From the Fox Nation:
From Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
Last week, using the comical James O'Keefe arrest and the childish conservative name-calling that followed Obama's SOTU, I detailed the sad state of "conservative journalism." And I wondered out loud what Bill Buckley would think of things. He, of course, was the father of modern day conservative journalism and was known for running the serious National Review, a magazine that today often seems purposefully un-serious.
Naturally, thin-skinned NR editor Jonah Goldberg threw a hissy fit, insisting I had no idea what I was talking about.
Apparently, "conservative journalism" is a paragon of accountability and responsibility. Except, of course, when it's not. And except, of course, when National Review for days refuses to correct blatantly false and defamatory allegations, even after the glaring falsehoods have been spotlighted for everyone to see.
In other words, late last week the folks at National Review neatly confirmed my point about the sad state of today's "conservative journalism." (Thanks Jonah!)
To recap: Last week, after a conservative blogger known as Jim Treacher was hit by an SUV while crossing the street in Washington, D.C., he claimed he'd been run over by a Secret Service vehicle. National Review's Greg Pollowitz then broadcast that claim, stating it as fact [emphasis added]:
Jim Treacher, a very funny blogger for Tucker Carlson's new Daily Caller website, was involved in a hit-and-run car accident yesterday — involving the Secret Service.
But it turns out the Secret Service had nothing to do with accident, and there's no evidence it was a "hit-and-run." Those facts have been known, and have been acknowledged, since last Thursday.
Yet to date, no correction has been attached to the original National Review item, which made incendiary, and false, claims against the Secret Service.
Behold, "conservative journalism."
UPDATED: Turns out that Pollowitz on Feb. 5 posted an "update" (not a correction) on the supposed "hit-and-run." The "update" though, was not attached to the original NR item.
Here's the "update" in full:
The latest is that it was not the Secret Service that ran over conservative blogger Jim Treacher, but possibly a security employee of the State Department.
UPDATE:This is looking more and more like a scandal and cover-uip with every report.
Note that Pollowitz never acknowledges that he made two sizable errors in his original post. In other words, National Review never takes responsibility for falsely accusing the Secret Service of hitting Treacher as part of a "hit-and-run"; allegations that were supported by zero facts at the time.
In fact, in the "update," there's suddenly no mention of National Review's dubious "hit-and-run" allegation. Instead, it was conveniently flushed down the memory hole. (There was no "hit-and-run." The SUV that hit Treacher stopped at the scene.)
So we'll start the clock running again: When is National Review finally going to post a correction for falsely claiming the Secret Service was invovled in a "hit-and-run" accident last week?
In a triumph of synergy, Bob Schieffer hosted NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on yesterday's Super Bowl Sunday edition of CBS' Face the Nation. Goodell's solo interview lasted about ten minutes; he was followed by a panel of CBS' NFL analysts.
Look, I love the NFL (Go Giants!). If Schieffer had contained his interview with Goodell to the amazing season the league just finished, whether he thinks Brett Favre is going to retire again (and whether it will stick this time), the NFL's next generation of stars, whether he thought the Colts made a mistake by not going for a perfect season and football immortality, and his prediction as to whether we'd see the triumphant return of the Manning Face before the day was over (answer: yes), the show would have been the perfect start to a great day of football.
But that's not what happened. Instead, Schieffer opened the interview by basically giving Goodell five minutes to spout the NFL owners' talking points about negotiations for their next contract with the NFL Players' Association:
Goodell used that time to play down the NFLPA's concern that the owners will lock them out for the 2011 season (thus making management seem more reasonable) while simultaneously suggesting that the players are receiving too high a percentage of revenues and will need to give some of that up in their next contract, because the owners need to be better recompensed for their investments in new stadiums. According to Goodell, if that happens, "everyone benefits."
Somehow, I don't think NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith would agree with that. Smith might have pointed out that the owners make their own decisions about whether to build massive monuments to their egos, and should suffer if they make poor investments. He could have noted that most NFL players have short careers, high risk of life-altering injury, and can be fired virtually at-will, unlike athletes in the other major American sports.
But Schieffer didn't give equal time to labor and management, he just let management give its side unanswered.
From a February 7 post at HumanEvents.com:
HUMAN EVENTS announces its first ever Al Gore Snowman contest. Our friend Amb. Fred Eckert suggested that we award a prize for the best snowman made to look like the chief poobah of global warming baloney, former Vice President Al Gore.
With Washington digging out of a near-record snowfall, it's only appropriate to (dis)honor the principal perpetrator of biggest fraud since the UN's Oil for Food scandal. (That one, after all, only cost about $30 billion. The global warming "cap and tax" legislation will cost much more.)
Once you've dug out, please take your best shot. Send us a picture of your snowman. The best one will receive $50 and an autographed copy of Jed Babbin's "In the Words of Our Enemies," the "Cliff notes of evil." Deadline is 9 am Wednesday, 10 February.
The uniform refusal of the Beltway press corps to ever mention Sarah Palin's dismal polling numbers, even when journalists are specifically handicapping her political future, continues to be sad spectacle to watch.
The latest? ABC's The Note. Here's the headline:
President Obama vs. Sarah Palin? Former Alaska Gov. Takes Aim at President:
And the lede [emphasis added]:
Good to know. Palin is feeling increasing "confident" and may even take on Obama in 2012, we learn. What ABC is careful to never mention is that recent polling shows Obama would demolish Palin in a head-to-head match-up.
And that's way the press prefers to play the Palin game. Her God-awful polling numbers, even among Republicans, must never, ever be mentioned or put in context.
Why? Because acknowledging how widely unpopular Palin actually is would then throw into question why the Beltway press corps continues to shower her with never-ending attention.
From the February 7 FoxNews.com article:
Much attention has been given to President Obama's persistent use of "I" when giving speeches to sell his administration's agenda. Is he taking responsibility -- or, as his critics say, is he still in campaign mode? FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.
Being a liberal is like being Hitler, murderer of over six million human beings, were he to have tsk tsked Pol Pot for being so evil as to have murdered three million Cambodians. There is no sense of shame with a liberal. They have no sense whatsoever that anything they've ever done should temper their reactions to the actions of others. They have no understanding of the old saw of throwing stones in glass houses.
The substance of Huston's bizarre screed is just as bad. Huston is blasting liberals for criticizing Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm before a Q&A session at this weekend's Tea Party festivities. See, Huston thinks this is hypocritical of the liberals, because President Obama often uses a teleprompter:
OK, let's take just a minute to go with that concept. Let's say that anyone that has to have notes for every single appearance is an idiot that cannot remember to draw a breath unless he has a note to remind him to do it.
If that is a solid point to make, we have but one word that can put little Steffie in his place, make Sarah seem like a genius, and diss his messiah all at once. That word...
That's right folks, if Sarah is an idiot for having four or five words scribbled on her palm to remind her of the order in which she wants to address the issues, then what is president Obama that has to set teleprompters up in a sixth grade class room to talk to the folks there?
Huston is right that there is hypocrisy at play here, but he somehow manages to miss the fact that it's Palin's hypocrisy. See, Palin bashed Obama for using a teleprompter even as she relied on notes scribbled on her hand to get through her appearance:
"This is about the people, and it's bigger than any one king or queen of a Tea Party, and it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter," she said.
That was just one of several digs at President Obama. (Ms. Palin herself read a prepared speech.)
Huston wraps up his embarrassing little rant by declaring liberalism a "mental disorder":
See what I mean about liberals? They have no sense of shame, no sense of proportion, not a single firing synapse to guide them. It truly is a mental disorder.
Newsbusters Associate Editor Noel Sheppard takes aim at the Associated Press for doing the "inexcusable" -- the wire service "attached to its Sunday piece a tremendously unflattering photo of the former Alaska governor."
Sheppard might want to have a word with his Newsbusters colleagues, who have a habit of using what they clearly think is a "tremendously unflattering photo" of CBS anchor Katie Couric at every opportunity:
Sheppard concludes his post by whining about the AP mentioning that Palin was paid for her speech:
But even worse, the piece concluded, "Her fee was $100,000 for the appearance at the for-profit event."
Amazing. Could you imagine the AP mentioning how much Nobel Laureate Al Gore or former President Bill Clinton was paid in an article about one of their many speeches?
Is this what the AP sees as fair and balanced?
Tell you what, Noel. You seem busy accidentally attacking your colleagues, so let me Google that for you.
This is priceless.
At the WashPost blog dubbed "Politics and Policy" [emphasis added], here are Ann Gerhart's observations about Sarah Palin's Tea Party convention last night:
1) She's lost a lot of weight, perhaps 15 pounds. She looked trim and firm, like she's hoisting the barbells or maybe chopping wood. Her chair at the head table was empty; if she had the shrimp and filet mignon served to attendees, she ate in her hotel room.
2) She wore a fitted black suit, black hose and high black platform heels. She had on three opera-length strands of pearls, two white and one multi-colored. In her lapel, a small pin with two flags -- for Israel and the United States.
3) She was animated and full of energy, so much so that she kept knocking her microphone with her hand as she made her points. Hope the Texans are ready for her when she campaigns Sunday for Gov. Rick Perry. She certainly looks like a woman who has some plans.
Question: Has the newspaper ever made those kind of observations about a male politician giving a keynote address?