52 Replies to “Now Running From The Asteroid”

  3. The decoys should learn to speak more professionally instead of “um” “ok ok” “ahhh”…
    Maybe that is the norm out there, but if someone was interviewing me I’d be suspicious of their angle if their grammar wasn’t straight fire.

  4. At least O’Keefe is bring out the so called journalist that are really no more paid shills for the left. MSM has a lot of them….call them what you may..they are still Marxist/Statist/Socialist period…/

  5. I admit it took much of a lifetime to finally figure out what despicable scumbags “journalists” really were.
    It’s not just a little thing, it’s a huge thing. “Journalists” have been the worst kind of promoters and enablers for outright lying scumbags and thieves: such as our Libranos and Darth Axelrod.
    I have no TV. I don’t watch. I don’t read “news” papers. I keep informed using Al Gore’s Intertubes.
    It’s the independent authors on the web that inform us of how bankrupt, literally, are both the mathematics and spirituality of The Left – endorsed and espoused by the useful idiots our “journalists” have become.
    It’s time to rethink the whole works. Including public “education”. Scrap it all, and start over. Time for version 2.0.

  12. The media has mistakenly put the spotlight on the idiot occupods – there is a revolution taking place, but it’s not the one they’re writing about. They haven’t realized how significant it is, but at least they’re starting to hide or giggle nervously.

  13. They pretend to be “neutral”. Evidently some nice, simple-minded people buy this lie. Exposing them is good and necessary. I don’t even begrudge them their bias. I’m biased. I think everyone is biased (one can be biased and still try to be fair). I begrudge them their dishonesty and their unspeakable arrogance.
    (Apparently this showed up on Sree Sreenivasan’s Twitter feed:
    “After he was done with me, I should have kept rolling, because they get to the exit and find they can’t open it. He says, “Have they locked us in?” Turns out they were pulling the door instead of pushing it.”
    Got him!!!!! He had a slight problem opening the door! Which he didn’t edit out of the recording! Way to go, Sree!)

  14. BTW, can anyone here imagine writing an email to anyone, ever, under any circumstance, which was as completely vulgar, squalid, witless, inarticulate and unredeemably stupid as the one Pulitzer Prize winner and Columbia journalism prof. Dale Maharidge sent O’Keefe?
    These people are frauds.

  15. What a relief that Mr. O’Keefe didn’t ask about B. Hussien’s past history at Columbia University, any sort of photos of B. Hussien actually there, or perhaps B. Hussien at the Columbia Uni debating club, for instance.

  16. That Columbia dean was visibly unsettled by O’Keefe. Why? What could a simple academic have to fear from an investigative reporter with a video camera? His light-hearted, categorical defense of the vulgar Maharidge says much about the nature of the Columbia School of Journalism.

  19. End “Liberal Progressive” bigotry & political ideological propaganda in the publicly funded MSM.
    Scrap the CBC.
    We are currently forcefully paying for radical special interest based manipulation of truths via collectivist social engineering. This is a human & child rights abuse!

  20. It’s rather telling that it’s the Project Veritas decoy, rather than Ms Nutt, who actually says the key line, “It just seems so important to me that we re-elect the President.” But of course that doesn’t really matter around these parts, because this just proves–PROVES–that MSM folks are all a bunch of scheming liberals masquerading as objective journalists.
    Meanwhile, since Rule Number One at SDA is that any evidence that doesn’t fit the pre-conceived narrative may simply be disregarded, the private opinions of, say, Barack Obama held by, say, Sean Hannity or Megyn Kelly or George Will remain of zero interest to loyal readers here.

  21. Jeezus Davenport..could you be any more intentionally obtuse..?..Anybody with two brain cells to bump together is pretty clear that Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly and George Will are right wing commentators…No?

  22. Davenport just got back from the occupy Oakland, where he was likely selling weed, consuming weed, and ducking bullets, he is more addled than usual Syncrodox. Weed has a way of sneaking up on those whose mommys are also sneaking up on them smoking it , while living in mommys basement.

  23. “Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly and George Will are right wing commentators…No?”
    Meh, Hannity, maybe, but Fox News’ own website lists Kelly as a news anchor and reporter, and Will has been in the newspaper business forever. And do we really need to go through the entire WSJ and/or Fox News journalist rosters person by person, or do you comprehend my point?
    And since we’re nit-picking over credentials, do you even care at all that Nutt’s role at the Star-Ledger is primarily as a long-form science reporter, and that contrary to Project Veritas’s insinuations, she barely if at all covers NJ politics. In fact, the one article that Project Veritas cites in its Gotcha! video — which they flash on-screen for just long enough to give you the (false) impression that Nutt wrote extensively about Gov Christie during the 2009 campaign — can be found here, and it is so incredibly innocuous, politically non-partisan, and utterly NOT focused at all on Christie that reading it actually serves ironically to discredit Project Veritas’s thesis and demonstrate instead that while Nutt may personally dislike Christie, she can nevertheless write about him professionally in a neutral fashion.

