Tom Blumer is a contributing editor for NewsBusters.
Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been with NewsBusters since December 2005. Along the way, he's had a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development.
Latest from Tom Blumer
The New York Times continued its annoying, Winston Smith-like habit of rewriting history in virtually real time yesterday.
Helene Cooper's original Monday afternoon report on Chuck Hagel's sacking as Secretary of Defense is no longer available at the Times. However, since I anticipated that the paper would conduct a comprehensive cleanup yesterday when I posted on the paper's original coverage, it is available here at my web host for fair use and discussion purposes. Cooper's Tuesday Page 1 print edition replacement is starkly different from her original effort. Side-by-side comparisons of certain sections follow the jump.
While it is indeed nice that the Associated Press did a fact check on President Obama's Thursday night immigration address — an item P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters covered on Saturday — it would have been even nicer if the wire service better described as the Administration's Press had fact-checked Julie Pace's and Josh Lederman's awful Friday evening backgrounder on the speech.
The AP pair couldn't even get through their first three paragraphs without distorting beyond repair their presentation of allegedly "soaring deportations."
As of 5:30 p.m. ET today, a search on "Koningstein" at the Associated Press's national web site returned no results.
That's an indication that the wire service's globaloney-believing pseudo-science reporters are still trying to figure out how to respond to a November 18 article in the IEEE Spectrum by Ross Koningstein & David Fork, a pair of Google engineers tasked by the company in 2007 to "tackle the world’s climate and energy problems." The pair, whose active work on the project at Google ended in 2011, have concluded, as succinctly stated in the UK Register (HT Instapundit), that renewable energy sources "will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists."
As is the case with so many executive changes in both the public and the private sector, there is vagueness in the circumstances surrounding the end of Chuck Hagel's stint as Obama administration Secretary of Defense.
While it's not unusual for an exec to be asked to resign to avoid being formally fired, which was apparently the case with Hagel, the higher-ups involved are usually smart enough to pay tribute to the departed official and move on without letting contrary information get out. Apparently not this White House, and not the New York Times — unless their joint mission is to subtly discredit Hagel. The contradictions in today's report by Helene Cooper (saved here for future reference and fair use purposes) seem too obvious to be accidental (bolds are mine):
Demonstrating that serving as the Palace Guard for Dear Leader is a 24-7-365 enterprise, Zachary A. Goldfarb, policy editor at The Washington Post, somehow felt the need on Sunday morning to critique the Saturday Night Live opening skit which appeared the previous evening.
Twelve hours after the skit was first broadcast, Goldfarb, whose whose full archive going back to August indicates that he has not written a WaPo item for Sunday publication in the past four months, nitpicked a comedy skit for — oh the humanity! — failing to distinguish between an "Executive Order" and "executive action" (bolds are mine):
How long it would have taken from the time of its exposure for the press to have prominently reported on an email sent from the the Bush 43 White House to its Justice Department asking, "Any way we can fix the New York Times?" We can be confident that it would have taken less than a New York minute, and that saturation coverage would have continued for days.
Well, one revelation in a series of Saturday tweets by former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, one of only a very few establishment press journalists who did serious reporting on the Department of Justice's Operation Fast & Furious Mexican gun-running operations beginning in 2011, is that the Obama administration was considering what it could do to "fix" another news operation.
On Monday, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, ordered the National Guard into Ferguson, Missouri and declared a state of emergency in anticipation of a grand jury's decision about whether to criminally charge police officer Darren Wilson in the August death of Michael Brown. If only Nixon had called in the Guard, as virtually every governor of all political persuations did in response to the riots of the 1960s, when it became clear shortly after Brown's death that law and order had broken down in Ferguson. But he didn't, allowing all manner of mayhem and destruction to go on for days.
Sari Horwirtz and Wesley Lowery at the Washington Post reported Friday evening that Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice are upset at Nixon's actions. But the two reporters failed to tell readers what happened in Ferguson in August when Nixon didn't act. This gives DOJ's position credibility with many readers that it emphatically does not deserve (bolds are mine):
Even if you like your Obamacare insurance plan, Health and Human Services may move you by default into a different one — often with a different network of providers. In such situations, you wouldn't get to keep your doctors and other providers unless you acted.
That's what HHS's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service has indicated in a 300-page proposal dumped yesterday so it would get minimal media attention (a six-page summary is here). Bloomberg News is one of the few outlets which has noticed it, and is predictably spinning it as a good thing (bolds are mine throughout this post; and numbered tags are mine):
At CNN on Thursday night, Anderson Cooper asked former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who is now a contributor at the network, to square President Barack Obama's Thursday night immigration announcement with past presidential statements that he didn't have the power to do what he had just done.
Old habits die hard at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press — especially when those old habits help Dear Leader's regime look better, or less awful, than it deserves.
It's been eight days, but it's still worth a look. On November 13, the government released its Monthly Treasury Statement for October, showing that Uncle Sam ran a $122 billion deficit. In his coverage of that statement's release, the AP's Martin Crutsinger, in the wire service's monthly effort at miseducating the masses, wrote the following:
A June 4 story at Willamette Week summarized the already serious problems pioneering longtime Oregon-based homosexual activist and ardent Barack Obama supporter Terry Bean was already facing before the Democratic Party "Kingmaker" was arrested Wednesday and "charged with two felony counts of having sex with a minor last year."
Even before his arrest, the accusations made by Bean's former homosexual lover were serious. Even now, the local press in Oregon seems reluctant to acknowledge the potential implications of Bean's arrest. The national press remains AWOL.
Brett M. Decker is a member of USA Today's Board of Contributors and "consulting director at the White House Writers Group." Early this evening, he effectively did double duty for the paper, both as a columnist and a journalist.
Decker appears to be the first person to report visibly in a national publication that "influential gay rights advocate and top Obama donor" Terry Bean was arrested on Wednesday and "charged with two felony counts of having sex with a minor last year." There were three links to Decker's column at USAT's front page at 7:43, while a story appearing at the site about 20 minutes earlier than Decker's forwarded from KGW-TV in Oregon is absent from its front page. The portion of Decker's discussion of the media double standard follows the jump (HT Instapundit; bolds are mine):
Boy, it's a good thing that the unemployment benefits Congress continued to extend during most of the first five-plus years of Barack Obama's presidency didn't hurt the economy much.
A study commissioned by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve concluded that extended benefits "only account for a fraction of the actual increase in the unemployment rate." The allegedly minimal impact of that "fraction" follows the jump.
Today at the Assocated Press, aka the Administration's Press, Martin Crustsinger covered the Census Bureau's report on new home construction in the usual way. Regardless of whether a given month shows improving or declining data, the wire service's overall message is almost invariably, "Things are really getting better. No, really."
The sentence promoting that point of view in Crutsinger's report came from one of the AP's go-to analysts:
There were several more of those infamous "U-word" ("unexpectedly") sightings yesterday in the business press, as Japan — to the surprise of no one who has successfully avoided the Keynesian koolaid — reported that its economy shrank for the second quarter in a row, officially falling into yet another recession.
As I noted yesterday, the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, finally broke down on Friday and mentioned the name "Jonathan Gruber" in a news story — a Friday afternoon item which, among other things, dishonestly attempted to distance the Affordable Care Act advisor from his long acknowledged and celebrated (until recently) "architect" role.
As of early this evening, the only other AP mention of Gruber has come in an unbylined Sunday morning story on President Barack Obama's insistence that, in AP's words, "the American public was not misled about certain provisions of his health care law," and that, again in AP's words, "there was no provision of the health care law that was not extensively debated and was not fully transparent." The terse, "Now will you people please go away?" five-paragraph report follows the jump:
The New York Times wants America to ignore Jonathan Gruber. Pay no attention to that architect behind the curtain!
Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters noted earlier today that a Times editorial on Jonathan "stupid voters" Gruber claims that the MIT economist was not an important player in the law's creation. The Times now insists that "In truth, his role was limited." The trouble is, Times reporters and columnists have paid quite a bit of attention to Gruber and the importance of his role in the creation, passage and defense of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, during the past five years.
Two cheers — and two cheers only — for the National Journal's Ron Fournier.
On Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier last night, the former Associated Press Washington Bureau chief observed that the Jonathan Gruber videos about how the Affordable Care Act was dishonestly written and promoted, as well as President Barack Obama's reaction to those revelations, demonstrate that he (Obama) "has destroyed the credibility of his administration, himself, and government itself." Fine. But then, imitating the naive lover who won't give up despite constant betrayal in the hit song "I Can't Let Go," Fournier stated that he "would like to see this bill work."
The Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press — the entity which to our great misfortune is considered the de facto news source of record by the nation's establishment press — finally broke down several days ago and mentioned the name "Jonathan Gruber" in a news story.
Of course, the wire service saved Philip Elliott's story for Friday afternoon to minimize its visibility; the time stamp at the AP's national site is 4:20 p.m. ET Friday; that's only a minute later than the 3:19 p.m. CT time stamp found here at the earliest Google News entry I could find. Elliott largely made the story almost entirely about Republicans' and conservatives' reactions to what Gruber has said — as if they're the only ones who should be deeply troubled about Gruber's insulting descriptions of the American people and the fundamental dishonesty involved in drafting and passing the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, in early 2010. But he also quite dishonestly tried to claim that Gruber wasn't even an "architect" of the law (bolds and numbered tags are mine):
On Saturday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted the hypocritical fury of Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times that the Supreme Court has taken on the King v. Burwell case over the legality of Obamacare subsidies in states which don't have their own Obamacare exchanges.
I need to address another item of Greenhouse gas contained therein, namely her claim that the Affordable Care Act requires no one to "spend more than 8 percent of his or her income of health insurance." That's only true if one chooses not to get covered.