A particularly good one from Steyn;

So anyway David Gregory’s going bananas and yelling “I will yell!” and “Don’t be a jerk!” at the White House press secretary, and there’s more smoke coming out of his ears than from Ronald McDonald in Lahore, and I’m thinking, you know, maybe Karl’s latest range of Rovebots that he planted in American media corporations are just a wee bit too parodically self-absorbed to be plausible. And then this lady pipes up and asks, “Would this be much more serious if the man had died?”
Well, maybe. And maybe it would be even ever so much more serious still if, after peppering him with birdshot, Cheney had dragged him into a safe house in the Sunni Triangle and decapitated him with a rusty scimitar while shouting “Allahu Ahkbar!” and then sold the video to al-Jazeera.

On a slightly more serious and related note, Flemming Rose,(culture editor of Jyllands-Posten) on why he published the cartoons;

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Not to be dissuaded from the now familiar pattern of tying their professional credibility to a non-story and riding it into the quicksand, the media heads into week two of “Cheney’s-got-a-gun”. As the new round of magazine covers and feature articles roll out, one wonders Just what a “sinister fascist who really runs the Whitehouse” has to do these days to collect on some of that appeasement normally due a hard working totalitarian – convert to Islam?

Who can inform this journalist that “freedom of the press” is one thing – unnecessary provocation is another.
Got what she deserved, no question.

HT: Who am I talking to?
HH: Hugh Hewitt.
HT: Am I talking to a journalist?
HH: Yes. Yes, for a long time. I’m just curious about what’s gone wrong…
HT: Tell me about your career. What have you really done?
HH: Well, it’s not nearly as impressive as you.
HT: Where did…yes, it’s…it’s very important to me. Where did you work?
HH: PBS for ten years.
HT: PBS?
HH: Yes.
HT: Well, that’s a good credential.
HH: There you have it. See? I’m…
HT: But then you decided to switch over?
HH: To switch over to what?
HT: God knows what you are.
HH: No, I’m just asking questions.
HT: No you’re not.
HH: This is so interesting to me, Helen. Journalists never answer questions like who they voted for and why they’re mad at the president…
HT: And I don’t think they should.
HH: Why?
HT: Because…
HH: Why should you guys have a special position in the White House press corps that you don’t have to answer questions?
HT: Because in journalism, you’re supposed to play the story straight, whatever the facts are, and we’re doing that.
HH: Well, that doesn’t go to why you should…you know, who made you folks queens and kings that you don’t have to answer who you voted for, what you…do you own a gun, Helen?
HT: Are you kidding?
HH: No.

After 50 plus years in the trade, you’d think the old bird would have a thicker skin.

In view of the traffic milestone on this lowly little amateur blog, I also offer a “thankyou!” to those in mainstream media, who all this week have specifically directed their readers and viewers to “the internet” to view the controversial Mohammed cartoons.
It is reassuring to know that those who have so casually submitted their democratic press freedoms to the rule of Sharia law, are at least willing to cede their subscribers to those who won’t.

Michelle Malkin on yesterday’s breathless reporting of new “images that some may find extremely disturbing” of a two year old story.

No pixelation of the nude prisoners in the photos. No disclaimers about paying respect to members of the US military who will be endangered by publication of the pics. The Washington Post used the opportunity to republish Abu Ghraib photos and video it obtained in April 2004.
Why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?

At Memri, Saudi terrorist Abu Mu’awiya Al-Shimali prepares for suicide bombing in Iraq in new video called “Fatima’s Fianc�”.

My brothers, the mujahidoon for the sake of Allah, what shall we, your sisters in Abu Ghureib prison tell you? We have been attacked by the sons of apes and pigs. They tore up our Korans, disfigured our bodies, and humiliated us. What have you heard about what we see here every day? By Allah, one of us was raped several times in one day by those apes and pigs.

Thomas Sowell writes about the ridiculous media frenzy over Dick Cheney’s hunting accident, but his words apply equally to the Mohammed cartoons,

The media love to wrap themselves in the mantle of “the public’s right to know” but there is no such dedication to that right when it goes against the journalists’ own prejudices.

.
Or shields their own cowardice.

As mentioned earlier, I spent a few hours at Saskparty convention events this weekend – my media accreditation a gesture from the party that I hope they go further with. Unfortunately, I had other commitments this weekend, so was only able to take in Brad Wall’s luncheon address today. If there’s enough interest, I’d suggest they go a step further next year and set up a “bloggers row”, as was done at last years RNC. There was a lot of interest and curiosity about the rising influence of the blogosphere, though not a lot of understanding of the phenomenon. Certainly, everyone I talked to had heard of or read SDA, I’m certain I’d have had a long line of volunteers for real time interviews had there been connectivity provided.
In general, the crowd were in good spirits while I was there, and there was certainly a lot of enthusiasm. Wall’s speech was well received – he’s a very good, very funny speaker – and it sounds like they’re moving smoothly into pre-election mode, retiring around $800,000 in party debt in the last 2 years.
(I should have more on the speech itself in a later post).
When I arrived at the Bess last evening, the prevailing buzz involved the success of the SaskParty launch of the new youth wing;

At least one of them sported a name more familiar in NDP circles than among the Saskatchewan Party. Travis Lingenfelter, the son of former NDP Deputy Premier turned Calgary oil executive Dwain Lingenfelter, said he was attracted to the Saskatchewan Party by its leader, Brad Wall, and its free enterprise economic message.

Which is why what I witnessed today in the (small) media scrum after the luncheon left me scratching my head.
As this was my first time at one of these things, I chose to just sit back on a chair to watch. I was frankly more interested in the people holding the microphones. For the most part the questions seemed topical and fair.
In his speech, Wall had mentioned NDP premier Lorne Calvert’s meeting next week with US Vice-President Dick Cheney to promote Saskatchewan’s energy resources – including uranium. There’s a very public divide in the NDP on the issue, and a strong contingent of old school greenies who steadfastly oppose uranium development and nuclear power. Apparently, the youth wing of the party had also taken the ‘anti’ side. His criticism suggested that it’s hard to be taken seriously as a reliable trade partner with the US when the party in government continues to send such mixed messages.
CBC’s Stefani Langenegger chose that point as pretext to launch a line of questioning that quickly established she really had no interest in the nuclear power issue or criticism of Calvert’s trade mission. Instead, she was moved to challenge Wall on the implications his criticisms had for the future of the new youth wing of the SaskParty.
I actually wrote “Huh?” in my notes.
Paraphrased, her questioning proceeded in this vein;

“Are you sending a message to your new youth wing that they should fear that when they bring resolutions forward, you’ll ignore them? Should they be worried about your heavy-handed approach to youth? Your party has been criticized as “top down”. It sounds as though you don’t like different points of view. Is this democracy? What’s wrong with having debate about it?

Wall repeatedly countered that the comments in his speech were directed to the mixed message from the NDP government on nuclear power and that he didn’t think it was helpful for the province. He felt a clear message should come from a party’s caucus. Langenegger couldn’t be dissuaded from this logic-impaired line of questioning – becoming more and more strident.
I began to wonder when she was just going to cut to the chase and ask “Have you stopped beating your children, you fascist?”
After considerable back and forth, Wall finally said he didn’t agree with her position and moved to another reporter who changed to a more relevant line of questioning premised on the temperament of cats. (That’s not a joke).
If I spot her report online, I’ll post a link. I’m really curious to see where she goes with it.

Reader W. P. Leblanc copied me with a letter he sent to CBC, over the cartoon depiction of Muslim prophet Mohammed as a militant;

I understand CBC has a policy of not using the term “terrorist” or referring to people as “terrorists” because it is such a “loaded” term. In fact here is a quote from an Evan Solomon interview with Michael Ignatieff on your website:

Solomon: “Here at the CBC, there�s a great debate a to how we use the word terrorist. In fact we never use it � we cannot call anybody a terrorist because the word has become so politicized. So we use various euphemisms � military groups, insurgent groups � in fact, there are some cases where we can, but we almost never use it � what�s your reaction when that term is no longer acceptable?” (link)

So please tell me why Norma Lee McLeod on your “News at Six” program referred to controversial Danish Cartoons as “depict(ing) the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist”. (see below)

McLeod: “Muslim students took to the streets of Halifax protesting the actions of a local professor. As Dan O’Connell reports, they want Peter March to apologize for posting those cartoons that depict the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.” (runs 1:42)

I viewed all of the Danish cartoons and I could not see how they depict Mohammed as a terrorist. Could you point out which cartoon depicts him as a terrorist and why. Could you also let me know if this indicates a change in CBC’s policy on not using the word “terrorist”. This may help me understand when to use the term terrorist and when not.

