Latest Posts

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the MSM water, up pops Cindy Sheehan.

The Today show’s pretext for bringing back Cindy was her return to Crawford.’s home page subhead probably caught the attitude of most conservatives best when Pat Robertson said the U.S. ought to assassinate Venezualan President Hugo Chavez: "Rev. Pat’s off his meds again." Of course, the MSM didn’t see it that way, trumpeting the TV preacher’s stupid remark far and wide as emblematic of conservatism as a whole.

Jack Kelly has a great story at Jewish World Review about how good news in the real world becomes bad news in the New York Times. The basics of the story go something like this:
  • The Army has greatly improved the body armor soldiers are wearing over the past 15 years. It's lighter and tougher.
  • There are some types of ammunition that can penetrate it, but no evidence that the "insurgents" are using that ammunition.
  • "...though the specifications weren't set until early in January, new plates were being manufactured — and delivery begun to U.S. troops — in March. Those familiar with the Pentagon's procurement process recognize this as lightning speed. "

  • In an August 24, 2005, article (reg. req'd), "Study Finds 29-Week Fetuses Probably Feel No Pain and Need No Abortion Anesthesia," the New York Times failed to inform its readers that the lead author of the reported study, Susan J. Lee, once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    By now, Americans with even the most modest of attention spans know of the United Kingdom/>/>/>/>'s liberal version of CNN, the BBC.  An article written by the BBC's Washington/>/>/>/> reporter Matthew Davis stunningly highlights th

    "As the 1960s protest song said, 'there's something happening here,'” NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams reminisced Thursday evening as he introduced an “In Depth” segment trumpeting the influence of Cindy Sheehan -- a story, when replayed on MSNBC's Countdown, fill-in host Amy Robach framed around how “there are those who wonder if attitudes toward the war could be reaching a tipping point and whether the Gold Star mom could be the driving force.” Reporter Carl Quintanilla allowed a couple of critics to denounce Sheehan, but his story was centered around touting her impact: “Sheehan, say some historians, may be evolving as an icon in the war's turning point, if this is one. For three weeks, she's dominated headlines, mobilized protesters” and made “it safe, her supporters say, to voice doubts about the war, just as Walter Cronkite did on the Evening News in 1968.” Viewers were then treated to 1968 video of Cronkite taking on the Vietnam war: “To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.”

    In between soundbites from liberal historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Quintanilla fretted about “a peace movement without a way home.” Goodwin rued: “That's the difficulty. We don't know what to do with the peace movement, what does it actually mean?” Quintanilla concluded by admiring Sheehan's influence, a pedestal the media provided: “Historians say we won't know Cindy Sheehan's place in the war until the war itself is history. And whether you agree with her or not, she sits waiting for one conversation, and has unleashed another.”
    (Video: Windows Media Player or Real Media)

    Full transcript, and Williams' plug on his blog for this story, follows.

    Brent Bozell decries the Saturday night fireworks celebration of the pathetic suicidal end of gonzo writer Hunter Thompson's life, which was a big story in the Sunday papers. (As L.B.B. notes, Hunter was on A-3, Pope Benedict on A-20 of the WashPost). But so-called "objective" journalists were at the front of the line of his admirers, as he spewed hate at Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and two President Bushes through his crazed, glassy, drug-hazy eyes.

    I've meant to point out that in the middle of Tuesday afternoon's incessant Pat Robertson's Death Wishes coverage, CNN anchor Kyra Phillips was so excited to rifle through the jolly-atheist hit file of Robertson quotes, she messed up on her sourcing:

    ABC made time Wednesday night for Martha Raddatz to read from a letter the Gold Star Moms for Peace sent to President Bush in which they charged that "you put our troops in harm's way based on a lie.

    Fast food restaurants are stalking children; Southerners are getting fatter; and the misleading Body Mass Index is back in the news after a football players death.

    Media continue to refine their talking points about failure of new CAFE standards.

    A front-page story in today’s Washington Post suggests that Bush administration amendments to a 29-page draft agreement prepared by the United Nations for its upcoming world summit on poverty and U.N. reform have “thrown the proceedings in turmoil”:

    Less than a month before world leaders arrive in New York for a world summit on poverty and U.N. reform, the Bush administration has thrown the proceedings in turmoil with a call for drastic renegotiation of a draft agreement to be signed by presidents and prime ministers attending the event.

    Unfortunately, nowhere in this article does its author, Colum Lynch, support such an assertion.  In fact, there is not one quote from any U.N. representatives or officials stating that the U.S. amendments have in any way interfered with these proceedings.

    Quite the contrary, the article cites officials who state support for the amendments:

    Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg went on's Live Online and answered questions emailed to him by readers. Goldberg was there to discuss his latest book, "100 People Who are Screwing Up America."

    Someone asked if he would "add Cindy Sheehan as number 101 this week?"

    Would any reporters like to take a moment away from tearing up Pat Robertson on their front page to mention how heinous it was when former presidential advisor George Stephanopoulos suggested we assassinate Saddam Hussein? Probably not.

    New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller today tried her best to write an article without mentioning anti-war heroine Cindy Sheehan, as well as without impugning the president.  Unfortunately, she failed.

    In an article about the president’s speech to thousands of National Guard members and their families in Nampa, Idaho, it only took two paragraphs before the story turned from Mr. Bush’s vision of Iraq and his appreciation for the sacrifice these families and their relatives are making into another in a long litany of Cindyfests:

    Defending his administration's military stance for the third day in a row, he presented another tough, if implicit, rebuttal to war critics like Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who has generated a monthlong protest outside his Texas ranch. Mr. Bush said, "As long as I'm the president, we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terror."

    The president said withdrawing troops now - as Ms. Sheehan advocates - would "only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations."

    As Ms. Sheehan advocates?  Has Ms. Sheehan now been promoted to the title of "advocate"?

    Yet, most abhorrent is this: