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

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

MSM Stealing Blog Content: Times Online Joining Growing MSM Trend?

John Edwards Love Child Story Goes International
No Attribution in TimesOnline Edwards story
Is This a New Business Model for a Mainstream Media in Trouble?



- - - - - - - - - -

"We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsman both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us."
--Larisa Alexandrovna, Huffington Post & at-Largely

- - - - - - - - - -

DBKP.com was alerted yesterday to both a good news-bad news situation by Doug Ross, of DougRoss@Journal.

The good news was the TimesOnline had used several of our quotes from our interview this week with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer, in a story it ran on John Edwards' run-in with the Enquirer's reporters at the Beverly Hilton while visiting his mistress and their love child.

The bad news was that the Times reporter, Sarah Baxter, in her story, Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy never credited DBKP as her source for the quotes, which were taken word-for-word from our story, "John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer".

Doug has an account at "Sunday Times runs Edwards-Mistress-Love Child story, rips off Blogosphere".

As Doug points out: "When this story first broke in December I wrote that the blogosphere renders the mainstream media less relevant by the day.

Through its questionable behavior, the Times has done nothing to counter my assertion."

At first, we tended to attribute the non-attribution to an oversight. After all, the story was widely mentioned this week, among other places at Slate, The Corner at National Review Online, Ace of Spades HQ and made the front page of FARK.

But upon closer inspection, doubts began to arise. We sent a letter yesterday to the Times Editor-in-Chief asking that proper credit be given. We also sent a copy to the Times News Desk.

Easy enough, right? Just add the proper credit and link to the corrected story on-line and publish a small correction later for the print edition.

Then we received some disturbing news.

DBKP's LBG sent in an email: I posted a comment on the story at the Times yesterday noting that the reporter did not attribute the Perel quotes to the story written by DBKP. My comment was never published." She included her comment to the Times:

"The reporter who wrote this story did not attribute the original source of the Perel quotes, a story at Death by 1000 Papercuts.com."

I received another email shortly thereafter from Doug Ross with basically the same message.

Though other comments to the story made after both LBG and Doug Ross' had been published, their's were not. So, someone at the Times was aware of their concerns.

This got us wondering if this practice was widespread among the major media; we then started searching the Internet.

Yikes!

At least in America, the MSM is mining blogs for stories and flipping off the original creators/writers when reminded whose work they're using.

The Associated Press commenced suing bloggers quoting AP stories in June 2008. AP's Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator Irene Keselman had this to say in a letter to Cernig, of Newshoggers:

"... you purport that the Drudge Retort's users reproduce and display AP headlines and leads under a fair use defense. Please note that contrary to your assertion, AP considers that the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation."
--Fair Use and the Associated Press

The above mentioned dispute involved Drudge Retort using excerpts--some as small as 18 words, according to many reports--under Drudge Retort's own headlines.

AP, thy name is hypocrisy.

Larisa Alexandrovna, Huffington Post and at-Largely wrote about a disturbing experience with AP in "MSM Plagiarism Strikes Again – AP Welcome to the Party"

On March 14, 2006, the AP did their own article, left out any attribution to me or my publication and lifted not only my research but also whole sections of my article for their own (making cosmetic changes of course).

We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsman both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us.

Alexandrovna goes on to state in the same article:

"Unfortunately this is far too common and has happened to me and to other writers and bloggers far too frequently. This time, however, we made a point of tape recording the AP apparatchiks admitting to taking our work and using it without attribution, stating "we do not credit blogs".



She then goes on to list six or seven of the most egregious examples of AP plagiarism at the time of her article, March 27, 2006.

More recently, the New York Times tried to take credit for the Iranian Missile Fauxtography.

The Iranian thugocracy doctored a photo adding in a fourth missile, most likely to cover up a failed one. The blogosphere exposed the manipulated photo. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs [Iran's Photoshopped Missile Launch ] was the first to the scene. However, the New York Times blog, The Lede, is taking credit [in a Iranian image, a missile too many] for exposing this even though their report was given much later. FOX, obviously slacking on research, also credits the lede. Mac's mind: Ny Times Commits Plagiarism on Fake Iranian Missile Photos

The above article cited Ace, of Ace of Spades HQ, [Shock: NYT Blog Claims Credit For Fauxtography Story They Didn't Break] who said:

"Whether CJ (Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs) deserves all the credit, I don’t know. I do know the NYT deserves little of it, and ought to stop claiming otherwise."

Exactly.

The New York Times, forced to eat the bitter fruit from its looney-left editorial policies, may have hit upon the only business model that allows it to survive the death spiral of falling ad revenue, circulation and stock prices: lay off its news reporters and rely on ripping off content from the Blogosphere.

But the AP and NY Times are not alone.

There is so much news theft going on, in fact, that Hamilton Nolan, of Gawker, had to explain "The Golden Rule" in The Complete Guide to Stealing New Stories:

Media outlets can only steal outright from other media outlets that are not their direct competitors, and do not fall in their same class. First-class outlets: National TV news networks (including the big three on cable), the top five national newspapers, top-level weekly news magazines, and a select few websites like Drudge. Second-class outlets: Niche TV networks, local TV news affiliates, smaller metro papers, smaller but still well-respected news magazines, well-known internet news operations that don't fall in the top handful. Third-class outlets: Trade magazines, niche magazines, smaller local papers, niche internet news sites. Fourth-class outlets: Others.

Nolan also includes tips for the aspiring news thief.

All this occurs after many pompous, blow-hard pieces have been written by ex-members of the MSM, now posing as "professors of journalism", about the defects of citizen journalists, and bloggers, in particular.

This was all touched upon in "Citizen Journalism: “911, I’d Like to Report an Unregulated Blogger”. In that piece, David Hazinsky, an ex-NBC-reporter-turned-journalism-prof had railed against the 'dangers of citizen journalism'.

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

As we noted then: "One images Hazinsky in the pre-Revolutionary American colonies: he'd be the one beating on John Peter Zenger's printing press with a pitchfork--or shouting down Tom Paine."

So while the MSM dismisses bloggers and other citizen journalists as the great unwashed, it's not above "borrowing" stories from the rubes when it suits them.

As Alexandrovna noted, "What the AP and others are saying essentially is that, while "your work" is good enough for us to steal, you are not credible enough to cite."

"Trusted MSM news professionals" was our nominee for "Oxymoron of the Year".

Although DBKP did not yell, "Stop, thief!" when first alerted to the Times reporter using our work without credit, the more we researched the subject, the more it became apparent that that may have been the proper action to take.

We've been checking our email hopefully; we sincerely hope that an upbeat update will be added to this article.

We're loathe to lump the Times in with the likes of the NY Times and AP. We hope we're contacted--sooner rather than later.

by Mondoreb

NOTE: Ah my! We originally left out one source (see how easy it might be?) but caught it within 10 minutes of this article going up. We marked the quote as a quote--just forgot to include the link. It is now corrected.

Vicki Iseman, John McCain Affair: The Mysterious EllaLohan

Who is the Mysterious Video Commenter?



More Mystery!
Vicki Iseman Bio Returns to Alcalde & Fay Website!

Who is EllaLohan?

How did she know about Vicki Iseman and John McCain before the New York Times published the story?

Very mysterious.

EllaLohan is the name of an apparent video fancier who--weeks before the New York Times released its story about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's alleged affair with Telcom lobbyist Vicki Iseman--was dropping hints of the affair in comments affixed to videos on sites scattered around the Internet.

Mysterious.

She hinted at the relationship between Iseman and McCain which is an " an angle not even Drudge took when it reported on the lobbying angle between Iseman and McCain months ago," as reported on Radar this evening.

The Radar piece tracks some EllaLohan comments:

Here's what EllaLohan wrote on a YouTube video posted by Senator McCain's campaign: "EllaLohan (4 weeks ago): John McCain plus lobbyist Vicki Iseman equals trouble for Republicans. Just ask the New York Times."

Then EllaLohan popped up elsewhere on YouTube with a similar comment for an anti-McCain video: "EllaLohan (1 month ago): i've heard from a bunch of my d.c. friends that mccain is doing special favors for a female lobbyist, who's returning the favor, if you catch my drift. this is the story that his lawyers are trying to prevent the new york times from writing. he's a crook just like the rest of the politicians."

Ella has some knowledge of the coming John McCain-Vicki Iseman story. The question is: How did she know?

The only info found on the mysterious EllaLohan's YouTube profile is her gender—female—and age—40.

Is she an insider who couldn't resist hinting at what she really knew or Drudge clicker with a keen ability to read between the lines? Or better still a Times employee dissatisfied with the paper's hold on the article? Attempts to reach EllaLohan have not been successful.

DBKP attempted to track down EllaLohan.

Attempts by DBKP to contact her have, so far, proved fruitless.

And that's kinda mysterious.



Ella also commented on a video by Electric Light Orchestra last week, but there was no politics in that one. She wrote, "It is the Sainte-Chapelle, a 13th Century royal chapel built in Paris under Louis IX."

Not so mysterious on that one.

But here's a several comments she posted--weeks before the story broke--that we were able to run down on videos sites.

