Via Protein Wisdom – NRO’s The Corner does a little media comparison shopping…

For anyone who wants to quibble with the notion that the media favor Kerry, consider this: Since January 1, 2004, here are the number of morning and evening news stories and interview segments the networks have devoted to uncovering the growing United Nations Oil for Food program bribery scandal: four. NBC aired three: a January 15 report by Myers, a July 20 report from Andrea Mitchell, and a Myers story on October 6, when the Duelfer report came out detailing the scam. ABC aired only one this year: from investigative reporter Brian Ross on April 21, the day the UN announced its own internal probe into the scandal. But we found CBS has not aired a single story on the scandal, even when using a list of different search terms in the Nexis search engine trying to find one. Maybe they were hip-deep in phony documents.
Why isn’t this a major scandal for the major networks? Despite the nine ongoing probes, the networks would rather chase anti-Bush angles. ABC, CBS, and NBC have combined for more than 75 stories on George W. Bush’s National Guard Service, more than 50 stories on “skyrocketing” gasoline prices, and hundreds on prison abuse at Abu Ghraib. All year, Kerry has touted a greater UN and European role in Iraq. Now, those players look like what liberals called “the coalition of the bribed.” And the anchormen are keeping quiet. More on the media apathy here.

I’ll go out on a limb and state that if you did a search on Canadian media outlets, the ratios would be similar.
But I disagree with Tim Graham on one point – this is not apathy. It’s journalistic malpractice. And for once I’d like to see some of those who lurk in the “mainstream media” through these blog discussions (yes, your ip’s turn up in our logs) screw up the courage to actually respond in the comments, and attempt to justify why you continue to treat us, the consumers, with such utterly transparent professional contempt.
(Crossposted to the Shotgun.)

Via Wizbang – is it the New York Times’ turn to fabricate quotes?

The reporter in question, Ron Suskind, did not attend the event he got the quote from. Further, it was not televised, it was a private event and there were no transcripts available. Yet he reports the quote as fact.
Suskind does not explain how he got the controversial quote so accurate but does say about an earlier quote “According to notes provided to me, and according to several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak…”
So Suskind got “notes provided to him” and that was good enough to run such an important quote. I hope Bill Burkett was not the source. Is this what passes for reporting at the Times today?
The Kerry/Edwards/NYTimes campaign has decided they can’t convince voters with ringing endorsements so they’ll scare old people to death.
For their part, the Bush campaign is denying the quote and some even claimed Suskind made the quote up from whole cloth. In the end, it is of little use, the media is running wild with the story, facts be damned.
–Oh, and who is Ron Suskind that the New York Times is having write a 10 (web) page story on Bush just days before the election? He is the author of “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill.””

Hey, if it’s good enough for the Associated Press…

Thomas Lipscombe, NYSun;

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry’s campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry’s “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves” opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration’s secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry’s discharge as being subsequent to the review of “a board of officers.” This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
[…]
The “board of officers” review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about “by direction of the President.” No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry’s hidden military records.
[…]
There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry’s medals were reissued.

Why is this interesting? (Apart from the fact that Kerry has made his Vietnam service a central argument for his fitness as commander in chief). It’s interesting because the questions surrounding Kerry’s military record and the discrepencies in the documents provided, have been out there for some months now, and with the exception of Thomas Lipscomb’s reporting, has remained completely uninvestigated. The same media outlets that have searched under every rock and in every crevice for evidence to support DNC Terry McAuliffe’s accusations that George Bush was “AWOL” from his guard service seem unconcerned that Kerry is refusing to release his military records – an astonishing “oversight”, considering that the Swift Boat Veterans’ book “Unfit For Command” led the best seller lists for weeks.

I just sent the following email to our local news-talk radio station’s “news reader” David Kirton. He’s heard that there’s a report out from the Iraq Survey Group.
Emphasis on “heard about”.
Judging by the hyperbolic “George Bush LIED” he just claimed was contained therein, he’s not actually, eh… read anything about it.

Subject: Where’s The “Rest Of The Story”?
What was I just listening to? A news report or op-ed????
You know, the “no WMD” reporting has rather been done to death over the past 6 months. It makes you wonder why the “France, Germany and Russia were being bribed through OIL-FOR-FOOD and assisting Saddam to get sanctions lifted so his WMD programs could resume” portion of this latest report is being virtually ignored in North America news media coverage, apparently, including yours.
Though, you must take credit for creativity – tacking on the “George Bush lied” line.
******************************************
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1167592004″
“Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working” – Tony Blair
SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.
Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France – having been granted oil contracts – would veto any American plans for war.
But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.
The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.
Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the “guiding theme” of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible.”
*************************************
Honesty indeed. This is the singular reason that the news networks are bleeding market share to the internet and cable news. News consumers are sick to death of reporting that has begun to resemble an uncompleted Paul Harvey “rest of the story” schtick.
In a world where schoolchildren are considered legitimate targets by a religious death cult that is sworn to attacking Western civilization by any means possible, yet 95% of coverage is devoted to American “failure” and “lies”, one wonders which side some in our media are on.

David Kirton of Rawlco Radio – we deserve better.
update – not surprisingly, Powerline is better and exerpting actual content.

This item is tantalizing: [D]uring the mid-to-late 1990s Saddam issued a presidential decree directing the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to recruit UNSCOM inspectors, especially American inspectors. To entice their cooperation, the IIS was to offer the inspectors preferential treatment for future business dealings with Iraq, once they completed their duties with the United Nations. Tariq �Aziz and an Iraqi-American were specifically tasked by the IIS to focus on a particular American inspector. I can’t see that the report ever says whether the Iraqis were successful in bribing the American weapons inspector. The obvious candidate, of course, is Scott Ritter. We do know that Saddam succeeded in penetrating the U.N.’s inspection teams, so that he had advance knowledge of the inspectors’ intentions: IIS personnel were directed to contact facilities and personnel in advance of UNMOVIC site inspections, according to foreign government information. Former Regime officials state that the IIS developed penetrations within the UN and basic surveillance in country to learn future inspection plans.

Keep a watch on Powerline, as they are continuing to post updates as they read the report.

Sept. 30: For Immediate Release:

“In an effort to broaden the subscriber base, the National Post has made the difficult decision to downsize the intelligence quotient at the newspaper.
While the addition of content from Sheila Copps was a step in the right direction, the Post has realized that our goals would not be attainable without making painful, but necessary cuts. We regret any disappointment this may cause with our dedicated readership, but we are confident that the changes will produce the shorter words and larger photographs that appeal to today’s modern thinkers.”

Who says that a competitive marketplace encourages the best and brightest to rise to the top? Less than a month after the forged TANG memos blew up in their faces, CBS is defending a story by Richard Schlesinger on “Reviving The Draft”.
Nevermind that Schlesinger overlooked telling his audience that his star “mom on the street”, Beverly Cocco, heads up an advocacy group called People Against the Draft. To advance his piece, Schlesinger used the content of an email hoax.
Bill at INDC Journal tracked down Schlesinger, CBS spokeswoman Sandra Genelius, and producer Linda Karas, for an interview. The responses must be read to be believed.

INDC: “Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they’ve been debunked on various internet sites long ago …”
Schlesinger: “The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s going to be a draft? No. But it’s an issue that people are talking about.”
[…]
Karas: “The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e- mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail.”

