Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Those 3 layers of editors do it again (UPDATED)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, January 23, 2007

This time in an attack on Sen Barack Obama. If you've been following this, Insight Magazine published a piece in which it claimed Barak Obama had, as a boy in Indonesia, attended an extremist madrassa for two years. Howard Kurtz fills us in:
Insight, a magazine owned by the Washington Times, cited unnamed sources in saying that young Barack attended a madrassah, or Muslim religious school, in Indonesia. In his 1995 autobiography, Obama said his Indonesian stepfather had sent him to a "predominantly Muslim school" in Jakarta, after two years in a Catholic school — but Insight goes further in saying it was a madrassah and that Obama was raised as a Muslim.

Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.
CNN sent a correspondent to the check out the school in question:
But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.

"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."

Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."
I can't imagine Fox didn't have someone in place that could have done the same as did CNN. As Kurtz points out:
There was a time when major media outlets refused to touch unsubstantiated allegations. When Gennifer Flowers sold her account of an affair with Hillary Clinton's husband to the Star tabloid in 1992 — allegations that turned out to be true, at least in part — some news organizations went with it and others shied away for days. These days, the time elapsed between a flimsy charge from some magazine or Web site and amplification by bigger media outlets is often close to zero.
Yes there was such a time. And yes, despite their "three layers of editors" and all those safeguards we're told protect the integrity of their stories, we continue to see things like this happen on a regular basis (Jamail Hussein or AP's coverage of a Rumsfeld speech, anyone?) among major news outlets.

The lesson? Take anything that anyone writes (to include bloggers obviously) with a grain of salt until you've seen positive corroboration with some factual detail by at least one respected source. Despite the 3 layers of editorial protection which some in the MSM claim make these news operations so superior to bloggers, their problems continue.

On a related note, Insight says their source for this is the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Clinton campaign officials were relieved that what they regard as an absurd allegation was not picked up more widely. "It's an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time," says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. Insight, like the Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. No one answered the phone at Insight's office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.
Love the obligatory "Moonie" dig. However Insight has since responded. It's an interesting response. It essentially attacks Howard Kurtz and the Clinton campaign while essentially ignoring the crux of the argument, i.e. did Obama go to a fundamentalist madrassa for two years as a child. Instead Insight focuses on their claim that the information came from the Clinton campaign:
Insight’s story was not thinly sourced. Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story. The Clinton camp’s denial has as much credibility as the “I never had sex with that woman” statement. But Kurtz ran with their statement as if it were credible. Moreover, the accusation that the story is flawed because it is based on unnamed sources is laughable. Most major investigative stories published in this city are based wholly or in part on anonymous sources. Just ask Bob Woodward. Many of The Post’s scoops against the Bush administration rely on anonymous sources.
Insight also mocks the references to Moon's ownership and claims that Obama's camp was given a chance to comment on the story prior to publication but had no comment and were "petrified" the story was going to be released. It further talks about the "new media" and the threat it comprises to the likes of the Washington Post.

But not a single word defending it's assertion that Obama was schooled in a fundamentalist madrassa for 2 years.

Fairly telling.

Meanwhile it wouldn't at all surprise me that the info did in fact come from the Clinton campign despite their denial. It is much more important to Clinton's campaign to discredit Obama right now than it is for the Republicans. Clinton needs to stop his building momentum. I think, for the most part, Republicans believe his lack of experience and liberal record in the Illinois legislature will be enough on which to attack him should it be necessary at some point in the future. Or said another way, the only political radar screens Obama is on right now are those of other Democrats.

UPDATE: Howard Kurtz responds to Insight's response.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
CNN went to Indonesia to check on Barack Obama’s elementary school, but the AP still can’t find (or produce) their (single) source for 61 stories?!?!

Bill Burkett is the single source for the GWB AWOL rumors. "Critics say" and "analysts say" and "said a person who requested anonymity because he is not allowed to talk to the media" are all acceptable practices.

Single sourcing is de rigeur, I suppose. Doesn’t make it right, just fashionable. I hope there’s a time in future when journalists look back on the 2000’s like most musicians look back on the 80’s or people in fashion look back at the 70’s.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Some other things that should have been considered by the reporters/editors who should know something about Indonesia.

Indonesia is famous for a very tolerant brand of Islam, and 1969 - 1971 is waaaaaay before Saudi Arabia got rich enough to export Wahabbi schools and waaaaay before Indonesia started sending tons of religious students to the middle east. The chances of the school being a Wahhabi "madrassa" school at that time is rather low.

Also, madrassa schools in Indonesia are called pesantren...if it was one, it would use that term and be readily identifiable as opposed to a general school = sekolah.

"It’s not (an) Islamic school. It’s general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that’s a mixed school."

BTW, Buddhist/Confucian = Indonesian Chinese which means expensive private school most likely as they are a very small, very rich minority in the country. (Weirdly, Confucianism is not one of the five official religions, and though I do recall visiting a non-Budhhist Chinese temple during my time there, I don’t think there would really be more than a tiny minority of a minority of Chinese who are Confucianist.)

