• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

June 30, 2009

Media Circus at Michael Jackson's Encino Home

This photo was taken by a friend who lives near Michael Jackson's Encino home and who drives by it daily. Can you believe the number of news vans out front? You'd think a world leader had died.


Thanks to Char.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

January 10, 2008

Keith Olbermann Caught in a Flat Out Lie

How is it that this man continues to be given a platform upon which to spew his bile?

If Olbermann wants to give opinion, fine. He should call himself a commentator and then he can say anything he wants AS LONG AS IT'S BASED IN FACT! But to call himself a "newsman" and deliver untruths in the name of hard reporting is not only irresponsible, but nauseating.

Who's the "Worst Person in the World"?

From Olbermann Watch, h/t: Hot Air

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 28, 2007

Fox News More Balanced

Apparently "Fair and Balanced" is not just a slogan. According to a report by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University:

Whos Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channels coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

Emphasis mine.

The report also indicates that not only has Hillary received the lion's share of the attention, most of it is negative...and Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have received the most positive reporting.

So much for "just the facts, ma'am."

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 14, 2007

David Hazinski: 'Citizen Journalism' is a Bad Thing

David Hazinski, a former NBC correspondent and associate professor of telecommunications and head of broadcast news at the University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism, has a bone to pick: he believes "citizen journalism" is dangerous.

We must protect the children!

Using scare quotes all througout the Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed, Hazinski worries that without "education, skill and standards," everyday hacks will ruin all that has been achieved by "trusted professionals" and create gossip, not headlines.

So without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist. Major media outlets also encourage it. Citizen journalism allows them to involve audiences, and it is a free source of information and video. But it is also ripe for abuse.

CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors. There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com.

Hoaxes and gullible people existed well before the Internet. Ever hear of Piltdown Man, the Loch Ness Monster, or receive a chain letter?

Hazinski obviously didn't get the memo that the professionals at CNN failed to vet General Keith Kerr to see if he had any political affiliations (or ignored the results of said vetting) not only before they used his YouTube question on air, but also before they paid to have him fly out, set him up in a hotel, and seated him strategically in the audience and gave him more microphone time than some of the candidates -- and for what? To make the Republican candidates look as though they hate gays? That was the impression I got. Seeing Bill Bennett inform Anderson Cooper of Kerr's Clinton campaign association live, on-air, was one of the sweetest moments in recent television history.

There are so many other "professional" journalism scandals I could list: CNN's Eason Jordan admitting they softened the news coming out of Iraq so Saddam Hussein wouldn't kick them out of Baghdad; Jayson Blair's fake reporting for the New York Times; Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" TANG documents; enhanced and/or fake photos by the likes of Reuters (dubbed "fauxtography" in the blogosphere)...need I go on?

Just as hoaxes and gullible people existed before the Internet, so did unscrupulous news reporters.

Glenn Reynolds, Bryan Preston, Chuck Simmins and Bill Quick have all given this topic the once over; head over to their sites to see what they have to say.

I would like to close with this:

Neither Thomas Paine nor Benjamin Franklin were "professional journalists." And they did a heck of a lot more for our country than people the likes of Walter Cronkite, Chris Matthews, Dan Rather -- or David Hazinksi ever will.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 09, 2007

The Freedom's Watch Ads NBC Deems Too "Political"

"We support the troops but not the war." Leftists are full of it, especially those at NBC.

Although, according to MM, Drudge reports that they may be bowing to public pressure. We'll see. (MM also passes on the link reporting that the lawyer who said "no" to the ads is a major Democrat donor. You don't say?)

What leftwing media bias?

In the meantime, enjoy:

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

August 27, 2007

Chris Wallace vs. Bill Moyers: Smackdown!

LOVE it! Chris Wallace is fast becoming one of my favorite journalists.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:50 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

July 23, 2007

Shocker Poll: AP, MSNBC, CNBC Perceived as Leaning Left

In yet another quite, er, surprising Rasmussen poll, more Americans believe the AP, MSNBC and CNBC lean left than right:

The current survey finds that 30% of American adults believe the Associated Press has a liberal bias and only 12% believe it leans the other way. Local television news is viewed as having a liberal bias by 30% and a conservative bias by 17%. MSNBC is seen as being a bit more to the left33% say it has a liberal bias and 13% say the opposite. For CNBC, 29% say it has a liberal bias and 14% say a conservative bias.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) say local television stations deliver news without bias while 36% say the same for the Associated Press.

Perhaps Journalism 101 should be required for everyone. That way they'll know that reporters are neutral and unbiased.

What we should be more interested in is the fact that poll respondents were evenly divided as to whether or not the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated (41% for and 41% against). Bias isn't the problem so much as a refusal to admit it exists. Be frank with your audience, and let us work out the truth for ourselves. Or does that idea frighten you?

Even worse would be the government sticking its nose into the free dissemination of information. Because once the government gets its teeth into something, it's like a rottweiler going for the kill: it doesn't let go.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

July 16, 2007

Details Magazine: Latest Media Hit Piece on the Military

Aaron has written a post about an article that appears in the August issue of "Details" magazine about the Pendleton 8. It's another media hit piece on our military. Click here to read it. (My name appears at the top as having co-written it, but Aaron did most of the real work...I just helped clean it up a bit.)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:59 PM | Comments (55) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 18, 2007

BBC Report Finds Bias Within

The BBC biased? Say it ain't so! An internal report says the BBC is biased regarding its coverage on "single-issue political causes" like man-made global warming and poverty in Africa, although the report finds day-to-day coverage on politics and world events continues to be impartial.

Excuse me while I laugh over that last bit.

Money quote:

It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.

This references the slew of slanted coverage given to Live 8 back in 2005, coverage which included not only showing the concerts on all of its channels, but also anti-poverty story lines in some popular BBC television shows at the same time.


The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: There is a tendency to 'group think with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.

The report was jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors and will be published by the BBC Trust, which has since replaced the governors.

Deliberately offending Christians and Americans but bending over backward to suck up to Muslims? Check.

I don't expect this report to change things much, however. Nor do I expect any such report to be done by any of our major media outlets. But I suppose the report is a step in the right direction.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 12, 2007

Newt Gingrich put under AP Microscope

The media is beginning to look at Newt Gingrich as a possible candidate for the presidency. This AP article by Libby Quaid is entitled A look at Gingrich's business empire, and discusses the ways in which Gingrich has made his living since leaving the House nine years ago. My media bias alert system is in full swing.

The first clue is the article's title. Newt Gingrich has a "business empire?" He is paid for making speeches, writing books, giving television and radio commentary, and for consulting. He also has a political action committee that pays for some of his travel, and which will be his starting point should he decide to jump into the race.

We are duly informed that Gingrich and his aides will not disclose how much he makes from his writing and his speeches. So what? He's a private citizen, and as such, is not required to disclose his income. (Would Libby Quaid like to share her W2s with the rest of us? If I thought you all wouldn't die laughing, I might let you know how much I get paid too.) Should Gingrich officially enter the race, then he'll have to fill out an income disclosure form. But he's under no obligation to do so now. Meanwhile, we get the impression of yet another Republican fat cat who is pulling down big bucks.

You know, I can think of another prominent politician who has re-entered private life and makes money by writing, consulting, and making speeches. His name is Bill Clinton, and he rakes in millions from his activities. In speechmaking alone since he left the White House, he has made nearly $40 million. That doesn't take into account consulting fees for various companies and the advance he received for his biography. The only reason we have any idea as to what he makes is because his wife is a senator who is also running for president. Therefore, his income must be made public along with hers. Would Clinton's activities be called a "business empire" too? Somehow, I doubt it.

Articles like this are only the tip of the iceberg. Let the muckraking begin!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:07 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

May 23, 2007

ABC News Exposes Secret CIA Plans

Oops, they did it again:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

One might be forgiven for thinking that Brian Ross and Richard Esposito work for the New York Times, but they work for ABC. Yet really, all of these guys subscribe to the same groupthink.

John Hawkins weighs in:

This is a malicious leak designed to aid America's enemies and compromise our national security. It's scandalous that someone leaked it and it's even more scandalous that ABC betrayed its own country by publishing it.

He has it exactly right. Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well within the hallowed halls of our top media, and national security be damned as long as publishing this kind of information either hobbles the Bush administration's efforts to curb rogue, terrorist states or makes Bush look bad -- or both.

It's tempting to theorize that Ross and Esposito are on Ahmadinejad's payroll, but that would be giving them too much credit. These guys are representative of the MSM in that they really do believe that they are doing our country a favor by exposing secret government operations that, if they work, will increase security for not only Americans, but much of the world. Don't they get it? Even France is coming around about Iran.

With friends like this, we sure as hell don't need enemies.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:52 PM | Comments (82) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

April 27, 2007

Next on the Left's Hit List: Rush Limbaugh

They've always hated him. But their hatred takes on new life, as reflected in Vanity Fair's current piece on El Rushbo.

Brian Mahoney over at Radio Equalizer takes a look at the article by James Wolcott, which is riddled with personal insults and claims that Rush is wrong about everything, with proof being Al Franken's ramblings. Oh, and the obligatory Nazi reference in the form of Goebbels makes an appearance as well. (Rush's home address is also published...remember when that happened to Michelle Malkin?)

You know, the next time your local liberal runs Rush down, ask him if he's actually listened to Rush. And not just the sound bites provided by the MSM when they're criticizing him for something, but a whole show. I'll bet good money he likely hasn't.

h/t: Kitty

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:28 AM | Comments (74) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

April 25, 2007

Rosie Quitting The View

While I don't watch the show because I work (and I wouldn't watch it even if I didn't), I'm happy to hear that Rosie will be leaving The View when her contract expires at the end of the season. (At least, that's what TMZ.com is saying, and they've been pretty accurate on their scoops.) Her vile invective, crude attitude and moonbat outbursts (she outdoes anything Joyce Behar can do) have really brought The View down to the level of a septic tank.

Rumor has it she might get her own show, but I'm hoping that's wrong. And if she does, perhaps it will only be on a cable station, where she can do less damage.

Rosie is one of those angry lesbians who feels that she has to shove her sexuality in the world's collective face in as obnoxious a manner as possible. If she had taken a page out of Ellen DeGeneres' book, perhaps she'd receive a lot more respect. But then, Rosie is just not a decent person, while Ellen is. That's what it really comes down to, isn't it? It's not your color, sexuality, or religion that counts so much as your level of human decency. Some people get it...others don't.

So who will Barbara Walters replace Rosie with? Well, unless she picks someone like Sandra Bernhard, she can't go much lower. Just about anyone will be an improvement. But don't look for another conservative. One weak one is quite enough, thank you.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has some good links for background info on Rosie's latest antics.

h/t: Kitty

Say bye-bye, Rosie!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

March 27, 2007

Is Pinch Sulzberger Worth $4.4 Million?

Marathon Pundit tells us that the New York Times, whose magazine recently reported on a woman who said she served in Iraq (but now it turns out she did not), pays its publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. earns $4.4 million in salary and compensation. This, even though stocks and earnings are down.

So much for quality.

It's funny. Newspapers like the Times are usually hot on the trail of CEOs who make big bucks even when their companies are not doing well, yet its own chief continues to rake in the cash while the Times is sinking faster than the Titanic.

Do as I say...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:45 AM | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

March 09, 2007

TV Journalists Play Second Fiddle to Internet

Michelle Malkin points out an interesting Pew Research Center survey on how Americans got their news then, and how they get their news now. Check out the graphics below:




Read it and weep, guys. But here's a brain teaser for you: If Katie Couric is the favorite, most-admired journalist, why is CBS at the bottom of the network ratings tank?

(And for those of you who wonder why Katie's producer got the chop, just remember that $15 million that CBS has invested in its "star." They won't give her the heave-ho until there are no more scapegoats to fry.)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:06 AM | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

March 05, 2007

Bias in Journalism: Hartford Courant Supports Annulment of 2002 War Vote

Why do I say they support it? Just read the opening to this article by David Lightman:

WASHINGTON -- Sgt. Richard Ford's sister wasn't home, so John Larson left a message.

The congressman sat alone in his second-floor Main Street office in downtown Hartford on Thursday and talked to Vanessa Migliore's message machine.

It was a difficult call. It had to be. The 1st District Democrat tried to express his sorrow, anger and discomfort over the death of Ford, the Connecticut National Guard soldier who died Feb. 20 of combat injuries in Baghdad.

"You and your family are in my prayers," he told her. "Thank you so much for all the sacrifice." He talked about the importance of "duty and service," and said Sgt. Ford had served in a "patriotic and honorable" way.

And he assured the family that a flag would fly over the U.S. Capitol in Sgt. Ford's honor, and that the flag would be delivered to their East Hartford home. Ford is to be buried today at Arlington National Cemetery.

Larson hung up and sat for a few minutes. He knew these were not times to think about matters like politics and legislation, but he couldn't help it.

Larson, of course, is the man who introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 2002 vote giving President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq.

The opening to this article is a classic emotional hook. Rather than simply recite the facts about Larson's plan to "annul" the 2002 vote, Lightman uses the death of a Connecticut National Guardsman to suck the reader in. After all, no one with a beating heart could ignore his family's pain. And, after reading about the difficult call Larson made, and how he seems to be such a decent guy, doesn't that make you think that perhaps his legislation has merit?

This type of reporting is called "narrative journalism," and it's used not only to make a story more interesting, but is often used to mold the reader's perception of an issue:

Hardboiled reporters don't routinely seek to engineer the sequential emotional responses of readers. They don't mess much with their readers at all. Storytellers do. The two roles are in conflict.

What's the big deal, you ask? Why is there a problem with making a story more palatable to the average reader? The Jawa Report begs the question:

[D]oes narrative focus lead to bias? I would say yes, in those cases when the profession itself has a strong set of political leanings. In that kind of environment when editors and reporters are looking to pick out the point of interest and refine the gripping details that breathe life into otherwise "hardboiled" reporting, they only have one reliable metrick to work with -- whether or not they themselves are interested in the story. Does a given presentation of data outrage, move one to tears, or cause a sense of warm satisfaction? Well, that would depend on the people reading the story. And, in the case of journalists, the people making the first call on whether or not a story gets written, and if it does, how it is presented, would be the people who will be (at least at the national level) overwhelmingly left-leaning.

Think about it: Lightman could have called Ford's family too, but he didn't. Now, I have no idea how Ford's family feels about Iraq. But it's interesting that Lightman "plays it safe" by focusing on Larson's difficult phone call and Larson's point of view, giving the reader the perception that the grieving family likely has similar feelings about Iraq making a mistake. If you're going for accuracy, wouldn't it be a good idea to get both sides?

But that's the idea: present one side using the emotional hook, maximizing the potential of swaying the reader to agree with a particular point of view. And that's what journalistic bias is all about. No longer is it "just the facts, ma'am," but gripping stories that aim to sway you.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

February 28, 2007

Stifling of the Press in Cuba; MSM Yawns

Newsbusters brings our attention to the expulsion of three Western reporters (one each from the BBC, the Chicago Tribune, and Mexico's El Universal) by Cuba because they upset "el presidente para la vida" Fidel Castro and his cronies.

Notes Rich Noyes,

While journalists howl at the indignity of Helen Thomas being moved about six feet, from the first row to the second row of the new White House press room, there's been relative silence about the Cuban dictatorship's expulsion of Western journalists who published stories unflattering to the communist leadership.

Be sure to read the whole thing, with the accompanying link to the full story at Investor's Business Daily.

Where's the outrage? Where's actor/foreign affairs expert Tim Robbins when we need him to talk about a real "chill wind"? Of course, when major outlets like CNN decide not to report on certain atrocities by certain governments just so they can keep a bureau there, and worldwide news agency Reuters refuses to use the word "terrorist" in its reporting in the name of appeasement, we really shouldn't be surprised about the lack of interest in this latest true stifling of the press.

Only sycophantic reporters need apply!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

February 20, 2007

GOP Donor With Terror Ties Means Entire GOP Tainted

What other conclusion could one come to with this headline and accompanying story?

GOP Donor Hit With Terror Charges

WASHINGTON -- A New York man accused of trying to help terrorists in Afghanistan has donated some $15,000 to the House Republicans' campaign committee over three years.


From April 2002 until August 2004, the man also known as "Michael Mixon" gave donations ranging from $500 to $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to Federal Election Commission reports and two campaign donor tracking Web sites, http://www.politicalmoneyline.com and http://www.opensecrets.org.

Yep. Get out the tar and feathers now.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

January 24, 2007

Fairness Doctrine vs. Truth in Media

Selwyn Duke, writing for The American Thinker, discusses. Check it out.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:11 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 28, 2006

Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award

HonestReporting.com, a site dedicated to shedding light on reporting abuses by the MSM, released its picks for the "most skewed and biased reporting of the Mideast conflict" a couple of weeks ago. Included are the...

Worst buzzword
Worst magazine caption
Worst cartoon

Click here for the full lowdown.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 04, 2006

What Media Bias?

This book is one you may want to put on your Christmas* wish list:

BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 -- Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror. In each comparison, Kuypers detected massive bias on the part of the press. In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an anti-democratic institution in the conclusion.

What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror, said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. In short, Kupyers explained, if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.

Like I said, what media bias?

h/t: Hillary Needs A Vacation

*Yes, I said Christmas list instead of the ubiquitous holiday list. Please address all complaints to someone who cares.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:05 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

November 28, 2006

This Is Reuters-Speak

On the escalating violence toward police in France:

The head of the French crime statistics body told Reuters the rise in attacks on police was partly due to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozys 2002 decision to order police back into tough areas, to disrupt the black economy that fuels crime.

Some residents complain the move spawned constant police harassment which has only exacerbated tensions with local youths, many of whom come from ethnic minorities.

Which minorities would those be?

h/t: LGF

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

November 13, 2006

Dan Rather Returns...

to your television set. Fortunately, only those wealthy enough to own HDTV will be able to see him:

Dan Rather has gone digital. Dan Rather has gone boutique. Returning to television with "Dan Rather Reports," his new weekly magazine, he will now be available in just the four million satellite and cable homes reached by media mogul Mark Cuban's high-definition channel HDNet. By contrast, "The CBS Evening News," which Rather anchored for 24 years, reaches virtually all the nation's 111 million TV homes, and it's watched by more than seven million viewers nightly.

"We are broadcasting to a tiny audience," Rather readily acknowledges.

He still won't admit he was wrong about Memogate:

Some of the hits he took were deserved, he says, while the rest - well, that story ignited a firestorm that almost ruined Rather's reputation.

"Let's face it," he reasons, "over the length and breadth of a career, I've gotten a whole lot more than I ever deserved on the upside. So if I got some things I didn't deserve on the downside, I can't and won't complain about it."

Well, he hasn't been in news all of these years not to know how to put a particular spin on things.

Smile...you're back on camera!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

September 15, 2006

Imus Calls David Gregory's Bluff

Ex-Donkey talks about David "Don't Point at Me" Gregory's appearance on Imus this morning, where the topic of conversation included Gregory's concerns about President Bush trying to redefine what constitutes torture of POWs.

Click here for details. I don't like Imus much, but you have to give him credit for some sense. What a riot!

David Gregory: Just another pretty face

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

September 12, 2006

I'm Hooked!

Last Friday I tuned into the Andrea Shea-King and Mark Vance talk show (3-5 pm Eastern) on Constitutional Public Radio. I tuned in yesterday as well AND joined in the chat room, and I do believe I am hooked! Not only do Andrea and Mark talk about the issues of the day in a calm, rational manner, but they respond to the chat room comments both on-air and in the chat room itself. One can also call in to their toll-free number, but I love the interactive aspect. The conversations between the chat room participants are also lots of fun.

Also, several of my blog buddies take part: ThirdwaveDave, Pat at Brainster, and Chris at Lucky Dawg News.

This Wednesday, Andrea and Mark will be interviewing LTC Buzz Patterson, author of Dereliction of Duty. I urge everyone to give Andrea and Mark a listen (and check out their blog)!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

September 06, 2006

Shales Skewers Couric's Debut

I didn't see Katie Couric's debut behind the CBS anchor desk. I have not watched network news in a long time, and these days, my schedule means I don't get home in time anyway. Even if I had the time, Couric's being on CBS is not a big incentive for me to tune in at 6:30.

Tom Shales of the Washington Post was singularly unimpressed with Katie's performance last night. His review is here. A few highlights:

Last night, the show simply played to her strengths, chiefly her ability as an interviewer. She had a taped sit-down with liberal columnist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who seemed to be trying too hard to "come across" on television, as if he'd just completed TV training.

Suddenly, with no hint at a transition, Couric was talking about executive changes at the Ford Motor Co. and then about the late Steve Irwin, the crocodile expert who died over the weekend when he was attacked underwater by a stingray. These little mini-stories were rammed together with no indication from Couric that she was changing topics. She needs work, and help, at reading off the prompting device and making it clear when the focus is about to shift.

As someone who used to read news (albeit on radio), I know the importance of pauses and changes of vocal inflection in order to signify a change of story. If Couric received any coaching in this area at all over the last three months, it obviously didn't stick.

Then the show reached its lowest point with an item that Couric had coyly promoted earlier in the day on the CBS Web site: a photograph of Suri Cruise, the previously hidden baby of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The portrait will be on the cover of Vanity Fair, out today -- so the segment was a shameless plug as well as celebrity trash, the kind of thing better saved for "Entertainment Tonight" and its ilk.

Ugh. A photo of Tom Cruise's offspring is not news. Save that nonsense for People or US magazines. (Do you think Tom would advise Katie to start calling herself Kate, as he has ordered his wife to do?)

So it remains to be seen how well Couric will do in the weeks and months to come. One thing is certain: her shelf life will not be as long as that of her predecessors. After all, we know how older women are treated by television execs. The moment Couric shows any major wrinkles, it's off to the glue factory.

UPDATE (11;56 a.m.): Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times says:

Ms. Couric’s ratings at CBS will not be a test of feminism; they will be a measure of viewers’ flexibility.

I beg to differ. Couric's ratings will be a measure of how well she delivers the news, and how well the show is produced. Period. Her lack of certain anatomy should have no bearing on it.

An unimpressive first outing

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

August 06, 2006

Tales from Reuters

What else can we expect from this Euro-based news source?

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat

No bias to see here, folks. Move along.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

July 18, 2006

NYT Cutting Costs

From Reuters:

The New York Times Co. (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) plans to narrow the size of its flagship newspaper and close a printing plant, resulting in the loss of 250 jobs, the company said in a story posted on its Web site late on Monday.

The changes, set to take place in April 2008, include the closure of a printing plant in Edison, New Jersey. The company will sublet the plant and consolidate its regional printing facilities at a plant in Queens, the paper said.

The newspaper will be narrower by 1 1/2 inches. The redesign will result in the loss of 250 production jobs, the company said.

The New York Times said it expected the changes to result in savings of $42 million.

They should consider firing reporters and editors, not the grunts who get the paper printed...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:15 AM | Comments (48) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

July 10, 2006

Memo to the NYT: We're Not Buying It

I went to this evening's rally protesting the New York Times and its publishing of a legal secret government program designed to track the movements of terrorists in order to capture them. It happened across the street from the Times' office at 229 West 43rd Street. As soon as I left work, I walked the ten blocks from my office to the rally location. The following are my observations and photos I took. Believe me, it's not easy to take notes and photos while clutching your own protest sign!

NYT Rally 001.jpg

NYT Rally 002.jpg
I arrived around 5:00, and saw a decent-sized crowd had already gathered. I got a great spot right up front.

NYT Rally 003.jpg
A few counter-protesters were across the street, directly in front of the Times' office.

NYT Rally 004.jpg

NYT Rally 021.jpg
Check out some of the creative signs made by anti-NYT folks!

NYT Rally 005.jpg

NYT Rally 024.jpg
A few NYT employees peered out of the windows to see what the excitement was all about. One even took video footage!

NYT Rally 006.jpg
This young girl held out her sign and kept shouting, "Whose side are you on?" Good for her!

NYT Rally 007.jpg

NYT Rally 008.jpg
CaucusForAmerica.com got the rally moving with the Pledge of Allegiance.

NYT Rally 009.jpg
As you can see, the counter-protester side began to fill up, but mostly with curious bystanders. Some of those folks were actually anti-NYT people who dared to mingle with those on the Dark side...

NYT Rally 010.jpg
Some people were handing out these t-shirts free of charge (I don't know which group sponsored them). I didn't grab one, as my photos suffice as a souvenier. Aren't they great?

nyt rally 011.jpg
These guys didn't have much company...nor did they have a microphone or megaphone at their disposal; something which must have frustrated them to no end. It didn't stop them from shouting, though! Here are some of the things they kept repeating: "Why aren't you fighting?" "Get a job, hippies! Get a haircut, hippies!" (My guess: the rally was likely set for 5 so that working stiffs like me could attend. Hippies my Aunt Fanny!) "You're against freedom of the press!" "God doesn't like you. Jesus hates you!" (Ah, such tolerance!)

Unfortunately, there were some obnoxious things being said on our side of the street. Some of the less-than-stellar quotes I managed to jot down include, "You're fascists!" "Nazis!" "Hey you in the white shirt...you're ugly!" Not exactly awe-inspiring, thoughtful debate.

nyt rally 012.jpg
The guy in orange thought he could drown out the anti-NYT crowd by constantly blowing a whistle. Obnoxious as it was, it was a pitiful attempt against our greater numbers and microphone and megaphones.

NYT Rally 014.jpg
Rabbi Aryeh Spero of CaucusForAmerica.com spoke several times while I was there. Here are a few quotes: "All the treason that's fit to print!" "This is not Bush's war, it's America's war!" "They [NYT staffers] identify more with Parisians than with people in Peoria [Illinois]." "We're not afraid of the power of the New York Times!"

NYT Rally 015.jpg
New York's finest keep the peace. Across the way, the woman with the bike is getting ready to join the whistler in orange with her own whistle in an attempt to drown us out.

NYT Rally 017.jpg
Osama bin Ladin shills for the Times.

NYT Rally 018.jpg
I met up with Pamela of Atlas Shrugs.

NYT Rally 020.jpg
Richard Poe of Newsmax.com went over the history of the name of Times Square (just down the street), and how 100 years ago its name was changed from Longacre Square to Times Square in "honor" of the paper. He then said, "May I humbly suggest Giuliani Square?" A chant then went up.

NYT Rally 023.jpg
Rafique Iscandar of the American Coptic Union said, "We all condemn the New York Times for leaking confidential information...This will only help the terrorists." For those who don't know, Copts are an Egyptian Christian sect often persecuted by Muslims.

NYT Rally 025.jpg
Deborah Burlingame, sister of 9/11 American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame, was one of the speakers. I had difficulty in hearing her, but managed to jot down the following: "Free speech is a precious thing...given to the people." "This is not about journalism...this is about taking a stand." She also endorsed a boycott of Verizon and other New York Times advertisers.

NYT Rally 027.jpg

NYT Rally 028.jpg

I decided to leave around 6:15 in order to make my train without having to run for it (the rally was scheduled to go until 8). Here are two photos of the crowd as I left: the anti-NYT folks and the counter protesters. Hmmm, guess whose cause was more popular?

All in all, it was a great experience. My mother worried that I'd get arrested, and my husband said he wouldn't bail me out if I did! But it was orderly and relatively calm. The NYPD did a great job, and while I was there, no one seemed inclined to breach the peace (other than engaging in permit-sanctioned shouting). Some women behind me questioned why the counter-protesters wouldn't stay quiet while scheduled speeches went on. Answer: to drown out a point of view they didn't want heard.

Those who believe the New York Times committed treason were part of a diverse crowd...with varied ages, ethnicities, and a pretty fair balance of men and women. The counter-protesters all looked fairly similar...mostly white men, likely representing white liberals with an overactive guilt complex.

The claim that we are against freedom of the press couldn't have been more wrong. Freedom of the press carries with it an inherent responsibility to use common sense in reporting -- something the New York Times failed to uphold. We, the public, have every right to call them on it, especially when stories published in our "interest" actually do more to threaten our safety than keep us informed. When a newspaper uses its considerable power and influence in order to defame a sitting president and endanger a society's safety in the name of the public's "right to know," it deserves both our contempt and censure.

Take that and print it.

Others blogging: Atlas Shrugs, Fighting the Left

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:05 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

Reminder: Protest Against the NYT Today

For those of you in New York, there is a protest today across the street from the New York Times building at 5 pm. The NYT is located at 229 West 43rd Street.

Free Republic is among the organizers. There is a sound permit and there may be some speakers.

Make a sign and head on over if you can. I will be there, and plan to take pictures that I can post tonight when I get home.

See you there!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

Skewing the News...One Headline at a Time

What do you think of when you see this headline?

Officer Hurt, Several Arrested During Anti-Immigration Rally

Violent, xenophobic right-wingers disturbing the peace during a racially motivated event, right? Here's the actual story (any and all emphasis mine):

HOLLYWOOD, July 9, 2006 - An officer was injured and six people were arrested during an anti-illegal immigration march involving the Minuteman Project and other groups Saturday evening in Hollywood, police said.

One female officer suffered a minor injury, apparently to her ankle, after clashing with protesters, said Officer Sandra Escalante, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Counter-protesters stood along the sidewalks shouting as anti-immigration demonstrators, including members of the Minuteman civilian border patrol group, marched along Hollywood Boulevard. The Minutemen, many of them carrying American flags, had a permit to march.

Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist was among the marchers.

Angry counter protesters, some wearing bandannas to cover their faces, yelled at the Minutemen and called them racists.

They also tried to join the march, but since they did not have a permit, police stopped them, sometimes forcefully.

Escalante said several people were arrested, though it wasn't immediately clear if they were part of the anti-immigration march or the counter-protest.

Police estimated the number of marchers at 200 shortly after 7 p.m. The march began at Hollywood Boulevard and Argyle Avenue, Escalante said.

Quick summary: The march was against illegal immigration, not immigration in general. The Minutemen, who organized the march, had a permit. People who were against the message of the Minutemen were shouting from the street and trying to join the march without a permit. Police had to use force against those who tried to join the march (some wearing bandannas to hide their identities). The injury suffered by an officer involved was minor. From the information in the story, the anti-illegal immigration marchers didn't bring up race; their opponents did.

It's a good thing reporters write stories to go along with the headlines the editors come up with. Otherwise, we may not get the full story.

What's that, you say? Lots of people just scan the headlines? That certainly explains a lot.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 30, 2006

Protest the New York Times

If you will be in New York on July 10 and are tired of the New York Times plastering national security secrets above the fold on page one for all the world to see, check this out:

Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets, Monday, July 10, 5 p.m. We have a sound permit, and we will be across the street from the New York Times. They are at 229 West 43rd Street.

The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus for America, the Congress for Racial Equality, and Protest Warrior, NYC Chapter. We have reached out to several other groups as well, and are waiting to hear back from them.

Some high-visibility media people are interested in speaking at the protest. More information will be coming on this as we gather groups and speakers.

So hold the date! If you have been as sick about the Times's unconscionable blabbing of our classified information as the rest of those who care about the nation, now is your chance to do something to make your outrage heard.

I'm not sure if I can make it, but I certainly will try.

Michelle Malkin has some great poster ideas for demonstrators to bring along.

It's interesting that this demonstration, obviously organized by conservatives, starts at 5 p.m., unlike noon for so many leftie demonstrations. Guess what? Most of us have jobs.

Be there if you can!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 28, 2006

If The NYT Had Been Around in 1776...

...this country as we know it may not exist! Check out Sean Delonas' take on this in the NY Post today:


Can we question their patriotism NOW?

Reverse_vampyr has posted letters he sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush over this shameful affair. What are you waiting for? Start writing already!

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
President George W. Bush: comments@whitehouse.gov
The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 23, 2006

NY Times Blows Whistle On Yet Another Terrorist Fighting Program

Honestly...what the hell is wrong with the New York Times (or as radio host Mark Levin calls it, the New York Slimes)?

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to
government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

A vital tool, eh? It's no longer a vital tool; the government might as well trash it, thanks to the Times.

According to Michelle Malkin, the LA Times has now jumped on the bandwagon.

The contempt the NYT and its cronies have for our sitting president in a time of war is simply staggering. A legal program, devised to track the activities of Islamofascist terrorists who are doing their very best to blow us to kingdom come, has been outed by reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. Why? It sure isn't in the interest of national security.

I am sure these two fine men have been given a light reporting schedule after this so they will have the time to write their Pulitzer acceptance speeches.

Freedom of speech my fanny! Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. The NYT has once again shown its true colors, and they sure aren't red, white and blue. Why this paper has not yet been investigated for treason is beyond me.

Another good question to ask: who is giving out this information in the first place? Lichtblau and Risen didn't pull it out of their arses. They have sources, and those sources need to be investigated...then, if laws have been broken, tried for their crimes.

The "leaking" of Valerie Plame's name pales in comparison with the leaking of secret government programs designed to root out terrorists and keep the US from being attacked again.

Don't expect the NYT to apologize. Those of us who are outraged do not register on the Times' radar anyway. They write these articles for those who feel the same way about President Bush and his administration as they do.

And unless they are stopped via legal means, expect to read more of these types of stories in the days to come.

If you can spare the time, drop the Times a line:

E-mail: letters@nytimes.com
Fax: (212)556-3622.

Snail mail:

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

UPDATE (1:35): Here's my letter:

To the Editor,

I am curious as to why your paper deems it necessary to publish an article that outlines what was supposed to be a secret program, designed to track terrorists through bank transactions.

Why do you consider it to be in the public interest to know about it? Isn't it more in the public interest to keep such a program secret so that it can continue to be used effectively? Isn't the safety of the American public (which, by the way, includes you whether you like it or not) something you are concerned about? The government may as well start toss this program in the proverbial trash bin and start anew, thanks to your investigative journalism. I hope your quest for another Pulitzer to add to your collection is worth the cost.

While you and other prominent media outlets continue to deny that you harbor any kind of editorial bias in your reporting, articles like this tell the true story. In a time when Islamic terrorists are doing their best to find our weaknesses and use them against us, you are giving them exactly what they need. Your disdain for President George Bush and his administration can be read clearly between the lines in this latest in a long line of articles designed to trip them up at every turn.

Freedom of the press is a sacred tenet in this country, but it comes with a price tag: the ability to know when to use it wisely. If this article was a test of that responsibility, your paper has met with abject failure.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 20, 2006

Bye Bye, Dan!

All good things must come to an end:

NEW YORK -- CBS is expected to announce Tuesday that former "CBS Evening News" anchor Dan Rather will leave the company after 44 years at the network.

Rather's contract runs through November but he is expected to leave the network immediately to pursue other opportunities.

How about retirement? Isn't he 74?

Wore out his welcome...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 02, 2006

Katie Couric Gets Serious

So, Katie Couric wants to end what she calls pretentiousness in the evening news?

LAS VEGAS (Hollywood Reporter) - Katie Couric hopes to bring a ``humanistic, more accessible'' approach to her job when she takes over as anchor and managing editor at ``CBS Evening News'' in September, she said Thursday.

Addressing the annual convention of CBS affiliates, Couric predicted that the ``pretentious era'' of the evening-news anchor is going to be a thing of the past.

``The audience is more sophisticated than we give them credit for -- they don't want a mechanical Ted Baxter,'' said Couric, whose last day as co-anchor of NBC's ``Today'' was Wednesday. ``I'm a serious, caring, compassionate person. I hope that comes out. ... People want a multidimensional (news anchor) and not someone they can put in a box.''

The problem many viewers have come to have with not just the evening news, but any news that comes from the major new outlets, is that newsies like Couric like to put their "serious, caring, compassionate" selves smack dab in the middle of a story. We want someone who will deliver the news and let us decide what we think of the story based on its own merits...not the merits of the "multidimensional" anchor behind the desk.

And how accessible can Couric be as she sits behind the anchor desk in a television studio with her smart glasses on? Come on. Give us some of that credit you mentioned!

The evening news on the traditional networks will continue to take a pounding from cable news and the Internet. I doubt very much that Katie Couric behind the anchor desk at CBS will change that trend.

Frankly, I'd take Ted Baxter over Katie any day. At least he was honest about his pomposity.

Taking the news seriously

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

May 19, 2006

Phone Taps: Paranoia Sweeps Nation

For those of you who think that perhaps the MSM is losing its hold on Americans, consider the findings of this recent poll:

One in four Americans think it is likely that the government has listened to their phone calls, according to a CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation.

That's right: 25% of those polled think that the president and his administration are concerned about which movie you and your friends are planning to see tonight, as well as which restaurants you're calling for takeout and how much weight you've gained recently.

A couple of reminders: Those phonecalls that were listened in on were phonecalls made to or by people with known al-Quaeda connections. So unless your grandmother is an Uzi-toting al-Quaeda sympathizer, you most likely don't have anything to worry about. Unless, of course, you've been using the phone to complain about having Chimpy McBushitler in the White House. We all know how many people have been tossed into the gulag for that! (Er, how many again?)

The recent story about collecting phone records in order to look for calling patterns, which has been neither affirmed nor denied by the government, makes me want to laugh. People are worried about steps being taken to ensure that another terrorist attack doesn't take place, but they don't seem to mind that their phone numbers, addresses, and shopping habits are constantly being traded and sold by catalogs and other retailers who are dying to get you onto their mailing lists. They also don't seem to mind that CNN and other pollsters have access to their phone numbers in order to call them during dinner to ask their opinion on what they like to call "domestic spying."

Here's a poll question I'd like to see: Are you worried that someone is leaking information to the press that is hampering our government's ability to protect us from another terrorist attack?

Don't hold your breath.

The government wants to know: are you having
General Tso's Chicken or pizza tonight?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

May 10, 2006

Bias In Journalism? Say It Ain't So!

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

From Editor and Publisher:

NEW YORK More than half of newspaper journalists in a recent survey believe an unethical or unprofessional incident occurred in their newsroom within the past five years, while seven out of 10 said they had been accused of bias in the past 12 months, according to a study released today by the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

But at least 70% of those polled more often pointed to "factors beyond their control" as the cause of such poor ethical perceptions, rather than their own newspapers' actions.


Of those who had been accused of bias in the past 12 months, most "often blame poor editing as contributing to inaccuracy in their articles." Sources, anonymous or not, also were viewed as "problematic and potentially leading to factual errors," the report stated.


"Newspaper journalists say problems in television news, on Web sites and blogs, and even in tabloids and shopper publications all have a deleterious effect on the credibility of newspaper journalists," the report stated. "In addition, almost one in five say that criticism of media by politicians erodes readers' trust."

In other words, it's always someone else's fault.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: bias has always been, and always will be, a factor in news reporting on both sides of the aisle. Real problems occur when one side dominates or when journalists deny that bias exists. It's even worse that when they're confronted with bias accusations, they try to tie the blame on factors other than their own beliefs and values systems.

You know how politicians are required to make their tax returns public? I think that journalists should be required to make their political party affiliations public. That way, readers/viewers/listeners can read between the lines and get a closer approximation of the truth.

More from: Blue Crab Boulevard, Right Wing News

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

April 28, 2006

News the AP Way

This article about a senate probe into the failures after Katrina via AP is entitled " Katrina Report Again Rips Bush Admin." Note the first two paragraphs (all emphasis mine):

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate inquiry into the government's Hurricane Katrina failures ripped the Bush administration anew Thursday and urged the scrapping of the nation's disaster response agency. But with a new hurricane season just weeks away, senators conceded that few if any of their proposals could become reality in time.

The bipartisan investigation into one of the worst natural disasters in the nation's history singled out President Bush and the White House as appearing indifferent to the devastation until two days after the storm hit.

Further in:

It said the Homeland Security Department either misunderstood federal disaster plans or refused to follow them. And it said New Orleans for years had neglected to prepare for large-scale emergencies.

"The suffering that continued in the days and weeks after the storm passed did not happen in a vacuum; instead, it continued longer that it should have because of - and was in some cases exacerbated by - the failure of government at all levels to plan, prepare for and respond aggressively to the storm," concluded the report.

And this paragraph is near the end:

Though the new report singles out officials from New Orleans to Washington for blame - and lambastes Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in particular - it gives Bush a mixed review for his performance. It credits the president for declaring an emergency before the hurricane's landfall, but faults him for waiting until two days after it hit to return to Washington and convene top officials to coordinate the federal response.

In other words, there was plenty of blame to be passed around, and Bush didn't completely bungle things. Isn't it interesting, though, the way the article is crafted? Casual readers may not have even bothered glancing beyond the headline, let alone the first two paragraphs. "RIPS BUSH ADMINISTRATION" says it all, doesn't it?

Just another example of fair and balanced reporting from your impartial media.

Hat tip: Cookiewrangler

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

April 19, 2006

Whistleblowers VS Leakers

Jonah Goldberg's column on Town Hall today explains the difference to the uninitiated.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

An Incredibly Good Article About Brit Hume

Brit Hume, who has been a part of the Washington DC news scene for about 30 years, has garnered the respect of many.

Including, it would seem, Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post.

Most of the time it's quite difficult for conservatives of any stripe to get a fair shake over at WaPo, but Kurtz has written an unusually balanced piece about the man who helped make FOX News a household brand.

There are a few "I can't help myself" kind of comments by Kurtz (criticisms that he makes about conservative journalists could be turned right around and used against leftist journalists, for example). Overall, though, I think you'll agree that the article is an accurate reflection of Hume as a man and as a journalist.
Read it and see if you don't agree.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

April 05, 2006

Pop Quiz

What's worse? Starting your day with Katie Couric or ending it with Katie Couric?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:41 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

April 04, 2006

The News According to NBC

According to Michelle Malkin, NBC's Dateline is looking for instances of bias toward Muslims, or at least people who look like them. Click here for details. Notice they're targeting NASCAR.

I live in Connecticut and work in New York City. On the streets I see many men wearing the little Muslim skull caps, turbans, women wearing hijabis and so on. Not once in the year and a half since I have been commuting to the city have I ever seen anyone being harrassed because of what they look like or what they are wearing. Not once. On the train I take, predominantly ridden by evil white folks like me, a man in a turban gets on the stop after mine. Again, I have never seen anyone bother him, and he usually sits just a couple of seats ahead of me.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen and never will. However, for NBC to go trawling for what is frankly a cheesy sting operation at NASCAR events and the like is, to me, reverse racism.

Why reverse racism? Because NBC is working off the premise that "white yahoos" who attend NASCAR races are more than likely racist. Why else would they target these events?

Perhaps NBC would be better serving their cause and the community at large if they posted their hidden cameras in different settings across the country, so as to get a better idea of what happens with the various walks of life that America offers.

Then again, by doing that they might not get what they're looking for.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

March 04, 2006

Aaron Brown: News is a Business

According to Contact Music, former CNN anchor Aaron Brown complained that the news in this country is a business.

Well, no kidding.

We live in a capitalist society. People have jobs to make money. Business owners have those businesses to make money. And yes, Aaron, television stations are businesses too. I don't know of too many television anchors (or any other reporters, etc.) who work for free because they are more passionate about getting information to the public than paying the rent.

Sounds more like sour grapes over why he left CNN than any concern about how television news is run.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

February 19, 2006

What the MSM Won't Show

As the MSM gleefully displays "previously unseen" photos from the Abu Ghraib scandal, there are photos of prisoners in Iraq that are not being shown. The Jawa Report has them, and asks, "Where is the UN? Where is Amnesty International? Where is al Jazeera?"

Good questions, but no answers in sight.

Hat tip: GD

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

February 16, 2006

Bryant Gumbel: Still Mumbling

I didn't even realize Bryant Gumbel had what one might call a career going, but he has a show called Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel on HBO. Here's what he had to say about the Winter Olympics (via Newsbusters):

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t care about them and won’t watch them ... Because they’re so trying ... Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won ... So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin."

As David Pierre of Newsbusters comments, "You'd think these remarks would have received more attention than they have. (Well, maybe not.) It's just hard to imagine a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity getting a pass on something like this. Don'tcha think?"

I agree. But perhaps there's another reason Gumbel seems to be given a pass: Unlike O'Reilly and Hannity, Gumbel is a has-been whom no one seems to give much notice to.

Be sure to read the comments at the bottom of the Newsbusters post linked above, as there are some real gems.

Hat tip: Drudge

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

February 02, 2006

UPDATE to Tale of Two Cartoons

Michelle Malkin reports that the NYSun printed the cartoons in today's print edition. I'm glad to see I was wrong. Will the NYTimes be far behind? Hmmm...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

A Tale of Two Cartoons

Welcome Michelle Malkin readers!

By now, anyone who doesn't live under the proverbial rock knows that all of Europe is in an uproar regarding cartoons published in a Danish newspaper last fall depicting unflattering portraits of Mohammed. Even if they were respectful it would be considered blasphemy by Muslims, because any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden according to Muslim tradition. Muslims are in an uproar, protesting, lighting Danish flags on fire, and calling for a boycott of Denmark.

Now, European papers are printing the cartoons in a show of solidarity, namely, democratic societies and freedom of the press. (All American ideals, I might add.) Some are asking when American papers will print the cartoons.

I don't think they will. The mainstream American media has been kowtowing to Muslims and other special interest groups for years. If it's anti-Western civilization or anti-America, then the MSM is very respectful of it. They wouldn't dream of offending anyone, as that's how progressive-type folks behave.

Unless, of course, it's the U.S. military and/or the Bush administration. The Washington Post published an editorial cartoon by Tom Toles that was so offensive in its depiction of a wounded soldier being "attended to" by "Dr." Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually wrote a letter to the editor expressing their disappointment. So far, there has been no official comment from the Post, although they printed the letter.

Some on the left will probably cry that the Joint Chiefs are trying to subvert the First Amendment rights of Toles and the Washington Post. That, of course, is ridiculous. They wrote a letter to tell the Post how they felt about the cartoon. They didn't have the newspaper offices stormed by soldiers or special agents and its staff taken away in chains while the building was set on fire.

So there you have it. American papers aren't afraid to print controversial cartoons that feature our military in unflattering circumstances. They aren't afraid to offend our troops and their families. Will they take up the cause of Denmark and show solidarity with their European counterparts in the name of free speech? Will they risk upsetting Muslims?

I doubt it. But I could be wrong.

Michelle Malkin and Tammy Bruce have more.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:52 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (2) | MSM

January 21, 2006

Jack Cafferty on the Latest Bush Administration Conspiracy

CNN's Jack Cafferty has been awarded the weekly Judge Elihu Smails Award over at Anklebiting Pundits. Why? He believes that the latest Osama bin Ladin tape was produced by the Bush administration in order to deflect attention from the upcoming hearings about the "wiretapping of America's telephones."

The way he puts it, one might think that each and every phone in America has been bugged, and all mundane conversations about the neighbor who is having an affair and what's being planned for tonight's dinner are being logged for future reference. So the bin Ladin tape shows up now. Coincidences do happen.

What's sad is he is not the only person who believes the nonsense about the tape's "coincidental appearance" to be true.

I belong to a community theater group. We had a meeting just this afternoon in order to plan our upcoming season. At the end of the meeting, someone blurted out that very same theory, which then started a maelstrom of anti-Bush, anti-conservative rhetoric. There was derisive talk saying that ecoterrorists shouldn't be branded as such by a group who thinks it's okay to shoot abortion doctors. (Only extremist weirdos consider it okay to shoot an abortion doctor, but try explaining that to these people.) One person actually said that North Dakota's climate is much like that of Siberia, and that we all need to be careful.

As I am the ONLY conservative in the group -- and they know it -- I simply sat quietly until the tirade ended. Being outnumbered by a ratio of nine to one, being silent is sometimes the best thing.

So, hats off to Jack Cafferty and his league of followers, who put an effective damper on meaningful discussion and debate. Keep those tin hats clean and shiny, as you never know when you might be called upon to don them.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

January 04, 2006

More MSM Follies

A longtime columnist for The Baltimore Sun resigned Tuesday amid allegations of plagiarism from other newspapers, The Sun said early Wednesday.

Michael Olesker, who wrote a column that appeared twice a week in the Maryland section of The Sun for 27 years, quit two weeks before his 30th anniversary as a Baltimore columnist. His most recent column had appeared in Tuesday's Sun.

"I made mistakes," Olesker said as he cleaned out his desk in the newsroom, according to an article in The Sun's editions published Wednesday.

"I am sorry to say that in the course of doing those columns, I unintentionally screwed up a handful of paragraphs. I am embarrassed by my sloppiness," The Sun quoted the columnist as saying.

Do you think this is what Kathleen Parker had in mind when she said (in a column critical of bloggers):

Say what you will about the so-called mainstream media, but no industry agonizes more about how to improve its product, police its own members and better serve its communities. Newspapers are filled with carpal-tunneled wretches, overworked and underpaid, who suffer near-pathological allegiance to getting it right.

Maybe the Sun needs Parker on its editorial staff, to help get it right.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 29, 2005

Kathleen Parker on Bloggers

I read Kathleen Parker's column on Town Hall today. Normally I enjoy her work, but today, I felt like a young child who has been rebuked by his mother for being naughty.

Bloggers persist no matter their contributions or quality, though most would have little to occupy their time were the mainstream media to disappear tomorrow. Some bloggers do their own reporting, but most rely on mainstream reporters to do the heavy lifting. Some bloggers also offer superb commentary, but most babble, buzz and blurt like caffeinated adolescents competing for the Ritalin generation's inevitable senior superlative: Most Obsessive-Compulsive.

Even so, they hold the same megaphone as the adults and enjoy perceived credibility owing to membership in the larger world of blog grown-ups. These effete and often clever baby "bloggies" are rich in time and toys, but bereft of adult supervision. Spoiled and undisciplined, they have grabbed the mike and seized the stage, a privilege granted not by years in the trenches, but by virtue of a three-pronged plug and the miracle of WiFi.

Yikes! She goes on to compare bloggers to the kids gone savage in the classic novel Lord of the Flies (which used to be compulsory high school reading, but I am not sure if it still is).

I considered writing my own rebuttal, but thought twice about what she said about being "spoiled and undisciplined." Fortunately for me and my wishy-washiness, I saw two great rebuttals: one by John Hawkins over at Right Wing News and another by JimK over at Right Thoughts.

Read 'em! (BTW, I did take a journalism class while in college, as well as a course on how to write magazine articles. So, you could call me a semi-trained "journalist.")

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:11 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

December 02, 2005

Another Reason NOT to Watch CBS News

From CalendarLive.com:

NBC's "Today" show co-anchor Katie Couric is being actively wooed by CBS to be its next evening news anchor — a move she is seriously considering, according to sources at both networks.

She's difficult enough to take in the morning. Seeing her in the evening after a long day of work and stress would just about do me in...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:08 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

November 06, 2005

CBS and the Jesus Juice Connection

Apparently some who work at CBS don't worry about a little thing called "conflict of interest." From Newsbusters:

Jesus Juice.jpg
A CBS producer who led the network's coverage of the recent Michael Jackson trial has been marketing a brand of wine under the label "Jesus Juice," complete with a logo of a Christ figure sporting a Jacksonesque red glove, fedora hat, white socks, and penny loafers

NewsBusters.org has learned that Bruce Rheins, a high-level producer for such shows as the "CBS Evening News", and his wife, Dawn Westlake, began preparations for their marketing campaign while the Jackson case was still in court, registering a U.S. trademark for the words "Jesus Juice" in January of 2004, days after word got out that Jackson allegedly referred to wine by that term in attempting to seduce young boys.

Not only is he not worried about conflict of interest, but he doesn't seem to be concerned with good taste, either. Forget about offending Christians, as PC rules don't apply for them.

That a CBS News producer saw it as appropriate to put his name on something that many would consider to be offensive is also problematic. How can viewers trust CBS's reports on religious or cultural issues when one of its top producers is creating anti-Christian spoofs and attempting to profit from them?

That's a good question. What's next? O.J. brand gloves? The slogan could be, "Beat the rap just like the pros!"

Rheins is well aware of accusations of bias. On his personal site, the producer seems to take pleasure in seeing others accuse him of being unfair.

"Everyone thinks I am purposely biased against them. Yet they sure watch my work closely, to make sure I don't upset their world view. I take comfort in this inadvertent power I seem to have in their lives."

Emphasis mine. That pretty much sums it up, don't you think? And this is the kind of "unbiased" journalist we have in a high position at a major news outlet. Tell me, how many times have we heard about a conflict of interest between VP Dick Cheney and Halliburton by the MSM? Puh-leeze.

Thanks to Kitty for the tip!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:17 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

November 03, 2005

Underreported or Bogus?

According to a group called Project Censored, the mainstream media ignored or underreported some major stories last year. No, they're not talking about our troops building schools and restoring water and power in Iraq. The stories they're worried about include the following:

Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death Toll

Les Roberts, an investigator with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, conducted a rigorous inquiry into pre- and post-invasion mortality in Iraq, sneaking into Iraq by lying flat on the bed of an SUV and training observers on the scene. The results were published in the Lancet , a prestigious peer-reviewed British medical journal, on Oct. 29, 2004--just four days prior to the U.S. presidential elections. Roberts and his team (including researchers from Columbia University and from Al-Mustansiriya University, in Baghdad) concluded that "the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably about 100,000 people, and may be much higher."

That sounds horrendous indeed. Why didn't we hear more about it? Well, Slate.com takes a stab at it:

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

But wait, there are more underreported stories to discover...

Read More "Underreported or Bogus?"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

October 31, 2005

CBS: Sloppy Seconds?

One would assume that being the Chief White House Correspondent for a major news outlet such as CBS means the reporter, having "paid his dues," would have a modicum of dignity and class.

Well, er, no.logo_cbsnews.gif

From Drudge:

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

Thank goodness our news is being delivered in an unbiased and professional manner. All of those dollars Roberts spent getting his journalism training at college have really paid off. Way to go!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

October 25, 2005

Conspicuous Media Bias

The Washington Post has an article today entitled "Husband Conspicuous in Leak Case." It seems that "suddenly" Joe Wilson is being looked at as playing a part in the releasing of his wife's name. You know who she is...Valerie Plame.

Only now is Wilson being considered conspicuous? He's done his darndest for the last two years to stay conspicuous, what with his gadding about with celebrities, running the news magazine show gamut, and writing a book.

Here's what jumps out at me in this article (emphases mine):

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page, defending the administration, wrote yesterday that, "Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for president campaign." Discussing his trip to Niger, the Journal judged: "Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found on a CIA trip to Africa, what he told the CIA about it, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited."

Now read this:

Wilson's defenders say he is a truth-teller who has been unfairly attacked. "[T]he White House responded to Ambassador Wilson in the worst possible way," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said at a Democratic gathering in July. "They did not present substantive evidence to justify the uranium claim. . . . Instead, it appears that the president's advisers launched a smear campaign, and Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, became collateral damage."

See the difference? Both paragraphs are factual, but look at how the facts are presented. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative, true. The point of editorials is indeed to toss out opinions. It's where opinions belong in a newspaper. But how would the Post like being characterized as having a "liberal" editorial page? Notice, too, how they use the word "judge" in that phrase, and then look at the response by Senator Waxman. He only "said" that Wilson was the victim of a smear campaign, while the Journal "judged" Wilson's original claims about his trip to Africa.

Is this nitpicking? Some might think so. But how news stories are worded has as much to do with what they say as the facts that are presented. Back in college, I did my senior thesis on this subject, using a former local mayor who was on trial for bribery while he was in office. The local newspaper was very obvious in its support for the mayor by the wording of its articles--especially in descriptions of the mayor and the prosecuting attorney. (I got an A on the paper.)

There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. The human element is nearly impossible to erase. The best way to get around such biases is to present more than one point of view and let the readers/viewers sort through the muck--something many MSM outlets are loathe to do, because they can't admit that such a bias exists. That would be tatamount to admitting they are human and can screw up.

Being toppled from a pedestal...especially a self-constructed one...is a painful process indeed.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

September 21, 2005

Headline Quickies

NY Times Cutting 500 Jobs, 4 Percent Of Work Force: I thought the cerebral Times was above such petty details as money. It's sooo capitalistic!

Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No on Roberts: Why, it's Harry Reid. And we're surprised why?

Government: Man Wanted Bush Assassinated: Democrats suggest giving him the Congressional Medal of Honor.

New Orleans Mayor Orders Evacuation: Nearly four weeks after Katrina. Hey, he finally gets it!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial