The thin-skinned attack man on the right didn't like it when the Daily Beast's Conor Friedersdorf pointed out some obvious, gaping holes in the type of attack 'journalism' Breitbart preaches and practices [emphasis added]:
Mr. Breitbart's media empire, and the outlets with which he most closely associates himself, are thoroughly ideological enterprises, publish few if any ideologically heterodox pieces, seldom if ever correct factual mistakes, and ignore liberal insights entirely.
These are outlets that scoff at claims that the Times attempts objective journalism, but that never question the "fair and balanced" claim made by Fox News, or acknowledge that they deliberately ignore certain stories. Its critics cite columns written by the Times' "public editor" as evidence that the newspaper is unaccountable to the American people—yet they'd never dream of allowing semi-autonomous ombudsmen to operate on their own sites.
In his response posted at Andrew Sullivan's site, Breitbart remained completely silent about the fact that while attacking the mainstream media as being unfair and unprofessional, his sites regularly features falsehoods and almost never posts corrections when those falsehoods are detailed for all to see. And that was the Daily Beast's point: if Breitbart wants to be taken seriously, than he needs to start behaving seriously.
Right now, the junkyard of false accusations and pure fiction that litter his sites make it impossible to treat legitimately the right-wing critique of the press. i.e. Why should we listen to people who have no regard to fair play when they lecture the press about fair play?
And on yeah, Andrew, any luck further deciphering the audio from last week's big community-organizers-pray-to-Obama scoop? Keep us posted, okay?
As in the headline to his Thursday WSJ column:
The GOP Is Winning the Health-Care Debate
Here's the latest from NYT/CBS News poll [emphasis added]:
Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the health care system: Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress?
Barack Obama Republicans in Congress
9/19-23/09 52% 27%
And oh yeah, theres' this, from the latest Quinnipiac poll:
Just imagine what those numbers would look like if the GOP were losing the health care debate.
From an October 8 Time.com article:
The general in this war is [White House communications director Anita] Dunn, 51, a veteran campaign strategist who arrived at the White House in May. She has been a force in Democratic campaigns since the late 1980s and helmed Obama's rapid-response operation during his run. At the White House, she has become a devoted consumer of conservative-media reports and a fierce critic of Fox News, leading the Administration's effort to block officials, including Obama, from appearing on the network. "It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."
Under the headline "WH Laughs Off Questions on Czars," The Fox Nation embedded a video titled "Gibbs Is Asked About the Pervert School Czar." In the video, WorldNetDaily.com White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asks Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for his response to a Washington Times editorial's headline, "Obama's lewd schools czar," then asks him whether President Obama is "unconcerned about Kevin Jennings' salute of Harry Hays [sic], who publicly praised NAMBLA?" As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox News and its websites have repeatedly smeared Jennings, a Department of Education official.
Screenshot of The Fox Nation, taken at 10:45 a.m. ET:
From an October 8 Washington Times article:
The Washington Times reported erroneously Wednesday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is part of Homeland Security, awarded the nearly $1 million grant to ACORN in spite of a clear signal from Congress that it intended to cut off funding to the group.
UPDATED: And FYI, this admission by the Times is not in connection with the erroneous "racist" ACORN reporting of Joseph Curl, which Media Matters has highlighted. That remains a separate matter entirely, and the Times still refuses to correct the errors in those articles.
Earlier, Eric took on that ridiculous second-degree guilt-by-association Politico foolishness -- the article that pretended it was newsworthy that of the $750,000,000 Barack Obama raised, $15,000 of it (0.002 percent) came from 6 of the 500 or so people who have signed a petition supporting Roman Polanski.
That's quite obviously not news.
What is news is that yesterday, 30 members of the United States Senate -- all Republicans, all men -- voted against an amendment that would prohibit defense contracts for companies that refuse to allow sexual assault victim a day in court:
Jamie Leigh Jones was a 20-year-old young woman working her fourth day on the job in Baghdad for contractor Halliburton/KBR in 2005, when she says she was drugged and gang-raped by seven U.S contractors and held captive by two KBR guards in a shipping container. But more than four years after the alleged crimes occurred, Jones is still waiting for her day in court because when she signed her employment contract, she lost her rights to a jury trial and, instead, was forced into having her claims decided through secret, binding arbitration.
Today, the Senate listened to her story before approving an amendment by a vote of 68-30 that would prohibit "the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration."
That's news. That's 30 members of the United States Senate voting to keep women like Jamie Leigh Jones from being able to sue their employers when they've been raped or assaulted on the job.
But Politico won't tell you who those 30 Senators are. No, they're too busy scouring petitions to see if they can find a director who gave Barack Obama two grand and who doesn't think Roman Polanski should be jailed.