Disclosure: 18 months as an exchange student at Gadjah Mada university in Yogyakarta 15 years ago...

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Oh, and how about motive?

If it was a right wing hit job, they’d have waited until AFTER the primaries to drop this "bomb" rather than now.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harun is right, this story should have set off alarm bells at Insight from anyone familiar with Indonesia and the history of Wahabbist proselytizing. Our ignorance of Islam and the inability to understand its nuances and history is a major impediment in dealing with the vicious political movements within Islam.

I also agree with Harun about the politics, this smells of the Clinton campaign all the way. Of course, given the fact their sources burned Insight, I suggest Insight burn the sources. That would clear things up a bit.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Correction: While these religious schools are more often called pesantren, I see they sometimes also call them madrasah.

Example of one of the schools:

http://www.darunnajah.com/en/main.php
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
There’s a several problems with this rather thin denial. Among them:

* The Schoolmaster doesn’t mention what the school was 40 years ago, rather using the word IS, as in what it is NOW.

* While the schoolmaster allows that Muslim classes are taught, “to the predominantly Muslim students at the school,” he doesn’t mention if Obama took part in them, or what they consisted of.

*We’re forced by logic to assume he did in fact take part in them; Why, I ask, would Obama’s father enroll him there, were it not for such classes being offered?

* Let’s remember, this charge comes from Hillary Clinton, not from some supposedly right-wing smear campaign. Democrats, if you can’t trust one of your brightest stars, what have you got?

* Harun’s comments about what the school gets called being soemwhat variable seem important, here.

* Finally, the question: Has CNN taken sides, here?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
*We’re forced by logic to assume he did in fact take part in them; Why, I ask, would Obama’s father enroll him there, were it not for such classes being offered?

How about they moved and that school was closer? Or they couldn’t afford the Catholic school? Who knows?

From the information I could get: rich neighborhood, Chinese students, etc. I would definitely put is down as a private school rather than public. If it is public, he would also have got a very, very heavy dose of Pancasila, the state creed:

(1) Belief in the one and only God (Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa)
(2) Just and civilized humanity (Kemanusiaan yang Adil dan Beradab)
(3) The unity of Indonesia (Persatuan Indonesia)
(4) Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations amongst representatives (Kerakyatan yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan dalam Permusyawaratan/Perwakilan)
(5) Social justice for the whole of the people of Indonesia (Keadilan Sosial bagi Seluruh Rakyat Indonesia)

Sounds like a Democrat platform to me.


 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Good comments, Harun. That squares pretty solidly with my experience of Indonesia, as well. I’m glad that you mentioned Pancasila. My understanding of it is that it is very much an indoctrination/brainwashing for children in the state-run schools.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I view more Pancasila more like the Pledge of Allegiance designed to keep Indonesia united and ethnic/religious tensions down.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Great post on a timely issue. Two quibbles:
“But not a single word defending it’s assertion that Obama was schooled in a fundamentalist madrassa for 2 years.

Fairly telling..”
Yes, that would be telling if the story was limited to “did he or didn’t he“ or if, in fact “Insight” had claimed that the school was a madrassa. I believe the original story was that the Hillary campaign was spreading the story - and wouldn’t it be something if it turns out to be true. Dinging “Insight” for not verifying the truth of the nature of the school strikes me the same way I was struck by the AP saying that they had produced a Jamil (but he cannot speak for fear of reprisals); in other words, we have a Jamil so forget about the false reporting on the burned mosques and people. Did “Insight” actually claim that the school was a madrassa? If not, then your comment is superfluous at best.

If you check the story, you will see that it uses “the sources said” throughout and never claims to have verified the charge. In fact, they actually state that the charge was not confirmed:
“Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it.”
So, I guess that this proves that not all of the spin we read out their is intentional. Or will you soon announce that you are taking a new media position with the Democrats?

Secondly, Terry McAuliffe, Hillary’s campaign manager, was on O’Reilly setting up a back story that the Democrats need to be more vicious and nasty (“like the Republicans”) if they are going to win. IOW negative campaigning is on from the git-go and the pretense of being forced into it by the opponent is no longer operative. Nice juxtaposition with the “Insight” story, eh?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
How about they moved and that school was closer? Or they couldn’t afford the Catholic school? Who knows?
You’re right, it’s possible, but doesn’t seem as likely.

The religious content, given what we know of the father’s history at that point in time, would seem the most logical reason, particularly given the international schools that were still in Jakarta at the time.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
"The religious content, given what we know of the father’s history at that point in time, would seem the most logical reason, particularly given the international schools that were still in Jakarta at the time."

Yes, if there is information on the father that would lean that way, I could believe it because Catholic schools are pretty popular there due to their quality.

Though keep in mind international schools can be very expensive, and sometimes the parents would like the child to be exposed to local schools for language culture, etc.

I would like to know if it was a private school or a public school, too. While the headmaster says "public" I think he means open or general (umum) rather than "state run public school." I also would doubt there would be much religious education at public schools in 1969-71, but thats more of a hunch.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Okay, last comment for real...been researching. Religion is taught in public primary schools, along with Pancasila at least in 1992.

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:u4JMbyrJsl4J:cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate/seap.indo/1106967527/body/pdf+Pancasila+song&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Meanwhile it wouldn’t at all surprise me that the info did in fact come from the Clinton campign despite their denial.
With this ONE admission, you show that FOX News was successful, not in disseminating the news, since few believe that is the purpose of FOX News in the first place, but in putting a meme into the national discussion.

This was a win-win for FOX as long as people either bought the Madrassa bit or the Clinton plant bit, even as they pointed out the total journalistic failure.

If FOX researchers were perusing the blogosphere, they would give themselves high-fives when they saw this comment.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
With this ONE admission, you show that FOX News was successful, not in disseminating the news, since few believe that is the purpose of FOX News in the first place, but in putting a meme into the national discussion.

(Cough...CBS)


(hack, wheeze...TANG)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
(hack, wheeze...TANG)
With CBS you can point one instance, the Texas ANG story, as blatant partisanship, and people lost their jobs over it. FOX does this daily and they are promoted for it.
FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...

Fox News memo written by John Moody, the network’s Vice President of news.
Moody on George W. Bush:

"His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day"
Moody on Sen. John Kerry:

"starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record"
Moody on abortion:

[Le]t’s spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue — abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come (5/9/03).

Two style notes: [Eric Ru]dolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." ...[TO]DAY’S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING (6/2/03).
Moody on Senator John Kerry (D-MA):

Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform (4/26/04).

John Kerry may wish he’d taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican [sic] "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign (3/12/04).

Bill Clinton’s book "My Life" may come out in time to let John Kerry have the spotlight by convention time. Then again, maybe it won’t (4/27/04).
Moody on rising gas prices:

Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04).
Who has FOX fired for these blatant partisan story shaping memos?

No one.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04).
How is this some sort of biased political attack? Is this the best you can do as for Fox’s bias? Care to tell me how the above is even wrong? Pathetic and typical anti-Fox nonsense.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
How is this some sort of biased political attack? Is this the best you can do as for Fox’s bias?
Your response is pure nonsense. You point to the weakest of several politically biased memo’s and ask, "Is this the best you can do", when you can see for yourself that each example you ignored are better examples.
Reports, polls and studies
For more details on this topic, see Media bias.
According to a Journalism.org survey of 547 journalists from various publications and news outlets, Fox News Channel was found to be most easily identifiable for serving a partisan ideological position:

At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.[7]

The "signature political news show" of the Fox News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, was found to have a strong bias in their choice of guests, overwhelmingly choosing conservatives over ’non-conservatives’ to appear in interviews. This was the finding of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), noted in a study taken across a 19 week period from June 2003 to December 2003. They found the ratio of conservative guests to liberals to be 50:6. [8]

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes,[9] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions [10] :

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
In response, Fox News contributor Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll". [11] Bill O’Reilly called the study "absolute crap". [12] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal’s online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda." [13] According to OpinionJournal.com and the Seattle Times, although not confirmable on the PIPA site, PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003 stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.[14][15]

A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox’s goal was to "help elect Bush".[16] In a separate academic content analysis of election news, it showed that coverage at ABC, CBS, and NBC were more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush.[17]

A study published in November 2005 by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, comparing political bias from such news outlets as the New York Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, the Los Angeles Times, and Fox News’ Special Report, concluded that Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was closest to the political center, and that Special Report was the most centrist news program on television. Groseclose used the number of times a host cited a particular think tank on his or her program and compared it with the number of times a member of the U.S. Congress cited a think tank, correlating that with the politician’s Americans for Democratic Action rating [18] [19].

Geoff Nunberg, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and a liberal National Public Radio commentator, criticized the methodology of the study on his personal blog, and contends that its conclusions are invalid [20]. He points to what he saw as a Groseclose’s reliance on interpretations of facts and data that were taken from sources that were not, in his view, credible. Groseclose and Professor Jeff Milyo rebutted, saying Nunberg "shows a gross misunderstanding [of] our statistical method and the actual assumptions upon which it relies" [21].

Mark Liberman, who helped to post Groseclose and Professor Jeff Milyo’s rebuttal, later posted how the statistical methods used to calculate this bias posses faults. [22] [23] Mark Liberman is a professor of Computer Science and the Director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania. Mark concludes his post saying he thinks "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement — just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored." [22]

A Project on Excellence in Journalism study showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The film Outfoxed claims that FOX reporters and anchors use the traditional journalistic phrase "some people say" in a very clever way; instead of citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, FOX personalities allegedly use the phrase to inject conservative opinion and commentary even in reports in which it probably shouldn’t be. In the film, Media Matters for America president David Brock noted that some shows, like FOX’s evening news program, Special Report with Brit Hume, tend to exhibit editorializing attitudes and behavior when on the air.

A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed "a striking rise in the politicization of cable TV news audiences . . . This pattern is most apparent with the fast-growing Fox News Channel."[24] Another Pew survey of news consumption found that Fox News has not suffered a decline in credibility with its audience, with one in four (25%) saying they believe all or most of what they see on Fox News Channel, virtually unchanged since Fox was first tested in 2000.[25]


[edit] Internal memos
As with many news organizations, Fox News executives exert editorial control over the content of their network’s news coverage. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily internal memos authored by Fox News’s Vice President of News, John Moody. Critics of Fox News claim that these memos indicate a conservative editorial bias and often parrot Republican talking points.

Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it." [26] [27]

Photocopied memos from Fox News executive John Moody instructed the network’s on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area [28]. Such memos were reproduced for the anti-FOX News film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, which included Moody quotes such as, "[T]he soldiers [seen on FOX in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as ’sharpshooters,’ not ’snipers,’ which carries a negative connotation."

Two days after the 2006 election, web blog Huffington Post claimed to acquire a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "... let’s be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo’s publication, Fox News anchor, Matha McCallum, went on-air with with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 Congressional election.[29] [30]
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Who has FOX fired for these blatant partisan story shaping memos?
Non sequitur. Bithead was bringing up an instance of faked documents. Even you have to admit that’s well beyond simple partisan bias. It’s one thing to let your politics shape your reporting, it’s another to fake evidence.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Non sequitur. Bithead was bringing up an instance of faked documents. Even you have to admit that’s well beyond simple partisan bias. It’s one thing to let your politics shape your reporting, it’s another to fake evidence.
CBS did NOT fake evidence, they did NOT forge the documents, they were duped. Though I agree they should have questioned the legitimacy of the documents more scrupulously, be that as it may, you are making it sound as if CBS faked the documents themselves and that is incorrect.

There is still disagreement as to whether they are fake, but my view is that if they cannot be positively proven to be legitimate, they should be viewed as false.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Does anyone really care whether or not Obama went to a madrassa? He is a Christian not a muslim. He hasn’t ever done anything that would even remotely open him up to a charge of sympathy for islamism. This is a non-issue except for the fact that the Clinton campaign put it out there. That should have been the angle on this story that Insight reported. The expert practitioners or the politics of personal destruction are back in business.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
There is still disagreement as to whether they are fake
Only among the insane.

Proportional spacing typewriters in an early 1970s TXARNG unit? Active duty Army units didn’t have that in the early 1980s.

The first pdf referenced in the wikipedia article was in elite pitch, not proportional.
Fox News Channel was found to be most easily identifiable for serving a partisan ideological position
Not NPR? You jest.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
"The expert practitioners ... are back in business.
Yes, it is a presidential campaign (yawn). Just saw a movie about Abe Lincoln that was made in 1940. Nothing is new and nothing has changed. If the experts thought it was worth planting out there, then likely people will care and it is an issue. I wonder who the jt007 was in 1842 who was saying it didn’t matter that Abe never went to a formal school and that those bringing that fact up were merely practicing the politics of personal destruction. It is what it is. I suppose we will find out what Obama’s favorite color is (among other things) before this is over. Should we say never tell us where a presidential candidate went to school? Is that really your position?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
CBS did NOT fake evidence, they did NOT forge the documents, they were duped. Though I agree they should have questioned the legitimacy of the documents more scrupulously, be that as it may, you are making it sound as if CBS faked the documents themselves and that is incorrect.
Bull. They had good reason to suspect the documents. They even ignored their expert who suspected they were fake. They didn’t care if they were fake or not—as long as they could alter the election.
There is still disagreement as to whether they are fake, but my view is that if they cannot be positively proven to be legitimate, they should be viewed as false.
From your link:
Thus far, no one has been able to reproduce the exact typography, spacing and layout of the Killian memos using technology available in 1972. The political weblog defeatjohnjohn.com offered a $10,000 reward to "anyone who can find for me a typewriter from 1972 that could have reasonably made those documents."[23] Through a series of contributions and pledges from all over the world, the reward grew to more than $50,000 within weeks, giving the previously-small blog some surprising international publicity. (Despite extensive media coverage of this challenge, to date no one has been publicly able to accomplish the task and claim the money.)
As discussed above, a number of experts in typewriters, computer typography and document examination have concluded that the Killian memos are not consistent with 1970’s technology and are likely modern forgeries. The most prominent defender of the documents’ authenticity has been Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University. Hailey was the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers alleged that he fabricated portions of the study.[51]

In November, 2005, Dr. Hailey released a new version of his report in which he argued that the Killian documents were produced on a typewriter, but without identifying the font, maker or model. [52]
Disagreement about the documents is similar to disagreement about landing on the moon and the shape of the world. The documents are fakes, end of story.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The first pdf referenced in the wikipedia article was in elite pitch, not proportional.
Are you refering to this:
The PDF packet is labeled "Documents Released on September 24, 2004," and the sixth document, dated February 19, 1971 and titled "Appointment and Federal Recognition," is proportionally spaced. While it appears to be of a different font style than that used in the Killian memos, it is apparently the first officially released document that is in some sort of obviously proportionally spaced font. Several other proportionally space TexANG documents have since surfaced.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This was a win-win for FOX as long as people either bought the Madrassa bit or the Clinton plant bit, even as they pointed out the total journalistic failure.
No, it was win-win for Clinton, as long as people buy the Madrassa bit or the evil Fox news bit.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Re TANG documents -
There is still disagreement as to whether they are fake
Cap - yeah, really.
The Apollo lunar landings were faked too, at least there is still some disagreement about that.
Oh, and I seem to recall there’s a society that thinks the earth is flat.
And of course, Bush perpetrated the entire 9/11 attack on the United States, at least, there’s still some debate on that.

Inability to prove forgery (or any other wildas* accusation) isn’t proof of the accusation’s legitimacy.

You’re doing yourself a major disservice by even mentioning the possibility.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Heh - Don, I should have read ahead before I posted!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04).
Again, I ask: how is the above a politically motivated attack? Where is it factually incorrect?

33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
Some 700 plus shells of nerve gas and other WMD agents were found. But you, that really doesn’t count.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Insight’s story was not thinly sourced. Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story. The Clinton camp’s denial has as much credibility as the "I never had sex with that woman" statement. But Kurtz ran with their statement as if it were credible. Moreover, the accusation that the story is flawed because it is based on unnamed sources is laughable. Most major investigative stories published in this city are based wholly or in part on anonymous sources. Just ask Bob Woodward. Many of The Post’s scoops against the Bush administration rely on anonymous sources.

Both Wolfson and Kurtz raise the issue of Insight being owned by the Unification Church. This is not only irrelevant, but bigoted and, unfortunately, consistent with The Post’s 25-year attempt to discredit if not destroy the one major opposition print publication in their market.
And here is the larger issue: The New Media—including Insight—is surging forward in readership, influence and clout (that’s why our story was picked up by FOX News and talk radio). We provide hard-hitting, well-sourced and aggressive reporting—just as serious and fearless journalists of old used to do. How alone are we, in today’s media conglomerate world? The Washington Post should ask itself, does it wish to have serious journalists aggressively following up on our ground-breaking story or does it wish to carry water and curry favor for ambitious and aggressive politicians, and attack its competition rather than report?
We learned on Monday that he did send an e-mail on Sunday afternoon, the day before his story went to print. This was not a genuine effort to get a real comment from us. He was simply covering himself before publishing his hit piece. This is precisely the kind of irresponsible journalistic practices that we teach our interns not to do.
HAHA! That’s a pretty snarky (and deserved) b*tch slap at lots of people. I gotta stand with Insight here.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I didn’t think the ’story’ was whether Obama attended a Madrassa so many years ago that it couldn’t have made any difference.

I thought the ’story’ was that the Hillary-Campaign are willing to drop-dime on Obama.
 
Written By: DANEgerus
URL: http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/
This is a non-issue except for the fact that the Clinton campaign put it out there.
Unsupported, but assumed true by the Fox faithful, reinforcing my original point, If FOX researchers were perusing the blogosphere, they would give themselves high-fives when they saw this comment.

Journalism is not just dead, it is irrelvant. You people don’t even want actual news.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
So, I’m supposed (one way or another, revealed by one source or another, educated at a madrassa or educated at a Catholic school) to conclude that Obama is going to?

Convert the US to Islam?
Allow terrorists to blow us up?
Practice Islam in the White House?
Go easy on terrorists and terrorist states?
Stop supporting Israel?
Get chummy with Iran?

What? What is it I’m supposed to be afraid he’s going to do as President (because he might have gone to a madrassa as a kid) that Congress would actually let happen? (dangerous stuff, happen without impeaching his as*?)

Show some faith in our system of government, this is a tempest in a teaspoon, other than the chance that it may be a hit job by friendly opposition.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The tactic is beautiful, despicable, Machiavellian, but elegant.

Trash Obama with the false madrassa story while at the same time trash Clinton with the accusation of political dirty tricks with ZERO evidence, and watch people fall all over themselves deciding which is the more important revelation and give passing notice to the complete lack of journalistic ethics that allowed this double smear to be aired and published. Nowhere do they dispute the madrassa story, they just assign it’s release to Clinton dirty tricks and offer the slightest nod to the fact that they have nothing to support the assertion that it came from Clinton with one sentence, "But it wasn’t directly linked to Hillary Clinton." and then go on to all but suggest there are only two possible sources, dirty Clinton’s or dirty Obama himself releasing it to get it out of the way and paint Clinton as a dirty trickster.
Hillary Clinton Drops Madrassa Bomb on Barack Obama

Monday , January 22, 2007




This is a partial transcript of "The Big Story With John Gibson," January 19, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The gloves are off: Hillary Clinton is reported to be already digging up the dirt on Barack Obama.

The New York senator has reportedly outed Obama’s madrassa past. That’s right, the Clinton team is reported to have pulled out all the stops to reveal something Obama would rather you didn’t know: that he was educated in a Muslim madrassa.

I was criticized on this show for outing Obama as a smoker, but look at what some anti-Obama Democrats are doing to her political rival now. They are playing the Muslim phobia card.

Is this just the beginning? Is the Obama honeymoon officially over? What other dirty little secrets will come out as they battle it out in the race for the White House? With me now is Republican strategist Terry Holt.

Terry, this is appearing on a Web site today, Insight magazine, which is a subsidiary of The Washington Times. Here’s the question. I’ll put it up on the screen: Barack’s madrassa past. He says that "during the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominately Muslim school." That’s from his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Now in the meantime, this is what Democrats are saying, according to Insight magazine. They’re looking into his background. They’re saying: He was a Muslim. He concealed it. His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.

Now, we have heard about dirty politics before. Republicans aren’t involved in this one. What do you think about what’s going on over there?

TERRY HOLT, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: John, the last time I checked, there was still a freedom of religion in this country. And this is either a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine. We know that they are capable of doing this. But it wasn’t directly linked to Hillary Clinton. If it wasn’t her, then certainly she should disavow it because I think we have spent an awful lot of time in this country trying to tamp down anti-religious sentiments.

But you know, it’s also, if you took a page out of the Clinton book and you are really shrewd and you were Barack Obama, you might want to put this out yourself so that you could deal with it early in the political campaign and get it over with. I don’t know.

GIBSON: Let me show you what the press secretary to U.S. Senator Barack Obama said today in a statement about this story. They said: "The idea that Senator Barack Obama attended some radical Islamic school is completely ludicrous. Senator Obama is a committed Christian and attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago."

Nonetheless Terry, what damage does it do to Obama to have the word madrassa attached to his name?

HOLT: Well, I think that Barack Obama is such a white-hot political property right now that I’m not sure that it does any long-term damage. He may have to explain this, but, you know, Obama’s story is unique to the political field at this point having been educated overseas.

I would also point out that a madrassa before it was politicized and really taken over by the fundamentalists primarily from Saudi Arabia, it was nothing more than a parochial school, and Barack Obama was in school 40 years ago. So I’m not sure that this is a campaign killer, but it does, I think, maybe put on him the burden of explanation, a little bit more about his bio.

GIBSON: Terry, this is a hotly contested race. Senator Clinton thought she had it in the bag and that she was the nominee already. He’s made a surprise run at her. Does this give his team a warning of what sort of things are coming before he could possibly capture the nomination?

HOLT: Absolutely. You know, the Clinton team and the machine, make no mistake, it’s still in place. They used to call themselves the masters of disaster. And if Barack Obama gets into the race against Clinton, I think that he can count on no small amount of disaster being forced upon him by running against one of the most effective and one of the most negative political machines ever assembled in this country.

But you know what? If you’re going to run for president, you have to be prepared for everything and anything to be thrown at you, and in many ways voters are looking not so much for the facts about what you have done in your past, but really how do you handle it? Do you handle it with poise? Do you handle it with honesty and dignity? If he handles this well I’m not sure that this puts him in a corner he can’t escape from.

GIBSON: Terry Holt on the madrassa bomb dropped on Barack Obama. Terry, thanks very much.
And the response to this, discussing the baseless stories rather than the ethically devoid partisan newsrooms that published them, is why I say that journalism is not only dead, it is irrelevant.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Tell me; how many reporters as the AP fired for their biased reporting in Iraq? For that matter, NBC ABC and CBS?

Sorry, Cap. You’re way out on a limb with this one.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
The tactic is beautiful, despicable, Machiavellian, but elegant.
Okay Cap, and will you be concluding that it’s FOX behind the curtain, or are we to be treated to yet another masterful stroke by that modern Machiavellian genius Karl Rove guiding the next election even now.

Machiavelli was pretty clever - and so is everyone that’s been lined up as possible candidates for this bit of skulduggery.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The tactic is beautiful, despicable, Machiavellian, but elegant.
It is also too subtle for the purpose you claim. If this was a "vast right wing conspiracy" dirty trick, it is too clever by half.

Baseless attacks on Obama will eventually result in people ignoring later attacks, even those with merit. Crying wolf, and all that. So this attack works to Hillery’s benifit, but probably not the GOP.

Likewise, Hillery voters are unlikely to sit out the election just ’cause there is speculation she used dirty tricks against Obama. There is much more solid evidence against her that her supporters are more than willing to ignore.

In any case, if the Dem frontrunners frag each other, they may end up with a stronger candidate.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This is interesting. He has come clean about his experimentation with drugs to pre-empt an extensive “did he or didn’t he inhale” debate but he seemed to avoid talking about his education in a Muslim school which leaves the rumor mill busy wondering “did he or didn’t he believe” in Islam.

There’s obviously nothing wrong with being an ex-Muslim. Why the lack of discussion or am I wrong and he does cover this in his memoirs?

One wonders not so much that Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. was once a Muslim but whether Muslims might see him that way. Given the penalty for apostasy, perhaps he’s more worried about the Muslim perception that he may have been a Muslim than the American voter’s perception. Inquiring minds want to know!
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Barak Hussein Obama
predictable
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Tell me; how many reporters as the AP fired for their biased reporting in Iraq? For that matter, NBC ABC and CBS?
Dan Rather was fired from CBS, along with Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers.

Peter Arnett was fired from NBC for bias.
Joe Maguire is — or rather, was — an editor in charge of markets coverage at Reuters. Last Tuesday, Maguire handed his bosses a copy of the galley of his new book, "Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter."

On Wednesday, he no longer had a job.

Reuters confirmed that Mr. Maguire was granted conditional approval to write his book on Ms. Coulter — a conservative lightning rod, author and TV talking head. When asked what changed once the book was ready, a company statement pointed to Reuters’ principles of “integrity, independence and freedom from bias.” The statement reads: “Our editorial policy and The Reuters Trust Principles are prominently displayed for all to see on www.about.reuters.com.

Tell me how many memo’s of blatant political bias from network executives to the journalism staff have been uncovered by NBC ABC and CBS?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Dan Rather was fired from CBS,
No. He ’retired’.
In short, CBS ran cover for him.
Not unlike what you’re doing.

And it strikes me that this conversation as it has developed is a solid indicator of why we can’t get any serious conversation going in this country about any topic, for all the denial going on.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Barak Hussein Obama
predictable
It IS his name...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It IS his name..
Yeah, but what Cap meant is we shouldn’t mention that because it’s uh, some sort of right wing profiling thing meant to excite our zenophobic White Anglo Saxon fears.

As opposed to saying Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhouse Nixon, James Earl Carter, William Jefferson Clinton, you know.

While I find the guy interesting and appealing, let’s face it boys and girls, he’s NOT going to get elected President,

and his name is only part of what’s going to prevent it Cap.
Sorry, we’re just not ’there’ yet on a national level.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
" Take anything that anyone writes (to include bloggers obviously) with a grain of salt until you’ve seen positive corroboration with some factual detail by at least one respected source"

words to live by. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

***************************


It is my understanding that Insight, while owned by the same entity, News World Communication, has no other relation to the Washington Times. United Press International is also, from what I read, owned by NWC.

********************************

"With CBS you can point one instance,"

There have been others, over the years. Most people do not, I think, keep a list handy.

" Who has FOX fired for these blatant partisan story shaping memos? "
Moody on Sen. John Kerry:

"starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record"

That is your idea of blatant partisan story shaping? For one thing, a little context would be helpful, for all your cites. Secondly, he did feel the heat, from sources other than Fox. I am sure you could find almost identical memos from editors at every other news source.

" There is still disagreement as to whether they are fake,"

Which is, of cours, irrelevant since they are accurate.

"CBS did NOT fake evidence, they did NOT forge the documents, they were duped."

Highly experienced and trained professional investigative journalists were "duped" by a forgery that some pajama-clad blogger spotted in a matter of hours. Right. Wanna buy a bridge?

"Peter Arnett was fired from NBC for bias."

There was a little more to it than "bias". The invasion of Iraq started on March 20, 2003. Baghdad didn’t fall until April. Arnett gave an interview on Iraqi(state-owned, naturally) television on March 31(?). For this he was fired.

""It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war, and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview," NBC News President Neal Shapiro said in a statement."

"National Geographic issued a statement that read:

"The Society did not authorize or have any prior knowledge of Arnett’s television interview with Iraqi television, and had we been consulted, would not have allowed it.""

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/

And let us not forget that he was previously fired from CNN for, to be polite, incredibly sloppy journalism.


HUSSEIN?? THIS GUY IS A MUSLIM??? I am shocked!! I had no idea!!




 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Looker, you beat me to it. I was going to recall our fondness of using the full name or the initials of Presidents (JFK, LBJ, HHH, etc.) Ok, Hubert Horatio Humphrey didn’t quite make it to the top.

By the way, Nixon’s middle name is Milhous. Some of us (critics mostly) used to refer to him by his middle name. No doubt we’d refer to President Obama by his middle name: Hussein —- except it ain’t gonna happen. Now I’d love it if we had President Thomas Sowell. But that ain’t gonna happen either.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
No other candidates have ever had evocative middle names, and candidate and Presidents, are almost always referred to as they present themselves.

We don’t call Jimmy Carter "James Earl Carter" because Jimmy Carter did not have himself referred to as James Earl Carter. Same with Lyndon Johnson, we did not call him Lyndon Baines Johnson, but did call him LBJ.

This is a simple one, and you watch the dynamic in action, and determine if you are a part of it.

People that like Barack Obama will refer to him as Barack Obama or Obama, people who do not like him will refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, or some variation that includes Hussein, or, we will also see Osama Obama.

I like the guy, but will not be supporting in the primaries and do not believe he has the experience necessary to be a competent executive. But I still won’t be calling him Hussein.

Do a little informal research, whenever you see a story about Obama, and it’s not about this topic, see how often the story is positive or neutral when his middle name is not mentioned and then how often the story is negative when his middle name is mentioned.

You can deny it all you want, but you know it’s true.

Here are the comments from the first few news items in Yahoo news search
By Virginia Buckingham
Boston Herald Columnist
Tuesday, January 23, 2007

If electability really is the Democrats’ chief concern, the alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton as the party’s nominee will not be Barack Hussein Obama, an admitted drug user with the foreign policy credentials of, well, a state legislator from Illinois. And then there’s the unfortunate name, which shouldn’t matter but will. So why not Sen. John Forbes Kerry?


Sen. Barack Obama: Politics’ American idol with a blank slate

The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper, The Examiner
Read more by The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper
Jan 22, 2007 6:00 AM (2 days ago)

SAN FRANCISCO - That Sen. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. chose the day of the season premiere of “American Idol” to launch his presidential exploratory committee is nicely symbolic.


Part of the attraction and seductiveness of Sen. Obama — perhaps the main attraction — is that he is mostly a blank slate on which others can write what they choose. Now that he’s announced formation of an exploratory committee to help him decide whether he should run for president (is there any doubt?), the moving fingers will begin writing soon enough.

New York Sun
Clinton Is No ‘Iron Lady’
By ALICIA COLON
January 23, 2007


Those skeptics who think Mrs. Clinton has competition in the senator of Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, are also probably subscribers to the WWN, because once the national audience gets a peek behind the newsmagazine hype at the reality of the candidate, Mr. Obama will be a goner. His color may be the reason liberals are going gaga over him, but it won’t be the reason he’s overwhelmingly rejected by the Republicans, who have a much stronger history with civil rights than the Democrats.

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
and then how often the story is negative when his middle name is mentioned
I’ll concede this point, I think in Obama’s case, it would be like saying Ronald Wilson Reagan, or William Jefferson Clinton, just doesn’t sound right.

In a country with generals with good anglo names like Shalikashvili and governers named Schwarzenegger I’m having a hard time getting excercised over a guy named Obama, even if his middle name is Hussein.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
In a country with generals with good anglo names like Shalikashvili and governers named Schwarzenegger I’m having a hard time getting excercised over a guy named Obama, even if his middle name is Hussein.
I agree that nothing in the guy’s name, including his middle name, represents something we SHOULD get exercized about, and I am not entirely sure the country WILL get exercised about , what I am saying is that people who do not like Obama will being using his middle name a LOT, insuring that they give the public every opportunity to GET exercized about it.

It’s a simple point, some unknown number of people will be turned off by Obama’s middle name, and those who do not like Obama will do their best to insure that as many as possible will hear it as often as possible.

Again, just watch, see who uses it, and see who doesn’t.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
huh?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html


"Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971"

"Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10."

"CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate. [..] He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971."

Why didn’t he go to the first school?
 
Written By: phuknjrk
URL: http://
"Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10."
So the Fox story was accurate? And CNN messed up again?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So the Fox story was accurate? And CNN messed up again?
There was a time when major media outlets refused to touch unsubstantiated allegations. When Gennifer Flowers sold her account of an affair with Hillary Clinton’s husband to the Star tabloid in 1992 — allegations that turned out to be true, at least in part — some news organizations went with it and others shied away for days. These days, the time elapsed between a flimsy charge from some magazine or Web site and amplification by bigger media outlets is often close to zero.
Yes there was such a time. And yes, despite their "three layers of editors" and all those safeguards we’re told protect the integrity of their stories, we continue to see things like this happen on a regular basis (Jamail Hussein or AP’s coverage of a Rumsfeld speech, anyone?) among major news outlets
.
Forget the shoddy journalism and focus on the unsubstantiated allegations.

I’d call you sheep, but you are not being led, you are choosing this path.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
On some stories (cough,SWIFTVETS!) if we waited for the MSM to "substantiate" the charges we would miss the story altogether. Long, long after the essential elements of that story were clearly substantiated, the Kerry-water-carriers of the MSM stayed away from it claiming that it was unsubstantiated, even though they took no steps whatsoever to substantiate it. Misguided liberals like Cap, who is still claiming that the TANG forgeries were never proven, still think that the old gatekeepers can control the news so long as their liberal spearcarriers (Cap) fall into line and keep speaking and writing supportive crap on the local front. Those days are almost gone. So give it up, Cap. Trying to fly that which will not fly does your expostulations more harm than good.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
"There was a time when major media outlets refused to touch unsubstantiated allegations."

That was certainly before I learned to read.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Misguided liberals like Cap, who is still claiming that the TANG forgeries were never proven
You mischaracterize my comment. What I said was that there is still disagreement, I showed a link that showed the disagree,but my view is that if they cannot be positively proven to be legitimate, they should be viewed as false.

So we agree that they are false, and the distinction is that you consider something that it is very likely to be something that is absolute.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider