda Habit
Shameful Days: Why Won't The Media Pursue the Pentagon Propaganda Scandal?
Multiple choice: Of the following, which outlet covered two recent major national security stories -- NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, or ... Comedy Central?
TV Networks Remain Mum on NYT Pentagon-Media Propaganda Story -- Critics Keep Firing
So there. Never mind that it is against the law. Dana doesn't think it should be, and that's good enough for me. Meanwhile, can't we all just get back to hating Emmanuel Goldstein?
Why Big Media Is Mum About Its Propaganda Habit
Shameful Days: Why Won't The Media Pursue the Pentagon Propaganda Scandal?
Multiple choice: Of the following, which outlet covered two recent major national security stories -- NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, or ... Comedy Central?
TV Networks Remain Mum on NYT Pentagon-Media Propaganda Story -- Critics Keep Firing
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
another shocker, if you can bear another shock
Media's refusal to address the NYT's "military analyst" story continues
"I was hoping to write about the fallout from the NYT's Saturday story regarding the media's use of Pentagon-controlled "independent" military analysts, but there hasn't really been any fallout at all. Despite being accused by the NYT in a very lengthy, well-documented expose of misleadingly feeding government propaganda to their viewers and readers, virtually all media outlets continue their steadfast refusal to address or even acknowledge the story."
"I was hoping to write about the fallout from the NYT's Saturday story regarding the media's use of Pentagon-controlled "independent" military analysts, but there hasn't really been any fallout at all. Despite being accused by the NYT in a very lengthy, well-documented expose of misleadingly feeding government propaganda to their viewers and readers, virtually all media outlets continue their steadfast refusal to address or even acknowledge the story."
Monday, April 21, 2008
ooh snap
Such defacing of American values is to be expected, I guess, from a network whose debate moderators refuse to wear flag pins.
-- Frank Rich
-- Frank Rich
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Why journalists SUCK (cont)
Jane Fonda uses vulgar slang on 'Today', NBC apologizes
First, of course, who da phokk cares? Second, why is dis news? Third, dey don't tell you what she said that required an apology. You have to read the comments to find out what she said, not the story itself. And, of course, dose people in the comments might be lying up a storm, those lying liars. So after reading the story, I still did not know what had happened. Way to go Trib!
First, of course, who da phokk cares? Second, why is dis news? Third, dey don't tell you what she said that required an apology. You have to read the comments to find out what she said, not the story itself. And, of course, dose people in the comments might be lying up a storm, those lying liars. So after reading the story, I still did not know what had happened. Way to go Trib!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Oh, Whitey (cont)
Simba the lion
Can this chemist find the right formula to beat Mugabe?
Well, first of all, probably not, but it's OK to ask the question, so we know whether to bother following developments or not. What got me riled up was the following:
"He could be living up to his name, Simba, which means lion in Swahili."
And how many people speak Swahili in Zimbabwe? Er, somewhere close to ZERO. I'm guessing he was given a Shona name, and not a Swahili one (I have been wrong before). In any case, he lives in Zimbabwe so the Shona translation would probably be more apt, instead of the one African language everyone knows, and just happens to have the same word, as luck would have it.
What is the Shona translation, you ask? Strength. It would have worked just fine in the article.
Can this chemist find the right formula to beat Mugabe?
Well, first of all, probably not, but it's OK to ask the question, so we know whether to bother following developments or not. What got me riled up was the following:
"He could be living up to his name, Simba, which means lion in Swahili."
And how many people speak Swahili in Zimbabwe? Er, somewhere close to ZERO. I'm guessing he was given a Shona name, and not a Swahili one (I have been wrong before). In any case, he lives in Zimbabwe so the Shona translation would probably be more apt, instead of the one African language everyone knows, and just happens to have the same word, as luck would have it.
What is the Shona translation, you ask? Strength. It would have worked just fine in the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