On youTube (from a cached copy of the page):
EllaLohan Jan. 23 (7 hours ago)
John McCain plus lobbyist Vicki Iseman equals trouble for Republicans. Just ask the New York Times.

For this comment, Ella's comment received a -1 from another reader.

On video site, YouTobe

EllaLohan (20 hours ago)
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...

This comment is nowhere to be seen now, but is available in a cached copy.

Posted on a video site Video Momentum en video.es

> EllaLohan dijo el 26-01-08 a las 23:16:
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...

Posted on TechVidSite, on a video entitled, "Mitt Surfing"

EllaLohan (January 26, 2008 at 10:14 pm)
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...

The comment is now gone, but again, it can be seen on a cached copy of the site at the time of the comment.

At funingames:
( 2 weeks ago by EllaLohan). i've heard from a bunch of my dc friends that mccain is doing special favors for a female lobbyist, who's returning the favor, ...

More EllaLohan "insight":

TechVidSite.com - Web Ad: Mittsurfing (http://www.techvidsite.com/video/EgbQviUqndg)

EllaLohan (January 26, 2008 at 10:14 pm)
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...

So who is EllaLohan?

Is she someone who dug up the info on Iseman and her long-standing relationship with John McCain after reading a December 20 2007 Drudge report posting?

Is she Marilyn W. Thompson, the Times reporter on the Iseman-McCain story who was reportedly so upset at the Times sitting on the story that she left and is heading back to the Washington Post?

Is Thompson a video buff?

Is she interested in Mitt Romney windsurfing videos?

Will EllaLohan reveal more about how she knew what she knew when she knew it?

Will she leave the answer to that question posted on a video?

We will probably never know the answers or the identity of the mysterious EllaLohan.

And that's probably just the way she'd want it.

Vicki Iseman Alcalde & Fay website bio and picture update: The information on lobby firm, Alcalde & Fay's website about partner, Vicki Iseman, has now reappeared. The information disappeared from the A&F site shortly after the New York Times story appeared on the Times website. Numerous sites had screenshots of the bio and picture of Iseman, however. Another mysterious occurrence.

DBKP Political Scandal Library Over 40 DBKP stories and videos on political scandals of the 2008 presidential candidates. Included are stories on Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

by Mondoreb
images:
* hermansgallery
* quizilla
Sources:
*
* funingames
* Anonymous Poster Had the goods on McCain, Times



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Vicki Iseman, McCain: Denials and "No Substantial Evidence"

Fox News yesterday: "No Substantial Evidence"
Times doesn't Mention if McCain is conservative



Reader: "Times uncovered evidence that McCain's a Republican"

McCain calls Times story a "smear"

John McCain, speaking in Toledo, OH this morning categorically denied the insinuations of yesterday's New York Times story about improper conduct with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.

"Obviously I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the four-term Arizona senator told a news conference. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization."

The Times ran an article yesterday hinted that McCain may have had a romantic affair with Iseman and that members of his staff had been concerned about appearances during the 2000 election.

Absent from the Times story were any assertions that Senator McCain was a "conservative".

McCain described Iseman as a "friend" whom he has seen on "various occasions" in Washington including fund-raisers. "I have many friends in Washington that represent various interests," he said. "I consider her a friend."

McCain did not mention if he thought Iseman was a "conservative".

Over the last three weeks, the media, McCain backers and McCain himself have maintained that the Arizona Senator is a "conservative".

This has brought a sharp response from conservative talk show hosts, conservative groups and others in the conservative cause who have crossed swords with McCain on any host of issues in his Senate tenure.

Newsbusters' Justin McCarthy had this interesting item this morning:

[Correspondent Carl Cameron of Fox News] revealed on the February 21 edition of "Fox and Friends," that Fox News came across these rumors last fall. Cameron stated that they were "unable to substantiate any of it."

In regards to the alleged affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, Cameron asserted that they "were able to find precisely nobody who would go on the record or even suggest off the record that there was truth to the suggestion that there had been any sort of an inappropriate personal relationship."

DBKP Political Scandal Library Over 35 stories on scandals involving the 2008 Presidential contenders. Included are DBKP stories and videos on John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama.

The lengthy Times article was basically two parts: the first part recounted the concerns of former staff members that McCain might be giving the wrong impression by hanging out with a telecom lobbyist--mostly in the 2000 election--and the remainder of the article was background on McCain's involvement, during his first senate term, in the Keating Five Scandal.

One DBKP reader commented that the only proof the Times has been able to produce is "evidence that McCain is a Republican". DBKP has been able to confirm this.



Last evening, after the story starting spreading, Iseman's employer, lobby firm Alcalde & Fay, pulled her bio and picture from it's website.

Both McCain's campaign and Iseman denied any improper conduct.

The New York Times has not yet issued a statement on whether its conduct was improper.

Several sources have begun questioning the timing and motives of the New York Times running what was essentially a background piece they had the information on after McCain's other competitors--save Mike Huckabee--had dropped from the Republican presidential race.

Both of the Times preferred candidates have scandals brewing.

The Times endorsed Barack Obama and McCain recently.

Senator Barack Obama has had allegations from Larry Sinclair over the last month that Sinclair shared sex and drugs with Obama in the back of a limo in 1999 in Gurnee, IL when Obama was an Illinois state representative.

The Times has remained silent on the Obama affair, as has the rest of the Mainstream press.

Sinclair is taking a polygraph test next week and has filed a federal lawsuit against Obama for harassment since Sinclair first made his allegations late last month.

The Times has been silent every aspect of the Sinclair allegations.

Perhaps The New York Times is, as one reader speculated, "holding the Obama material until the Democratic contest is decided--or until it goes away".

by Mondoreb
iamge: file; iview
Sources:
* FNC's Cameron found no substantial evidence in McCain/Iseman
* Today on the Campaign Trail



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Vicki Iseman, Cindy McCain: Striking Similarities?

You be the Judge





Vicki Iseman (left) and Cindy McCain (right)

Some have remarked on the striking similarities between these two photos of Vicki Iseman--whom the NY Times hints had a "romantic relationship" with Senator John McCain--and Cindy McCain.


We don't want to make any judgments, but we decided to present side-by-side photos and let readers come to their own conclusions as to how similar the two may or may not be.



Someone at the Huffington Post must have thought so, too. They posted the above side-by-side comparison pix.

So: how about it?

Are there "striking similarities", as one reader put it?

by Mondoreb
[hat tip: huffingtonpost]
images: alcalde & Fay; care



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Vicki Iseman: Who is Vicki Iseman?

John McCain Gave "Special Favors to Female Lobbyist"



Vicki Iseman, who is alleged by the New York Times to be the female lobbyist given "special favors" by John McCain, is a partner at Alcalde & Fay, a DC lobbying firm.

UPDATE: 10:30 pm February 20 2007 Alerted by a comment on this story, which is posted at other websites, all information about VICKI ISEMAN on the Alcalde & Fay website has now disappeared. The information and picture below was copied from the website for the original posting of this story.

From the firm's website:

Vicki Iseman, Partner, represents corporate and public clients on issues as diverse as government contracting and regulatory reform. Her experience includes representation of clients before Congress, Federal government agencies and local opinion leaders.

She has extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees. Her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996 communications bills helped secure cable access for broadcast television stations. Her experience in the communications field includes digital television conversion, satellite regulations and telecommunications ownership provisions.



She has been active in grassroots communications campaigns for clients, building community based support for legislative initiatives. Among others, she participated in the "Keep America Moving" campaign that educated community leaders on the allocation of Federal highway trust funds.

In addition, she has consulted for clients who are interested in government contracting opportunities. She has assisted corporations through the authorization and appropriation process. An active fundraiser, she has organized and participated in many political fundraising events.

A native of Pennsylvania, she holds a B.A. degree in Education from Indiana University in Pennsylvania.

Other DBKP stories about, or mentioning, the John McCain-Vicki Iseman connection:

* John McCain: New Female Lobbyist Scandal

From December 21, 2007
* John McCain and Lobbyists: Not Exactly News

* McCain Lobbyist Story: Spin, Smear or Straight Reporting?

From December 20, 2007
* John McCain Tries Spiking NY Times Story: Ghosts of the Keating Five Past?

From January 31, 2008
* John McCain's Double Talk Tango

EQUAL TIME: Other Political Candidate Scandals at DBKP * DBKP Political Scandal Library Listing of all DBKP stories and videos which involve 2008 Presidential candidates. Includes the links below and others involving Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. * DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library Over 30 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child Scandal. * Larry Sinclair: Obama, Sex, Drugs and the MSM * Obama: Gay Man Alleges Sex, Drugs with Barack in 1999

by Mondoreb
image: alcade & Fay; Alaska Report
source: Alcade & Fay website



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Mainstream Media: New Cutbacks in Jobs, Bureaus, Stock Prices, Advertising, Ratings

Cutbacks in Everything
--Except Left Wing Rhetoric



When you're Selling What No One's Buying

The big story of the Mainstream Media in the last week is cuts.

Cuts in jobs, in advertising revenue, in circulation, in ratings: in short, cuts in every meaningful indicator of how successful the Mainstream Media is.

Which is to say, they're not.

Not doing their job, not successful.

What the MSM is selling--liberal viewpoints, solutions, hand-wringing, harangues and advice--is the one area news consumers aren't buying.

Some news blurbs from the last week amplify this point.

NBC is closing their Chicago and Dallas bureaus.

NBC: Atlanta, which has managed Miami and New Orleans assignments, will add Dallas. Chicago will report in through the Northeast bureau.

The Liberal Lady, the New York Times is cutting newsroom jobs.

After years of resisting the newsroom cuts that have hit most of the industry, The New York Times will bow to growing financial strain and eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs this year, the executive editor said Thursday.

The Washington Post is closing a printing plant and offering buyouts to all employees.

Washington Post Co. will offer buyouts to employees at its flagship newspaper to cut costs as revenue and readership decline.

Buyouts will be offered to all newspaper employees. The newspaper employs 2,400 people, including 800 in news, she added. Revenue at the publishing division, which includes the newspaper, fell 8 percent to $657.2 million in the first nine months of 2007.

At the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, 100-150 jobs are being cut at each.

Tribune Co. employees were notified Wednesday that hundreds of jobs will be cut at the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other publications — the first cutbacks since billionaire Sam Zell took the media company private last year.

In separate memos, Tribune Publisher Scott Smith said 100 jobs would be cut and his counterpart at the Times, David Hiller, said 100-150 jobs would be eliminated.

Last fall, CNN dropped Reuters--but said the move wasn't about falling ratings and cutting costs.

Honest.

But in a twist, the cable news network CNN asserted that a decision to drop the Reuters news service after 27 years was not done to cut costs.

Newsweek is cutting the amount of copies it is guaranteeing advertisers by a half million.

Newsweek magazine plans to cut its guaranteed paid circulation by 500,000 copies, according to industry magazine Advertising Age.

The 16 percent reduction would lower the number of paid subscribers Newsweek promises advertisers from 3.1 million to 2.6 million, Advertising Age reported, citing people with knowledge of the move.

About a year ago, Time announced cuts in its news operations staff. It said at the time that there was no timetable as to future cuts.

As anyone who follows news closely, the nine MSM companies above are all flagship liberal operations. Whether it's big government, Blame America First, Global Warming, more taxes and regulations or endorsement of Democrat candidates and their programs, the MSM is all liberal, all the time.

In most cases, the MSM "news" shows and editorial staffs operate as a wing of the Democrat National Committee.

Don't expect the continuing MSM death spiral to change the outlook of either the reporting or the personnel responsible for the slide.

All nine of the above MSM mouthpieces staunchly maintain that they are unbiased "news" operations.

Their viewers and readers and in many cases, their stockholders, beg to differ.

And have been for some time now.

NBC denied that they were even scaling back their operations, labeling the cutbacks as streamlining in an "effort to achieve more journalism and less bureaucracy in the newsgathering operation."

They could achieve all of the above aims by simply requiring their newsrooms to drop their liberal viewpoints by hiring a few conservatives and losing the liberal herd mentality that infects their news operations.

When the National Enquirer reported on the John Edwards Love Child Scandal in November, not one--not a single, solitary, lonely--reporter from a MSM outlet asked Edwards one, single, solitary question about it.

NOT ONE ever asked the candidate if he had been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter--the woman the Enquirer kept under tabs for months after the campaign spirited her out of sight within 5 miles of Edwards' campaign headquarters from New York--since Hunter had found out she was pregnant.

NOT ONE.

In the meantime, their viewers and readers were buying up Enquirers by the millions and Googling "Rielle Hunter" at such a pace that the woman's name became the most-searched for term on the Internet for awhile.

The news public was buying "Rielle Hunter"--and the Mainstream press wasn't selling any. They were selling anything and everything else that they were interested in, not their potential consumers.

[DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library of 25 stories on John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, the National Enquirer and the MSM news blackout on the story.]

The MSM tries to put the blame for their decline on the medium and hopes to counter it by creating blogs on the Internet. One suspects that they won't be selling anything different on their MSM blogs--and the public won't be doing any buying of their news there, either.

The Mainstream Media should borrow a page from the playbook of one of their heroes, Bill Clinton and have signs printed up:

ITMS

It's the message, stupid.



So, our advice to the Mainstream Media, as a member of the right wing blogosphere:

"Stay just the way you are, baby. Never change, we love you just the way you are!"

by Mondoreb
image: spittleandink
Sources:
* NBC News Streamlines News Bureaus
* New York Times Plans to Cut 100 NewsRoom Jobs
* Washington Post Cuts
* Post's Newsweek Cuts Circulation by 500,000
* CNN Cuts a Wire to invest in itself
* Tribune Company announces hundreds of jobs cut



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Maureen Dowd's "Can Hillary Cry" Story Brings Tear to the Eye

There are times the eyes tend to get misty.

Bill Mazeroski winning the 1960 World Series with a walk-off homer in the ninth; Franco Harris catching the Immaculate Reception and agreeing with a Maureen Dowd column: things that only happen once in a lifetime.

Having seen films of the first two events, one knew that they had happened. They were possible, if only once in a lifetime.

The third improbable occurrence, agreement with something that the New York Times Dragon Lady had penned, just happened.

Dowd's "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" is a more incredible undertaking than the other two.

You see, the first two incidents took place when the principle actors involved were trying to bring about history.

MoDo could hardly have been aware that she was trying to do the impossible.

But she did and we're not one to stint on praise. But first, a sampling.

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”

Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”

Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.

[Sniff.]

"It was a peculiar tactic. Here she was attacking Obama for spreading gauzy emotion by spreading gauzy emotion."

It's enough to make one choke up.



Dowd ends on an observant note.

At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”

If ever we run into Mo, she'll now be the recipient of a beer.

And that's enough to make one cry.

by Mondoreb
[images: e-graphic;
Source: Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?





Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

John McCain and Lobbyists: Not Exactly "News"

"I've never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special interest group -- that's a clear, 24-year record."

--Senator John McCain's statement yesterday, responding to reports that he'd done favors for a lobbyist, then attempted to have a story reporting it quashed.


"I did so for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support. ... Had I weighed the question of honor it occasioned and the public interest more than my personal interest to render a small service to an important supporter, I would not have attended the meeting. ... I lacked humility and an inspiration to some purpose higher than self-interest."

BREAKING: February 20, 2008 John McCain: New Female Lobbyist Scandal The New York Times--who remained deaf, dumb and blind during the John Edwards, and more recently, the Larry Sinclair-Barack Obama allegations--have found some unnamed sources they finally can report on. It appears they have to do with Senator John McCain and what we reported on in this story in December.

--Senator John McCain statement from his book, Hard Call, published this fall, on favors he'd done for another lobbyist. That story wasn't quashed when the savings and loan debacle swept over the USA.

Reason's Matt Welch provides, succinctly, what we stated yesterday: news that Senator John McCain likes his lobbyists compliant and flush, isn't exactly news.

What was new yesterday was the story that the Senator and his campaign tried to put the squeeze on the New York Times to kill a story on McCain's latest lobbyist relationship. As Welch states,

And though it has gone down the collective rabbit hole of political memory, eight years ago McCain was busy fending off accusations that he intervened with regulators on behalf of major campaign contributors Paxson Communications and Ameritech.

The story of McCain and his dealings with lobbyists is nothing new.

By now, the Senator and his campaign team should have lots of practice over the years in how to deal with type of story. The first step is to always demean the bearer of the news.

Yesterday, McCain's paid spokeman, Bob Bennett, swung into action on the Senator's behalf.

The Arizona Republican has hired a prominent Washington criminal attorney, Robert Bennett, to deal with the matter. "What is being done to John McCain is an outrage," Bennett said in an interview.

Yesterday, that bearer was Drudge Report.

That McCain had plenty of help in the media wasn't a surprise, either.

The Main Stream Media's quickness to attack the Drudge Report is nothing new.

McCain has long been the press corp's favorite "maverick".

We'd say more on the above topics.

But this morning, we're trying to be succinct.

by Mondoreb
image:drudge]
Source: Depends on Your Definition of 'Never'
McCain Says Allegations He Did Favors for Lobbyist are Untrue



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

McCain Lobbyist Story: Spin, Smear or Straight Reporting?

Hires high-priced attorney Bob Bennett
to deal with story he called "Gutter Politics"

The expected denials of an earlier story posted on the Drudge Reports website about presidential candidate, John McCain, and memebers of his campaign staff pressuring the New York Times to spike the story were issued a few hours ago.

Sen. John McCain said today that he has "never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special-interest group" as his presidential campaign rushed out a statement denouncing allegations that he did anything to benefit a specific Washington lobbyist as "gutter politics."

McCain took the unusual step of hiring Washington insider and super-lawyer Bob Bennett to deal with a story he characterized as nothing more than "gutter politics".

The AP reported on earlier reports that McCain favored a lobbyist--the Keating Five.

Sen. John McCain said Thursday he had "never done any favors for anybody—lobbyist or special interest group." McCain made the remark to reporters in Detroit when questioned about a report that The New York Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican.

He acknowledged that his presidential campaign aides have had discussions with the newspaper regarding its inquiries. "I have not had been in talks with The New York Times. They've been communicating with our staff and with us," McCain said. "I've never done any favors for anybody—lobbyist or special interest group—that's a clear, 24-year record."

McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee said McCain had used "poor judgment" but also said his actions were not illegal.

The Arizona Republican has hired a prominent criminal attorney, Robert Bennett, to deal with the matter. "What is being done to John McCain is an outrage," Bennett said in an interview this morning.

Bennett is preparing answers to written questions submitted by a team of New York Times reporters who have spent weeks investigating questions about the senator and the lobbyist; she has also retained a lawyer, according to a knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified because he was discussing legal matters.

The McCain story hit the Drudge Reports website earlier today and was eventually picked up by larger press outlets.

McCain called Times Executive Editor Bill Keller this month to deny the allegations and to complain that he was not being treated fairly by the Times reporters, who have not yet interviewed him, the source said.

The Times inquiry burst into public view when the Drudge Report Web site posted an item about the newspaper's probe.

John McCain might have cut the media a little slack for looking into a story involving favored treatment to a lobbyist by the Senator from Arizona.

McCain was in his first Senate term when he was named as one of the "Keating Five", a group of lawmakers who took favors from savings and loan wheeler-dealer Charles Keating--in essence, a lobbyist.

Speaking to reporters in Detroit, McCain confirmed the Times inquiry, adding: "I do find the timing of this whole issue very interesting. And we're not going to stand for what happened to us in 2000. We're getting close to the primary," referring to the Jan. 8 contest in New Hampshire.

Bennett said McCain had personally retained him "to respond more forcefully" to the allegations than he did to unfounded rumors in the 2000 South Carolina primary campaign, which included the falsehood that McCain had fathered a black baby. Those rumors, Bennett said, "may have cost him the election."

Bennett is comparing the efforts of unnamed individuals in the 2000 South Carolina contest with a sourced and documented report from the New York Times.

If one is not paying too close attention, it may prove to be a wise strategy for dealing with unfavorable press coverage so close to the contest in Iowa next month.

McCain's top strategists initially declined to comment on the Drudge item, fearing that would open the door for news organizations to write about what the advisers regard as a non-story that could well never be published by the Times. McCain, however, took the matter into his own hands by fielding questions about the controversy in Detroit, prompting his campaign to issue its statement.

"It is unfortunate that rumor and gossip enter into political campaigns," said the statement from Jill Hazelbaker, the campaign's communications director. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving this country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the important issues facing our country."

If the story originated in the New York Times' Editorial room, McCain might be on more solid ground in labeling the Times' efforts a "smear".

The sight of indignant candidates delivering their verdict of "smear" to a waiting press has become a familiar one over the years.

As it stands, the campaign has fallen back on the political shorthand of recent years of tagging any disagreeable coverage or information as a smear.

The story from Drudge also chronicled a battle within the Times itself pitting editor against reporter in the story of whether to publish the story or not.

Time will tell if this is a "smear", "spin" or merely another journalistic effort.

by Mondoreb
[image:thewashingtonnote]
Source: Drudge Report - McCain Calls Allegations "Gutter Politics"



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

McCain Tries Spiking NY Times Story: Ghosts of Keating Five Reappear

Drudge:"Special Treatment of Lobbyist" Causes McCain Trouble

Ghosts of Keating Five Past Returns to Haunt McCain?

John McCain, a member of the Keating Five back in the 90s, has reportedly tried to talk the New York Times out of running a story about the Arizona Senator giving special treatment to a lobbyist.

According to the Drudge Report, McCain has even hired super-lawyer and Washington insider Bob Bennett to tackle the problem.

Drudge uses the word "charges": whether he means it in the legal sense of the word is hard to tell.

The following just popped up on the Drudge Report website a few minutes ago.

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

John McCain has put a lot of ground between himself and lobbyist treatment since his involvement in the Keating Five scandal.

It was speculated that McCain has backed the controversial campaign finance law, McCain-Finegold, because he wanted to change his public image after the Keating Five affair.

A little about the Saving and Loan honcho Charles Keating and the Keating Five:

In 1972, Keating began to work for American Financial Corp., a company involved in insurance and banking. Four years later he moved to Phoenix, Arizona to run the real estate firm American Continental Corporation, a spin-off of American Financial Corp. In 1984, American Continental Corporation bought Lincoln Savings. Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage.

