Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

NY Times Jodi Kantor: Are Journalists the New Internet Predators?



Your Ad Here


Parent Alert!
NY Times reporter sought teens on Facebook

by Rhonda Roland Shearer
Stinky Journalism




[ABOVE: Cartoon depicts a NY Times sanctioned reporting method--contacting teens on Facebook-- that new guidelines only require "prior consultation" with editors.]




Clark Hoyt, The New York Times public editor, recently wrote about a "troubling issue" regarding how the Times deals with minors. Times reporter, Jodi Kantor, wrote what, Hoyt described, was "an unflattering front-page profile of Cindy McCain." Kantor's reporting methods included soliciting teenagers on FaceBook who attended Ms. McCain's daughter's school. Hoyt said, "Trying to find sources for information about Mrs. McCain, a reporter reached out to 16- and 17-year-olds through Facebook, the social networking site."

He continued, "Although the reporter, Jodi Kantor, said in a message to the teenagers that she was ' just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like,' people I heard from thought it was wrong. 'Disgusting,' said Gwilym McGrew of Woodland Hills, Calif. 'Will she be contacting my 12-year-old soon, too?' " Indeed.

Kantor claimed she was not trolling for teens, just their parents. But the count tells the truth. She contacted only one school versus "eight or nine" teens. Her asymmetrical actions state loud and clear that Kantor was seeking teens to find out "what she [McCain] is like as a mother?"



[ABOVE: Are journalists a new kind of Internet predator? Must parents warn teens not to speak to journalists? Image of Jodi Kantor, NY Times reporter, who improperly sought teens on Facebook.]


Kantor's negative profile on Ms. McCain would naturally lead one to question, post hoc, if her upbeat message to the teenagers, was pure deception from the start.

Just exactly what did Kantor write?

Continue reading: Parent Alert!


by Rhonda Roland Shearer
image/source: Stinky Journalism






Thursday, December 4, 2008

Papercuts Poll Results: MSNBC Judged 'Most Unreliable MSM Organization



Your Ad Here


PAPERCUT POLL Results:
Which Mainstream Media Organization is Most Unreliable?







The results of DBKP's poll, "Which Mainstream Media Organization is Most Unreliable?" are in and we have a winner.

35% of respondents chose MSNBC as the most unreliable, biased MSM organization. Fox News was second with 27%.

THE RESULTS:


  1. MSNBC - 35%

  2. Fox News - 27%

  3. New York Times - 18%

  4. CNN - 7%

  5. Los Angeles Times - 4%

  6. CBS News - 2%

  7. Washinton Post - 2%

  8. Newsweek - 1%

  9. TIME - 1%



The ran from November 11-30 2008 and 741 people participated.

DBKP's current poll question, "POLL: Which NFL Team Will Win Super Bowl XLIII" runs until November 8 2008.

Currently, the NY Giants lead with 26%, followed by the Dallas Cowboys, Pittsburgh Steelers and the Tennesee Titans.


by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file





Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Internet, The MSM: The Migration of Failure



Your Ad Here



Times' Writer Discovers The Internet:
"Professional Journalists" Seek Foundation Funding
Instead of Customers Seeking News







"They still don't get it, and never will. That's why when their stock value reaches zero, we'll still be here laughing at their demise."
--JammieWearingFool on the New York Times




Six Hundred Visitors a Day
--and All the Pixels You Can Eat

RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA of the New York Times ($7.00 NYSE, down from $21.14 a year ago) turned on his computer and discovered a non-threatening form of Internet--websites that are run by refugees of failed newspapers.

As America’s newspapers shrink and shed staff, and broadcast news outlets sink in the ratings, a new kind of Web-based news operation has arisen in several cities, forcing the papers to follow the stories they uncover.

Here it is VoiceofSanDiego.org, offering a brand of serious, original reporting by professional journalists — the province of the traditional media, but at a much lower cost of doing business. Since it began in 2005, similar operations have cropped up in New Haven, the Twin Cities, Seattle, St. Louis and Chicago. More are on the way.

Their news coverage and hard-digging investigative reporting stand out in an Internet landscape long dominated by partisan commentary, gossip, vitriol and citizen journalism posted by unpaid amateurs.


The San Diego site gets around 18,000 visitors a month--about 600/day--but it's run by "professional journalists" as opposed to "unpaid amateurs", so it's worth some ink in the NY Times. As Jammie Wearing Fool observes ['This Is the Future of Journalism']

Let's see: Partisan commentary, vitriol and gossip? Sounds like your average day on the Times op-ed page. Or, in some cases, what they run on Page 1.

Well, does the Times ever bother to wonder whether some of us also have newspaper experience? Or is that too much for them to comprehend?

Most of us aren't doing this to pay the bills. We're doing it as a counter to the relentless bias brought to us by outlets such as the Times. And over the past several years, those whom they dismiss as unpaid amateurs sure seem to break more news than established outfits.





Bloggers Do the Jobs
American "Professional Journalists" Won't Do


It's not that the Mainstream Media--The NYT is the poster child for floundering fishwraps--can't do their jobs.

It's that they have refused to do their jobs.

MSM news customers obviously have tired of paying for psuedo-intellectual socialist drivel masquerading as "news": Times' customers have deserted the paper in droves. In response to declining circulation, the NYT has continued the same policies; NYT customers have continued their exodus.

There's certainly a demand for liberal, left-leaning, pompous, arrogant, sniveling newspapers in America.

Not just a very big one, apparently.

It's noticed that the "professional journalists" hope to eventually finance their Internet operation by one of the Left's favorite funding mechanisms: foundation grants.

That figures.

When their journalistic enterprise fails to attract real, live paying customers, their impulse is to ask some foundation to pony up some money to insulate them from the effects of a marketplace that is a regular "professional journalist" whipping boy.

If the Ford Foundation can't spare a dime, maybe these Brave New Journalists can get in line for some bailout moolah.

- - - - -


In the Times' mind, it's the medium, not the message that's at fault.

We would disagree.

MSM "Professional journalists"--whether they're pounding the pavement in search of another gig or pounding the keys posting on the Internet--will likely have trouble attracting new customers. There's only so much demand for their product and it's more than met by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, TIME, Newsweek, NY and LA Times, MSNBC and the Washington Post.

MSM "professional journalists" on the Internet?

Not a lot to get excited about.

Really.

After all, paraphrasing the Times' Fab Fave 2008 candidate: you can put lipstick on the NY Times, but it's still the Times.


by Mondo
image: dbkp




Monday, November 17, 2008

Obama Selective Service Registration: Another Record, Another Question



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama, Selective Service Registration:
Questions, More Questions, Still More Questions




No Curiosity Excited in the Mainstream Media
About Obama's Selective Service Registration





Say what you will, Debbie Schlussel is interesting.

Last week, the motor behind debbieschlussel.com posted an interesting article about the Selective Service registration of Barack Obama. Multiple screenshots--complete with letters A-H highlighting areas that raised questions--make the provocative post must-reading for anyone who has wondered about the squeaky-clean, scrubbed Obama narrative.

In our opinion, Schlussel gets some things right, while other items are a bit less clear. One claim Schlussel makes that falls into the "dubious" category: Obama signed his name with a peace sign. Our view is that this is an overly-dramatic interpretation; interested readers can visit Schlussel's site, examine the BHO signature and make their own judgment.

DBKP attempted to contact Schlussel, but got no response.

From EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions:

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.


Breitbart TV's B-Cast did an informative show on the subject, interviewing Schussel, who walked viewers through the document and the questions about its authenticity.

Though the video is 30 minutes, it's well worth watching for those who are interested in our next Commander-in-Chief's past. Many pieces of the Obama puzzle are, and have been, hidden from public view--including birth, medical, college and university records.

During the campaign, the Mainstream Media exhibited a singular lack of curiosity about their Fab Fave candidate and his past, preferring instead to quote from Obama's two memoirs or the campaign's canned answers.

Inquires about actual records--which would've helped shed light on Obama's background--was a subject that, like the John Edwards' Scandal--remained off-limits in the polite MSM conversations that passed for election news.




ALSO at DBKP: The Missing Records of Barack Obama

* Unreleased Obama Records: Did Obama Attend Columbia?
* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records


Medical Records
Occidental College Records
Columbia University Records
Harvard University Records
Birth Records
University of Chicago Records
Khalidi Video







QUESTIONS:
Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration

The Video



Schlussel's document source--a retired federal employee--does enough detective work to excite interest in normally-inquisitive reporters. Normally-inquisitive reporters are in short supply in the MSM, however, when the subject turns to favored presidential candidates.

In a later update to Schlussel's original post, she provides some information on her source. Schlussel's source is no pajamas-clad basement dweller:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.


About the image at Schlussel's site: it was noted that the date stamped on the form provided by Selective Service and the date on the signature line were different. The differing dates between when the SSR form was signed and the date stamped on the form?

It could be just an honest mistake.

Several other parts of the document are not so easily explained away, particularly the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form.

Obama supporters have claimed that the documents are fake--what else would they say?--but Schlussel has updated her post today with a copy of the letter that Coffman received from the Selective Service Administration, along with the document.






Another Honest Mistake?

Back in September 2007, Newsbusters' Tom Blumer made a quick fact check on another of Obama's Selective Service registration claims. From O-Busted: Selective Service Requirement Did Not Exist When Obama Says He Registered:

In his hilariously titled post ("Mighta Joined If He Coulda Capped Some Cong") on Barack Obama's interview in a barn this morning (not kidding) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, fellow NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported on Obama's answer to a viewer's question about whether he ever considered military service. You can read Mark's post for his overall thoughts, but I want to focus on something the Illinois senator said that several commenters at the post took exception to:

You know, I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. .... But keep in mind: I graduated in 1979.

There are only two "little" problems:

  1. Selective Service Registration was not possible in 1979.
  2. Bob Owens at Pajamas Media noted that Obama registered with the Selective Service with an effective date of September 4, 1980.


Could be another example of another honest mistake.




At least Selective Service has provided some documentation. Previously--at least in February 2008--there was no Selective Service number for Barack Obama at the Selective Service website.

President Bush released his Selective Service Registration Number, why won't Senator Obama?

His campaign just sidesteps the issues as to whether he did register.

The Selective Service, while not releasing his number, claim that the reason you get "No Record Found" when you check for his registation on their website (www.sss.gov ) is because of a dataprocessing error. It seems out of the millions and millions of records, Senator Obama's is the only one that does not show up!


Perhaps, it was just another honest mistake.




One More Honest Mistake?

Bob Owens at Pajamas Media addressed Internet chatter about the Obama Selective Service issue in August 2008, "Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?". It should be noted that Owens wrote his piece without benefit of the document provided by Schlussel's source.

It is a rumor that the Obama campaign has chosen to ignore despite numerous requests, and it is a rumor that even Snopes couldn’t seem to confirm or deny definitively.

After contacting the Selective Service System for an answer several times since late June, Pajamas Media obtained official confirmation from the Selective Service System via email that Barack Obama did indeed register for the Selective Service as required by law, and is eligible to run for the presidency.

Mr. Owens,

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist



While we agree with most of what Owens usually writes, he seems to belong to a subset of bloggers who ascribe all questions concerning the murkiness surrounding Obama's documentation as "rumor-mongers" or "conspiracy theorists".



Prior to September 2008, we included ourselves in this subset. However, the increasing questions about most things in the past of Barack Obama have moved us into another group: the "Missouri-minded".

As in, "Show me".

It seems to us that one, two, possibly three questions concerning Obama records and documents might be given a pass.

But, everything?

When dealing with Obama's background, an incredible pattern of coincidences--which we don't believe--occurs. Whatever the document, whatever the question: the Obama campaign ignored it--until the issue became troublesome.

Then, they would release only enough of an answer to satisfy the very few in the MSM who'd had the brass to ask. Supporters and apologists would then rush in to condemn anyone who wanted a follow-up answer.

Obama's campaign started a website to combat rumors: fightthesmears.com. The only problem, it didn't. Picking and choosing mostly straw-men, the website was a brilliant concept: label inconvenient information that didn't fit the campaign/media narrative about the candidate as "smears".

The Obama campaign used its Internet site to discredit other Internet sites with which it disagreed. Any story that threatened to gain traction was branded a "smear" and relegated to fightthesmears.com, where Obama's thin resume/record was repackaged as Internet fact, wrapped with a bow of indignation.

Harkening back to the 1990s, it's remembered that "conspiracy theorist" was applied to those publications (notably American Spectator) which uncovered uncomfortable questions concerning Bill and Hillary Clinton's past.

When Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination for presidency, a now pro-Obama MSM--which derided those with questions over Hillary's cattle futures and other bits and pieces from Arkansas when they mattered--suddenly ran many of those stories 10-15 years after the fact.

Barack Obama and his apologists apparently remember that particular lesson very well: like the 1990s Clintons, persistent questions about the sanitized version of Obama only come from "conspiracy theorists".


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file; wikimedia




Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Papercuts Poll: Which MSM Organization is Most Unreliable?



Your Ad Here



POLL: Which Mainstream Media Organization is
The MOST Unreliable?

November 11-30 2008









With all of the true confessions now hitting the public about the off-kilter coverage of the election, we thought we'd ask a question.

Which "news" organization was the worst?

The Washington Post has already admitted that the paper's coverage heavily favored Barack Obama. Newsweek's editors then went on the record about their doubts about "media creation" Obama's "creepy" "cult of personality" supporters.

The LA Times--after trying out a variety of excuses--wouldn't release a video of Obama toasting former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 gala.

The NY Times has been silent, but that may be because the paper laid off its ombudsman in the latest round of lay-offs. We're only speculating.

TIME featured Obama on the cover more times over the last 42 weeks (10) than it did Princess Diana (eight) over her lifetime.

MSNBC's ratings are proof the network is not watched--and not to be taken seriously as a news source.

Pick a winner below. We'll announce the results after Thanksgiving in a few weeks.




"Which Mainstream Media (MSM) news organization was the most unreliable during the Election 2008?"


gambling Free polls


Poll opens November 11, 2008.
Poll closes November 30, 2008.

Posted by Mondo
image: dbkp file




Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Martin Eisenstadt-Palin Hoax: No Harm, No Foul



Your Ad Here


True Confessions:
Martin Eisenstadt Story a HOAX
The Hoax of Manmade Climate Change Still Not Reported









Sarah Palin Africa Story Leaker is a Hoax
--But, HOAX Quickly Discovered


Yesterday's story from an obscure blog, Martin Eisenstadt's Blog, claimed the author the source of the "Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent" news leak.

"Eisenstadt the source for Sarah Palin Africa leak...and Proud of it"

By now you’ve all heard the Fox News report last week that “unnamed” former McCain advisers
leaked that Sarah Palin was confused about whether Africa was a continent, and which countries were in NAFTA. I was perfectly happy staying under the radar as an anonymous source for Fox NewsCarl Cameron, but now that Palin has accused her accusers of being “unprofessional…jerks…cowards… taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news” and begun to cast doubt on the Fox News report, maybe she’s right to a certain extent. For those of us on the McCain campaign who thought that she acted like a rogue diva and lost John the election, maybe we DO have a responsibility to come out in public. But Sarah… careful what you ask for: some of us may have more to reveal.

So yes, to be clear, last week I was the one who leaked those things to a producer at Fox News who works with Cameron. Carl and his producers are good guys, and I don’t want them to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer ala Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this.




The story turns out to be as believable as the original leaks were.

That is, they were a hoax.

Some reported on the Eisenstadt revelation; some didn't.

The hoax was caught fairly quickly and alerts issued. MSNBC broadcast the hoax as fact before they caught it. Anyone who watched MSNBC's election coverage couldn't tell any difference in the network's accuracy--either before or after the hoax broadcast.

But we say, whether you wrote or broadcast it or not: it was discovered quickly, so no harm, no foul.





Allah Pundit summed it up pretty well, Video: MSNBC falls for Palin/Eisenstadt hoax

Specifically, this hoax. I’d love to throw stones at them and TNR, but people on our own side were taken in too.

Guys? The post at Shakespeare’s Sister revealing the hoax is linked on the first page of the Google results for “Martin Eisenstadt.” Remember these goofball viral “ads” for Giuliani? Anything look familiar?

The “Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy”? Named after one of America’s worst presidents, whose term in office lasted two years with zero foreign policy accomplishments?


We'd agree with all of that and add one observation. At least TNR didn't take months to report that they'd been had--unlike the Beauchamp diaries fiasco.

Some of the places commenting on the whole affair--both pre- and post-hoax--are listed below.





One Hoax Remains Unreported by the MSM




At least the Eisenstadt story was exposed early on. Most of the places who reported on it were good sports, such as ACE: HOAX: Martin Eisenstadt Admits He's One of Palin-Smear Leakers; Threatens to "Reveal" More

Now that I put a face to the made-up persona, I can see it seems a bit unlikely that a 28 year old NYC hipster-wannabe is a major McCain foreign policy adviser.

Well, he got me.

TNR Retracts... But refuses to credit Allah for alerting them to the hoax.

Note: A dinky site would notice the Hot Air traffic. Not only is Michael Crowley a dupe (as I was), but now he's a dishonest one, pretending that he discovered the hoax on his own.



The only thing we'd disagree with Ace about is the "dupe" label.

Once upon a time, the media reported news. If the news turned out to be false, they reported that also. Then, the name of the media game became, "We're going to hold stories until every last detail can be confirmed".

Fine.

But that policy then morphed into, "We're going to hold stories that we don't think readers have the finely-tuned understanding and reasoning skills about which to make a judgment".

Finally, that policy became--at many MSM outlets--"We're going to hold stories that we don't agree with or that we think are detrimental to our editorial policy".

That policy was responsible for ABC's refusal to air one minute of coverage on the John Edwards scandal--until Edwards turned up on ABC's Nightline on August 8 and started talking about mistresses and babies and hush money and getting caught in the Beverly Hilton.

Imagine ABC viewers' surprise when they learned that the story had been on-going for ten months and they were kept in the dark.

The New York Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, CBS, and the LA Times, among others, duped their readers/viewers for months during the primary and general elections on any number of unreported topics concerning Barack Obama.

They are duping them still on the issue of climate change, though that will be harder to pull off--especially when their news customers are digging out from underneath three feet of global warming.

So, the Eisenstadt 'confession' about the Sarah Palin leaks was a hoax.

Big deal.

It was quickly exposed in the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the other hoaxes which pass for 'news' in daily Mainstream Media reporting continue.

The Eisenstadt hoax was discovered and reported upon. It's a mistake to think that anyone reporting on the original story somehow had their credibility harmed when they quickly reported that it was a sham story.

The man-made climate change hoax has been discovered, but remains largely unreported in the Mainstream Media.

It's when long-running stories have two sides and readers/viewers only hear one of them from supposed "objective news sources" that credibility--and bottom lines--plunge.

Getting hoaxed? Big deal.

Continuing to report a hoax after there's doubt the story is true?

That's everyday policy at most MSM organizations.



by Mondo Frazier
image: kucheats




Saturday, November 8, 2008

MSM Obama Confession Time: WashPo, NewsWeek, MSNBC, LA Times



Your Ad Here


Bias on Record:
Washington Post
Chris Matthews
Newsweek
Los Angeles Times









Mainstream Media: Yes We Can!

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post completely agrees [An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage]:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.


Human Gaffe Machine Joe Biden?

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.


John at Power Line wasn't surprised [Ho Hum] and offers a possible solution.

Howell finds that the Post's coverage of Sarah Palin was especially biased. To which my response is, tell us something we didn't already know. Anyone who can still be shocked by newspapers' liberal bias hasn't been paying attention for a long time. The Washington Post is a Democratic newspaper, and a good one, for the most part. As I've said before, the Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party. But it would be foolish to expect objectivity from what is essentially an arm of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives should stop talking about media bias and start founding (or buying) some newspapers of our own. Of course, until that happens we'll probably still complain about bias from time to time.


Ed Morrissey at Hot Air [Right on time!] sums up DBKP's position on the matter exactly.

Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column. We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media. And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself.




Gateway Pundit has a video of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. [Now That the Election is Over... Media Admits Bias For Obama] Matthews declares that his job as a journalist is to continue his Grand Obama Pimp he perfected during his election coverage.

There will be no traditional press honeymoon between Chris Matthews and Barack Obama, Matthews already having been guilt of the press equivalent of premarital sex.

Journalists not only love new...
They love Democrats.
Sarah Palin was new but they raked her over the coals.
Such is the demise of our mainstream media.
The one thing that is clear after this election-- If you want to find the truth you will have to go elsewhere for your news.

Two words-- Rashid Khalidi.



Jammie Wearing Fool, WaPo Ombudsman: Yes, We Were Completely In the Tank for Obama :

They found plenty of space to go over McCain's health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama's drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I'm sure they'll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.


It's to the Washington Post's credit to admit that its coverage emanated from within the tank. We may see more stories like this.

More likely, we'll see the usual apologia from the MSM about how they were non-biased stalwarts looking out for the interests of the unwashed sheeple who remain as their customers.




NEW YORK Times



Since the NY Times ceased being a serious journalistic endeavor some time ago, we'll let its horrific coverage of Election 2008 pass without comment.





LA Times and the Khalidi Video


The Lost Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of the Obamas, Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers is well-documented. The LA Times previously had ordered its reporters not to write on their blogs about John Edwards getting caught leaving his mistress Rielle Hunter's room at the Beverly Hilton--even after it had been confirmed by Fox News.

* Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED
* John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story

As the LA Times mulls over further lay-offs, it might examine its refusal to provide its remaining customers with a product they seek: news.




NewsWeek Keeps its Obama Thoughts to Itself--until AFTER the Election

Mikes America, at Flopping Aces, tipped off a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek on Charlie Rose: Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):



FA provides the Brokaw video, as well as a transcript, ending with the following observation by MA:

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama? Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?


Yes, they kept all of this out of their publication before the election.

Again, we'll give Meachum and Thomas credit for admitting their bias.

As with the others, they get absolutely no credit for being journalists--their professed profession.




by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file




Saturday, November 1, 2008

Obama Campaign Tactics: Voter Suppression Depends on Media Help



Your Ad Here

PUMA Revelations:
Obama Campaign Secrets




The Obama Plan to Suppress McCain Voters

* Astro-turfing
* Poll-itics
* True Confessions


Mainstream Media: "We'll Help Wherever We Can!"




An interesting post which confirms talk on the PUMA sites. The view from both an anonymous former Hillary staffer/Obama campaign worker and other info posted on PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) sites jive.

The main points?

  • Don't believe the polls.
  • Obama's campaign main goal has been to keep conservatives divided.
  • Former Hillary voters are not meekly lining up behind Obama.
  • Democrats are actively working for John McCain in many areas.
  • The "Sarah Palin is bad" meme is wrong.
  • People do care about Obama's radical associations.


Who is this anonymous Obama workers?

"First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter."

From
What you were never intended to know in this election
:

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now.





What's the Plan?



More from the Anonymous Obama worker:

Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything.


Conservative websites have seen an influx of Obama supporters spamming the comments section of story which are less than complimentary of BHO. There's been numerous reports of the Obama "astroturfing" (giving the impression that this orchestrated comment spamming is from the grass roots).

This seems to confirm it.




The following might sound familiar to anyone following the inane Mainstream Media coverage of Election 2008. It also confirms what DBKP, in September, called "MSM voter suppression". [Obama, Mainstream Media: MSM Actively Engaged in Voter Suppression]

From Three things the Obamedia will do to depress Republican turnout and help Obama :

This is really intended for Republicans who did not follow the primaries on the Democrats’ side this year (because, well, we guess you took a nice long Atlantis cruise to Mars, in which case, color us jealous).

The same pattern that unfolded during our primaries is happening again, because the media has just one tattered old used playbook (written by David Axelrod, of course), and they have not deviated from it yet. What the media and Obama campaign did, in concert, to Hillary Clinton before every major primary is what they are doing to McCain/Palin now. Here are the top three media/Obama head tricks to watch out for in the last days before the election.


The three things?

  • (1) Calls for McCain to just give up and quit, because the race is over.
    This one is a favorite of the trolls who lurk on pro-McCain sites. We get them here, despite all the spraying and fumigating we do, but notice how we ignore these trolls. We’ve identified two paid Obama staffers who have been assigned to HillBuzz. We picked them up around the same time people from Ace and LGF started picking up some of our stuff — so our guess is they were assigned to us by whoever was monitoring those sites. They’re different trolls than the ones assigned to us during the primaries (we only had one back then, so evidently we’ve gotten more on the radar now). One of them starts posting “her” concern troll remarks here at 8am. The other one starts “his” remarks around 5pm or so. It appears there are two shifts for the trolls — and from what we can see, they share the same computer and IP address. And it’s an address right here in Chicago.
  • (2) Wild claims of Obama winning states that shock and surprise you.

    If you do just ONE THING today, we ask you a personal favor: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to as many Republican blogs as you can and WARN THEM that the Obamedia will tell you all weekend that Obama is winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, West Virginia, and other states we do not believe Obama will win (except for Iowa, which we still think goes to Obama, but our best sources claim McCain now leads in internals by 1 point). They are already starting to say truly crazy things like “Obama will win Louisiana and Arkansas!”, and that’s just nuts.
  • (3) Repeated insistance that blacks and young people will decide this election, and they are all going to vote in record numbers for Obama.
    We, thus, believe Obama will not have much more support from blacks than Kerry did, since Democrats win almost all black voters anyway. This year will be no different.


The young?

The young may be restless, but many will not vote. Of those who do, some will vote McCain-Palin.


The anonymous Obama campaign worker's final thoughts?

"I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around."

DBKP said it in September: the Mainstream Media has been engaged in a massive effort of voter suppression. Their wildly-skewed pro-Obama coverage is not only evident, it's empirical.

It should be embarrassing to any so-called "journalist" in the Big Media employ.

2008: The year that the Mainstream press suppressed the John Edwards Scandal for 10 months. The year that the MSM abandoned reporting--in favor of actively campaigning for their favored candidate.

That campaign has now reached such proportions as to be labeled 'voter suppression'.


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file



Sunday, October 26, 2008

Going Rogue: Sarah Palin or CNN?



Your Ad Here


Sarah Palin:
CNN's Peter Hamby Going Rogue?
Who knows?









On August 29, John McCain announced that Sarah Palin as his running mate.

On August 30, CNN announced what type of reporting the campaign could expect from the cable network's Peter Hamby.

Technically factual with a heavy accent on the negative, so as to change the meaning of the story for those who were not present.

Palin booed for mentioning Hillary Clinton:

WASHINGTON, Pennsylvania (CNN) – This might not be the best way to reach out to those disillusioned Hillary Clinton supporters.

In just her second appearance on the campaign trail with John McCain, newly-minted GOP running mate Sarah Palin was showered with boos on Saturday for attempting to praise Clinton’s trail-blazing bid to become the first female president.


CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby was technically factual but grossly misleading: the large, enthusiastic crowd showered Palin with practically non-stop cheers during her appearance with John McCain.

When Palin mentioned Hillary Clinton, there were some scattered boos, quickly replaced by cheering after a few seconds. DBKP knows: we were there. [McCain, Palin a Hit in PA; CNN’s Story Leads with “Boos”]

So Hamby wouldn't have been convicted in a court of law for perjury over his reporting.

Which suggests that readers may want to take his latest story with 55-gallon barrel of salt.

McCain aide: Palin 'going rogue':
From CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby, CNN's Dana Bash

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) – With 10 days to go until election day, long brewing tension between Sarah Palin and key aides to John McCain has become so intense, it is spilling out into the public.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin “going rogue” recently, while a Palin associate says she is simply trying to “bust free” of what she believes was a mishandled roll-out that damaged her.


So maybe the McCain adviser did make the statement.

Or maybe the adviser said he was "going for some Rogaine" and Hamby didn't catch the whole remark.

Who knows? You twist your report of what happened once--so that others who were there don't recognize it--and your future stories are greeted with skepticism.

No CNN stories have appeared with the headline "Joe Biden "going rogue".

Like the 2-3 seconds of scattered boos that transformed into "Palin showered with boos" back in August, Peter Hamby may be technically correct--but grossly misleading.

So maybe Sarah Palin is 'going rogue'.

Or maybe it's only Peter Hamby, once again, going rogue from an accurate account of what took place.

by Mondo
image: pegatours



Friday, October 24, 2008

CORRUPTION: Obama Shady Contributions, Big Media's Lack of Reporting it



Your Ad Here


Obama Shady Campaign Contributions:
Serious Questions Surround
Almost Half of Obama Contributions
Credit Card Chicanery, Foreign Donations




Mainstream Media Not Interested




Back in May, Doug Ross made the discovery that Barack Obama was the only website that accepted foreign contributions without proof of US citizenship.

The Mainstream Press yawned.


"In May of this year I noted the fact that the Obama campaign ran the only website that permitted donations from foreign countries without any proof of citizenship."

The MSM is still yawning--when they take time out from digging through dumpsters looking for their next big break in the Joe the Plumber story.

Now, Ross is writing about the Obama campaign disabling safeguards so that even Osama bin Laden can make a credit card contribution to his favorite agent of 'Change!'.

From Doug Ross@Journal: The Obama Campaign's Massive Credit Card Scandal
You know how ACORN registered thousands of bogus voters like Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck? ACORN's handlers at the Obama campaign seem to be accepting contributions from Mickey and Daffy too.

It turns out that the Obama campaign's crack team of fundraisers decided to turn off all security validation for credit-card donations. Want to enter the name Pedro Martinez when the credit-card belongs to Arnold Fizbin? Need to use the ZIP code 99999 when the card owner's ZIP is 02154? No problem! The Obama campaign doesn't care!

In order for this to occur, the "Address Verification System has to be specifically disabled to allow this fraud."


If this happened on the McCain-Palin08 website, a gaggle of reporters would descend on the story and the BREAKING! graphic would likely melt down on CNN from overuse--if one can image that.

Andrew McCarty, Ross notes, has estimated that almost half of Obama's contributions--nearly $200 million--have questions surrounding them. Where are the vetting agents of Big Media?

Well, yesterday they were writing about the Republican National Committee's budget for Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

Estimates ranged as high as--brace yourself--$150,000. We'll be the first to admit that reporters are not always the smartest people in the world, so perhaps the large numbers involved in the Obama contributions story have given them trouble.

The New York Times, TIME and Newsweek might consider hiring math tutors.

Ross ends up:

In summary: the five-year stock price of the New York Times


While the Times' CSI unit probes Joe the Plumber's health records and scrutinizes Sarah Palin's shoe bills, an election is well nigh being stolen right under their very eyes. Although this scandal is a doozy, the Times is silent about this flagrant abuse of election law.

Eleven days remain until the election... hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal and foreign donations appear to have flowed into Obama's coffers... and Manhattan's Pravda can't rustle up a story. Not to worry. I give them six months.

Don't let these criminals steal the election. Vote.


The dereliction of duty in the Mainstream Press in 2008 has been breath-taking.

For students of history, one of the only advantages to living through times of great corruption is being able to say later, "I was there."

One only has to determine which corruption is worse: the Obama campaign's contribution mechanisms or the silence in the toothless watchdog press.


by Mondo Frazier
image: Doug Ross@Journal; dbkp file



Thursday, October 23, 2008

Obama's Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses Release of Medical, College Records



Your Ad Here

Barack Obama's Refusal to Release Records:
Medical, College, University Records Off-Limits
Why?




"Every time somebody turns over a rock of Barack Obama's past, something unpleasant crawls out."
--RE Bierce, in email to DBKP




The Obama campaign refuses to release Obama's medical records--as well as Obama's records from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard.

Why is that?

Perhaps it is because, as one reader put it, "Every time somebody turns over a rock of Barack Obama's past, something unpleasant crawls out."

The Mainstream Media refuses to press the issue.

Why is that?

In the Chicago Tribune's case, it's because they have a vested interest: the Tribune asked Obama to run for president in 2006. Obama's campaign mastermind, David Axelrod, used to work for the Chicago Tribune. One would assume he still has a few friends that work at the paper.

And friends do favors for friends.

The following video details a few unpleasant facts about Barack Obama and what little is known about his past: his association with Bill Ayers, ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and the list continues.



We saw the video on a post entitled, "The Smoking Gun Obama Post" at Infidels are Cool site.

The "smoking gun post" has a collection of links that ask a host of questions that would most likely make the Obama campaign uncomfortable--if they were pressed on the issues by MSM reporters.

But, they haven't been.

Among some of the links in the IAC article (comments below the links are by IAC's Infidelesto:



The post at Infidels are Cool lists another 11 links in their list.

DBKP has written on many of the subjects listed above. Some are listed below.


ALSO at DBKP:

* Obama, Bill Ayers: Ayers Wanted to Kill 25 Million Die-Hard Capitalists
* Raila Odinga: Obama Campaigned for His Cousin Odinga; Violence Against Christians After Loss
* Joe Biden: Elect Obama and We’ll Have an International Crisis
* Obama, Cousin Raila Odinga: Obama’s Foreign Policy Experience
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Legacy: Obama Disenfranchised Voters in Illinois to win State Senate Seat
* Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky: Chicago Godfather of Community Organizers
* Ohio Presidential Election News Roundup: Think Tank files RICO Suit Against ACORN
* Obama Tax Plan: We’re Going to Spread the Wealth Around

* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Barack Obama, Socialist: Obama a Member of Socialist New Party
* Barack Obama, Bill Ayers: NY Times Continues to Whitewash Obama-Ayers Connection
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation
* McCain Works on Financial Crisis While Obama Touts $845 Billion Global Poverty Bill Funded by US Taxpayers
* Obama, Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers: The ‘Tangential’ Bill Ayers



Plenty of questions about the ever-shifting narrative offered by Team Obama.

NewsMax investigated the claims made on Obama's "fightthesmears.com" and found that the 'Smears' About Obama Largely True.

"Smear" being the word for any uncomfortable information that has surfaced in the media or on the Internet.

Why does the Obama campaign refuse to release Obama's medical, college and university records?

Two reasons: one, the Mainstream Media allows them to get away with it. It's unthinkable what the outcry would be if John McCain had refused to release his records. In fact, in May, because McCain delayed in releasing his medical records, there was such an outcry.

The second reason for the refusal?

The refusal suggests the Obama campaign is afraid of what those records might reveal.


by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file



Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Mainstream Media and Socialism: The Education of John Q. Public



Your Ad Here


Leftist decry "socialist" as code for Black
Consevative Punk







The "Racist" Meme Continues


They're reaching on the "code word" smear more and more. You knew it was only going to be a matter of time until some schmuck said that "socialist" is code word for Black. Well, the wait is over. This from The Star in Kansas City:
The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.
This most laughable aspect of this charge, is that author Lewis Diuguid expects us to believe that something like J. Edgar Hoover's use of the word socialist to describe blacks is somehow fresh in the minds of Americans, leading it to be the natural connection we make when we hear the word. Not to mention that W.E.B. Du Bois was in fact a socialist.

Bravo on being the first to the bottom Mr. Diuguid.



WANT MORE of rizzuto and Conservative Punk? Try these recent posts:
* Code Pink attempts to arrest Karl Rove
* Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in NY



by rizzuto
image: nextup
Source: Leftist decry "socialist" as code for Black