  24. Davenport, you can’t possibly be claiming that FOX or SUN pretend to be politically neutral. (You guys can keep George Will, BTW.)

  25. So right Davenport.
    Why,I myself CONSTANTLY see Huffpo,CNN,MSNBC,the MSM say such great things about Cains,Palin,Gingrich..etc.
    You get into some of that thar TB infected weed when you were occubotin in Atlanta,instead of mommy’s basement???
    @foobart…yeah…but notice they aren’t talking about getting rid of 1 pinko journo.Same sh1t,different day at the Toronto Comrade.

  26. It’s rather telling that it’s the Project Veritas decoy, rather than Ms Nutt, who actually says the key line, “It just seems so important to me that we re-elect the President.”
    No it isn’t. He likely had to get her attention in under a minute. She was the bigshot, he was the unknown kid with the mic. They weren’t having dinner together. She agreed with him, Davenport. She could simply have demurred.

  27. Yeah wow Davenport it’s kinda troubling when these guys use the very same damn tactics the MSM uses eh? Yup no reporter ever uses leading questions at all do they? You will notice that she did not reject the premise of that statement AT ALL. Instead she said that it helps that Chris Christie is not in the race.

  28. Ignorant leftists are very protective of their comfortable sinecures. It is disgusting when we are forced to pay them.

  29. Apparently Pulitzers are about as valid as Nobel Peace prizes…go figure.
    Posted by: syncrodox at November 10, 2011 9:42 PM
    I am not an idiot!

  32. James: “You will notice that she did not reject the premise of that statement AT ALL. Instead she said that it helps that Chris Christie is not in the race.”
    Yes, I noticed that. Did you notice that she said that in the context of what she thought was a private conversation, and that the Project Veritas guy was wearing a HIDDEN camera?
    So journalists aren’t allowed to hold personal political views now? Or do they merely have to disclose their personal political views in their newspaper bylines?

  33. Black Mamba: “No it isn’t. He likely had to get her attention in under a minute. She was the bigshot, he was the unknown kid with the mic. They weren’t having dinner together. She agreed with him, Davenport. She could simply have demurred.”
    Actually, she kind of steered the subject away from that potential ethical landmine. He says, “I think it’s important that we help re-elect the president.” (Does he mean “we” as in “you and I”, all “MSM journalists”, or the “royal we”? Who knows? James O’Keefe conveniently edited the preceding conversation out.)
    In turn, does she say, “Yeah, and that’s why we need to write biased stories about Republican candidates”, which is what you’d expect if you were expecting a vast left-wing MSM conspiracy? No, she doesn’t. Instead, she says, “And it’ll help that Christie’s not running.” Now, why would she say that, especially in response to the PV decoy’s statement? Because Christie is an example of how the MSM tears down Republican hopefuls? Nope, Christie chose not to run — said he “wasn’t ready to be President.” Because Christie is an a-hole and a liar? Nope, those are just her personal views (as well as 42% of NJ residents). The answer is: because it’s true. Christie is a great campaigner, and he could have seriously challenged Obama for the presidency.
    So, if a kid comes up to you at some event, pretending to be some cub reporter or journalism student, strikes up what seems to be a private conversation, and tries to get you to say that you also think (as he pretends to) that journalists should in their professional capacity try to sway elections, and you manage to instead simply say that you personally don’t like the governor of the neighbouring state but admit that he’s a good campaigner, and nothing else, that’s considered a Gotcha! moment? Especially considering the only instance that you have of this senior SCIENCE reporter ever writing about said governor is actually completely fair and balanced?
    Kind of scraping the barrel there, folks.
    And by the way, have you never been to one of these university seminars? It’s actually not that hard to walk up to a speaker afterwards for a question or two, especially a relatively unknown science writer who also works as adjunct faculty at the same host university.

  34. I’m afraid your enthusiasm for your radical views swamps your ability to reason, and leads you to assertions unsupported by fact:: ” Nope, Christie chose not to run — said he “wasn’t ready to be President.” Because Christie is an a-hole and a liar? Nope, those are just her personal views (as well as 42% of NJ residents). “.
    Could you provide the methodology that gave this 42% result? I didn’t think so. Please think before you type. Please?

  35. Davenport. I cant a young reported can put things in the mouth of a Pulitzer Prince Winner. What is that prize for anyway??? Must be for childrens books. I can’t believe the arrogance of these left wing assholes……
    Our day is coming.

  36. Davenport said: “So journalists aren’t allowed to hold personal political views now? Or do they merely have to disclose their personal political views in their newspaper bylines?”
    As it happens Davenport, they don’t -have- to do anything, because newspapers etc. are -private- enterprises, and in a free country you can say what you want. Therefore journalists and media outlets are free to lie, prevaricate, dis-inform, shill and propagandize to their little hearts content. Which they are clearly doing, and which even you, partisan tool of socialism that you are, cannot deny.
    What I find intolerable is when they lie and shill for socialists while wrapped in their Professional Ethics of Objectivity flag. Its not the propaganda, its the endless preaching from the holier-than-thou journo-pulpit that gags me.
    So yes, it would be nice if they declared their OBVIOUS biases forthrightly as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh do, and drop this threadbare pretense of “That’s the way it is” Cronkeitian objectivity.

  38. Shows how pervasive and deeply ingrained, the infection is.Can’t trust our betters, at all!

  39. Thanks go to The Phantom for explaining the big picture to the socialist.
    It is doubtful the its gonna touch him though, the socialists are so insulated in their doctrine that it just does not work.
    For a socialist to realize that there the world around would be somewhat akin to a revelation.

  40. This just-a-science-writer routine won’t wash. Whatever she won the Pulitzer for (articles and a documentary on the sinking of a scallop boat off the New Jersey coast in 2009), she’s reported on Christie. From her Columbia Faculty profile: “She writes about a wide variety of subjects, with a special emphasis on science.”
    Davenport, we just want them to admit that they’re all lefties.

  41. Davenport said: “And by the way, have you never been to one of these university seminars? It’s actually not that hard to walk up to a speaker afterwards for a question or two, especially a relatively unknown science writer who also works as adjunct faculty at the same host university.”
    Yes Davenport, we’ve most of us been to a seminar or two. This ain’t the feed mill here.
    Once upon a time I buttonholed some Big Cheese of the AMA at their national meeting, after her presentation on gun control, I think it was in Philly. I asked her if she was aware that there’s no such thing as a plastic gun invisible to x-ray machines, like she just said in her speech. She said yes she knew, thanked me for not yelling at her, and pretty much ran away before some of the other pretty peeved off gun owning doctors could get a piece of her.
    No doubt you’d be giving me an argument if I produced video of that as well.

  42. I haven’t had much experience hanging out in the faculty lounge but I do have a few professor and retired professor customers. They are special.
    One is a retired English prof. I remember once — being a BIG BOOK amateur enthusiast — asking him a question about some literary subject. I shall never forget the reaction, roughly summarized as “you have no business making inquiries along these specialist lines”. This same “gentleman” probably under the influence once sent me back my newsletter with 4 usage corrections, 3 of which were erroneous.
    Question: Is there anyone — anyone — snottier than a snotty university prof. I refer to his little act of asking his colleagues to gather around and gawk at the “celebrity”.
    Someone once said that faculty politics is the most vicious of all politics ‘cos the stakes are so small. Small, vicious little creeps is what they are (referring of course primarily to the humanities profs).

  43. small c conservative: “Could you provide the methodology that gave this 42% result? I didn’t think so.”
    Right here, actually: businessweek.com/news/2011-10-12/christie-approval-rating-jumps-to-record-after-he-spurns-race.html. Admittedly, a 42% disapproval rating doesn’t actually translate into a 42% a-holery rating, but you get a sense of what my point was (one presumes).
    The Phantom: “As it happens Davenport, they don’t -have- to do anything, because newspapers etc. are -private- enterprises, and in a free country you can say what you want.”
    Tell that to Mr. O’Keefe, whose rhetorical opening line from the above video is, “Should journalists disclose their political biases?”
    “What I find intolerable is when they lie and shill for socialists while wrapped in their Professional Ethics of Objectivity flag.”
    Except, of course, that (a) Mr O’Keefe has produced ZERO evidence that Ms Nutt’s reporting on US politics serves to “lie and shill for socialists” (among whom you presumably include President Obama), and (b) the only instance that Mr O’Keefe can find of Ms Nutt reporting on Gov Christie is in fact completely professional and objective.
    Be honest with yourself, if not with me: given Mr O’Keefe’s stated objective for his To Catch a Journalist project, this outing was an epic fail.
    Black Mamba: “This just-a-science-writer routine won’t wash. Whatever she won the Pulitzer for (articles and a documentary on the sinking of a scallop boat off the New Jersey coast in 2009), she’s reported on Christie. From her Columbia Faculty profile: “She writes about a wide variety of subjects, with a special emphasis on science.””
    Now you’re just getting desperate. Are you really just going to cling to Mr O’Keefe’s general claim that “Ms Nutt reported on Gov Christie during the ’09 election” without bothering to ask what the extent of that reporting was? And are you really simply going to ignore the fact that, having spent all this effort with the sting operation and the follow-up interview attempts, the best article (perhaps the ONLY article) by Ms Nutt about Gov Christie that Mr O’Keefe could dig up the subject is one that completely refutes his argument that Ms Nutt’s personal political views necessarily biases her professional political writing? C’mon, Black Mamba — you’re better than that.
    And no, I’m not saying that, just because Ms Nutt is a science writer, she’s done nothing unethical here. What I’m saying is that, because she’s primarily a Star-Ledger science writer (rather than, say, a Star-Ledger political correspondent), AND because the only thing she appears to have written professionally about Gov Christie actually meets every journalistic standard of objectivity and fairness, AND because her caught-on-tape statements regarding Gov Christie’s character were her own personal opinions expressed during what she believed was a private conversation, AND because — contrary to Mr O’Keefe’s insinuations — she never actually said that it was important for journalists to help re-elect the president, AND because her actual reply to the Project Veritas decoy, an observation that President Obama’s re-election chances are improved by Gov Christie having choosen not to run, (a) is factually true (he is a strong campaigner who appeals to moderately conservatives mainstream independent voters) and (b) in no logical or reasonable way constitutes an endorsement of the decoy’s view that journalists should help re-elect the president — for all those reasons, she’s done nothing unethical here.

  44. Davenport said: “Tell that to Mr. O’Keefe, whose rhetorical opening line from the above video is, “Should journalists disclose their political biases?””
    I agree with him, they should. I don’t willingly pay money to view the product of those who don’t.
    Which is of course much different than your insinuation that he’s saying they be MADE to disclose their biases.
    In Ms. Nutt’s science reporting do you think she’s utterly objective about, oh lets pick something at random, how about global warming? Maybe gun control? AIDS health policy? Green energy? Bird flu?
    Bias comes in all kinds of forms Davenport. That stuff I just rhymed off is shilled, lied about and disinformed on in the mainstream press. In fact, the mainstream science press has some of the most biased, worst reporting I’ve ever seen on a wide range of topics.
    I talk about it a lot on my blog, you can check that out at your leisure. But since I haven’t heard Ms. Nutt’s work mentioned in reverent tones by guys like Anthony Watts, I think its safe to assume she’s one more MSM boilerplate cut-and-paster. Holding a job at Columbia proves it.
    I also don’t grant that her reporting on Christie was objective. Again, she followed the media template to a T, and that’s just more proof of bias. If she hadn’t, she wouldn’t have gotten published.
    By the way, Obama is not really a socialist. More of a Fascist. Also a dead duck walking.

  45. The Phantom: “I also don’t grant that her reporting on Christie was objective” because I am too lazy and/or my desire/need to preserve intact my self-reassuring biases and assumptions about “lefties” is too great for me to even read a link that’s provided to me.
    Here in full is the extent to which Ms Nutt “reported on Gov Christie during the 2009 election”: “Waiting may be the hardest part. Now that the polls are closed how does a gubernatorial candidate really feel? Tonight, incumbent Jon Corzine and challengers Chris Christie and Chris Daggett will finally know.”
    That is literally the only mention of Christie in the article featured in O’Keefe’s video, and oooooh, isn’t it just dripping with left-wing bias?!

  46. Me No Dhimmi – oh, some of these profs are bat-guano crazy and hilariously full of themselves, no question.

  48. Still no reverential mentioning of Ms. Nutt over at Watts’ place Davenport. Funny how there’s way more to look at that the one tiny thing you want me to focus on. “Look at THIS, don’t look over there!” says Davenport. That’s how I’ve got by in life so far ducky, following orders from people who are not my friend. Uh huh.
    Funny thing I’ve noticed about smear campaigns over the years of watching the Left in action, they only take a little truth to work. People connect their own dots, all you have to do is get them started.
    The funny part is how you don’t like it when that sword starts cutting people on -your- side for a change, eh? That’s hilarious!
    Loved the video, love your outrage even more. Flame on, Davenport!

  49. “Still no reverential mentioning of Ms. Nutt over at Watts’ place Davenport.”
    And there you have it, folks, The Phantom’s singular means for forming an opinion about anything — waiting to see if said topic is mentioned favourably on a single blog. Now that’s obedience.
    “”Look at THIS, don’t look over there!” says Davenport. That’s how I’ve got by in life so far ducky, following orders from people who are not my friend. Uh huh.”
    No, it seems you got by in life so far by following orders from people (Watts, McMillan, etc) whom you so obviously want to be your friends.

  50. “waiting to see if said topic is mentioned favourably on a single blog…”
    Waiting to see how Davenport dodges the point this time… and she goes with -more- laser focus! Sticking with the classics, eh? Or more grasping at straws, methinks.
    Excellent video btw, did I mention that? ~:D

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation