WorldNetDaily's Kinsolving repeated false claim during White House press briefing that Castro endorsed Clinton and Obama
SUMMARY: During a White House press briefing, Les Kinsolving falsely asserted that Sens.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama received an "endorsement" in a column by
Fidel Castro. However, at no point did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama; to the
contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he
called an "error," and he said of the two candidates, "They are not making
politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."
During an August 30 White House press briefing, conservative radio host and WorldNetDaily.com White House correspondent Les Kinsolving falsely asserted that Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (NY) received an "endorsement" from Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Kinsolving was referring to Castro's August 28 column in the Cuban newspaper Granma, in which Castro described a potential Clinton-Obama presidential ticket as "seemingly invincible." However, as Media Matters for America senior editor Terry Krepel noted and as Media Matters has documented, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama; to the contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."
From the press briefing transcript:
Q Okay. Reuters reports from Harvard that Fidel Castro has just described Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as "an apparently unbeatable ticket." But the Reuters report did not mention either of these two U.S. Senators repudiating this endorsement. And my question: Does the leader of the Republican Party believe that Clinton and Obama should repudiate this dictator's endorsement or not?
MR. SNOW: I think it is safe to say that Fidel Castro is not an expert on the workings of an active democracy.
Kinsolving's false assertion was repeated in an August 31 WorldNetDaily.com article. The article stated: "An endorsement from Cuban dictator Fidel Castro that praised Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as an 'apparently unbeatable' combination in the run for the White House isn't worth all that much, according to the spokesman for President Bush."
In a July 26 WorldNetDaily article, WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farah reported that Kinsolving would no longer attend White House press briefings because Snow "has been so repeatedly unfair to WND and Kinsolving." The article cited Snow's refusal "to take any Kinsolving questions during three out of four daily White House press briefings" the previous week, as well as Snow's criticism during his July 25 press briefing of WorldNetDaily's July 23 report that "[a]ttempts by cities or other governments to sidestep federal policy and make their own provisions for illegal aliens won't get any attention from the White House, spokesman Tony Snow says." Snow asserted that Kinsolving "thoroughly twist[ed] out of context the answer I gave you," and described the report as "a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism." From the press briefing transcript:
Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The AP reports that Sydney, Australia's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, is leading a campaign urging all residents to pack an emergency survival kit in preparation for any terrorist attack or other disaster in Australia's largest city. And my question -- does the White House believe that this is a campaign U.S. cities should be launching, or not?
MR. SNOW: That would be something that I would not be privy to comment on. And, Les, let me just -- before we get back into a situation where it will be more difficult to get called on, let me just point out that you need to ask questions that bear on the President's responsibilities. I saw the piece you wrote the other day, that has been thoroughly twisting out of context the answer I gave you when I told you that the President, in fact, was --
Q That's what --
MR. SNOW: I don't care. What you did --
Q They wrote it out there.
MR. SNOW: You know what, I don't care, okay, because the fact is, if somebody is going to take questions about things that do not fall under the President's purview -- and I answered that question -- and it gets twisted, that is a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism. So if I were you, I'd pick up the phone and tell them to start cleaning up or writing corrections.
Farah described Snow's statements as "a rebuke, and a threat, and an attempt to control Les Kinsolving and WND's right to ask questions at the White House." An August 5 WorldNetDaily article reported that Kinsolving "is returning to the presidential press briefings this week after a one-on-one conference" with Snow. The article continued: "Kinsolving and Snow reached an agreement during a phone conversation, after which an aide to Snow told Farah 'Tony is very fond of Les and holds him in high personal regard.' "
This would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic and potentially serious. What we're seeing here is the Troglodyte Propaganda Machine doing what it does best. They take a morsel of misinformation, dress it up as fact, and parade it around until the MSM starts reporting it without question. They've done it time and time again, and the Media Whores let them get away with it. This is another "Al Gore invented the internet" slime job.
It has just enough "truth" to make it sound credible, but it's still misinformation.
Ok, let me get this straight....
Fidel Castro seems to have endorsed a Democrat.
And this means what?
