Friday, September 18, 2009
The real ACORN news story
If "guilt by association" would doom a politician, Obama would have been downed by Bill Ayers. So why should a news story about an organization which is connected to Obama, and which receives federal funding undoubtedly thanks to Obama, be close enough to him to be considered politically toxic? As Toby Harnden of Britain's Telegraph explains it:
Ironically, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show explains the real ACORN story best:
Yes, the real story is that no one in the alleged Media covered it, except for Fox News.
But let us give credit to the Woodward and Bernstein of our age: James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles at biggovernment.com. Granted, the ACORN story isn't Watergate. But considering the overwhelming majority of our Media couldn't report the ACORN story, even when it was handed to them, do you honestly think they could uncover a Watergate-style story?
|
If there’s one story that’s had it all in the past week it’s the series of undercover reporting stings that have uncovered the true nature of ACORN - the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now. It’s got sex, misuse of taxpayer funds, the condoning of illegal activity by officials and connections to Barack Obama.I missed the part in there where this should not be considered news?
Ironically, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show explains the real ACORN story best:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
Yes, the real story is that no one in the alleged Media covered it, except for Fox News.
But let us give credit to the Woodward and Bernstein of our age: James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles at biggovernment.com. Granted, the ACORN story isn't Watergate. But considering the overwhelming majority of our Media couldn't report the ACORN story, even when it was handed to them, do you honestly think they could uncover a Watergate-style story?
Labels: ACORN, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media
Monday, May 21, 2007
Drive-Bias Shooting
The Washington Post today has a story about Republicans play ing catch-up in the online political world.
Given sites like Real Clear Politics, Red State and Town Hall, I'm not so sure gap is as wide on the activist side as it may be on the party-structure side. However, there is one quote in here that just drives me up the frickin' wall:
The charge of "liberal bias" in the mainstream media had a resonance at one time, because people like Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, (and their print counterparts), etc. made statements that conservatives could credibly argue were, indeed, liberal. Even if there was no intent to push an explicit liberal agenda, many stories were broadcast (and written) based on a liberal premise of public policy. For example, the story might ask why more funds weren't being made available for child-care: The premise is liberal because a fair question could be asked why government should be paying for child-care in the first place. That's just one example of possible "liberal bias" in a mainstream media story.
That occurred at a time when the anchors, producers, editors, writers, etc. all came from a similar background, went to the same parties, same schools, etc. The mainstream media was run by group think -- and some places like The New York Times, CBS News, etc. are still run that way.
But there is so much more media out there right now. Media is a much more democratic (small-"d") entity. That includes talk radio. That certainly includes blogs. And it certainly includes YouTube. But how can YouTube be liberally "biased"? It's open to everyone -- unlike the Old Media entities. Anyone can post anything (within standards of decency, of course) they want, from any point of view.
Or no point of view, as the case may be.
But now, Charlie Gerow (who I've met a few times -- perfectly nice guy) feels the need to create a "conservative" YouTube, thus encouraging conservative video creators to abandon YouTube -- and making a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Create a YouTube competitor if you want, but drop the "bias" BS, please!
(The same argument, by the way, holds for charges of bias at Wikipedia, though that is a little more dicey, given how entries can be more easily sabotaged by people with political agendas and other axes to grind.)
|
Given sites like Real Clear Politics, Red State and Town Hall, I'm not so sure gap is as wide on the activist side as it may be on the party-structure side. However, there is one quote in here that just drives me up the frickin' wall:
And Republicans are hardly conceding the fight in the 2008 campaign.Grrr..."the liberal bias" of YouTube? Oh, give me a break, please! Stop the whining, for the love of God!
Besides TechRepublican, the group blog started two weeks ago by All, who worked as communications director for Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), there is QubeTV, founded in March as an alternative to what one of its founders, Charlie Gerow, a former Reagan campaign aide, calls "the liberal bias" of YouTube.
The charge of "liberal bias" in the mainstream media had a resonance at one time, because people like Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, (and their print counterparts), etc. made statements that conservatives could credibly argue were, indeed, liberal. Even if there was no intent to push an explicit liberal agenda, many stories were broadcast (and written) based on a liberal premise of public policy. For example, the story might ask why more funds weren't being made available for child-care: The premise is liberal because a fair question could be asked why government should be paying for child-care in the first place. That's just one example of possible "liberal bias" in a mainstream media story.
That occurred at a time when the anchors, producers, editors, writers, etc. all came from a similar background, went to the same parties, same schools, etc. The mainstream media was run by group think -- and some places like The New York Times, CBS News, etc. are still run that way.
But there is so much more media out there right now. Media is a much more democratic (small-"d") entity. That includes talk radio. That certainly includes blogs. And it certainly includes YouTube. But how can YouTube be liberally "biased"? It's open to everyone -- unlike the Old Media entities. Anyone can post anything (within standards of decency, of course) they want, from any point of view.
Or no point of view, as the case may be.
But now, Charlie Gerow (who I've met a few times -- perfectly nice guy) feels the need to create a "conservative" YouTube, thus encouraging conservative video creators to abandon YouTube -- and making a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Create a YouTube competitor if you want, but drop the "bias" BS, please!
(The same argument, by the way, holds for charges of bias at Wikipedia, though that is a little more dicey, given how entries can be more easily sabotaged by people with political agendas and other axes to grind.)
Labels: liberal bias, Mainstream Media, YouTube
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Weekend Morning Show Roundtable
Madscribe:
The best parodies are the ones so close to the truth that it's almost indistinguishable from the real thing. Had The Onion not put its actual graphics on this discussion, I might have been tempted to say, "Wow, the intellectual level of Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press has really gone up this week!"
In The Know: Our Troops In Iraq
UPDATE: Apparently, NPR's "News and Notes," the token black show on the otherwise white, liberal elitist welfare network has dropped the "Roundtable" segment, of which our gracious host was a regular contributor. Having updated my I-Tunes Ipods this morning, I kept searching for RAG's recent appearance to stick a link on this site, only to find that there WAS no link!
All I can say is that NPR's loss is ... well, NPR's loss. Apparently, a lot of listeners concur that this latest "format revamp" sucks. Now, I have absolutely no need to listen to NPR (fat chance that RAG or Deroy Murdock would ever get their own show on THAT crappy network). You can now pretty much forget about a black conservative or libertarian voice being heard on a regular basis. From now on, I'll be sticking with Booker Rising and Cedric Muhammad's Black Electorate for my ethnic dose of headlines (although, I could do without the silly importance that Mr. Muhammad ascribes to Hip Hop as a political force). They do a much better job of representing diverse black voices like RAG's, or that of Thomas Sowell and many others.
As a consolation prize, I'll probably be sending RAG my copy of Photoshop CS3 so that he can superimpose Giuliani's head on the famous picture of Hitler dancing a jig after the Polish invasion---but only after I superimpose Obama's head on a photo of Jimmy Carter delivering his (in)famous "malaise" speech ...
Disclaimer: The views of the above ranter do not necessarily reflect those of Ragged Thots, its management, potential advertisers, or its staff. Not that the snobs at NPR would be reading a black conservative's web site ANYWAY ...
|
The best parodies are the ones so close to the truth that it's almost indistinguishable from the real thing. Had The Onion not put its actual graphics on this discussion, I might have been tempted to say, "Wow, the intellectual level of Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press has really gone up this week!"
In The Know: Our Troops In Iraq
UPDATE: Apparently, NPR's "News and Notes," the token black show on the otherwise white, liberal elitist welfare network has dropped the "Roundtable" segment, of which our gracious host was a regular contributor. Having updated my I-Tunes Ipods this morning, I kept searching for RAG's recent appearance to stick a link on this site, only to find that there WAS no link!
All I can say is that NPR's loss is ... well, NPR's loss. Apparently, a lot of listeners concur that this latest "format revamp" sucks. Now, I have absolutely no need to listen to NPR (fat chance that RAG or Deroy Murdock would ever get their own show on THAT crappy network). You can now pretty much forget about a black conservative or libertarian voice being heard on a regular basis. From now on, I'll be sticking with Booker Rising and Cedric Muhammad's Black Electorate for my ethnic dose of headlines (although, I could do without the silly importance that Mr. Muhammad ascribes to Hip Hop as a political force). They do a much better job of representing diverse black voices like RAG's, or that of Thomas Sowell and many others.
As a consolation prize, I'll probably be sending RAG my copy of Photoshop CS3 so that he can superimpose Giuliani's head on the famous picture of Hitler dancing a jig after the Polish invasion---but only after I superimpose Obama's head on a photo of Jimmy Carter delivering his (in)famous "malaise" speech ...
Disclaimer: The views of the above ranter do not necessarily reflect those of Ragged Thots, its management, potential advertisers, or its staff. Not that the snobs at NPR would be reading a black conservative's web site ANYWAY ...
Labels: Mainstream Media, NPR Sucks Without RAG
