Showing posts with label MSM coverage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM coverage. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Hillary Clinton Under a Cloud: Under Pressure Under Fire

MSM No Longer Under her Thumb

"It was hell...pure Bosnian hell, I tell you!"


Trapped in a MSM World She Didn't Create

Is Hillary Clinton lying?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Lest we sound ungracious toward the former first lady, we'll add that Clinton isn't used to an adversarial relationship with the Mainstream Media. She's still trapped in the Mainstream Media world that the MSM created for her and her husband 1992-2000.




It was a world the MSM painted in stark colors: black, for evil Republicans who opposed her and her husband's plans and policies; white, for the noble Clintons and their equally-noble, liberal friends. Rarely did the MSM shine its scrutinizing light on their actions or remarks.

So when Clinton said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia and had to run for her life, she really meant, "I landed and nothing happened, but here's an interesting story for you--that could have happened."

Dangerous snipers awaited HRC in Bosnia


Watch the 53-second video and make up your mind: "Hillary Clinton Under a Cloud: Under Pressure Under Fire" at DBKP.com.

by Mondoreb
Source: Hillary Clinton Under a Cloud: Under Pressure Under Fire

Digg!

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page

Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama: Man Claims Gay Sex, Drugs in '99 with Barack



The internet is abuzz with an ongoing story where a man alleges he and Senator Barack Obama had gay sex and did illegal drugs in 1999. While the MSM is aware of this story, no one in the MSM has touched it with a ten foot pole.

Is this yet another "non-story" where the MSM, as "watchdogs," decide not to report it? Or is the story about the MSM itself, that the MSM is withholding a potentially damaging report about a popular candidate running in the 2008 election for its own convoluted reasons?

While the MSM continues to ignore this story, the internet has taken up the slack, various blogs have reported on Sinclair and his claims of his illicit involvement with Senator Obama.

The video was posted one month ago on Youtube. Entitled "Obama's Limo Sex and Drug Party," the video has been seen by over 290,000 plus viewers. The man in the video, Larry Sinclair, claims he met up with the then state representative, Barack Obama, in 1999 for drugs and for sex two times, once in a limo and the other at a hotel.





A pudgy, scruffy looking guy wearing a brightly colored shirt and a baseball cap, Sinclair claims he made the video and posted it on Youtube "because of an incident involving myself and Senator Barack between November 3rd and November 8th in the Chicago, Illinois area."

He goes on to state that he and Obama met at an upscale lounge in Chicago, Illinois, in November of 1999.


Sinclair in '99


Sinclair claims that "after having a few drinks, "Obama and I left in my limo, we began to drink, Mr. Obama acquired powdered cocaine for my use, crack cocaine for his use. I performed sex on Senator Obama , who at the time was a state representative for the state of Illinois. Mr. Obama knows these allegations to be true. I'm challenging Mr. Obama to come forth, be honest, stop claiming that his drug use is limited to his teenage years."

Sinclair goes on to directly address Obama:

"In 1999 you weren't a teenager. In 1999 you were a state representative for the people of the state of Illinois. In 1999, I performed oral sex on you in the back of my limo as well as in my hotel room in Gurnee, Illinois, two days later. If you challenge this, the authenticity of this allegation, I challenge you to take a polygraph test as I will submit to as well."

Sinclair goes on to claim the allegations are true:

"These allegations are true and need to told to the public. Let the public decide whether Mr. Obama is being forthright and honest."

Sinclair challenged Obama to take a polygraph. The question was, would Sinclair submit to one as well, after all, he's the one making the nasty allegations against Obama.

The blog, Whitehouse.com, made a challenge to Sinclair. For $10,000 bucks, take a polygraph and put the money where your mouth is, (Not where it once was) and $100,000 smackeroos if Sinclair passes the test.
The truth will set you free they say, but the truth plus $100,000 will set you even freer. That's the conclusion our good friend Larry Sinclair has come to after considering the offer we made him yesterday: $10,000 to take a polygraph test over his Barack Obama sex and drugs claims, and $100,000 if he passes it. Source - Whitehouse.com
Sinclair has also filed a Federal suit against Obama and David Axelrod:
Later in the day, Sinclair filed suit against Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod in Minnesota district court for allegedly attempting to abridge Sinclair's right to free speech, and for waging an intimidation campaign against him. Source - Whitehouse.com
We wondered, is the fact that Larry Sinclair is not the brightest bulb in the bunch, a scruffy, pudgy guy with no credentials, is that why the MSM is turning a blind eye to this story?

What if Sinclair, were, say, someone with an Ivy League background, a six or seven figure income, would this make the MSM sit up and report the story?

We're not sure if they would have reported the story unless, and this is a cynical view of the MSM, Sinclair had made his allegations and had named John McCain or Mike Huckabee as the participants instead of Obama.

We would like to know the truth. It's that simple.

Is Larry Sinclair lying or is he telling the truth? Did he spend time with a candidate for the office of the president of the United States doing coke and letting Larry give him blow jobs?

We don't expect our candidates to be inhumanly perfect but we'd like to know if our guy is into kinky sex and doing drugs before we decide to vote for him. What we shouldn't have to deal with is a press who acts as a watchdog for our interests. This is patronizing and not supposed to be the credo of the MSM.

You report, MSM, then let us decide.

Funny, Larry Sinclair said the same thing in his video.

By LBG
HAT TIP - AWA PUHI
Image - No-Tell Motel
Image - Larry Sinclair
Digg!
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Has Poor Cap'n Ed Jumped the Shark?

John McCain is no Friend of Conservatives


Poor Captain Ed Morrissey.

One almost hates to disagree with the helmsmen over at The Captain's Quarters. But he seems to be a bit out-of-sorts over a remark that commentator/polemicist Ann Coulter made this week.

The remark concerned John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Coulter said that she would campaign for Clinton if McCain won the Republican nomination.

Exact words and context from Fox's Hannity & Colmes.



This was too much for the good Captain.
So let's walk through the logic here. John McCain gets castigated by Coulter because he aligns himself too often with the Democrats. Her solution to that is --- to campaign for the Democrats? Maybe someone can explain the thought process to me, but it sounds like a hysterical demand for extortion rather than a considered and thoughtful political position.

Can someone explain the thought process to the poor Captain?

Well, sure, it can be easily explained.

It's doubtful if the Captain will agree with that thought process, but let's take a look at what DBKP said 2 days ago in McCain's Double Talk Tango.
Global warming? Illegal immigrants? Tax cuts? Free Speech?

John McCain comes down--and comes down hard--on the side of liberals on every one of the above issues.

With a GOP nominee like McCain, who needs Democrats?

In fact, on almost every issue, John McCain and Hillary Clinton are virtually in perfect, harmonious agreement.

One of the few differences is what to label people who oppose them: where Clinton thinks that those who disagree with her are part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", McCain thinks they are "racists", "dishonorable", or "dishonest".

Now, what's so hard to understand about conservative disdain for McCain, Captain Ed?

Clinton or McCain?

One could call McCain "Clinton Lite". But that would be making too great a distinction between the two.

God deliver us from having to make the choice between an arrogant, liberal-leaning Senator who lies, backtracks and launches personal attacks on disagreeing conservative opponents and--an arrogant, liberal-leaning Senator who lies, backtracks and launches personal attacks on disagreeing conservative opponents.

If the Captain would like to check back later today, he'll find an article chock-full of McCain's arrogant, sneering attacks on conservatives over the past several years.

But one suspects The Captain is beyond the forces of reason on this particular topic.

Apparently, if you have an "R" beside your name on the ballot, that trumps all for the Captain.

That "R" gives you the same sort of free pass that liberal mouthpieces like the NY Times and Washington Post give most Democrats--and McCain.

Screw all that.

One last shot from Captain Ed.
It appears Coulter hates McCain more than she cares about conservative values. She has acquired McCain Derangement Syndrome, and is rather obviously unbalanced by it. Sean Hannity was clearly embarrassed to listen to this tirade, and Coulter should have been embarrassed to have indulged in it.