If this is somehow a right-wing attempt at saying that Castro's hope that a Dem wins is somehow a direct negative to any Dem, I have to laugh.
What if Kim Jung Il or Osama bin Laden were to openly endorse any Republican?
How exactly is this even a story to begin with?
Ya know what would be nice?
Try actually reading Castro's comments. He did NOT endorse Clinton or Obama ... HE INSULTED THEM.
An “unbeatable ticket” sounds a lot like an endorsement to me.
Another funny thing...Jimmy Carter was his favorite U.S. President. That is also rather telling.
"Unbeatable ticket" might just be stating an opinion. If he said "'I hope they are an' unbeatable ticket," that might be an endorsement--be it a thin one.
You are right individually he did not endorse either candidate for presidency. But he did endorse a ticket with both on as running mates. You can play word games all you want but it there in black and white. He said nothing positive about any other potential ticket. he may not have said, "I endorse them" but that is what is what he meant. And if it isn't I am sure he will clarify in another editorial.
On a side note I think the communist sob is dead and will be glad when it is confirmed.
So Castro sent his, oh so desperately misrepresented missive, from beyond the grave?
He also had praise for the Republicans Eisenhower and Ford. But big deal.
If I were a scumbag liar, like so many in the GOP, I would be hammering the fact that Castro yearns for the U.S. to embrace Republicanism because he had a kind word for Ike.
If I were a subtle liar, like so many movement Republicans, I would say that Castro just gave implicit support to the Republicans. Why? Because Florida is the trophy and surely Castro knows the Cuban voting community in Florida holds him in contempt, that any endorsemnet by Castro would be the kiss of death for said candidate.
Thankfully, I am not a Republican. I can see that Castro's opinion of our Presidential candidates, left and right, has as much bearing on our electorate as David Berkowitz's neighbor's dog.
I never said Castro's word meant a thing to the average American voter. ll I am saying is what he said was not misinterpreted, he endorsed them.
P.S. Heres to hoping he gets buried in an unmarked grave and forgotten by time.
Unfortunately, by that standard, Castro endorsed Republicanism.
Truth is that recognition of fact is only an endorsement of truth.
What the GOP Republicans want to do with this Castro thing is make it an issue with the electorate.
That is standard fare on the Republican menu, nobody wants to eat pig anus so they call it pork sausage. Likewise, selfishness and anger are avoided by honest Americans, so it must be called something else. Ahh yes, call it Republicanism. People will go for that, we live in a Republic.
That's what this Castro nonsense is, more Republican misrepresentation. Castro endorsed Dems in the way one endorses lung cancer by recognizing smoking causes it.
Castro led his nation to independence from foriegn rule by NYC mobsters. He gave it one of the best health care programs in the world. He may be a dictator, but his rule has been kind, just, and free from atrocity. The Cubans have conducted no terrorism against the USA, even though we have conducted terrorism against them and harbour those who have done so. You seem pretty eager to see people you've never met who don't threaten you dead. Ever torture animals as a youngster?
So Castro is fuzzy and kind. Guess you should tell that to the hundreds he has killed and or persecuted. The political prisoners filling his prisons for simply having an opposing viewpoint. The harboring of terrorist and fugitives form the U.S. But his regime has been kind so we shouldn't worry.
Yes, I want him dead we should have never allowed a Communist nation to spring up miles off our border.
So then its OUR right to tell other countries who they can have as their leader and what kind of economy they can have? In your world people of other countries are free ONLY to do what we tell them? You are truly fascist and your zeal for imperialism and hegemony is duly noted.
When it comes to communism, with Truman Doctrine, yes we have that right and responsibility.
Commmunism is a disease that needs to be cured from this planet.
So is Conservatism. It must be that we allow it to ruin us every so often so we'll realize how wonderful Liberalism really is. As I've written here many times; "Look back throughout history. You'll find that Liberalism always wins out. Always."
No we dont and no possible moral rationale can claim it is up to US to make decisions for other countries that is an excuse for Imperialism and hegmoney nothing more.
We have thousands of Cuban nationals who would diagree with that statement. We have been asked to help rid Cuba of Castro and that is all we need.
The INSANE LAKI SAYS:
"We have thousands of Cuban nationals who would diagree with that statement. We have been asked to help rid Cuba of Castro and that is all we need."
And...INSANE wants sovereign governments and their heads of state DEAD.
____________________
Now...That's Pure RepubliCan'tism.
Insane, I got a News Flash for you. Millions of folks on Earth want to "Rid" the planet of GWB. But not to have him killed.
Out of one side of your mouth you want people dead and on the other side you're a right to life advocate. OH!.....I get it now... After the baby is born, then it's OK to kill people you don't approve of.
Meanwhile your Girlie Man Bush is running around the planet forcing Democracy on sovereign countries. Over 4000 of our young people are dead. Middle class working families are the victims, sacrificing by losing their loved ones.
Do you ever wonder why you're RepubliCan'ts are losing elections!
No he didnt. That is dumb saying someone couldnt be beat is not the same as saying I dont WANT them to be beaten. As I pointed out I told several people Raygun could not be beaten and I wouldnt have endorsed him for Dogcatcher of my small hometown.
No it isnt. Saddam was unbeatable in his elections. I knew Reagan was unbeatable for his second term and said so. I never endorsed or supported him one iota. Its that black and white Manichean simplemindedness at work again
Solon, I think it's even more than black-and-white thinking.It's the same magical, wishful thinking that believes that saying the war is going badly makes the troops lose, and putting a yellow ribbon on your bumper sends supernatural reinforcements to our military.
It's the mentality that allows deluded superstitious types to call those in the reality-based world "negative", "defeatists" and "Anti-American".
Hitler and the Nazis were an "unbeatable ticket" in 1933 Germany. How is that an ENDORSEMENT?
NEWS FLASH !!
George Bush has invented the INTERNETS'S
ZOG, Now let's notify all the news outlets of this exclusive, breaking news about Georgie Boy Bush. Not to be outdone by Gore who only advocated and promoted the internet.
Guckert, redux. Let's call on Helen Thomas for her view. Helen ...
Helen ...
Helen? ... Helen? ...
You know that when Tony Snow is lecturing you on the "craft of journalism", things are pretty bad for you.
The media is clearly doing some selective reporting if they are willing to say that Casto "endorses" any potential pres. candidate. They should continue to concentrate on making a bigger stink about Chavez's endorsements and the US pols. and city councils that are returning the favor to him.
Well, you have to remember the intended audience. If you say "Chavez" to the Troglodyte GOP base, most will say "Who?". But, they ALL know who Castro is. It's all about Pavlov's Dogs.
I think you might be incorrect about Chavez. He has been demonized in the US press since Bush took office as being a dictator, and wanting to attack the US, and things like that. I think Chavez's name brings to most people's minds a bad bad man (think about the recent spat about him shutting down the TV stations in his country, only the reports didn't come back out that said people were protesting by the thousands in the street, and he took back that order). I think Chavez is the NEW Castro, except he doesn't torture people who disagree with him.
I think Chavez will be demonized for both "good" and "bad" things, Magnolia, but for every delivery of heating oil he makes, don't disregard the fact that he's trying to become "president for life" and the poverty & inflation rates of his own country.
How bad is poverty in his country now compared to before he took office? He was elected twice by a strong majority, most of them poor people.
Regardless, since they're not good rates at all, I'm wondering why he's giving so much assistance to other countries.
You're ignoring president for life and being buddies with Ahmadenijad.
No, it's not nonsense. If he's decreased the poverty rate, then he is a good president. Our own country gives foreign assistance, and yet we have many poor people in this country.
As far your claims about president for life and buddies with Ahmadenijad, can you be more specific?
I know we give assistance to other countries. I think he does so on a political basis, and that the percent of the total is worse. I do not deny that we are political in some of our actions, but I do not see it to the extent that I do with Chavez.
Chavez has made military and economic pacts with Iran's president. They have referred to each other in very affectionate terms, in public print/news.
And, he wants to be president for life.
I see no proof that our contributions are less political than Chavez's. In fact, the US gives 5 billion dollars to Israel, one of the richest counties in the world, but gives almost nothing to other struggling countries.
Chavez made a military pact with Iran. So what? I'm sure Iraq, if it ever can stabalize, will do the same. Are we going to start demonizing Iran's leader next?
Yes, Chavez wants to be president for life--but he wants to do so through elections, in a system that works like Britain or Germany, which also don't have term limits on presidents.
The reasons we are supposed to hate Chavez are very weak, to say the least. The real reason for the hatred is that he stands up to the US, which tacitly approved a coup to overthrow him when he was elected to office.
Um.....where have you been Iran's leader is psychopathic nut job.
Iran hasn't attacked a nation and cause over 500,000 deaths so their leader can call himself a "war president" and their vice-leader can rake in all the profits for his wife's Haliburton portfolio. Who's the psychopathic nutbjobs?
Bush hasn't caused any deaths. The foreign insurgency has caused the deaths by continually attacking our troops and the Iraqi people.
We will never know the true number of deaths Iran's leaders are responsible for because they cover them up. They mass kill their own people in the name of Sharia law.
Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing
There is no delusion. If the foreign fighters would stop fueling an insurgency you would see violence come to almost halt in Iraq.
Wrong. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, against international law, there would not be hundreds of thousands dead and maybe a million displaced.
First, international law is illegitamite.
Second, Saddam was already killing his own people and there is no saying that those same people would not be dead had left him alone to his own devices.
I missed your point about "foreign fighters." According to experts, foreign fighters make up only about 5% of the insurgents in Iraq. You are simply factually wrong to claim they fuel the violence.
(Of course, the real irony is that the US can accuse the Saudis and Iranians as being "foreign fighters," without noting the largest source for foreign fighters in the whole country, the US itself.)
5% is plenty to insight an insurgency.
Every people by black letter international law has a RIGHT to armed resistance to foriegn occupation. I am willing to bet you wouldnt accept that rationale if the US were invaded by foriegn troops. It is ludicrous to go to a country kill their people then snivel they are killing us back.
We invaded Saddam's Iraq. We are in the new Iraq where we have been asked to stay by the democratically elected Iraqi government. A government made possible by our actions.
We don't kill their people. The insurgency is doing that. If the insurgency stopped then there people wouldn't be dying. The U.S. troops to raze villages and rape their woman no matter what the propaganda hounds want you to believe.
Your posts are filled with so many ignorant statements, I don't know where to begin. Do us all a favor - stop drinking the Kool-Aid, open your eyes, and LEARN SOMETHING for a change.
If we can never know the number of deaths caused by Iran (a dubious claim, because human rights groups can estimate deaths even in closed countries), then you cannot say that Iran causes any deaths. Saying that country X causes a lot of deaths, but then claiming at the same time that we can't say for sure how many, is a meaningless statement.
We know they do it because information does leak out. Just because we cannot know the exact number does not mean we cannot know they are doing it.
Iran's leader may be a so-called "nut case" but that has no bearing on Chavez's making a pact with him for obvious reasons. As I pointed out, Iran will also most likely make a pact with Iran--are we going to start demonizing Iran next?
Iran has already made a demon of themselves.
Well, I could be wrong about Chavez, but I'd like to see some poll numbers. I still believe that only the moderately to well-informed news watchers will know who he is. I'd be surprised if the average Joe Sixpack could identify him. Castro, on the other hand, is a cultural icon...like the Elvis of Communism.
What I'd like to know is why WND is even allowed into the press room at all. Does anyone with any higher brain function view them as anything but a tabloid that plays fast and loose with, you know, facts? Are they even considered a reputable source of information about, well, anything at all? Because pretty much everything that I've ever read in their "publication" usually ends up being Clinton's fault, or the fault of illegal immigrants, not to mention, they just carte blanche make things up. They're really no better than say, US Weekly, or The National Enquirer, or other such tabloids. They have no place in the real world of journalism at all.
Now don't go insulting the supermarket tabloids like that!
Even they have some standards... :-)
Sadly, you might be right in this one.
I'm just waiting for a conservative poster to come on here and tell us all how WND is the counter to the MSM liberal bias, and how they tell the REAL story about what's going on. Wait for it. Wait for it. In, 3... 2... 1...
Well, they certainly do have entertainment value. I bought one on impulse last summer because the cover story was just too funny. It had a black and white photo of a shipwreck porthole with a baby peering out of it. The headline was "Babies found Living on Titanic." I swear.
That HAD to have been Weekly World News, right?
I don't remember; I think it was one of those with the one-word title, like "Sun" or "Star", but I could be wrong. I found it in a convenience store in one of those racks by the checkout counter, between the SlimJims and the Lottery Tickets.
If the picture was black and white, it was the Weekly World News.
Which, unfortunately, no longer is published.
I'm going to miss Bat Boy! :-)
MR. SNOW: I think it is safe to say that Fidel Castro is not an expert on the workings of an active democracy.
I do have to give credit to Tony Snow for the good response to the question though when asked about Fidel's "endorsement" of certain democratic presidential nominees.
I think it is safe to say that Tony Snow, George Bush and Dick Cheney are not experts on the workings of a functioning democracy.
And bin Laden likes Bush becuase he promotes their agenda. World Net Daily and other MSM outlets are trying to promote something that is not here.
Comment on Les at
letters@worldnetdaily.com
Why does this surprise anyone? WorldNutDaily is filled with lies every day, so its reporters must be liars, too.
Right?
Ya know, when someone like Tony Snow starts telling a conservative know-nothing like Lee Kinsolving that he's wrong and his methods are out of line, and he's not doing Bush any favors, hell must have frozen over.
Any word on that?
It must be so tough on left/libs to be "angry" with the media when the major players (NYT,LAT,CNN,CBS,ABC,NBC, etc. etc. etc.) are already so damn liberal. So just to pretend to have something to "complain" about, MMFA actually has to drag out an 80-year-old dinosaur just to have an (and I quote) "issue"...
WorldNetDaily's Kinsolving repeated false claim during White House press briefing that Castro endorsed Clinton and Obama
WHO IS THIS MEDIA "GIANT" THAT HAS MMFA SO UPSET?
WIKIPEDIA TOPIC: Charles Lester Kinsolving (born 1927 in New York City) is a political talk radio host, currently heard on WCBM in Baltimore, Maryland. He is better known, however, as a White House correspondent for WorldNetDaily — the only member of the White House press corps to also host a talk radio show. His pointed, frequently off-the-wall questioning of the President's press secretaries has made him a Washington institution for more than three decades, and earned him a reputation as a gadfly within the corps. It's also sometimes made him the butt of jokes from many comedians, including Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.
WOW! Kinsolving is media titan! No wonder you guys are upset at only having every other media outlet (except talkradio and FNC).
"...media when the major players (NYT,LAT,CNN,CBS,ABC,NBC, etc. etc. etc.) are already so damn liberal." JohnT
LIBERAL ?!? Could you provide a couple of recent examples please?
Sure, right after you name the last time you read media titan Kinsolver's column. (if it's like most people, you migh just admit that you NEVER read this dinosaur's stuff)
An 80-year-old media punching bag has you MMFA types all hyperventilating. How weak and shameful on your part. Maybe I should get my 90-year-old grandma to go over and kick MMFA's ass!
Oh, I'm so ashamed! I forgot that when someone is over 80 I'm not supposed to take what he says seriously. I'm just supposed to laugh at him. Oh, the shame!
The article here clearly points out the misinformation. The misinformer made himself the liar. No one is making him a "punching bag". Your words.
If you come here to whine about misinformation, why bother posting on this site?
What exactly is the misinformation Media matters posted?
And unfortuantly Worldnet gets read and quoted by the main stream wing nuts on radio and TV.
Clearly you are lost here.
Clearly you are lost here.
Ol' John seems to be perpetually lost....
Why should we its irrelevant. It is about WHAT is said in the media not who says it. Try to keep up
Wow, John, the violence, the hate. Where does all that come from? Now, let's get something clear. I didn't make any assertions one way or another--you did.
YOU said NYT, LAT, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, were Liberal. That was your statement, and I'd like to know if it is true by actually reading some proof. Otherwise, I can only assume that it's simply your unbiased opinion.
