In his regular "cyber-column" at Mullings.com, Rich Galen finds something surprising in the September issue of Discover magazine:
Full CyberAlert follows. For today’s MRC CyberAlert.
Sam Coates, a British journalist on loan to the Washington Post as the annual Laurence Stern fellow, ends up with the assignment of puffing up Cindy Sheehan's forces over the weekend. His story today (typically touting how protests "expand in the heat") has one particularly annoying habit, comparing "pro-war" and "pro-Bush" protesters against "anti-war" ones.
The Washington Post headline today on Page A-4 is "Critical Votes Loom For Hill Republicans: Party to Set Cuts to Entitlement Spending." CUTS? Of course not.
This story has everything—“unnamed sources,” talkative white house “insiders,” “unidentified presidential aides,” and “speculating” psychiatrists. What article would be complete without visual aids? Neatly tucked in amongst the “startling revelations” is a picture of a very young-looking George W.
The Washington Post's lead editorial, "The War's Momentum," essentially focuses on the continuing delays in
NewsBusters readers were amused at the idea of liberal bias in the Washington Post sports section, so for a little weekend fun, let's revisit a couple of examples of wild editorializing in strange places in the newspaper. In 2003, this New York Times quote earned a Runner-Up mention in our Best of Notable Quotables with this memorable clip from an article on Norway's seafood:
Tired of whiny CNN boss Jonathan Klein complaining about Fox News wins the ratings race with "meaningless nonsense"? MediaBistro's blog Fishbowl NY revealed how Jon Stewart showed Klein "you live in a big, shining glass house."
Alan Greenspan “might well be the best central banker who ever lived.” That statement, from the August 26 New York Times, reflects the attitude of even most Greenspan critics – except for the Times.
Josh White’s article in today’s Washington Post concerning the Army meeting its August recruitment goal, but being off track to reach its yearly target, seems to miss or understate some of the positives expressed by the Army’s chief of staff yesterday:
Should the Army meet its goal of recruiting about 10,000 new active-duty troops this month, it will be the third consecutive month in which the service succeeded after several months of significantly missing its mark. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker told reporters yesterday that he expects the Army to miss its annual goal of 80,000 new active-duty recruits by "a couple thousand," adding that he expects recruiting in September and during the next fiscal year to be "difficult."
To begin with, it appears that some of Mr. White’s numbers don’t match those of the Department of Defense. For instance, as the article moves forward, Mr. White suggests that the Army’s recruitment goal in 2004 was 72,000. In fact, according to this DoD report, the goal was actually 77,000, and was bested by 587 recruits.
As such, if the General is correct, and the Army misses its 80,000 goal by a couple of thousand recruits, it would still roughly duplicate its 2004 performance. Given the casualties, the strength of the economy, and the constant negative press about this incursion, this appears to be quite an achievement.