Media Malpractice, continued

As reported at Do The Right Thing under the title of 'Media Malpractice', I have taken the percentages and inserted numbers for a better perspective. If you haven't watched the documentary on this subject please do.

A recent left wing troll comment pointed out that 67,000,000 people voted for obama up from the 63,400,000 reported shortly after November 4th. Apparently another 3,600,000 votes were found and counted. Isn't that special?

Using the 67 million number and based upon Zogby's recent poll of obama voters, the following numbers can be expanded.

97.1% High School Graduate or higher or 65,057,000; 55% College Graduates or 38,781,350.

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) 38,458,000 got this wrong. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Murtha are actually Democrats you idiots.

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) 54,806,000 got this wrong. Duh, what's plagiarism?

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) 55,342,000 got it wrong.

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing) 59,228,000 got it wrong. How many of those actually work in the coal industry?

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing). 37,587,000 got it wrong.

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes.Only 9,179,000 got this wrong.

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter. Only 4,154,000 got this wrong.

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!! This one made me laugh, 58,223,000 got this wrong.

Apparently these people watch way too much television, in particular the Lame Stream Media. Tina Fey is NOT Sarah Palin and Saturday Night Live is a comedy show last time I checked you morons. LOL. Oh. But wait. Doesn't Tina Fey actually work for one of the major news outlets? Is SNL like CNN? How stupid are you clowns?

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. 1,608,000 got at least 11 of the 12 questions correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey). 335,000 got all 12 questions correct. What does this tell you about the 97.1% number above? And the questions were all multiple choice.

I don't follow polls but many on the left do as evidenced by all the poll numbers thrown around by them prior to the election. Of the 67,000,000 who voted for obama, I wonder how many of those were people thought to be dead who miraculously came back to life to vote or have a park bench as an address or are in reality dogs and cats registered to vote? Perhaps only your local ACORN voter fraud center or the DNC can answer to those.

Simply amazing to me that 67 million could have elected a total unknown. This admitted to by the Lame Stream Media and a high percentage of those who voted for nobama, apparently, if you follow polls that is. Of course any good leftist will dispute the polls when they don't go their way.

The total population of the United States passed the 300 million mark in 2006. So nearly 24% of the population voted for obama. Astonishing. Just imagine what the number would be if Roe vs Wade had not become law and nearly 50 million babies had not been murdered by your stinking abortion clinics.

I have my own list of questions for readers of this blog. There are 17 total. Thanks Norm.

Without looking the answers up on the net or from some other source, how many can you answer correctly? No cheating.
___________________________________________________________________________
History Test

1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the1957 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who supports the U.S. Supreme Court’s University of Michigan Affirmative Action decision, and is spending over $200 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and on programs to help black Americans prosper, including school vouchers, the faith-based initiative, home ownership, and small business ownership?

[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
___________________________________________________________________

10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

13. What was the Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president, and later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not denied the right to vote?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

17. What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?

[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
___________________________________________________________________

An estimated 97% of black voters voted for obama and yet we are told that a vote for anybody other than obama is considered racist. Oh really? So I'm a racist....a bigot because I didn't vote for your blaspheming messiah. Will we be made to wear 6 pointed stars on our shirts with "bigot" in the center?

Good luck with your new president elect. Somehow I can't help but shudder at the prospect of 4 years of lies, deception, indoctrination, and intimidation ahead of us aided and abetted by your Lame Stream Media malpractitioners...is that a word?..heh. We've already had 2 years of a Democrat majority in CONgress. Just imagine if they have a filibuster proof majority. God help us.

When your president elect gets done with his "experimentation" perhaps the adults can take over and actually fix the problems plaguing this country. Until then I can only pray your elected Democrats don't screw things up too bad so it doesn't take us decades to correct the inane stupidity of their policies.

And just so you socialist clowns know, the problem with socialism is that you will eventually run out of other peoples money.

Who ya gonna tax when you can't tax anyone anymore? When you have ruined capitalism and run small business owners out of business, where is the money going to come from then? How many big businesses are you going to take over and allow your CONgress Clowns in Action, CCIA, to run into the ground? You already have nearly 50% of the population who don't work and rely on some form of government handout. What are you going to do when that number increases sharply? Slave labor? Concentration camps? Gulags? Reeducation Centers? Involuntary euthanasia for everyone over the age of 50? All of the above?

Good luck with that.

Sphere: Related Content

Charley Gibson Catches "Holy" Hell

(From America Needs Me)

Got this from Ace. Grab a twelve pack and make an evening out of watching this over and over. If you live in a neighborhood like mine you might want to go outside and tackle a whining liberal or two and "Clockwork Orange" them into watching.

When smug talkingturd Gibson hit Sarah Palin with his brain-dead monkey "Are we in a holy war?" question last week I thought I was going to have to fly to New York and smack him myself. But that's how I react to things in my often retro-juvenile way. Thankfully, I had a free cocktail mixer to get to so I was even more easily distracted than usual. Now Newt Gingrich (it appears he's behind this video) has given a more subtle smacking to Gibson.