“We are not verifying the e-mail”.
What does that mean? They didn’t bother going to the trouble of fact checking and didn’t know it was a hoax? Or that they knew, and deliberately withheld that information from their audience, even though it was cited as reponsible for the “fear” they are reporting?
Is there a third explanation that I’ve overlooked, that validates this response as evidence of the thinking of intelligent, professional journalists?
There’s a long list of media observers who have accused CBS of pro-Democrat bias. There are websites – rathergate.com and ratherbiased.com – devoted to exposing it. But reading Bill’s interview, I’m no longer sure that bias is really at the root of CBS’s problems. These responses indicate something quite different is going on, for they are devoid of any cleverness or obfuscation. We saw hints of that in the defense by Dan Rather of the forged memos. “False, but true”. They actually believe that a hoax is valid basis for a news story, so long as the response to it is “genuine” or that some people believe it to be true. It’s a wonder we don’t get monthly updates from CBS based on press releases from the Flat Earth Society.
I realized this morning, that I’ve seen this sort of “logic” before – in the dog world. Dog breeders usually enter their field as rank novices, without training, accreditation or passing muster with an employer. They buy a dog (or two or three), go to a few shows, start making puppies and learn as they go. As might be expected, a few of these people have trouble getting velcro to work. They approach dog breeding with the intellectual quality of an excited moth sighting a light bulb.
When the puppies that result reflect the mediocrity any reasonably knowledgable breeder would have predicted, they rejoice in their quality. When others beg to differ, they can’t see the shortcomings, they can’t understand why their results are questioned. With beauty so conveniently located “in the eye of the beholder” they rationalize that it is the beholder who is lacking.
They don’t progress, they repeat past mistakes and if they’re stubborn enough to stick it out a few years, develop a reputation as serial losers.
This type of dog breeder is so well known, that we even have a name for them.
We call them “stupid people”.
The more explanations of this type I read from employees of CBS, the more I realize that they don’t sound like crafty politicians or spin doctors at all. They sound like the clueless twits we read on doggie email lists.
It’s not bias at all. Someone at CBS is going out of their way to hire stupid people.

“If you were a fish, Dan, what would it be?”

Update: Ratherbiased.com is down, so I’ve redirected the link to Jeff Goldstein’s save of the story
Update2: “Sugarcoat it” Memo surfaces via an uninpeachable source.

Editoral director of CBSNews.com, Dick Meyers, was a guest this afternoon on the Murray Wood Show (Rawlco Radio – 650 CKOM), explaining the decision of his network regarding the use (or rather, non-use) of beheading images on television. While explaining his own difficulty struggling with the issue, and propensity to “err in favour” of disclosure, his rationale included the fact that the images were beyond the realm of good taste and they served as propoganda.
?
I called in, and suggested that his explanation would make more sense, had the contraversy over supressing “propoganda” images of Nick Berg’s murder not been played out over the backdrop of Abu Graihb and the weeks of tasteless prison photos that amounted to nothing more but different camera angles.
(Sorry, there are no transcripts, so this is from memory).
In addition to making a weak attempt to justify the use of the prison images as part of a “developing story” , Mr. Meyers actually attempted to claim that CBS had “broken the story” on Abu Graihb.
I corrected him. I reminded Mr. Meyers that the story had been actually “broken” by the Pentagon months before it made national news, had been covered in the back pages of print media, and was pretty much ignored until months later – when the photos became available.
I don’t think he was expecting that.
He seemed a little rattled. Then, the (extended) segment ended and he had to go.
Heh. Thanks, Murray.
Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam

French photographer Gilles Nicolet sells National Geographic staged photos. The magazine doesn’t notice.

The readers do.

On pages 78-9 (photograph above), the picture caption reads that hunters are carrying “tusks taken from an elephant found dead in the bush.” Soon after the article was published, several readers pointed out that there are faint but unmistakable numbers on the tusk on page 78 which we failed to notice before publishing the story. We now know that the tusks belong to the Tanzania Department of Wildlife. When we asked photographer Gilles Nicolet to explain, he admitted that he himself had supplied the tusks to the hunters after borrowing them from local wildlife authorities.
This was in direct contrast to what Nicolet had repeatedly assured us when we were preparing the story. As part of our rigorous internal system of checks and balances, we routinely obtain independent verification of the circumstances in which a photograph is made. In very few instances, we are unable to do so. This story was one of those cases, and we published it knowing that we were relying heavily on Nicolet’s accounts.
In light of his disturbing admission about the tusks, we immediately launched an investigation into the other photographs in the story and determined that the two on page 85 which the caption identifies as showing a successful hunter removing his spear from an elephant and then removing the tusks were actually made several years earlier and are not of the Barabaig. (See photographs below.)

And National Geographic editor-in-chief William L. Allen does the right thing.

By publishing this story, we failed our readers. We are currently reviewing our internal procedures to do our best to ensure that this type of mistake does not happen again. In addition, we are re-examining Nicolet’s only previous story for National Geographic (“Hunting the Mighty Python,” May 1997); to date it appears that all of the pictures and accompanying captions are accurate.
We apologize to our readers.

Of course, here the stakes weren’t as high. The elephant story wasn’t written to help get a donkey elected.

The Sept. 13-15 poll — conducted after the CBS News report was questioned but before the network issued a formal apology — found that just 44% of Americans express confidence in the media’s ability to report news stories accurately and fairly (9% say “a great deal” and 35% “a fair amount”). This is a significant drop from one year ago, when 54% of Americans expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media. The latest result is particularly striking because this figure had previously been very stable — fluctuating only between 51% and 55% from 1997-2003.

Hat Tip – Jeff Jarvis

Click on the photo to catch their post, numerous links, and a devastating exerpt from Mark Steyn’s Chicago Sun Times piece.
This Instapundit post on more media reaction, too.

Mere minutes after Dan Rather’s sketchy rebuttal to the growing evidence that the 60 Minutes II memos were forgeries, Wizbang has been tracking down the background of the ” handwriting expert” who CBS states authenticated the signatures on the documents (as though this is the primary issue under dispute).
His name is Marcel Matley – and it appears that he was the same handwriting expert who authenticated the Vince Foster suicide note.
Small world.

Behold: The Power Of The Blogosphere
Drudge

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush’s National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
“The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected,” a top CBS source explained late Thursday.
The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately “shell-shocked” by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

ABC News reports the family is disputing the memos legitimacy, as uncharacteristic of the alleged author.
A Drudge link to the Prowler shut down their server, so a cached version is here alleging they were passed to CBS by the Kerry campaign;

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.
The oppo researcher claimed the source was “a retired military officer.” According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.
“More than a couple people heard about the papers,” says the DNC staffer. “I’ve heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity.”
The concerns arose from the sourcing. “It wasn’t clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn’t confirm from what file, from what original source they came from.”
The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush’s personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

The Chicago Sun-Times is giving credit where credit is due – to Powerline, Bill, at INDC, (though Little Green Footballs was overlooked. )
The New York Post credits everyone, including the Free Republic commentor who first mentioned the discrepencies.
Instapundit is probably the best central source for continuing updates on this. Glenn is reporting that the Washington Post is going page A1 with this story tomorrow.
Donald Sensing notices that the Air Force Manual cited in one memo seems not to have ever existed. Ouch.
I repeat – is anyone from the Canadian Conservative Party paying attention yet?

A radio talk host sent me a comment by private email today, mentioning “Cheney’s low, low blow”.
Ahem.
As I said in my reply – check the transcripts, guys. Forming on-air opinions based on AP “reporting” or CNN “quotes” is risky business.

CBS “news” magazine 60 MInutes heeded Terry McAuliffe’s call for help last night.
This morning, Powerline is taking a close look at the memos cited in the show (and by others) that purportedly prove that Bush was AWOL from national guard service. (PDF’s of the memos are available on the CBS site). A Powerline reader:

I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:
1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C’s at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.
2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like “i” may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.
3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.
4) I am amused by the way “147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp.” appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find “147 th” suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the “th” tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally……
5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny “th” in “187th” and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny “th.” The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.

Now, there’s a story for an enterprising young reporter to pick up – exposing dupes at 60 Minutes. It’s not like Dan Rather is likely to beat you to it.
update – Documents reconstructed at LGF:

I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973”, then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.
And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

A screenshot of the “original” document as found at CBS:

The memo produced on Microsoft Word;

The two images, superimposed.

Drudge is now reporting the story, citing “internet sources”.

John Hinderaker (Powerline Blog), Roger L. Simon , and Tom Beavans – Realclearpolitics.
(Photo: Ed Morrisey)
Ed Morrisey of Captain’s Quarters;

Former New York Mayor and “lifelong Democrat” Ed Koch paid a visit to Blogger’s Corner and spoke about his support of George Bush.The mayor started off informally by asking us whether we would consider his weekly e-mail columns to be the equivalent of blogging, which we unanimously rejected. We think he’ll be blogging in the next couple of months.
[…]
I’ve met Tony Snow from Fox, who immediately recognized my name — which floored me. I’ll report later on the breakfast with Matthew Dowd and the interesting speech and Q & A we had this morning.

Kevin Aylward has notified his Wizbang readers that text of his interview with Ari Fleisher is being prepared and will be up shortly.
Powerline also has a quick video of Radio Row and Bloggers’ Corner. Some of the personalities present: Roger Simon, Ed Morrissey, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved and Gereralissimo Duane. Video here.
Blogs for Bush has lots of audio links and more.
RNC Bloggers (group blog).
Now, if there are any Canadian Conservative party members lurking about, would you please sit up and pay attention;
These bloggers are, in no small way, responsible for the recent downturn in the polls for John Kerry, through their relentless pursuit of the Swift Boat contraversy, keeping it alive, digging up documentation and expert military analysis when the mainstream media was avoiding it like the plague. They pushed past the major networks, the New York Times, WaPo and kept this story alive. Both the Democrats and Republicans have recognized the phenomenon of citizen journalism and news analysis and are finding ways to use it to their advantage – but for the Republicans, with the handicap of a predominantly Democrat leaning media – the importance of the internet cannot be “misunderestimated”.
With a minority government, and the potential of another election over the horizon, the gatekeepers at the CBC, Globe, Toronto Star to contend with – I hope that someone in party headquarters is looking at finding ways to incorporate the Canadian blogosphere into the machinery of the Conservative Party.
Now.
Crossposted to the Shotgun

Dear John;
For some months now we have been covering your ass. We’ve spun good economic news into bad. We spilled gallons of ink to promote every accusation leveled against Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Rove. We pushed every critic we could find front and center in our news lineup, iinterviewed every moonbat activist. We edited 9/11 Commission testimony to discredit them.
We pimped the books. We latched onto Democratic talking points and allegations like happy ticks. And Abu Graihb… wrung every last drop of blood out of that miserable stone, headlined every accusation, published every photo.
We even published the fake ones.
We promoted that stupid movie from MIchael Moore and pretended he had something to say. Quoted any Hollywood High drop-out who could form sound into words. Quoted the rock stars, wept for Linda D’Arc and the Salem Chicks.
We avoided quoting your goofy wife and that deranged Al Gore. We buried the lunacy dribbling from Teddy’s yapping maw.
Even when we knew we looked stupid for doing it, we did it for you, John, for us – for our common cause.
And when they started to hurt you, we timed our first news stories to boost your campaign’s rebuttals of the Swift Vets. We shouted them down.
But John, when the chips were down, when the moment came to hold up to your end of the bargain, after we let you hide out, unmolested, for days … when you finally came up for air, who did you turn to? Who did you grant that exclusive first interview to?

Jon Stewart.
A fucking comedian. With a fake news show. A cheap little media whore.
Well, John, that hurt. You betrayed us, made us look like fools.
So, remember, we’re doing this because we loved you. And still do. This hurt us even more than it hurts you.
Signed,
LA Times, Washington Post, et al

Occam’s Carbuncle;

Anyone who watched only the CBC’s coverage of the Russian gymnast Nemov’s high bar routine would have seen a crowd protest of a score perceived to be far too low for the effort put forward by Nemov. In CBC’s version of events, the score started out at 9.762 and the crowd’s unruliness lasted perhaps five minutes. Not much else happened. Nemov came out to quiet the crowd, then competition resumed.

The unedited US coverage told the rest of the story.

you don’t succeed, pull, poll again…

After pulling the poll the first time, ZDF reset it to zero votes and placed it back online. But that still did not get them the results they wanted and the results they expected: John Kerry did not have an overwhelming lead. So instead of just letting the poll run, ZDF silently removed it…AGAIN.

hat tip – Flea

Via Kathy Shaidle at the Shotgun;

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters has told the CRTC that Fox News should not be granted a spot on the eligible satellite list for digital distribution in Canada…

(Original article)
I smell fear.