The New Republic’s Jason Zengerle beat me to the punch in commenting on this morning’s New York Times piece about Fred Thompson’s presidential-campaign-that-isn’t-yet-a-campaign. While it’s not a fluff piece, the article somehow manages to neglect to mention some key—and very well-reported—developments in the Thompson camp. Zengerle writes that “the Times doesn’t bother mentioning that Thompson’s stealth campaign has been plagued by staff turmoil—it’s already on its third manager—and that much of the excitement that Thompson stoked at the elite and grassroots levels of the GOP when he first started toying with running has dissipated.”
Note to the Times: When you’re doing a round-up story like this, it helps to, you know, round up all the pertinent information on the subject. Thompson’s inability to retain a campaign manager, before even launching a campaign, is pretty newsworthy stuff.
Don't worry, Mr. McLeary.
If Thompson runs, some stalwart "professional journalist" somewhere will dig up all the dirt there is.
Who knows? Maybe your liberal pals will score big and turn up some Jewish ancestry or perhaps out a closeted homosexual relative.
THEN you'll have some "blockbuster" reporting that meets your high standards.
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 16 Aug 2007 at 12:10 PM
Still trolling with your one issue, Padi? If you haven't noticed, the press attack candidates as soon as anyone throws chum in the water, regardless of the truth of the claim. Usually candidates hang themselves, hence the defenders of both Allen (like yourself) and Kerry have nothing to complain about. There will always be a windsurfing picture or a noose in the closet.
Posted by Circus Boy
on Thu 16 Aug 2007 at 08:14 PM
Circus Boy wrote
Still trolling with your one issue, Padi? If you haven't noticed, the press attack candidates as soon as anyone throws chum in the water, regardless of the truth of the claim.
padikiller responds
Oh REALLY?...
Let't put your little hypothesis to the test, shall we?
Last year, two U.S. senators in adjacent states (George Allen in Virginia and and Robert Byrd in West Virginia) were up for reelection..
Allen was accused of racist conduct in his past- accusations that were unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, except by the diatribes of his political opponents.
Byrd, on the other hand, was a FORMER TERRORIST. An admitted KKK "Grand Kleagle" who recruited other terrorists. He also filibustered against the Civil Rights Act and has the dubious distinction of being the only human on Earth to have voted against BOTH black Supreme Court Justices... AND he has recently has used the "N-word" profusely.
Now WHERE do we see the MSM hopping all over Byrd?. Where is Paul McLeary delving into Byrd's terroristic past? How many black Americans were lynched or terrorized because of Sen. Robert Byrd?
Huh, Sport? Can you give us an answer?
Moving on...
In 2004, it turned out that Sen. John Kerry, who had been playing the part of a good Boston Irish boy, was in FACT half Jewish, and has not a single Irish gene swimming around in his pool.
Sen. Allen has a similar Jewish heritage.
What does a man's ancestry have to do with ANYTHING?
But guess which one of these heritages Mr. McLeary deemed to be a "blockbuster" (his choice of adjectives, mind you, not mine) pre-election revelation?
Tell you what, Circus Boy... Search the CJR archives and then back to us with a defense of your ridiculous assertion, OK?
Until then.
Think first, then post...
Learn it, live it, love it.
It's good for humanity.
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 16 Aug 2007 at 09:26 PM
Padi,
I really could care less if you think that you're the moderator that decides who wins the argument. It's certainly not because you say so. You're line of logic is ridiculous.
You've charged that the media is liberally biased because they haven't jumped on candidates for specific incidents. Your selective memory about John Kerry is interesting, as I Kerry's Jewsish geneology was old news by the election. I'm not a fan of Senator Byrd, but his history is not a secret.
However, the media jumped on him for saying he had been in Cambodia but never criticized his main accuser, John O'Neill, of telling Nixon the same.
Is it the liberal media going after Edwards for $400 haircuts or Richardson's aide resigning for having worked in a brothel? The answer is, no. Whatever sells news. The media is selling news to its demographics, and you'll find salacious tabloid fare on both Drudge and Huffington post.
Allen's bigoted past has been substantiated. You're just in a state of denial. He also took campaign contributions from Murray energy and spoke out against the overregulation of mines. We can't have that now, can we?
Posted by Circus Boy
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 at 03:14 PM
I've raised the ire of a wounded McLearyite, apparently.
Delusions of journalistic equity and fairness permeate McLearyland. And the denizens dislike having their fairy tales spoiled by the facts.
But what the Hell... I'll play.
Show me a single article where the media "jumped" on John Kerry for his mythological little trip to Cambodia. I don't recall seeing any hard-hitting questions, but hey- I'm all ears...
And what difference does it make when a man's ancestry is discovered? What about a man's ancestry creates a "blockbuster" preelection story of national import.?
HUH?..
The media is hardly "going after" Jonathan Edwards and his $400 hairdos. The news in fact broke on the web. More importantly, the media is almost completely ignoring Edward's lies about his book deal (specifically his false claim to have donated the proceeds to charity) and also ignoring his dabbling in the sub-prime mortgage business (including a few dozen foreclosures of property owned by Katrina victims).
Senator Byrd's KKK history is "not a secret"? LOL! You couldn't reach this conclusion by searching the CJR archives. Not a preelection PEEP from any of the "watchdogs" here!
George Allen's "bigoted past" was "substantiated" in the same way that Dan Rather's false memos were "validated"... For every claim of racism made against Allen, more denials came. The great majority of the players on his UVA football team flatly refuted the allegations made by a small minority. That's a good enough "substantiation" for the MSM.
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 at 04:44 PM
Padi wrote:
"Show me a single article where the media "jumped" on John Kerry for his mythological little trip to Cambodia. I don't recall seeing any hard-hitting questions, but hey- I'm all ears..."
If you Google "kerry" and "Cambodia", the first hit will be the Washington Post. Whether this challenge proves anything except you weren't following it, I don't know.
Now instead of a guy trolling with his own perception of one incident, your argument tries to push the slippery slide to where I have to defend everything McLeary writes. Ridiculous.
You apparently were not reading the news concerning the mainstream media's preoccupation of Edward's hair. Because you apparently were on vacation at the time, don't blame me. They went after Romney for makeup. It's hardly journalism.
Whether you make up your own reason that allows you to not recognize Allen's bigotry is up to you. When Allen associates with white supremicists, being Jewish is a blockbuster issue. If Kerry did the same, my apologies. You've only proven that you yourself maybe were barely conscious, perhaps reading the wrong blogs. Argue with yourself.
you might want to pay better attention, though
Posted by Circus Boy
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 at 07:23 PM
LOL...
We seem to be digressing. We musnn't wander to far "afield" of the original topic, lest we violate CJR's recently modified anti--padikiller commenting rules.
The MSM is unquestionably a liberal mainstay. Every objective study ever done, even the ones commisioned by MSM outlets, shows that Democrats outnumber Repulicans in the world of "professional journalism" by about a 9 to 1 margin, and that this biase is reflected in reporting. Denying this reality is tantamount to denying that the earth is round.
So let's head back to McLearyland.
Show me a CJR article that "jumps" on John Kerry's "jewishness"... Or that explores Sen. Byrd's racist past. Good luck. (You'll need it).
Heck, for that matter, show me a CJR article that delves into the allegations of racism made against Sen. Allen's opponent, Sen. Webb.
Show us a CJR article dealing with Sandy Berger's conviction for stealing and destroying classified documents relating to President Clinton's knowledge of pre 9/11 threats. (Lord knows we had plenty of CJR analysis of "Scooter" Libby's conviction).
Let's see where CJR investigated the Democrats who flipped and flopped on the call for a troop surge. Or the ones who voted to authorize the Iraq war (before they were against it).
See if you can find a hard-hitting, in-depth CJR investigation (or even a call for such an investigation) of Kerry's claim to have been a Super Secret CIA-enlisted gun runner to the Khmer Rouge.
Remember, before responding, that CJR sent one of its minions forth on a quixotic quest to Texas, charged with a silly and inevitably futile mission to rehabilitate Dan Rather's fraudulent TANG memos, so resources aren't a problem. See if you can find similar energy expended on Kerry's refusal to release his medical records before the election. Or on Kerry's Purple Heart collection- the three he "earned" in his mere three months of combat without receiving any documented treatment other than Band-Aid.
See who Paul McLeary considers to be "criminally inept". Clinton - who bombed an aspirin factory in a sovereign nation to divert attention from his impeachment trial? Who sent Tomahawks into Baghdad because he was mad at Saddam? Who ignored an invitation to arrest bin Laden without force? Nope...
It's Bush of course... Who is "criminally inept" because... because...
Well because McLeary says he is. (He knows that Bush lied about Iraq-though he can't be bothered with actually providing any proof)
Liberal fruitcakes can argue against the CJR bias all day long, but the facts aren't going anywhere..
Deal with them.
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 18 Aug 2007 at 08:38 AM
I've argued with both people that cherry pick my posts (see you completely ignoring my comments on both O'Neill and Allen) before. I really don't have any desire to argue for argument's sake. Dragging me into a debate about Kerry (who I can't stand and have no desire to defend) when you don't understand that all of the issues you cite above were covered in the MSM, yet many were never proven either way, is a detour that ignores the argument.
You seem to have the same misconceptions about bias that the cowering MSM has—that every event has a left and a right side. I denounce the coverage of Edwards haircut and Romney's makeup "scandals" because they aren't news, not because they are of liberal or conservative viewpoints. Yet the left and right blogs will certainly elevate their importance, because blogging is more often than not someone's unabashed opinion.
Your description of the "liberal media" leaves more questions than it answers. Do the 10% of reporters in your unnamed "objective" polls that vote Republican taint the news because they are compelled to insert their conservative bias in the news like their Democratic counterparts? Or are they probably just doing their jobs? Does television and radio count as the MSM? Blogs?
Having read the article with the one MSNBC poll that you have gotten all of your polling data from (I saw the unrelated Libby post you made citing it), I'll have to say it concerns me. Are you so biased you'll get all your news from one poll that confirms your views? Isn't that evidence of the bias you yourself charge others with? And since media outlets have overwhelmingly banned donations to political candidates (as the story reports), how in the world can you even claim to have good data, even if the media is liberally biased to the extent you say? It must be hard to sleep at night, worrying about the liberally biased boogeymen. I also notice that because you perceive MSNBC to be liberaly biased, since they report something you consider to be in your favor that makes them objective. But logically, it gives evidence neither way as to their true objectivity.
CJR reports on the media, does it not? What is this claim that they report the news? Do they have to give you a job here to make you happy? Is this biased?
You're an opiniated argurer that steers the conversation where you want it to go, and then demand others answer completely unrelated questions that have nothing to do with the topic you just posted about. You continually post on unrelated topics here, and when I question it cry "ad hominem", yet infer I'm a fruitcake because I question your motives. CJR allows you to post on unrelated threads continually here. Give them that much.
Posted by Circus Boy
on Sun 19 Aug 2007 at 10:01 AM
Bias is the CHOICE of the multitude of the liberal MSM outlets (and the few conservative ones, as well) who refuse to do their jobs. It is not only possible, but also ethically mandatory, to provide unbiased coverage of the news.
Don't try to tell me it can't be done. I'm a trial attorney. I have to make opposing arguments and explore distasteful circumstances all the time. When I brief a judge, I had better damn well give him a fair view of the case, and present both sides of the issue completely or I'm going to get myself in trouble. It comes with the profession. And that's what journalism is supposed to be- a profession requiring fairness, discretion, reflection and dedication than transcends personal bias.
When Paul McLeary refers to the President of the United States (the current unimpeached, undisbarred, non-perjuring, unadulterous one, that is) as being "criminally inept" it is nothing to but the sheerest form of stupidity to argue that McLeary's commentary is unbiased. Period.
The same goes when McLeary posits a half-dozen preelection hit pieces against a Republican senatorial candidate but never explores similar accusations against the opposing Democratic candidate.
The CJR "watchdogs" are, for the most part, nothing more than liberal hacks who would rather squander the precious opportunity they've been given to advance their chosen profession than give up their turns at the liberal soapbox. You can dance around this reality all day long, but it isn't going anywhere.
Posted by padikiller
on Sun 19 Aug 2007 at 11:39 AM
Going back and looking at the MSNBC article again, it is a complete joke. It's an example of something CJR would routinely examine as shoddy reporting, if people as yourself, Padi, wouldn't immediately rail against.
MSNBC did their own polling and didn't include accurate data to make a realistic analysis. To accurately judge bias in the media, you would have to know how big the pool is, how big a sample would have to be to get an accurate analysis, and then what your margin of error would be. MSNBC chose the public record of the FEC, which only garnered a handful of responses. Then they reported on it as is.
In doing so, they made at least one error that they had to correct because the guy worked in the advertising department for the paper (!). Guess what, he voted Republican, so now the media is automatically more liberal! They also found, which you can see at the end of the article, a list of six people that said the FEC had made mistakes. Did MSNBC contact every one of the 143 people there to see if they had correctly donated to the right party? What do you think?
Although I'm sure liberal bias exists in the media, but not to the extent of what you claim, I find it laughable that the poll you cited for evidence, the "facts that aren't going anywhere", is only evidence of the sloppy reporting that CJR routinely points out.
Irony? Deal with it.
Posted by Circus Boy
on Sun 19 Aug 2007 at 11:51 AM
Please...
Every single scientific study (that I've seen- and I've seen a bunch of them) confirms the liberal bias of the MSM..
Studies by MIT- Yale - U of Missouri - the University of Oklahoma - the American Enterprise Institute- Etc. Etc. Etc.
All find a pervasive and systematic liberal bias in the media.
That's just how it is.
Posted by padikiller
on Sun 19 Aug 2007 at 12:02 PM
Oh, you're a trial lawyer. No wonder you're argumentative.
Posted by Circus Boy
on Sun 19 Aug 2007 at 12:02 PM