The message to Gibson and the MSM brain trust that has no brains and deserves no trust is simple: it's OK to pray and talk about God and our troops in the same breath. People do it all the time. Presidents do it all the time.

If you do tackle any liberals you might have to explain who Abraham Lincoln was and give them a quick background on the Declaration of Independence part.

SEE THE VIDEO HERE

Sphere: Related Content

"Obama/Vitriol '08-Smear We Can Believe In"

(Cross posted at "America Needs Me")

That's the ticket.

Get used to the gutter-crawling from the Left because that is really all they have to offer. You would think that the Changey/Hopey folk would want to offer forth a vision of what their transcendent candidate, less than one week removed from his "symphony" and "masterpiece" of a speech, can truly do for his country. Here's what we've gotten from them so far:

Sarah Palin is a bad mother and John McCain is going to die at any moment.

If there was ever any doubt that the Main Stream Media lives on its knees in front of Obama's zipper, the last few days should have erased it.

In anticipation of Gov. Palin's speech tonight, the MSM Obama hacks have really ratcheted up the remarkably weak-ass attacks on her. It's a veritable "symphony" of desperation. The attacks don't have any substance, so they're trying to overwhelm with sheer volume.

Let's start with the most rapidly declining major city newspaper in America, The Los Angeles Times, which is now published from the back of a van in a downtown LA alley. It's remaining subscriber alerted me to these stories. The Times features a couple of hit pieces on Sarah Palin today. There probably would have been more but they couldn't afford the extra paper.

First, this one by Tim Rutten starts off highlighting what one of the Left's major problems is with Sarah Palin:

"...there's the fact that they appear unwilling to let her be alone with the media. God forbid anyone should ask about her views on, say, global warming -- she doesn't believe that human activity has anything to do with it. Perhaps they don't want anyone to hear her explain why she opposes hate-crime laws?"

Well, Tim, she's been preparing the most important speech of her life, taking care of a family crisis and, being the only true outsider in this race, meeting some key people. So, she's been a little f-ing busy. Obeisance to an unfair media monster isn't high on the GOP priority list these days.

Look at the questions he poses. I'll translate: "How can you be a successful woman and not be a Democrat? It's an outrage, I tell you!"

Along with the quick dispatching of Obama's change theme, Sarah Palin also K.O.'d a tired feminist line that was never true in the first place. The feminists, still compromised from having disappeared when Bill Clinton was preying on young women, are spinning out of control now that their "either/or" view has been spanked all to bejesus. I assume that Tim Rutten is a believer in feminism because he has an opinion column in a major newspaper. Plus, his picture shows him to be bearded and burly, just like all the women at NOW and NARAL.

Make sure your stomach isn't too full and read Rutten's whole piece. He accuses McCain of trying to hide behind appeals to privacy. Ironic, given that ever since the Supreme Court found that very, very well hidden "right to privacy" for Roe v. Wade, the Left has been hiding behind appeals to privacy so much that there probably isn't any room to squeeze someone from the Right in.

Next up from the Weekly World News L.A. Times is this bloviating exercise in condescension from Sam Harris.

Since the Palin pick, McCain's detractors have all become actuaries at MetLife. We should worry, the argument goes, about Sarah Palin becoming president because John McCain is going to kick at any time, actuarially speaking, of course.

The guy's survived the Viet Cong and cancer but, "the pressures of the presidency" are going to kill him.

Hey, what do the actuarial tables say about African-American men who smoke?

Of course they don't go there because they're presumably on board with Biden stepping in. We've heard a lot of talk about Joe Biden being ready to be president these past few days. So ready, in fact, that voters in his own party have twice rejected him for the job.

The opening line from the Harris drivel is another gem of nothingness that indicates just how off-balance the McCain haters are since Sarah Palin knocked them backwards:

"So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?"

Naturally, as "every thinking person in the world" is aware, falling objects are sentient beings that tend to seek out the older among us.

On to the real condescension:

"Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority."

Whoa...sounds like someone does a lot of shopping at elitistprick.com!

"Unhealthy"? More desperate flailing. "Average"? Harris must have gone to one of those schools where all the kids grow up to be state governors.

Explain to me how holding one of only fifty available jobs in a country of over three hundred million is average.

Allow me to speak on Mr. Harris's behalf:

"Well, you know, it's a western state...not as many people...blah, blah, blah. Screw it, I just hate Republicans!"

The Marxist Line Dance Society at the New York Times has its daily Palin hit piece out in the Opinion page. It's a mild one today when compared to Maureen Dowd throwing up all over herself yesterday. Thomas Friedman talks about the green angle to this election and the McCain/Palin ticket being nothing but shills for Big Oil. The first lefty in days to actually talk about Palin and issues and the whole piece is so limp you can almost hear the "Viva, Viagra!" commercial playing in the background.

To the chagrin of all on the Left, Sarah Palin will be speaking at the convention tonight. Many pundits say she has to hit one out of the park tonight.

Even more of us say she already has.

Sphere: Related Content

War News: McClatchey News Anti-Americanists

~Snooper~

These poor excuses for journalistic integrity couldn't get a story straight if their lives depended on it. And, by the way, it does. They just don't or won't see the threats from the enemy. They are very similar if not identical to the chronic malcontents at SmolderingMutantBlobs. Every time I read such disingenuous TP worthy trash written by members of the anti-Americanist class of fools, I always question their motives, their Patriotism and their social integrity. We all know their motives - lose the war at any cost in order to be able to say, "See? We told you so." We all know to whom and to what they swear their allegiances to - anyone that hates the United States; anyone that will replace the United States Constitution with some morphed socio-commie tripe; anyone that will rid this land of Traditional Americana; anyone that will replace a thriving Capitalist Economy with a failed socialist "everyone is equally poor" economy; anyone that can defeat the United States.

As for their social integrity - they wouldn't know what integrity means. We also know that they most assuredly do not follow Ethics In Journalism. Ethics and integrity are alien in conceptual reality to an anti-Americanist socialist hack group such as McClatchey News. They take snippets of data out of context and feed it to their drones of ignorance like it is socialist gospel. The Abyss of Obscurity is too good for them.

Donald Douglas has two fantastic articles up where he takes this sycophant drones of ignorance behind the woodshed and leaves them there to wallow in pain and hate. The articles are entitled Antiwar Rush to Judgment on Alleged Pentagon Surrender Report and Distorted Antiwar Propaganda. Both pieces are must reads due to his keen flare to detail and pointing out the obvious to the oblivious - that would be to the anti-Americanist hacks.

Our functions and jobs as Keyboard Warriors is to expose these pathetic minions of the George Soros ilk of cowards and fools and support our Troops AND The Mission(s) at hand. We understand the enemy and they either don't or won't. It is either or and there can be no other intent of these ill-advised doom and gloomers.

The Leftinistra writers and whiners can be found here in abundant supply as they dig into non-issue issues as they so commonly do in the hopes that they can vindicate themselves from being on the wrong side of every issue at every turn due to their pure, unadulterated hatred of President Bush - BDS. Nothing else matters to them, they are so blinded by their hate.

Ed Morrissey has a great piece as well on this same subject. So does Macsmind. As does Protein Wisdom. More recent chatter on this topic is at Memorandum. The bottom line is as follows. The report in question is about issues in and around the time frame of 2002 > 2004. It has nothing to do with current issues but the Leftinistra disregard that factoid all together. Typical Moonbattery.

From Macsmind:

At least that the way the anti-Bush rag McClatchy summed it up. Unfortunately for them it's not the truth. Small Wars Journal did a little digging and interviewing the author of the study and former Sec. Rumsfeld deputy Joseph Collins and discovered that journalists sometimes toss the truth and go for the good old fashion BS. Here via SWJ is the response of Mr. Collins. (Note the McClatchy story ran as well in the Miami Herald). [...]

Bingo.

From Hot Air:

The Miami Herald reports on a study at the National Defense University that it claims calls the war in Iraq a "major debacle" with the outcome in doubt. However, what the Miami Herald didn't report was that the study looked at a specific time period and has little bearing on the current status of the conflict. How do we know that? A blogger decided to do what the Herald couldn't - journalism. [...]

Ouch. We are The New Media, folks. We check, cross-check and verify everything. Our agenda is The Truth whether we like it or not.

Naturally, from the readings on the subject, the first anti-Americanists that jumped on another wagon with no wheels was Think Like A Socialist Hack...

Vote it up at Real Clear Politics...

Sphere: Related Content

The ABC's of Dhimmitude

The decline of the American news media is not so obvious to some. However, as the following two articles display, we are once again being duped into believing Islam is just another religion, in fact, it is afterall a religion of peace, and Americans are discriminating against Muslims. Is that what you think?


So imagine, you've had a long day at work, the kids are doing their homework or playing and you have a few minutes to turn on the television to catch up on the days events. You hear from your trusted "news reader", and I say that with more than a little sarcasm, about everything from some Hollywood actress found high or drunk stumbling along the streets of some city to a dogcatcher who lost his job for turning his catches of the day loose.


But let me ask you this. Does your favorite, trusted "news reader" give you the real news? The news they should be on top of and reporting to keep you informed? The news you need to hear?


If you truly believe you are getting all the news and the truth from your favorite television station, then stop. You need go no further.

Misconception?

What do most Americans know about Muslim culture? Save for the misconceptions—nothing, say the experts. So someone has to educate the American public about Islamic culture and if it isn’t ABC NEWS who is it going to be? FOX? CNN? It’s a thankless job, but ABC is up to it. They’ve been in the news and education business a long time. Thanks to ABC, Americans are better informed about cultural diversity, immigration, economics, the Texas Gunslinger and the war in Iraq, education, taxes and a hundred other things—except for Islam. Well, that is changing.

On February 29, 2008, ABC made the stark admission that Muslim culture wasn’t well understood in America and that they intended to do something about it. They would—by, golly—help Americans understand the Muslim next door. It wouldn’t be easy enlightening Larry, Moe and Curley and they would need the best possible advice they could get. So they went to the Council on American-Islamic Relations—the font of all Islamic knowledge in the United States, valiant battlers for human rights, justice and the American way.

Wow! Just look at CAIR’s organizational chart! It’s like the 1927 New York Yankees! It boggles the mind!

For starters, there’s CAIR’s long-time spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. This fine fellow put everyone’s mind to ease a few years ago when he said CAIR didn’t publicly support terrorism. Wow! What a relief! Opie hasn’t missed a night’s sleep since. It sure took a load off Sheriff’s Andy’s mind. “There is a difference with hate speech at your local mosque,” said Ibrahim, “and radio talk that reaches millions.” Now that is perspicacious! John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid listened to hate speech at their local mosques and went bad—Larry, Moe and Curley listen to Rush Limbaugh and Melanie Morgan and so do million of others, but so far none of the ditto-heads has strapped on a suicide bomber’s belt and made his way to Democratic Party head-quarters. Hatred seems to flourish in the mosque. Could Ibrahim be wrong? But he’s from CAIR and CAIR was hand picked by ABC. They weren’t self-selected, were they? One hopes not.

Here’s Nihad Awad. He’s another fine fellow. He was a founder of CAIR. He’s their executive officer. “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” he said. (Now, that could be troubling) According to Nihad, the trial and conviction of the four terrorists involved in the First World Trade Center bombing was, “a travesty of justice.” “There is ample evidence,” he said, “indicating that both Mossad (the Israeli secret service) and the Egyptian Intelligence played a role in the explosion.” Well…he’s not the only doubter. There’s Rosie O’Donnell and Woody Harrelson.

Here’s Randall Todd Royer, a gun and explosive enthusiast and a member of CAIR. Wait a minute…better scratch Randy. He’s serving 20 years in jail for aiding and abetting terrorist activities. (Every organization has at least one or two black sheep)

Read the rest here.

ABC Fakes Muslim Prejudice, Unsurprisingly Finds 'Islamophobia' in America

By Warner Todd Huston (02/28/08)

Apparently to prove that the US is filled with Muslim hating Yahoos, ABC went on the hunt to find "Islamophobia" in America and the result is "Witness to Discrimination: What Would You Do?"(1) Since they didn't really know where to find any, ABC News decided to create their own prejudice against Muslims by hiring an actress to put on Muslim dress and get "confronted" by a Muslim hating coffee store server -- also an actor hired by ABC. Then, they rolled the cameras, opened the doors to the public and, viola, ABC "found" prejudice in America. How hard is it to "find" something that you invented in the first place? Let's find out... ABC is "shocked" to find that their little manufactured moments revealed how some customers reacted.

"Bystanders Turn Away When Muslim Actor Hired By 'Primetime' Encounters Hostility," ABC proclaimed.ABC begins their report assuring us all that "Islamophobia" is rampant in America.

The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war and suicide bombings worldwide have changed not only the way we live but the way we look at those around us, especially Muslims. "Islamophobia" has entered the American vernacular, and the anti-Muslim attitudes and prejudice it describes remain common.

Prejudiced attitudes against Muslims "remain common"? Does it really? Is ABC telling us that Muslims are being widely discriminated against in this country since 9/11?Well, ABC may be claiming this is so, but the FBI sure isn't. According to Investor's Business Daily, the FBI has found that anti-Muslim crimes in the USA is not so "common" as ABC wants to make us believe.

Read the continuation here.

Sphere: Related Content

Here We Go Again: Bush Lied [UPDATED]

~Snooper~

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SIGH. Here we go again with the old and tired bull-hockeys. I have concluded that evidence beforehand doesn't matter to the BDS crowd. For those that have laid claim that President George W Bush is the dumbest man in the world, I find it interesting that such a Big Dummy could orchestrate and pull off such a stunt with all of the hatred being directed towards the man for stealing the election away from Al Gore.

CBS says that they have breaking news but this isn't breaking news. It is the same old garbage that has been debunked and disproved for at least 3 or 5 years now but the Leftinistra, having been beat up for the past 7 years by the Big Dummy on a regular basis and over every issue, just hate him so bad that facts don't matter to these idiots.

We know have a report that claims:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses. [...]

Interesting.

[...] It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it. [...]

Really.

[...] In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber. [...]

I see.

The theoretical "search" criteria is here and the theoretical "parameters" are here. I found these collection of words perplexing and misleading...would they be lies, then?

[...] Direct false statements. False statements by the eight Bush administration officials were counted as "direct" - and included in the total count of false statements - when they specifically linked Iraq to Al Qaeda or referenced Iraq's contemporaneous possession, possible possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons). In addition, any use of the verb "disarm" was categorized as a direct statement because of the literal meaning of the word. (Example: "Saddam Hussein has got a choice, and that is, he can disarm.") These false statements can be found within the passages that are highlighted in yellow in the project database. Indirect false statements. Statements were classified as "indirect" if they did not specifically link Iraq to Al Qaeda but alleged, for example, that Iraq supported or sponsored terrorism or terrorist organizations, or if they referred to Iraq's former possession of weapons of mass destruction or used such general phrases, for example, as "dangerous weapons." These indirect false statements are not included in the total count of 935.

They wouldn't "directly" lie, would they? And, they even have pictures!


Such a pretty picture it is, too! Thank God for Crayola Crayons! They get an A+ and 15 Gold Stars! Their Mommies must be very proud of them! And, you just have GOT to love this...

[...] Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

WOW! Nothing like being about 2 years behind the times there, Skippies! The only difference I see here is that in this report, they were counting via 'rithmetic. I wonder how their reading and 'riting is...

Check out their Staff and see if you see what I see. Bill Buzenberg is the Chief Top Dog. The Board of Directors is here. The Advisory Board is here. A small blurb on the Founder is here. Having recognized several of the folks listed in the links above, I find the report wanting in substance and can guarantee the politics of each of them has contributed to this report and there is nothing unbiased in this report. On top of that, the NY Slimes endorses the "project"...go figure. And, adding insult to injury - self inflicted - check out the Funders here.

I know that I am a lowly blogger and all and a Citizen Journalist but I can read and I know that I have had EVERY single one of these arguments in one form or another for a long time now with many people. This report is designed to distract from the fact that the Leftinistra have been wrong all along and they know it. This report will merely incite the already emotionally and psychologically weak moonbats, libtards and other anti-Americanist groups all atwitter to distract from the issues at hand - meaning the elections.

I have read this study and a good portion of the methodology and it lacks integrity. As usual, there is no "smoking gun" proof of any of the allegations, meaning, there is no substantiation. In regards to the WMDs, especially, they obviously have been locked in a closet someplace. Also, there is no evidence that the alleged "false statements" were purposefully stated knowing them to be false at the time they were uttered. I love hind-sight investigations, if this can be called an investigation.

How soon people forget, either on purpose or suffering from a mental condition with short and long term memory dysfunction. Surely they have read the Iraq War Resolution...yes? Therein, one can see that in a prewar discussion, all possible scenarios were discussed and agreed upon.

In the Iraq War Resolution, it was stipulatedd that Iraq had violated 17 United Nations Resolutions and had not provided proof that Iraq had destroyed their WMD stockpiles and equipment. Saddam had proven to the world that his word could not be trusted and the Cease Fire of 1991 was withdrawn.

Another obvious element is that this group was not allowed out of their closets and were not allowed to read the ISG. Enough said about that one.

No one can convince humans capable of rational though t that this report isn't biased one bit. Had they honestly carried out their research, they would have found this:





This report is shamefully distributed and lauded. It is a pathetic example of BDS inspired and contrived garbage. This report, in this time frame, with everything that we know now, today, is much more dishonest than dishonesty can describe. With all of the Media Bias there is strong evidence of, this report should be gathered up and burned.

We bloggers and Citizen Journalists will now have to re-fight and rehash this garbage again. We are ready and willing.

Let's roll.

Fox News:
MSLSD:
AP:
The Daily KOSmonoffs: (swallowing it hook, line and sinker) (BDS runs deep and wide)


And, because I have been all through this many many times, I have collected some items of interest. Below is but a mere scratch of the surface:
Al Qaeda In Iraq; The Corner; Back Talk; Obsidian Wings; Captain's Quarters; Slate; Slate; BBC; Jules Crittenden; TigerHawk; Amy Proctor;

HT to Lew Waters: CNN

[...] Maybe they forgot that it was one other than Saint Hillary who said in April 2004, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." [...]

Go figure! Check back in for more updates...they are sure to come screaming in when the sun rises in DC in a few hours!!

Catch the wave at memeorandum...

NY Slimes weighing in
SmolderingPuppyWadi shows its stupidity...again...
Radamisto...the guy that blogs at Arizonas' expense makes an idiot of itself...again
Another fruit loop here...


Dog Ross: The AP: willful accomplice in the run-up to idiocy (read that as Ass Hat) and The Astute Bloggers
Poligazette: Two Years of Lies?
Chicago Ray: False Statements Made About What Was Then Universally Known And Believed

posted at RCP and Digital Journal...vote them up please.

DOE Report: U.S. Removes Iraqi Nuclear and Radiological Materials

Captain's Quarters: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

[...] In fact, there is nothing new in this site that hasn't already been picked apart by the blogosphere, and some of it discredited. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the "sixteen words" of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.

Let's boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented -- and this somehow qualifies as news?

Hey, AP. I'll be posting a couple of essays today. I'll be sure to look for your breathless report on the wires later this afternoon.

SPOT on as usual!

Gateway Pundit: Surprise!!...Soros-Funded Journalism Groups Slam "Bush Lies"

The Center for Public Integrity has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from anti-Bush philanthropist:

Despite its claims to be a nonpartisan news organization and profession of the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, the Center has been accused of bias towards left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes.