Hey, you have to have priorities.
But Howard Kurtz says the WashTimes is far more fair and balanced these days!
Whatever. The fact is the Times' Joseph Curl on Monday fabricated news. He made stuff up and the Times published it as news. Not once but twice. Media Matters documented the clear fabrication and the Times, to date, still has not corrected the bogus reporting, let alone apologized for it.
Behold conservative "journalism," where nobody--and I mean nobody--is restricted by facts. Instead, 'reporting,' is whatever story you want to tell on any given day. (Nice work if you can get it, right?)
Curl on Monday went to hear ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis speak at the National Press Club and while he was there, Curl heard Lewis say something that no other reporter in the room heard; he heard Lewis lash out at ACORN critics by calling them "racist." Reporters for CNN, and Reuters and the Wall Street Journal and Politico were all at the same Press Club event, but only Curl heard Lewis call her foes "racist."
So Curl typed it up in two different dispatches as news. Again and again he claimed that Lewis had played the race card. Of course, Curl never actually quoted Lewis saying anything about critics being "racist." (How could he quote her when Lewis never said it?) Yet over and over Curl simply concocted news. He weaved his fictitious, GOP-friendly tale, and spread an incendiary lie through the pages of the WashTimes. And when confronted with the truth--when the Times was called out for sending a 'reporter' to a news event and then letting that reporter come back to the newsroom and make shit up--the Moonie daily didn't do a thing to fix the problem.
Think about it. Under editor John Solomon's leadership, it's now okay for the Times to dispatch reporters around town and have them manufacture allegations. To literally invent quotes from public figures. The Times is fine with that. And when the lies are called out, Times editors will sit on their hands and not fix the egregious errors.
That's not journalism. It's propaganda and the Times is a proud practitioner.
Behold the wonder of Politico. This beaut comes courtesy of Kenneth Vogel:
Roman Polanski backers Gave $34K To Barack Obama, DNC
Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.
BTW, it turns out that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is responsible for the biggest chunk of that $34,000. And oh yeah, Weinstein didn't directly give the Obama campaign one dime last year. So if you're keeping score at home and the "Barack Obama" reference caught your attention in the headline, in truth, Politico is suggesting that Polanski "backers" gave Obama $15,000 last year.
And Obama's campaign raised how much money for its White House run? Approximately $750 million. So, although Politico doesn't bother to spell it out, it's suggesting that Polanski "backers" were responsible for less than .002% of the Obama campaign's White House run.
And any of this is news because...why? Is Politico suggesting Obama and Democrats are somehow tied to the private causes of their donors? That Obama and Democrats need to return the money? That they're supporting Polanski? Is Politico suggesting anything of substance?
As a moderator of discussion on the blog www.exposeobama.com, Floyd has observed the discussion of impeachment is mushrooming amongst conservative activists.
Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn't up to the job. Obama deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis, and he was replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special recall election Oct. 7, 2003, in California.
America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others. In that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.
Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." This worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man, and a threat to your personal liberty.
Worldview explains why he has gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.
Worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor and your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments, transplants, dialysis and costly medication.
The groundswell of calls for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is growing.
In the column, WND promoted its "Exclusive!" "IMPEACH Obama Magnetic Bumper Sticker" with the promotional text, "Let the world know your solution to tyranny and socialism in America with the magnetic bumper sticker: 'IMPEACH OBAMA!'"
WND also has an online poll asking readers, "FIRED WITH ENTHUSIASM: What do you think of the call to impeach President Obama?" From the poll's top 5 responses:
In a column published at Townhall and the Media Research Center's CNSNews.com, director of cultural affairs for the right-wing Liberty Counsel (and anti-gay activist) Matt Barber smears the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, claiming that GLSEN members "promote sexual anarchy and tacitly work to normalize the criminal practice of pederasty." Barber goes on to assert: "GLSEN's primary purpose is to push dangerous and even deadly homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors in our government schools on children as young as five."
Barber also cites an outdated study to further attack gays:
Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.
One such study -- conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada -- was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.
While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.
Barber doesn't mention that this study is irrelevant to gay behavior today. The study examined data "obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992," and the life expectancy differential was specifically attributed to deaths "due to HIV/AIDS." But the first antiretroviral drug to treat HIV was not introduced until 1987 and was only partly effective and, thus, arguably had no significant effect on mortality rates during the time period of the study. It was not until the mid-1990s -- well outside the window of the study -- that more effective treatments became available.
Claiming that mortality rates among gays 20 years ago, when there were no effective HIV drugs, are reflective of gay behavior today is misleading and deceptive. But Barber seems to hate gays more than he respects the truth.