I'll put the question in multiple choice form to give you a better chance of getting it right:
A) Do you have proof your statement true?
B) Is your statement just an opinion?
or C) Are you a just d*mned liar?
Why do you want John to reveal his secrets? Obviously, your multiple choice question will just strengthen Al Quaida.
OH GOD ! I hope I didn't indirectly put the troops in harms way !
Well, it's been five hours since my post, and JohnTorres has failed to provide proof of Liberal media bias. I think I'll be waiting a long long time.
You'll be waiting a long time in hell, my friend, for supporting Al Quaida and undercutting the troops with your Jane Fonda, Pinko multiple choice questions.
Say hi to Satan for me.
Judging by your posts, reading his columns rots your brain, John. So no thanks - I'll remain a thinking progressive and not become a brain-dead neandercon like you.
Oh, big bad MMFA for pointing out misinformation! That darn liberal media won't report how Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
Yep, trolls abound here. And waste time and space.
Yep, trolls abound here. And waste time and space.
And oxygen...
Remember, the goal of MMFA is not to "point our misinformation". No. The goal of MMFA, in fact, is to merely gainsay anything that conservatives say in the media.
But here is where the real irony occurs. When a top-notch media watchdog group such as www.mrc.org goes after liberal bias at the NYT, LAT, CBS, ABC, etc etc, you guys on the ultra left go after an 80-year-old media dinosaur who nobody (probably even his own children) listens to anymore.
If Kinsolver is at the top of your guys hit list, you must really have things going your way in the liberal media.
Right?
You delusions abound. MRC is only topnotch as an unintentional humor site. The media is NOT liberal and MRCs attempts to show otherwise by studiously reporting the tilt of eyebrows is hilarious. YOU baselessly telling us what YOU think about MMFAs mission is a flight of fancy you slurring weakly and nothing more. As usual your post was worthless
Any media story can be taken either way by people who want to prove their point that the media is liberal or conservative biased. The fact is you are looking for it so you see it. You don't want to think you wasted your time looking for something that wasn't there so you begin forming what is said to fit your agenda no matter what side your on.
What you say is true for YOU. Since you are very much INTO self delusion. I am not that easily deluded. Not even by myself. I learned the tricks of the media and power early on cutting my political teeth. What you said is ALMOST true but your assigning of motivation doesnt stand up to the light of day. Either side can make the argument for bias when looking at a limited part of the media. The truth is more easily understood when you see that the media understands their function is NOT to inform us but to serve power. This translates into reflecting elite opinion. That of the uber wealthy and business. This will manifest itself into being socially liberal and economically and foriegn policy conservative. So no the media is NOT liberal it is NOT dominated by the liberal message and only by being comitted to the propaganda can you claim it is. I DONT claim the media is conservative either. The media is also not monolithic. So exceptions will always break out. I am a liberal and my message is NOT carried consistantly by ANY network or large media outlet. It takes REAL comittment to deluding yourself to claim a liberal media after the way they were cheerleading for a war liberals were adamantly against and studiously avoided any mention of Bush's near constant lying. They HOUNDED Clinton, the sabotaged Gore and treat Bush with kid gloves that is clear to anyone looking. To keep repeating this mantra at this point is ludicrous.
I didn't come out with an opinion whether the media was liberal or not. I said it could be taken both ways depending on the agenda you have while watching it. Which you have agreed to.
True, and the point which I was trying to make with JohnTorres. My point--Reporters report. One's inference could be either Liberal or Conservative.
If Republican's do illegal things more often than Democrats, they will be in the headlines more often. That doesn't mean there is a Liberal slant to the news.
Then why did you take ANY exception to my answer to John who clearly DID make that claim? Your statement it was all about the lens we see it through was still wrong. It is about more than that.
Oh, JohnTorres, you are still there! I'm glad. I wondered because of your absence of response to my question. I made it simple for you--multiple choice. I couldn't figure out how to pose it in True/False format.
Please (notice the politeness) explain your assertion about Liberal media bias. Or, is there none?
Oh, by the way JT, thanks for the MRC link. It's been a while since I scanned that one, and it's comforting to see that these people are still the idiots they used to be.
"Top notch" I believe was the phrase you used. I think I'm starting to understand your problem. . .
Expecting John to provide an honest answer is like expecting Larry Craig to resign from the Senate for his perverted escapade.
Gee John, maybe your 90-year-old grandma needs to go and kick YOUR ass!
I think that me and Tucker Carlson can handle my grammy.
Your grandman is stronger than that.
I'm sure your granny could whop BOTH your a$$es.
:-)
Right-wing neandercons like you are all talk and no action, John.
That's your proof?
Honey you need to add a little ice to your kool-aid.
But here is where the real irony occurs. When a top-notch media watchdog group such as www.mrc.org goes after liberal bias at the NYT, LAT, CBS, ABC, etc etc, you guys on the ultra left go after an 80-year-old media dinosaur who nobody (probably even his own children) listens to anymore.
The Media Research Council is a "top-notch media watchdog group"?? Hardly, John. They're nothing but a bunch of right-wing hack propagandists. And anyone who considers them top-notch has a few bats in their belfry, if you catch my drift.
Remember, the goal of MMFA is not to "point our misinformation". No. The goal of MMFA, in fact, is to merely gainsay anything that conservatives say in the media.
Virtually everything that conservatives say in the media IS misinformation, John. But you've downed so much Kool-Aid over the years you can's see it.
Who made this claim? I know I have never spread that rumor.
The point isn't that it was or was not misinformation. The point is really who cares? This guy is read and listened by a very small segment of people. I didn't even know he existed before this post on MMFA, and I bet a majority of people posting didn't know who he was either.
WorldNUTdaily is a major website cited here often by conservatives. The point is that it WAS misinformation and WND IS media.
WorldNUTdaily is a major website cited here often by conservatives. The point is that it WAS misinformation and WND IS media.
And a major source of misinformation, especially when it's referenced by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin on their radio pukefests.
Were not talking World Net Daily were talking one man. Heck the thing is getting more attention then anywhere else.
Huh huh. We've heard this excuse so much here. When right wingers can't refute misinformation, their defense is that the misinformation is not significant.
Your take is especially funny. You admit that the website might be important, but the individual is not. So now not only does MMFA have to only cover so-called significant sources, but it has to make sure the individuals in those sources are significant.
Keep moving those goalposts we are talking about one man at a PRESS CONFERNCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE. Talking to the Press Secretary of the UNITED STATES. Thus it IS misinformation worth disputing.
"No wonder you guys are upset at only having every other media outlet (except talkradio and FNC)."
More Republican with or against us dogma. If one is not 100% conservative, one is 100% liberal.
Disinterested, neutral journalism? Nope. No such thing.
One man's neutrality is one Republican's liberal.
Just because you like to SAY things over and over doesnt make them true. The major networks are NOT liberal just because they dont slavishly conform to rightwing propaganda. Your weak attempt at a point saying facetiously that Kingsolving is a media giant is irrelevant. He is wrong, lying really whether he is unheard of or a major player is a matter of indifference. He IS in the media, a white house corespondent no less. It must be tough for you cons to be so dumb all the time
I gotta admit, I like the rightys who come here to post hysterical incoherent comments demanding to know why liberals are "angry" and "hyperventilating".
True their total inability to see the most blatant irony is endlessly facinating
This guy does have a point. This is not the most widely read or listened to person in the media. What difference does it make what he says or writes. If no one is reading him then it doesn't matter.
No he does NOT have a point. There is no threshold MMFA has that if you arent read by this many people you get a pass. He is a WHITE HOUSE CORESPONDENT. I dont care if he is a WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT for Knitting today when covering the WHITE HOUSE if he is disseminating misinformation as he IS here, he should be called on it. We all get that the conservatives would RATHER we let the misinformation go for this or that reason it isnt your call.
No one has heard of him and even less read him. Usually if they read enough to have read they have read other articles that refute him.
And you know this because?
He is still IN THE WHITE HOUSE making these statements. Thus they ARE important.
So, you actually believe that if a tree falls in the woods while no one is there to hear it--it makes no sound.
You guys crack me up!
This guy does have a point. This is not the most widely read or listened to person in the media. What difference does it make what he says or writes. If no one is reading him then it doesn't matter.
But people ARE reading what this moron writes. And talking about it on their right-wing radio pukefests (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc). So his lies get spread throughout the right-wing fantasy world - you know, the place where all media is liberal and Ronald Reagan was a great president.
I think your giving WND and Kinsolving way too much credibility. What's next? Calling out the student paper at Liberty University?
If they get to ask questions and get a seat at the White House briefings, sure.
Old gas-bag Helen Thomas got to ask questions. Everyone knew she was nuts, and most people were smart enough to ignore her ramblings.
Okay. Now I'm getting pissed because I can see that you're purposefully ignoring me after attacking me. When I was a kid, we used to call those who exhibited this kind of behavior a "whining little pussy." Now that I've attained a half century I seldom stoop to that level unless it's blatently required.
Since you can't give me an actual example of Liberal media bias that you claimed, it leaves me no option except to declare you to be either a misinformed fool, a damned liar, or a combination of the two.
Check that. Make that a combination of the three (since it's blatently required).
Since you can't give me an actual example of Liberal media bias that you claimed, it leaves me no option except to declare you to be either a misinformed fool, a damned liar, or a combination of the two.
Check that. Make that a combination of the three (since it's blatently required).
----------------------------------------------
Three? Now wait - I'm either ONE a fool or TWO a liar. How do we get to THREE? I mean, a combination of both (which seems mutually exclusive, actually) is still only a combination of TWO.
And in terms of media criticism, remember that the goal of MRC is to document liberal BIAS. MMFA exists to simply give counter "arguments" to conservative comments in the media. I looked at the statement in the ABOUT US section. MMFA is not about fairness OR accuracy. It's only a counter to any small amount of conservative opinion in the media.
If you want a boatload of documented liberal media bias, just go to www.mrc.org!
Re-read my post I think then you'll then understand the "combination of three."
Maybe not, oh well.
Now, concerning MRC: hahahahaha hehe ha ha ahem.
Now, once again, you said those news organizations were Liberal. I asked for a couple of examples. Give it a try, won't you?
This is where you are totally wrong, therick. A combination requires that items CANNOT be mutually exclusive. Now, please, stop being a p*ssy and take a stand for once.
I think that at most, I"m only TWO of those things, dammit!
Are you or are you not a misinformed fool, a d*mned liar, or a whining little pussy? Perhaps a combination of the THREE. Geez! Hopefully you will now understand, yet somehow I doubt it.
After all that, it's telling that you can't provide one shred of evidence that proves your assertion that there is a Liberal media bias. You've had plenty of time, so therefore I can only conclude that you were talking out your Rush Limbaugh, since I've never seen any evidence of Liberal media bias.
End Of Story.
I think that at most, I"m only TWO of those things, dammit!
I'm surprised you can count that high, John....
:-)
Gee, I wonder which two. . .
No it isnt. You cant read. Conservative media misinformation. You are totally delusional and a flat out liar. Bone ignorant and a big waste of precious oxygen
Sure John. Whatever you say. It seems you have a problem with old people.
By the way, how's the bunker, buddy? Still keeping safe from the Clinton mafia?
Just because you are a moron and completely incapapble of understanding the simplest concept doesnt mean the concept wasnt there. Helen Thomas has been a White House corespondent since the days of Kennedy for 57 years. The problem isnt with her. Its that you are ignorant.
Old gas-bag Helen Thomas got to ask questions. Everyone knew she was nuts, and most people were smart enough to ignore her ramblings.
The only people who ignore Helen Thomas are those who are ignorant enough to consider WorldNutDaily a legitimate news source, and the Media Research Council a top-notch media watchdog.
I think your're right. This man has no credability.
Les Kinsolving had a column in either the San Francisco Chronicle or the Examiner back in the early 1970's. I remember reading it back then, and was struck by his inability to see past his own nose, with his twisted intellect and hyper-condescension of all things "liberal."