What's embarrassing about the truth?

It's not McCain Derangement Syndrome to look at McCain's record and recoil.

The Good Cap'n. might be a Republican first, and a conservative second, but there's plenty of others who will just as soon watch that sad ship depart without them.

It might be argued that perhaps McCain might appoint a better quality of judges than Clinton.

Maybe.

With John McCain, you never know.

Never.

Ever.

By the time the liberal press starts up its tired, highly-inaccurate "maverick" articles about John McCain, who know?

Cindy Sheehan might be the first McCain Supreme Court nominee.

Cares about conservative values?

John McCain is first and foremost a politician. Tops in the McCain value system is John McCain.

If John McCain is the Republican nominee, expect the liberal press to drop its protective McCain stance and start publishing mounds of material on the Arizona Senator and his web of cozy lobbyist relationships.

They might be his buddies in the primaries, but they'll rightly figure: Why support McCain when Clinton's available? John McCain is just an interestingly acceptable consolation prize for the liberal MSM media.

Coulter articulated what's going to be a popular parlor game come September, if McCain is the nominee with the "R" by his name:

Can John McCain woo more independents and Democrats than the conservatives he alienates?

The correct answer: who cares?

Coulter is right, McCain or Clinton is a choice that only Keith Olbermann--or apparently, Ed Morrissey--could enthusiastically differentiate between.

An increasing number of people will come to the conclusion that if Clinton wins, at least conservatives won't be held responsible for the liberal aftermath.

The only thing that can save the Republicans is that McCain is considered by the MSM to be "unstoppable".



Has Ann Coulter jumped the shark?

One wonders if Captain Ed Morrissey's water skis aren't already waxed and ready?

by Mondoreb
images: istock; wikipedia
Sources:
* Has Ann Coulter Finally Jumped the Shark
* John McCain's Double Talk Tango
[NOTE: We agree with Ed Morrissey much more than we ever disagree with him on almost every subject. However, this particular one--and the McCain "R" Fetish--is a particular sore spot with us.]

Digg!

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

John Edwards Love Child: Mainstream Press were "Good Little Reporters"


"The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

The famous quote is about a hundred years old and can be traced to the work of Finley Peter Dunne, one of the great journalists of the day, who wrote about politics and culture in the voice and persona of an Irishman named "Mr. Dooley."

Most of today's MSM reporters seem to have that quote backwards, however--at least where John Edwards and the story of his affair with Rielle Hunter, the cover-up and an approving MSM media.

It wasn't that MSM reporters were ignorant of the story and chose not to pursue it--although that was the template that every single MSM outlet followed religiously--it was their antagonism toward any who did pursue it.

They became, in the words of one DBKP staffer, "good little reporters, looking for a Scooby snack".

Some thought that that was being generous: diplomatic-speak for "lap dogs".

MSM reporters perhaps kidded themselves into silence on the Love Child story by 'not wanting to affect the election'.

John Edwards is now dropping his campaign for president, 2008 version. But one has to believe, based on past experiences, that the MSM press will find other excuses not to ask Edwards any tough questions.

Bob Schieffer's famous "two deny rule"--two people in the Edwards campaign denied the story by the National Enquirer, so it's not a valid story--would have damned any Watergate coverage in the 1970s.

But one wonders what the amount of coverage the story would have received had Edwards had an identifying "Rep" after his name.

The Dan Rather revelation on CBS Evening News of forged, fake documents concerning President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard comes to mind.

The stonewalling of CBS in the face of indisputable evidence the documents were forged also comes to mind.

All that occurred on the eve of a national presidential election.

Thank goodness Edwards had the anointed "Dem" by his name: it usually proves to be the 'mark of indulgence' by the mainstream press. In effect, it's a free pass for behavior, criminal and otherwise.

True to form, the MSM press didn't deviate on the Edwards-Hunter story, either.

The reporters following Edwards on the campaign beat were good little reporters: never rocking the boat, not wishing to write a discouraging word. Eating and traveling with the candidate they became the press equivalent of bodyguards.

Meanwhile, the millions of people who might have been interested in watching a CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN news show reliably stayed away from those "news shows", as they were as usual, devoid of news.

They were busying scouring the Internet for information on Rielle Hunter, the woman who worked with and for Edwards and then mysteriously was taken under the campaign's wing when she became pregnant.

"Reille Hunter" continued to attract millions of searches a day by people seeking to twart the MSM media blackout on the story.



From Wonkette, last month:
Last month’s National Enquirer story on John Edwards and his alleged affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter may or may not be total bullshit. One insider said “there’s a lot of smoke… no smoking gun,” while another said the tab has plans to publish e-mails containing damning details of the reported affair.

Enquirer editor David Perel wouldn’t comment on the recent speculation, telling Rush & Malloy “I never like to talk about what’s not published, but we are still doing the story. The original story was 100% accurate.” Meanwhile, Edwards says “the story disappeared because it’s made up.”

To which Wonkette replied, "Umm, yeah..."

The only instance of the Mainstream Media "looking into the John Edwards scandal" was an ABC 20/20 story which claimed this was shaping up as possibly the dirtiest campaign in history.

The 20/20 "report" was, in actuality, a good example of the press playing bodyguard for John Edwards and wasn't interested in determining the truth of the allegations: most easily checked, if any reporter had the desire to rock the boat.
One of the stories cited by the news network―the National Enquirer account of Democratic candidate John Edwards allegedly fathering a “love child” out of wedlock―was denied but not disproven. Despite its reputation as a supermarket tabloid, the National Enquirer is the paper that broke the story, which was confirmed, of Jesse Jackson having an illegitimate child. Hence, the paper’s exclusives cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Until this ABC report, the mainstream media had not touched the Edwards story. However, the British newspaper The Daily Mail media ran a story citing Edwards’ denial of the affair.

ABC sniffed at the reporting of the Enquirer, which has spent time, money and resources on the John Edwards affair, without devoting one minute reporting or checking to determine the truth of any of the allegations.

John Edwards never had to answer any questions concerning the affair, the cover-up or the possible use of campaign funds for Rielle Hunter's upkeep.

Not one.

No questions about whether he had been in telephone contact with Ms. Hunter since she learned she was pregnant.

Not one.

No inconvenient questions about the campaign videos, paid for by the Edwards campaign and produced by Hunter, which disappeared for awhile--until the National Enquirer broke the Love Child scandal.

Not one.

This non-reporting has been a trademark of network "journalism" is recent years and is one of the reasons that the Network News shows continue their death spiral into oblivion.

NOT ONE reporter of a major news organization has put the question to Edwards: "Do you deny that you have been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter since she found out she was pregnant?"

Not one.

Whether you thought the story was true or false, it has to be admitted that the breadth and width of the "good little reporter" syndrome was breathtaking.

"If a story happens in the woods and the MSM doesn't report it, is it still news?"

Of course, the answer is increasingly: "Who cares?"

The destiny of ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN seems to be to join MS-NBC as sort of a carnival freak sideshow of news--trusted by few, watched by less.

The MSM nightly newscasts and shows are watched by a very small, isolated, cult-like band of loyal viewers: derided by their erstwhile viewers in the same way that the Mainstream press deride the National Enquirer.

Reports that Hunter is being tended to by an Edwards campaign operative, living in the house of an Edwards campaign donor and driving a vehicle owned by former Edwards campaign finance director excited no interest in the MSM.

MSM reporters--timid at best, scared of losing access to Edwards at worst--were the worst kind of reporters: supplying a steady stream of puff pieces in lieu of asking hard questions; supplying real news.

It is true that the worst journalism comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. That is a breach of duty.

We need journalists to get at the truth and to keep watch against abuses of power. They have a hard enough time getting that right.


In the John Edwards affair and it's subsequent cover-up, the Mainstream press has been most effective in its new role of "comforting the comfortable."

And for a few lucky reporters covering the Edwards campaign, it's sure to pay off: they most likely will get a seat on the Edwards campaign plane during his next run for the presidency in 2012.