Some regulators noted the danger and pushed for more oversight, but Congress refused. Some of this may be due to the Keating Five, five Senators (Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, John Glenn, Don Riegle and Keating's good friend John McCain) who had received some $300,000 from Keating in the 1980s as political contributions. They later met twice with regulators who were investigating American Continental Corp., in an attempt to end the investigation. (In 1990, they would be rebuked to various degrees by the Senate Ethics Committee.)
--Wikipedia: Charles Keating

Conservatives, free speech advocates and Libertarians have solidly come down against McCain-Finegold as unconstitutional. It remains a particular sticky point for McCain in winning wide-spread conservative support in his quest for the presidency.

About the effects of the Keating Five scandal on John McCain and his support for McCain-Finegold's limits on, what some call, the constitutionally protected speech of campaign giving.

The image of John McCain has long been something of a straight-talking maverick.

Some of those qualities were forged following an early chapter of McCain's political life, when he was one of the so-called Keating Five. That was a group of senators whose meetings 20 years ago with the owner of a failed Arizona savings and loan led to an ethics investigation and almost derailed McCain's career.

An Improper Proposal

In the spring of 1987, McCain was just beginning his first term in the Senate. Charles Keating was a friend, a campaign contributor, and owner of Lincoln Savings and Loan. At the time, Lincoln was under investigation by federal regulators. As McCain recounted the story in an NPR interview two years later, Keating came to his office and offered to do certain things for him, as McCain put it, in return for McCain's interceding with regulators.
--NPR: Scandal Shaped McCain's Sense of Honor in Office

Any hint of McCain giving "special treatment" to a lobbyist would bring unwanted media coverage of his past concerning the Keating Five, where he escaped being indicted for--giving special treatment to a savings and loan.

More to come.

by Mondoreb
note: Little Baby Ginn
[image:drudge]
Source: McCain Pleads with NY Times to Spike Story



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

PC Queen Dowd Snarks Rudy for Pro-American Behavior During War And the Sun Rises in the East

Dowd: Are the snakes causing the snarks?
[image:Little Baby Ginn]
by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn

You'd think Maureen Dowd would change her M.O. occasionally and give long-suffering readers of her New York Times snarkfest a break. The latest Dowd sneer-o-rama focused on David Horowitz and Rudy Giuliani. What did the two gentlemen do to merit the condescension that is a tiny slice of the Dowdrums?

Why, they pointed out that Islamofascists threatened to kill Americans, have killed Americans and have rained destruction on Dowd's New York City. So who's Maureen Dowd worried about?

The Arabs, of course. But let her tell it:

The Freedom Center’s terrorism awareness program is urging college students to stage sit-ins outside the offices of women’s studies departments to protest “the silence of feminists over the oppression of women in Islam” and to distribute pamphlets on Islamo-Fascism. Their titles include “The Islamic Mein Kampf,” “Why Israel is the Victim” and “Jimmy Carter’s War Against the Jews.”

One wonders, "Where are the feminists?" Where is their outrage over the oppression of the Muslim women? Evidently Muslim women do not count in Dowd's Feminist World. How is it that she refuses to acknowledge the work of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s attempts to write revisionist history of the Holocaust; the Mullah’s talk of driving the
“Zionists” from the face of the earth; or, Jimmy Carter’s Habitat For Inhumanity adopting the extremely dysfunctional Hamas terrorists in the name of solving the Middle East “Peace” Crisis?

The snark soon turns to Rudy:

But Rudy seems out of the Republican mainstream on even giving lip-service to Palestinian aspirations. He has no patience for buttering up the Arabs, or the Republican men’s club attitude represented by Saudi-loving Bush senior and James Baker that has always favored a more “even-handed” policy in the Middle East.

Rudy couldn't possibly have views formed from what happened on September 11: it's all a political calculation as Dowd reports it. And so on and on and on.

Rudy was 'rude' and this constitutes 'roughing up'. What kind of scornful bon mot does Dowd use for the 9/11 hijackers? The ones that put Horowitz and Giuliani in her sights.

One wishes Maureen Dowd to once write a column that would show contempt for that tight little circle she frequents, instead of those calling attention to America's enemies. Just once. But then, if that were to happen, Maureen Dowd might be on the receiving end of elite snark. And that would set the snakes in anyone's head to writhing.

For perhaps a more forgiving view of Dowd, check out the Dowd Report.
Back to Front Page.

PITH on the Times

COMMENTING on the NY TIMES, Gateway Pundit waxes positively pithy. Pithy in a way that the TIMES' stable of lib blandionaires can only wish for the next time they spot a star (not Madonna):

And, of course, MoveOn.org's favorite discount rag is more than happy to push the democratic line

Sweet.
The Ugly Side of Another Failed Black Democrat
Death by 1000 Papercuts' take here.
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to Front Page.
--by Mondoreb