“Well, mine are newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and The New York Times. You know,” he replies. “Respected media sources.”
Respected by whom? I wonder. Other members of the media? I know those people. I have dinner with them every month. They are just as shallow and intellectually lazy as anyone else.
BlackJack catches the AP in an early iteration of a Bush poll numbers story making the claim that Libby was indicted for outing a covert agent-something with which no one was charged by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for the simple reason that Valerie Plame was not covert.
Which raises an compelling question:� When the press begins overtly lying to you, where do you go for the truth?
Don’t bother coming here- mainstream Canadian coverage of poltiical controversy in the US is reduced to Democratic talking points, with occasional rebuttal by Moveon.org spokespersons.
Glenn Reynolds notes the White House is now pushing back at misreporting by the Washington Post;
Maybe the press should learn to use Google. Instead of, you know, hoping that we don’t. . . .”
Speaking of which, don’t forget the Hootenanny at Let It Bleed!
Add your own (related) finds in the comments.
why has canada become a crappy country since liberals took over the govt?
Canuduh = Fwance
Wait another 10 years and we’ll be another crappy little back-water country just like Fwance!
If you want today, well we’re just another crappy little country that accepts Moonbattery as the truth , even when it oozes out of that fat, greese-ball Michael Mooron!
What’s the big deal? Goodness, everyone knows there is no such thing as objectivity. Don’t they?
California is working it’s way north to join you!
Blogging Tory “Nice Comfy Fur” has a great post today, excerpt:
The Toronto (Star) Consensus
“After having lived in Quebec for most of the past fifteen years I naturally become suspicious whenever it is asserted that everyone agrees on an issue. More times than not, I found myself on the other side of the issue that all Quebecers supposedly agreed on. Whether it was on fiscal imbalance, the language laws or the clarity act, somehow the so-called consensus usually excluded me.
For some reason, I thought it would be different when I moved to Ontario. Little did I realize that claiming a consensus is a common rhetorical device used to marginalize one�s political opponents on this side of the Ottawa River as well. Take this recent book review in yesterday�s Toronto Star:
“There are occasions you realize everybody in your community agrees on almost everything.
Sometimes this can be terrifying, but most times there’s a certain comfort to be taken when most everyone agrees that certain things � say gay marriage, access to abortion and the legalization of marijuana � are all desirables.”
Now personally, I cannot really say I am in fundamental disagreement with any of these things. In fact, I have even been an advocate for one of them. But only willful ignorance can lead one to be blind to the fact that many Canadians do disagree with them. Moreover, I fail to understand how pretending that defensible, opposing views do not exist actually advances one�s cause.”
When I read some of the stuff in the Toronto Star and other Liberal Media I am reminded of the old Saw ” If you tell a Lie often enough it is accepted as Truth”…DSY
The next day, the Post pushes back…
Wash Post: Bush is now lying about how he lied about Iraq
Wow, for years the Post used to love this guy.
Seems the “Oreo story” that the governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, and his conservative African-American lieutenant governor have been peddling is all lies.
They’ve been claiming for years that the lt gov was pelted with Oreo cookies at a debate – because an “Oreo” is a word used to describe a black person who is black on the outside and white on the inside, i.e., a sell-out. Well, now there’s overwhelming evidence that the incident never happened…
Lt Gov Steele in Maryland caught in race-baiting lie over “Oreo” incident that never happened
But the larger question is why this may have happened. It is because, when confronted by a large audience of African Americans, he is reviled as someone who lacks the character to represent them.
Tanking. Why are so many Americans unpatriotic, Instapundit?…
The lowest approval rating of his presidency. He also received all-time lows in three other categories that he was said to be elected on– terrorism, trustworthiness and the Iraq war
The same Washington Post that will gladly condemn Americans and their allies to death by giving up State secrets (CIA Prisoners Overseas)if it means making Bushy look bad, eh Stevie. Wow, some reputable operation they have there!
Dan Froomkin’s deeply misleading “briefing”
The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin serves up a deeply misleading column about the president’s attempt to defend himself from baseless and vicious attacks by the likes of, well, Froomkin. The liberal MSM knew that Bush wouldn’t take indefinitely the pounding it has been dishing out. So, when Bush finally responded the Post had its main talking point prepared — Bush is engaging in a political campaign. This allegation, in fact, was contained in the sub-title to its lead report on Bush’s speech. As I noted on Saturday, this flagrant bit of spin represents not just an attempt to denigrate the president without addressing his arguments, but also a reflection of the MSM’s greatest fear — that Bush will take his case to the public and deal the Post and like-minded partisan organs yet another defeat.
Froomkin parrots his paper’s talking point, calling his piece “Bush’s third campaign.” You have to admire the MSM’s arrogance and audacity. It gets to suggest day after day that the president misled the American people about matters of life and death, but if the president defends himself he’s engaging in the low-down activity known as campaigning.
But Froomkin goes beyond arrogance and audacity when he reaches the merits of the pre-war intelligence issue. First, he asserts “Far from being baseless, the charge that [Bush] intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence.” Froomkin points to no such evidence. Instead, he hides behind the story by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus. But Froomkin knows that this story provides no evidence that Bush intentionally misled the public about WMD. In fact, Milbank and Pincus concluded that
The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
Froomkin lacks the integrity to mention this dispositive admission. If the overwhelming intelligence consensus was that Saddam had WMD, then Bush did not mislead the American people in making that claim. On this crucial point, Froomkin shows himself to be more partisan and less honest than Milbank and Pincus.
Milbank and Pincus did quibble with Bush’s claims about what exactly the Democrats knew, and what exactly certain panels have concluded. But that’s very different than suggesting that Bush intentionally misled anyone about the underlying issue of WMD. Moreover, Froomkin’s discussion of the issue of the Democrats’ knowledge when they voted in favor of the war is also seriously flawed and highly misleading. He writes: “Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn’t have.” Well, yes. But Froomkin’s suggestion that Bush fed them selective and misleading information is baseless. The main piece of information in question was the National Intelligence Estimate. This wasn’t some hand-picked piece of information that Bush spoon-fed the Democrats in order to dupe them. This was the core intelligence document that any legislator would want to see before deciding how to vote. Froomkin’s statement that the Democrats now wish they hadn’t believed the NIE is as sophomoric as it is irrelevant. President Bush too may wish he hadn’t believed the NIE. But Bush’s point stands — both he and the Democrats relied on the same intelligence.
Except that the President also had the President’s Daily Brief, which he did not share with Congress. It turns out, however, that (according to the Silverman-Robb commission) the PDB’s were more alarmist about Saddam having WMD than the NIE was. The best Froomkin can do with this inconvenient fact is to sniff, “an interesting defense.” A complete defense would be more like it. If the information that Bush “withheld” from Congress was more emphatic about Saddam possessing WMD than the information he shared with Congress, then Bush could not have been attempting to mislead Congress into over-estimating the strength of the case for believing that Saddam possessed WMD.
Froomkin, on the other hand, clearly is trying to mislead his readers.
Man, I love to read Froomkin. Why can’t other reporters try some of this critical thinking?
Your stuff though…pure powerline. So much BS you don’t know where to start. What’s the Slim talking point?…Bush didn’t mislead, everyone else misfollowed? Come on Slim, are you saying that’s how everyone got him into the mess he’s in? Bail out now. This guys’ been a screw up all his life. Too funny.
Bush lied, he’s sinking, you’re stuck and the war on terror got misdirected. Even Pat Roberts says he won’t trust him now. The American people don’t want a bunch of liars in Washington. This is going to be a long 3 years, unless he’s impeached.
btw…the NIE? BS job, rushed in 6 weeks on with what they couldn’t prove.
What’s with the “stevie” thing. That helps?
Talk with you tomorrow.
Your stuff though…pure powerline.
Remember, kids…if someone’s opinion echoes that of a weblog with whom you disagree, it *must* be wrong, and can be easily dismissed.
Can I play too, Stevie? “Your posts are nothing but regurgitated Daily Kos! Ha-ha!”
Lame attempt stevie.
Excellent rebuttal slim !
🙂
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/15/asia/web.1115flu.php
Thanks to Big Paulie’s crime affiliation with our new best friend, we’ll be eating these semi innoculaleted drug bundles “very, very, very” soon.
Mmmmmmm…..third world innoculant.