The CBC used the word “terrorist” in this instance because it buttresses their editorial stance that the caricature is too offensive and inflamatory to publish. In other words, they’re not above using the word if it serves a political agenda, just so long as it’s their own.
At CBC Watch – “examples offer the reality of CBC tolerance, moral leadership, compassion, diversity outreach, objectivity, social justice and inclusiveness with respect to Catholics and other Christians”
Archive of Mohammed images

Surely, there’s a Montreal Canadiens jersey hanging in some Edmonton shop window just waiting for a firebomb?
Because, as we know – that’s the sort of protest Western media is sensitive to.

Further to this, a response from Bruce Cheadle at Either Orr,.

CTV, featured at Regret The Error;

“This isn’t a correction, but it’s one heck of an error on the website of CTV, Canada’s number one broadcaster. It’s in a story about the reaction to newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed:

(The CTV page has now been updated with the word “islamic” replacing “soviet”.)
Via Kathy Shaidle.

Drudgereport

Earlier this week, CNN’s correspondent Christiane Amanpour complained the war was being sanitized by the government.
“The reason that the deaths and injuries of the American soldiers don’t get as much publicity is because we are by and large banned from seeing it,” Amanpour said.

(full item in extended entry)

Continue reading →

Either Orr;

Bruce Cheadle wrote it. But editors approved it.

Update: The article has been airbrushed – here’s a screenshot of the original wording, still up at the London Free Press.

First, it’s the CBC admission of a “Heil Harper” cut and paste “error”, and now this;

Full screencap here.

Something I heard over radio a few days ago about “voodoo economics” brought to mind this short exerpt of an article by L. Brent Bozell III, written in 1994. I decided to dig it up and republish it here, because it’s good, because I feel like it, and because – as I wrote on Monday – some things never change.

In the 1980s, there was a consensus among the members of the national media that Ronald Reagan was going to fail and that he was going to bring on economic disaster. But. . .the economy didn’t collapse. In fact, it soared to unprecedented levels.
The media stubbornly refused to admit that “Reaganomics” was responsible. The drumbeat of negative opposition to the president’s policies continued through the 1980s. By 1986. . . the ratio of negative to positive stories was seven to one. In other words, as the economy was improving, media reports on the economy were becoming increasingly negative.
One of the most common allegations in these reports was that the poor got poorer under Reagan, even though the actual number of poor declined from 14 to 13 percent during his administration, and the average income for the lowest one-fifth of Americans rose from $7,008 to $9,431. Inflation declined 48%, from 8.9 to 4.6%. Unemployment declined 45%, from 7.5 to 5.2.%. Interest rates declined 71.9%, from 21 to 5.9%. Twenty-one million new jobs were created.
The so-called “greedy ’80s” witnessed the largest peacetime economic expansion in our nation’s history, yet the media remained deaf, dumb and blind.

From “30 years of the Best Of Imprimis“.
One can subscribe to the invaluable Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College for free. (There’s a link off the main page). Hillsdale College was founded by Freewill Baptists in Spring Arbor, Michigan and became the first institution of its kind to prohibit in its charter all discrimination based on race, religion, or sex – in 1850.

Woohoo!
There’ll be bodies in the streets by Monday.

A request from Rosa Kim, a TV producer at The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos on the CBC that I’ve agreed to pass along…

I’m searching for Canadian Conservatives to be part of our live audience during our election night coverage on Monday, the 23rd. I’m looking for people who are voting for Stephen Harper but not associated in any way with the party and I was wondering if through your blog you know of anyone I should speak to?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I believe the show is filmed in Toronto. Her email is Rosa_Kim@CBC.CA
Don’t spam her with crap, please. We complain about not having a voice on the CBC. Here’s a small opportunty.