They'll still be writing puff pieces and refusing to follow up good work done by outcasts like the National Enquirer--and increasingly, the blogs they never tire of disparaging.

Four predictions--one needn't be a Nostradamus--concerning the MSM press.

1 They will continue to be good little campaign reporters and eagerly await their 'grades' (read: access) bestowed by the campaign.

2 People will continue to ignore them and their manufactured news: puff pieces for the favored; 'scandals' and hard questions for those who disagree with them.

3 People will continue to mistrust the MSM, with good reason. That includes every arrogant pronouncement on those doing stories the MSM press sniffs at.

4 Would-be viewers will continue to gravitate toward those working at journalism, whether it's practiced by blogs or the National Enquirer.

By 2012, people will sign onto the Internet for their news and the only ones getting their information from TV news shows will be that small group of viewers the MSM press despises: those with little education and critical reasoning skills.

In other words, the Jerry Springer faithful.



John Edwards-Rielle Hunter LOVE CHILD LIBRARY
Over 28 DBKP stories and videos since the story first broke on November 19, 2007 by the National Enquirer.



by Mondoreb
image: dnc, national enquirer
Sources:
* Emails may Reveal John Edwards Had Affair
* DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library
* Who's Guilty of Campaign Dirty Tricks
* Comfort the Afflicted...

Digg!

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Why Liberals Cry For John McCain

David Brooks on The Mainstream Media's favorite Republican Great Hope: John McCain.

AMAZING NYT's TWOFER!

Conservative voters are acting like liberals!

David Brooks spins a tale about conservative leaders not being nice to John McCain.
And an equally amusing tale of conservatives revolting against their principles.


David Brooks of the New York Times pens a liberal Mainstream Media member's wet dream of the opposition in today's MSM flagship.

It's hard to know where to begin on this one. Brooks' take on McCain is a MSM equivalent of a sloppy kiss. No tongue this time; but there's plenty time for that later.

Brooks' talks yet again of the splintering of the conservative movement. To the David Brooks in the MSM, conservatism is just like the flip side of liberalism: just a bunch of people trying to get their hands on the levers of powers, no principles needed.
An oppositional mentality set in: if the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If The New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it O.K.

Apostates and deviationists were expelled or found wanting, and the boundaries of acceptable thought narrowed. Moderate Republicans were expelled for squishiness. Millions of coastal suburbanites left the party in disgust.

Ah, to be David Brooks.

Ah, to write for the Times.

Where everyone who disagrees with your opinion of the world doing it for the sheer joy derived from opposing a liberal viewpoint.

That, of course, is just an interesting side benefit of thinking independently of the New York Times' party line.

Just because liberals can shift in the course of years from believing the Earth is threatened with Global Cooling to their latest fad, Global Warming, doesn't mean that those who take a more reasoned, longer look at the cycles of climate are of similar bent.

Conservatives have heard the Global Warming sideshow before: when it was Global Cooling. Because we don't want the liberal's favorite fix for everyting--more taxes, more government, more regulation--we are, in David Brooks' eyes, opposing Global Warming for the sheer contrariness of it.

"Conservatives are being mean to John McCain!"


But this article is more. It's also about the favorite Republican of the Moment for the MSM: John McCain.

David Brooks sees hope for conservatives because--surprise!--they aren't acting like conservatives!?!?
Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders. Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you’d get from conservative officialdom.

David Brooks' fondest dream: that conservatives re-invent themselves as liberals!

Who to lead this exciting Renaissance?

Time for The New York Times' favorite, John McCain, to step up to the plate.
McCain’s winning coalition in South Carolina was pretty broad. He lost among the extremely conservative but won among the somewhat conservative and the moderates. He lost among those who go to church more than once a week, but won among weekly churchgoers. He won among those who strongly support the Bush administration and among those who are angry at the Bush administration, among those who strongly support the war and among those who strongly oppose it. He won every income group over $30,000.

McCain's winning coalition in South Carolina was pretty broad, for sure. It included Independents and Democrats.

It's a quiet secret that the MSM hasn't reported that no Republican primary yet has featured voters of only the Republican persuasion.

McCain is David Brooks' favorite Republican because so many of McCain's positions echo those of David Brooks.

Imagine that.

Brooks takes to task conservative leaders (Rush Limbaugh) that supposedly are irrelevant now. Of course, Brooks doesn't cite Limbaugh's ratings numbers versus the continually-declining circulation numbers of the New York Times.

If all conservatives aren't listening to Limbaugh in Brooks' view, it's hard to see just who is listening to David Brooks, outside of the NY metro area and some Washington insider subscribers.

Brooks finishes up with a liberal's fondest wish: "And McCain’s success has raised an astonishing specter: Republicans may actually have a shot at winning this year."

David Brooks is right. If the the election were held today, John McCain might surely be the winner.

If the only voters were the New York Times' Editorial writers.

And that's another liberal wet dream.

by Mondoreb

[images: healthinaction; NYTimes;
Sources:
* The Voters Revolt

Digg!

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page

Sunday, December 30, 2007

The SS John Edwards Love Child Scandal Sets Sail



It's been almost two weeks since the National Enquirer first broke the story of John Edward's "alleged" love child.

The story of Edwards and the video maker vixen: how Edwards hired a 44-year-old single lass to make a series of films on the "real John Edwards" turned into an affair, and then a bun in the oven for Ms. Hunter.

The MSM turned up its collective noses at the Enquirer piece. Edwards denied it, to some reporter, somewhere on the primary campaign trail. Edwards, Democrat, former malpractice attorney and one time Senator from North Carolina is running for the office of President.

We're still baffled by the silence, or laziness of the MSM on this matter. Have we reached an era when the MSM know longer cares what a candidate does in his spare time while campaigning for President, at least the Democrat candidates. Woe unto any Republican: the same set of sub-standards applied to the Dems do not apply to them.

For the MSM to look askance at the Enquirer story about Edwards is puzzling. The Enquirer was responsible for breaking Pardongate: Hillary Clinton's two siblings, with their pockets lined with cash from persons pardoned by husband Bill, during the remaining hours of his presidency.

The Enquirer also spilled the beans on Rush Limbaugh's love affair with the drug, Oxycontin.

The Enquirer exposed Senator Gary Hart with a lovely lass on his knee on the boat, Monkey Business, when Hart ran for President. The all-important semen stained dress worn by the rubinesque intern, Monica Lewinsky, during her romps with then President Clinton.

Those stories by the Enquirer were proven to be true which means there's likely probability of truth in the Edward's Love Child story. And yet the MSM has chosen to not investigate. Evidently the percentages or probabilities or "sources" must be higher in order for the MSM to turn a jaundice eye on the possible shenanigans of an ex-Senator running for president.

Either the MSM believes the "word" of Edwards, which we find fascinating; after all, the man is a politician running for the highest position in the land.

Or, the MSM does not care.

It's alleged that Edwards has a pregnant mistress. Since the MSM has decided it won't investigate--or "can't" investigate, we're not sure--it will remain "alleged".

From Dave In Boca:
MSM Consigns Edwards Mystery to Memory Hole
Rielle Hunter again exits stage left as John Edwards continues his Teflon progress to the primaries. If this were a Republican candidate, dozens of reporters would vie for more details.

I'm reminded of Oscar Wilde's response to a fellow author who asked about what to do about a "conspiracy of silence" concerning his candidacy for a literary prize.

Oscar's pithy advice: "Join it."

However, if Edwards manages to survive the pre-Super Tuesday rush to judgment, this vignette should be examined more closely, as he already appears to be hypocritical far beyond the normal two-faced norm of major candidates!
Until then, Edwards seems to gotten a "Get Out Of A Scandal" Free Card from the Community MSM. The SS John Edwards Love Child story will sail out of sight, perhaps somewhere such as the Bermuda Triangle or Sargasso Sea.

By Little Baby Ginn
Image - Bermuda Triangle

Source - DBKP - John Edwards Shared More Than Shampoo with Rielle Hunter?


DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page


Friday, December 21, 2007

John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Source Too Tainted for MSM?

National Enquirer not part of the MSM Brotherhood

What is a politician to do?

Let’s say you’ve gotten involved with a former associate on your campaign. For example, someone, oh say, that’s produced campaign videos for your cause.

And let’s continue, for the sake of argument, that you and this comely lass got caught up in the moment and magic happened.

An untidy pregnancy resulted, and even though your position on the campaign trail favors abortion on demand, in your private life, you have children.

Or perhaps, the mother wanted a reminder of the good times.

Again, what’s a candidate to do?

Hypothetically, if you were someone running for office and you had a unseemly scandal you wanted to hide in plain sight, here's a solution that's guaranteed to succeed.

Hand it over the Enquirer, let them publish it. Sit back and watch the MSM ignore it until it dies on the vine.

Not all stories come wrapped in pretty bows, some come by way of less than "ethical" standards, at least in the minds of mainstream journalists in regards to the National Enquirer.

The National Enquirer is a tabloid whose stories run the gamut from celebrity gossip to political scandals. A step up from the tabloids which scream tales of 500 pd women giving birth to alien babies or yet another sighting of Bigfoot.

The Enquirer has had its moments, much to the chagrin of the intrepid MSM. Stories such as Pardongate, Jesse Jackson's love child, Gary Hart's Monkey Business and Monica Lewinsky's semen stained dark blue polka dot dress came from the colorful pages of the supermarket rag. Not only did the Enquirer break these stories to the public but each story revealed a dark side to these politicians that were less than sterling, a side which pertained to their character. They got caught with their pants down or with less than ethical reasons for granting pardons.

All these stories were initially treated as pariahs or put into the same category as Bigfoot or flying saucers because they were broken by the Enquirer but in the end the stories were true.

The same scenario is being played out once again. The Enquirer has broken a story of John Edward's "alleged" love child. The MSM is silent. If the story about Edwards is true and the MSM remains silent then this story will have been out there, in plain sight, and then died on the media vine.

We're not maintaining the story about Edwards and his "love child" is true but how we will ever know? The MSM has decided the story, since it originated from the National Enquirer, is untouchable and therefore, no effort will be made to verify its veracity.

Tainted by the fruit of the poisoned tabloid.


By LBG
notes: Mondoreb
Image [tvhistory.tv]

DBKP's John Edwards Love Child Scandal
* * * LIBRARY * * *
18 DBKP Stories on the Scandal

JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SEX SCANDAL

LATEST:
at 10:25 EST

* The "Interview" That Never Happened

* Source Too 'Tainted For MSM?

* Rielle Hunter: 'Kept Woman'

* UPDATE: Hunter Living in Edwards Backer's House

* Enquirer Update and New Questions!

* CBS Interested Now? Mysterious Videos

* 10 Things We Now Know About the John Edwards Love Child Scandal

* ENQUIRER Fires Second Salvo at Edwards

* John Edwards Love Child Scandal Has Hit the Stands

* QUIZ: Name that Scandal!

* Edwards Scandal? Surf's Up!

* Is This Thing Still On or What?

* Hunter Still Living the "Life of Rielle"

* Edwards Alleged Love Child: Clintons Orchestrated Rumor?

* DBKP World Exclusive! Photos of the Pair??

* Who Is Rielle Hunter?

* John Edwards Shared More Than Shampoo With Rielle Hunter?



Digg!

Back to Front Page.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

More Bad News From Afghanistan:
For the Mainstream Media

More bad news from Afghanistan--for Old Media.

[hat tip: Awa Puhi & Pat]

No matter how the mainstream media tries to dress it up, the news coming out of Iraq these days is mostly of the good variety. Deaths down, more territory secured and more Iraqis lining up behind what they can increasingly see is the strong horse: the United States military.

So what's the big mainstream story? Deaths in Afghanistan are up. Newsroom inhabitants at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NY Times and other outposts in the once-monolithic liberal news empire can come out from under their beds. It's not that bad. The reason is simple for anyone who studies both the Afghan situation and Congress: ineptitude.

A look behind the statistics from Christian Lowe at the Weekly Standard:
IT'S TRUE THAT INSURGENT violence is on the rise in Afghanistan, with a surging Taliban taking up tactics first used against U.S. forces in Iraq, including suicide bombs, improvised explosive devices, and vehicle-borne IEDs. Afghan civilians and national security forces are being killed in greater numbers this year than any year since the 2001 invasion. According to an Afghan diplomatic source, 700 civilians have been killed so far this year--some in poorly-targeted U.S. bombing raids--but a large proportion of those have been the victims of insurgent attacks.

The other side of the story is quite different, however. Along with the rise in Taliban--and to some extent, al Qaeda violence--has come a sharp increase in the number of insurgents killed by Coalition (mostly American and Australian) troops and Afghan security forces. The Afghan diplomat said about 3,500 Taliban have been killed this year, and several top commanders captured.
The U.S. commanders on the ground in Afghanistan don't see the same situation as big US media outlets.
"In this type of war, when you mass against forces like us . . . without firepower, we're able to destroy them quite easily and we've shown that over the last six to seven months," said Col. Thomas McGrath, the American commander in charge of training Afghan security forces near Kandahar. "They're bringing in cohorts of young men who really don't know any better and it's been a colossal failure for them."
Rats! Another gloomy war storyline shot to hell. What's a reporter to do? When everything you've learned the last 40 years about spinning the news to the liberal viewpoint turns out not to be working, what's to be done?

Besides commiserate with like-minded colleagues around the Perrier cooler?

Years from now, coverage of the two fronts in the War on Terror will be a textbook case of the factors that sped the demise of Big Media. When there are other outlets for people to turn to for news, they can comparison shop. News consumers are increasingly turning away from the Old Media.

The way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been covered by Old Media is just one more reason more of them would rather switch.

by Mondoreb

Digg!

Back to Front Page.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

More Bad News for the Left

U.S. TROOPS KILL ANOTHER
AL QUAEDA LEADER IN IRAQ

by Mondoreb[CNN photo]

September has proven to be a month of unrelenting bad news concerning the War in Iraq--for the American Left and the Democrats. From CNN:
A U.S. military commander Friday reported the death of a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader, a Tunisian who was considered the "emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq."

U.S.-led coalition forces killed militant leader Abu Usama al-Tunisi on Tuesday in Mussayib, south of Baghdad, said Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, speaking to Pentagon reporters via teleconference from Iraq.
Insurgents killed, tough but significant American gains, Iraqi tribes switching allegiance to the US, the Petraeus Report, figures of 19000 enemy combatants killed--and now this. Another terrorist leader killed in Iraq.

This good news for U.S. troops is bad news for Code Pink. The anti-American Left is being forced to ask some hard questions. "Did we back the wrong horse," "Weren't the Iranians supposed to be helping out here," and "What's it going to take for the insurgents to start winning again"? Any day now, a Democrat-sponsored bill to help the seemingly-inept 'militants' might be expected.
Anderson called the death "a significant blow" to al Qaeda in Iraq -- a Sunni-dominated militant group that takes its inspiration from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.
Like a schoolyard bully who's been picking on the little kid, only to discover the kids's much larger and more powerful older brother behind him, the anti-war crowd is suddenly shocked and disturbed. One telling bit information from the above report.
Military commanders have said the leadership in the Iraqi group includes many foreigners, while the rank-and-file members are Iraqis.
Google "civil war in Iraq" and one gets over 16.3 million results. The Mainstream Media has been unwavering in their reportage about this Bush blunder into something that has no solution. It's a bizarre 'civil war': where the leaders come from other countries and the Iraqi people complain of being killed by foreigners.

More good news for U.S. troops resulting in: more hands wrung in torment on the Left, louder and more strident anti-war rhetoric receiving more coverage in the MSM. Also expect to see Democrat presidential candidates, dancing like angels on the head of a pin: performing the 'Talking-Point Polka', in an attempt to deal with continuing good news coming from Iraq.

DIGG THIS!
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to FRONT PAGE