Category Archives: Media Criticism

So What’s Stopping Her?

Nancy Pelosi says that the bailout bill has to pass.

OK, Madame Speaker, if you believe that, if it’s such a great idea, then why not pass it? Your party controls the House. There is no filibuster as there is in the Senate. There’s nothing the House Republicans can do to stop you. So where is the bill?

Obviously, she just wants keister upholstery in case it doesn’t work. She wants to get buy-in from the Republicans so that they can share the blame for the taxpayer ripoff. I don’t see why they should give it to her. And I also don’t see why this isn’t pointed out in news stories like this.

Oh, right.

The Continuing Coverup

Clarice Feldman notes that Bill Ayers was a lot more than a “guy in Barack’s neighborhood.”

How is it possible that Obama in writing two autobiographies could ignore his 13 year-long association with Ayers if he were not purposely trying to hide or downplay it? How is it possible that the media could continue to ignore the CAC story? How is it possible that American voters, who regularly indicate such enormous concern over educational issues, could be so long kept in the dark by the Fourth Estate about the educational project Obama ran into the ground while he aided his revolutionary pals in recruiting Chicago kids to their extreme left wing mission?

It’s clear that Obama and his friends, including those in the press, are trying to keep this all bottled up at least until after the election.

Then, I suppose, like the Clinton peccadilloes in Arkansas, this story will be free to unfold, too late to inform the voters.

Except unlike 1992, we have alternate media today.

Joe Biden’s Memory

It’s so good, that he remembers things that didn’t happen:

…I think Joe Biden’s constant flights of fancy indicate he’s not a terribly precise thinker or speaker, and he’s certainly not used to being called out on these, or being corrected. He takes in data and remembers what he wants to remember, not the facts as they actually are.

(More on this list – he keeps insisting that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver when the driver in question was sober; he keeps saying he was a coal miner when his grandfather was; he says the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said we’re losing the war in Iraq (he said we were “not winning” in Afghanistan)… )

I know we’re supposed to be worried about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but I really wonder what kind of diplomatic crises could be triggered by a globetrotting vice president who kept talking about events that didn’t happen…

I don’t think that Biden’s IQ is as high as he thinks it is.

And I agree that this is one gaffe that’s really going to hurt him. I expect it will be featured in a lot of McCain ads in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[Update a few minutes later]

Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point:

In short, the problem is not whether we think the affable Biden’s latest slip/goof/outrage is important, but whether we think anything he says any more is important. The next time he tries to offer something serious, from the AIG matter and coal power to campaign ads and Sarah Palin, I think we are at the point where most will smile, ignore him, and think ‘That’s just Biden being Biden.’ He could give the Gettyburg Address tomorrow, and the public wouldn’t know whether he wrote it, whether he was going to retract it, whether it was true, or whether he was serious.

I haven’t taken Joe Biden seriously in years. Actually, I can’t recall a time that I ever did.

The Age Of Obamalot

Jeff Goldstein muses on just how deeply the MSM is in the tank for the Dems this year:

This is not hyperbole: a free society relies on a free press to inform. That the mainstream press leans demonstrably left is not the problem in and of itself; the problem arises when that demonstrable bias is given cover as “objective,” and when those who believe they are basing their support for a candidate or platform on objective reporting are in effect doing no such thing, but are rather being coaxed, prodded, directed, and manipulated — in everything from what comes to count as newsworthy to, in cases like these, shoddy reporting (which may or may not be intentional), the effect of which is to leave those who rely on the media literally less informed than had the media reported nothing at all.

A free society cannot run this way. If information is power, those who control the information and its mainstream dissemination are in a position to act as the most important swing vote in any election. That the press has given up, at this late stage (and despite declines in readership and public trust), any serious attempt to report objectively suggests that we are now quite immersed in a battle for the very principles of a democratic republic. Progressives have decided that the ends justify the means — that lies in the service of greater truths (as defined by their own ideology) are both pragmatic and utilitarian measures to be adopted so that “we” can finally get things “right,” and accept government from a permanent political class, a new aristocracy, that will expand the federal government in ways that will protect us from ourselves, in the process, assuring that ever new generations will be reliable upon the good graces of the federal government for their survival.

The new media held promise for fighting back. But the left recognized this immediately and built a counter balance to the MSM fact-checkers — and, in a perverse expansion of their role as foils, these progressive “netroots” are now responsible for feeding stories to the mainstream press, a further assault on the Enlightenment mandate for the free exchange of ideas, and further proof that progressives are every bit the totalitarians and would be fascists that I have long suggested they must necessarily be, given the philosophical imperatives that underwrite their political philosophy.

As he says, the problem is not the bias per se, but the ongoing denial of it, to us and (perhaps) themselves.

[Update a while later]

Tony Blankley writes about The Man Who Never Was:

…worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama’s life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama’s two years at New York’s Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband’s driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. But in two years, they haven’t bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama’s rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great — and unflattering — details on Obama’s Chicago years presented in David Freddoso’s new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso’s book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal’s respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, “The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis.”

We’ll just have to bypass them. I’m counting on the 527s to do it.

We Knew This Was Coming

There are more and more stories appearing in the media with the template that we’re a racist nation. This is preparing the groundwork to blame Obama’s upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots, of both parties. And of course, poor Michelle won’t be able to feel proud of America any more.

No, it won’t have anything to do with the fact that he’s Michael Dukakis with more melanin. It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and his running mate comes in third, that one needs a scanning tunneling microscope to measure the thickness of his resume, that he sat in the pew of an America-hating bigot for twenty years and had his children baptized by him, that he partnered with an unrepentent domestic terrorist to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. No, it will be our fault, because we are racist, and don’t deserve the blessings of having The One preside over our unworthy nation.

Anyway, here’s the latest example, from US News.

[Wednesday morning update]

Jonah Goldberg has related thoughts today:

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people — and how highly they think of themselves … and Obama. Obama’s lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain’s experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Nope. It’s got to be the racism.

The Obama-Ayers Connection

It’s finally starting to get some play in the MSM, but only at the Wall Street Journal:

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s “recruitment” to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.

In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Gray Lady to cover it. And unfortunately, it doesn’t lend itself to a ten-second explanation or sound bite, other than “Barack Obama worked to radicalize Chicago school children.” But someone should ask him just what there was to show for the hundred million, since it’s the only thing that he’s ever actually run (other than, as the Reverend Jesse Jackson amusingly noted, his mouth).

More thoughts over at Hot Air.

[Update a while later]

Dr. Kurtz has more over at NRO:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.

“Most important”? More like “only,” unless one counts running his campaign (which is really done by Axelrod).

J-Vator? Probably Not

Leo Lewis notes that boosters at the Japan Space Elevator Association are psyched. Unfortunately, material science problems are still a challenge, albeit one that has potential to be solved quickly (say in the next 10-30 years) and economically–but it’s still only potential at this point. Kevlar is still king of industrial cabling, body armor, etc. so super strong materials will be a laboratory curiosity for some years before they will be available for Earthbound uses, much less space uses.

One oddity: electric power delivered by the elevator. That would be an electric line that would stretch around the world. Probably better to stick with power beaming by laser. With solar energy very popular, that should not have any laugh test to pass. Another oddity. They stick with the far counterweight popularized by Edwards; this may be OK for initial deployment, but once mass is coming up the cable, the counterweight should be closer and heavier and the cable shorter.

Who Smeared Sarah Palin?

Rusty Shackleford has been doing a lot of research. If this can be traced to the Obama campaign, the FEC should be interested. But they probably won’t be. And neither will the MSM.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Dan Riehl has more. And like roaches fleeing when the lights come on, the perps have pulled down the sites. Not in time, though–they’ve been cached.

You know, this could be a really big story for an enterprising investigative reporter at someplace like the New York Times. Unfortunately, when it comes to Barack Obama, such creatures don’t seem to exist.

[Update mid morning]

Ace has more:

Tomorrow they will claim this was all inadvertent, etc. They’ll say they did produce the ad, and sent it to Winner and Associates to, um, focus-group or something, then decided not to run it, but that dirty Winner family and its employees attempted to get it to go viral without their authorization.


If this is all so innocent, why are the videos being yanked even as we speak?

Just about one hour after the post went up, “cnwinner,” “eswinner” and the rest of the winner gang are yanking their videos.

Almost as if… I don’t know, some kind of major campaign organization was patrolling the internet 24/7.

Can we believe “cnwinner,” “eswinner,” and etc. just all suddenly were monitoring the internet and decided to take their videos down simultaneously?

No, we cannot.

Can we believe Winner & Associates scours the internet 24 hours a day for derogatory stories about them?

No, we cannot.

But — can we believe the Obama campaign has people watching the internet 24/7 and just sent out the call to Winner & Associates to bury the evidence?

Yes we can, friends.

Yes we can, even if the Gray Lady can’t.