Category Archives: Media Criticism

Just Heard On Fox

After a story about cave-man (and woman) sex (“So easy, a cave man can do it!”): “Now back to serious news–American Idol.”

Oh, Megyn, you used to sound so smart before you started doing that morning show.

[Update a few minutes later]

OK, on reflection, maybe she was being tongue in cheek. I’d certainly like to think so.

[Update a minute or so later]

Actually, now that I think about it some more, I just like to think about her tongue in a cheek. Maybe even mine.

But I probably shouldn’t have thoughts like that. I’m quite confident that my darling Patricia wouldn’t approve. Nor should she.

Nope. Not thinking about that at all.

The Elephant In The Room

Called Al Qaeda. (Democrat) John Wixted, on the prevalence of the false “civil war” meme:

Awareness of al Qaeda is slowly growing in the minds of mainstream media reporters who have been hamstrung by the civil war schema that they simply cannot get out of their heads. Even so, there is not the slightest mention of the fact that al Qaeda was probably behind yesterday’s bombing. Millions upon millions of readers of countless stories like this all over the world will read about that bombing and then shake their heads at the escalating “civil war” in Iraq. And then they will rage at George Bush for what he has done. Here is CNN’s coverage of that event, and, again, not the slightest hint that this was an attack by al Qaeda (because, I assume, the reporter thinks this was part of the civil war). The CNN story even notes that this was a suicide bomber. Many stories fail to mention that key detail. It is important because virtually all suicide bombers are members of al Qaeda, as I detailed here. As such, this bombing was not part of that civil war. It was another atrocity designed to provoke a civil war that has largely abated since the troop surge began. That’s the key distinction, and it cannot be emphasized often enough. People just don’t get it, so it needs to be explained repeatedly until they do. In fact, what’s missing from discussions by Bush and McCain and others who have the details right is the emphatic statement that these attacks are not part of the civil war; they are attempts by al Qaeda to provoke a civil war. Just stating that these attacks were perpetrated by al Qaeda does not go far enough to change the thinking of those whose minds are ensnared by an obsolete civil war schema. You have to specifically tell them that they are wrong to think like that. That gets their attention (because they are under the comfortable impression that the civil war debate was settled long ago), and it momentarily arouses disbelief (trust me — I’ve been down this path with people many times). When they are presented with incontrovertible facts regarding the role of al Qaeda in Iraq in a moment of disbelief, it has been my experience that minds change (including liberal minds). But you have to directly assert that these attacks are not examples of the civil war in action, nor do they represent sectarian violence. If you don’t, people have great difficulty assimilating the idea that attacks by Sunni al Qaeda against Shiite civilians do not constitute examples of sectarian violence/civil war.

His emphasis, not mine.

“They Lack A Sense Of Irony”

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. “The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony.”

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man’s anti-violence protester is another man’s Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let’s see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here’s the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I’ll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

“They Lack A Sense Of Irony”

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. “The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony.”

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man’s anti-violence protester is another man’s Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let’s see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here’s the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I’ll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

“They Lack A Sense Of Irony”

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. “The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony.”

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man’s anti-violence protester is another man’s Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let’s see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here’s the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I’ll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

What Supermarkets Are Those?

In the wake of the shootings, our friends across the Pond once again proudly put their ignorance on display:

“I think the reason it happens in America is there’s access to weapons — you can go into a supermarket and get powerful automatic weapons,” Keith Ashcroft, a psychologist, told the Press Association.

You can’t legally purchase “automatic” weapons anywhere, let alone in a supermarket, but that doesn’t prevent Dr. Ashcroft from pontificating about a country he knows nothing about. And the WaPo reporter can’t be bothered (and likely is just as clueless) to correct it for the reader.