The donations included:

A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[35]
A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[36]
A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[37]
A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project."[38]

We all look forward to the follow-up study that includes the Clinton years and their lies on Iraq.

Don't hold your breath...

Jules Crittenden: (I don't care what you think or say...this shit is funny!)

I dispute that! But I'm not going to waste any time arguing the points all over again. Next thing you know, we'll be in a debate over whether Bush is president or not. More to the point, do these august wanktanks have nothing better to do? Somebody tell them it's over. Saddam Hussein will never have (any more) WMD or (any more) meaningful ties with al-Qaeda. Next order of business, Iran. It looks like, thanks in part to the latest intelligence miscalculation, Bush isn't likely to be acting forcefully on that threat to Mideast and world peace in what remains of our national nightmare.

Firedoglake (what the heck that is a firedoglake, anyway): More Bush-lied Koolaid, please.

But here's a lefty on the verge of an eyeroll. Down With Tyranny:

Do you suppose that there is someone in these United States - or, for that matter, anywhere in the entire world - who doesn't already know that Bush, Cheney and the foul creatures that populated their regime lied our country into a disastrous war - disastrous, that is, for everyone except themselves and their business associates?

I do not know that.

Well, there are some people who have willed themselves into ignorance - the 20-odd percent of Americans who report that they still think Bush is doing a satisfactory job as president.

Uh, that's 33.8 percent. That 20-odd percent belongs to the crowd that hasn't managed to figure out how to surrender yet.

ROFLMAO!!

Protein Wisdom: Another Study Discovers Phenomena It Sets Off to Discover, for Foundations Predicated on Discovering Said Phenomenon

Sphere: Related Content

Journalistic Malpractice: Crickets

~Snooper~

~Snooper~

When a theoretical Main Stream Media, as they like to be referred to as, purposefully "buries" a Good News story developing in the GWOT, it can be argued that the journalistic entity is conducting journalistic malpractice.

We have Medical Malpractice. We have Legal Malpractice and in recent times, we have Accounting Malpractice. I think we are due for some good old Journalistic Malpractice. It can be argued that such "cover ups" create a false perception, damaging morale within the Armed Forces and the American Public as a whole. A good attorney could have a Field Day second to none in this regard. Get a good Crash and Burn firm to lead the charge to hold the journalists to a standard to which they hold all others...except their moppets, naturally.

We in the New Media have shown that the Media Darlings are never held to as a higher plateau of honesty and integrity they demand so much of from others. It doesn't mesh with their personal agendas or tenets of dishonesty.

Case in point: Musa Qala, Afghanistan. Where is the "Main Stream Media"? A blog at ABC has some good coverage, does it not? Or, not.

The "Main Stream" coverage "IS" "Rather" relegated to the Boredom Pages...why is that?

The self-vaunted "Main Stream Media" said that the rebels fled or Afghan Troops over-ran a rebel position and 50 rebels were killed where the truth is this: the Taliban was seriously routed, defeated and crushed by overwhelming and superior firepower.

Ace of Spades:

The US Military had a "temper tantrum," I guess ABCNews would say.

A wonderful temper tantrum. "Hundreds killed," not the 50 or so reported earlier. [...]

[...] Now you may wonder why a major victory in the, ahem, "Forgotten War" (the first forgotten war Afghanistan, and not Forgotten War II, Iraq) isn't being reported by the media.

It's because they're Patriots, buddy! They don't want to leak out the sensitive intelligence to the Taliban that they just got their asses kicked unholy. They might not know yet, so keep it on the QT, all right?

All hail the Patriotic MSM for its discretion. Huzzah, sirs!

Thanks to dri.

IBD Editorials:

Coalition forces captured the Taliban's biggest stronghold on Tuesday in a major military victory. Funny, isn't it, how the good guys winning doesn't make banner front-page headlines?

Musa Qala was the only town in the strategically vital Helmand province under Taliban control. The enemy had seized it in February after the collapse of a local truce between the British military and Afghan elders. But this week Afghan and NATO-led troops changed that by killing, wounding or capturing hundreds of Taliban fighters, including several commanders, in retaking the town.

On Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7, U.S. infantry were participating in one of the biggest air assaults in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban government a few weeks after 9/11. So many of the enemy were killed that Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told reporters, "We are still busy collecting dead bodies from Musa Qala." Azimi also said an important Taliban meeting in the mountains of Sangin and Musa Qala district was also bombed, resulting in many casualties. [...]

[...] Far from just an important Taliban command post, Musa Qala was also a training base for both Afghan and foreign Islamist militants. Azimi has said hundreds of foreign terrorists had gathered there. That makes this week's victory a big win in the global war on terror.

On top of that, though, is the fact that the town was home to as many as 70 heroin labs, profits from which were used to fund Taliban terrorism. Afghanistan makes over 90% of the world's opium, more than half of which is grown in Helmand province. So chalk up a victory in the war on drugs, too. [...]

[...] Major media outlets are only too happy to report things falling apart in Afghanistan, while Democrats just complain that Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught yet. This week we saw all the signs of a major victory in the global war on terror, and a victory for freedom for the Afghan people. That's nothing to be quiet about.

Simply amazing and, this DAV now has a burning hatred for the Leftinistra and their idgits in the now defunct and untrustworthy once Main Stream Media.

Yes. It is time for Journalistic Malpractice to become a reality.

Sphere: Related Content

The Sins of the Lame Stream Media

~Snooper~

No matter the subject, there is always a "but". Straight shooting reporting has as all but vanished from the pages and screens of the once Main Stream Media. No, longer do we hear the "straight skinny" on any story unless the object of the story or, the subject of the story is hated or at a minimum, disliked for whatever reason. Gone are the once "worshiped" Ethics of Journalism: I will place the preamble in this post and will include the headings for the rest.

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Minimize Harm

Act Independently

Be Accountable

In all areas, the alleged Main Stream Media sorely fails in all regards.

In these modern times of instant gratification and information at our fingertips, there is no viable explanation as to why whenever there is good news to report, it goes largely ignored in the hopes that it will be over-shadowed by any amount of bad news which can be scrounged up.

[...] Why is it that the Democrats ad the MSM won't acknowledge this? Could it be that they have a vested interest in losing? The MSM, because that is how they have sold it, and the Democrats, because that is how they got elected...Both the MSM and the Democrats worked in tandem to get the message out: We will not be successful in Iraq. When evidence points to the contrary, silence, or people who should have remained silent or fired. When will this cone of silence be lifted? Could this be what Kristol was talking about? [...]

There are thousands of examples of the Lame Stream being "Rather" lame in their reporting. It stems from never having to be pressured to report the Real Deal. It stems from never having to be accountable to anyone before The New Media came into being.

NBC still chirps to the tune of their moppets that Iraq is still in a civil war. I guess they don't know what the definition of a civil war "IS". Go here for a piece I wrote some time ago. Therein, one will find the exact definitions of "civil war".

There never seems to be a balance in the current and modern day stories. It seems the once Main Stream dwell upon and wallow in negativities and a "woe is me" aura. We all know that there is Bad News as well as Good News. What is the harm in printing or airing both? Printing or airing one side to any story certainly violates the Ethics of Journalism. It leads one to believe that a prerequisite to be a journalist is to be unethical, biased and perform slanted reporting...just like our very own CONgress.

This sickness in the media isn't limited to the American Media...not by a long shot. The Guardian rarely if ever gets any story right the first time...just like TNR. Remember TNR?

Ray Robison says Good News from Iraq gets mauled by the NYT on a regular basis. Why is that? What harm is there to report on the Good News? What journalistic gravitas is there to dwell on Bad News and negativity? Isn't negativity against the mantra of Political Correctness?

Lynn Davidson reports on the incredulous Dishonest Journalists Award. Why does this even have to be? If journalists would be journalists and not the mouth pieces for their moppets, topics as this need not be.

The ethics of journalism has become the unethical misrepresentation of truth, justice and the American Way...at least here in the States. As I said earlier, unethical journalism isn't limited to the United States...it takes place in Canada as well.

Atlas Shrugs claims that the disease of journalistic ethical nose-dive into lies, deceit and more lies, is due to BDS. The nose-dive is also due to "former MSM" types forming "independent" leftist blogs. Some journalists so-called are very much and deeply invested in defeat for America due to their hatred of what this country stands for. If they don't like this country and what she stands for, I am with Mike Ditka...get the hell out and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Stop trying to change the country to suit your desires and wants when the majority of Americans demand the Traditional America to remain in tact.

Thank God for the milbloggers.

There is no viable reason and/or cause for the News Media to NOT talk and/or write or report on Iraq because the news is too good. This is an unethical practice and it infuriates me to no end and the old adage of "Bad news sells" is no longer acceptable. The only ones, or so it seems, that love to hear the bad news for America are the old hippies that haven't died off yet.

The LATimes committed an atrocity against the United States in regards to Military Families and the story was shown to be false...no apologies or retractions came forward. That was a clear violation of the Ethics of Journalism.

I have written extensively on this subject and it still never ceases to amaze me how many people tell me that such and such is so and true because it is in the newspaper on the evening news shows. We have shown that the vast majority of the journalists so-called give "liberally" to the DNC and their writings bolster that party time and time again...another clear violation of the Ethics of Journalism. I don't care who they give to...just report fairly and without the editorializing within the reports.

More journalistic insanity here, here, here, here, and here.

Sphere: Related Content

The New Republic Finally Admits They Cannot Stand By The Scott Thomas Beauchamp Fairy Tales

Cross posted from Wake up America cause Beth wants it and I think that anything beth wants, she should have!!!!

Finally, after all the tales were debunked and proven to be outright lies, The New Republic takes 14 pages to finally admit they cannot stand by the fairy tales manufactured by Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Thanks to Weekly Standard and milibloggers and bloggers everywhere, they could not continue to sweep this under the rug.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp created stories about atrocities in Iraq that never happened, many people spent countless hours debunking those claims while TNR refused to admit they had not done their due diligence in fact checking and verifying those diarists stories.

Four-in-a-half months later, in a rambling piece full of excuses and phony justifications, blaming everybody but himself for not doing his job, Franklin Foer finally gets around to admitting that he "cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them."

The new Republic's credibility= RIP

In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity--which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

The transcripts of a conversation in September, have been published online and Beaucamp did not stand by his story, he simply refused to speak of it at all. (Correction made)

Transcript one

Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that "I just want it to end. I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything really." The editors respond that "we just can't, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece" without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he "doesn't care what the public thinks." The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

Transcript two

"Memorandum for Record" in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army's investigation -- that his stories contained "gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct" by his fellow soldiers.

Army Investigation

The Army concluded that Beauchamp had "completely fabricated" the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was "completely unfounded." Further the report stated "that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway."

The report concludes that "Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption."

More from the American Pundit and, Hot Air goes through some of the most interesting quotes from the 14 pages of drivel.


Previously from the beginning of this saga to the end:

Serious Questions Deserve Serious Answers: Scott Thomas and TNR
Scott Thomas, John Kerry and the lies people tell
Scott Thomas and TNR Update
Followup on Scott Thomas and TNR: Story false
Hopefully the End to the TNR and Scott Thomas Saga: UPDATED & Bumped
So, I guess TNR and Scott Thomas AREN'T going to go away
TNR, Scott Thomas and Slate:Update CY debunks ANOTHER TNR claim
Quick TNR/Scott Thomas Update
I Don't Think TNR Got "Suckered", I Think They Just Suck
Final Chapter of Scott Thomas Beauchamp and TNR lies

This should end the fairy tale......then again, you never know.

.

Sphere: Related Content

Good News Isn't News, Bad News Is Bad News and No News Is Good News: UPDATED with Wright's Response

[Update below with Robin Wright's [Wapo] response to my email from her contact form which is linked below]

The new rules of Journalism, admitted by Robin Wright from Wapo and Barbara Starr from CNN to Howard Kurtz. (Video below)

I am SO glad we now know those new rules and how Wapo and CNN determine what is and what is not appropriate to tell American viewers. (Although we already knew that CNN much prefers to report things that they have, admittedly, obtained from terrorist)

Huge hat tip to NewsBusters.

Increasing casualties: news. Declining casualties: not news.

From NewsBusters:

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

[...]

Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Go read the rest of the transcript over at NewsBusters.

Amazing.

This leads us to the next, logical question which is: What is the reason that the good news from Iraq isn't being told to the American people, and is, in fact, deliberately being hidden from the American people?

The Jawa Report shows one possible reason:

So only report the enemy's news, and not ours. It's not like we need to have a more complete and balanced picture of what's going on in Iraq, is it MSM? Gotta get those anti-war Democrats into the White House, after all!

Kudos to Kurtz for asking the questions and showing the reports of the progress in Iraq.

Back to NewsBusters:

And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

Anyone still idiotic enough to try to deny liberal media bias now, from Wapo and CNN?

It seems Robin Wright from Washington Post and Barbara Starr from CNN, both need a refresher course on Journalistic Ethics:

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of
writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of
the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months
of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the
American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi
wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

If you would like to email Robin Wright from Washington Post a copy of these Journalistic Ethics, here is her email contact form.

Feel free to send CNN an email so also with a copy of the Code of Ethics they are obviously ignoring using this contact form page.

Perhaps mention to them that we would like all the news, not just the news they wish to cherry pick and that we do not appreciate them deliberately hiding the good news from Iraq.

Thanks!!!

[Update] I used those contact forms above and emailed CNN and Robin Wright from Wapo, letting them know that we, as Americans, would like to hear ALL the news coming from Iraq, not just the bad and not just the trends and CNN has not responded yet, but Ms. Wright did.

Robin Wright's response:

Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright

Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883

Now, I never mentioned "victory" in my original email to her, via her contact form", yet her claim that before she can report "differently" [good news from Iraq] depends on them reaching of "irreversible momentum" show her incredible bias as well as her complete ignorance of the Codes of Ethics journalists are supposed to use as their guidelines.

This is what is called reporting now folks.... is it any wonder that the new media is often getting the "scoops" on the dinosaur media?

My response to her email:

No one asked you to report a "trend" Ms. Wright, just a complete picture of the news. Good news IS news to Americans and as a journalist, your job is to bring us ALL the news and you have failed to do that because you are waiting for a irreversible "trend"?

That is disgusting and I will be posting this on MY blog, others I contribute too as well as that "excuse" you just emailed me.

Americans expect better from our reporters and you have failed us miserably on this issue.

Have a nice day,

Susan Duclos

What are you folks waiting for... weigh in using her contact form and let her know whether waiting for the "irreversible momentum" is a good excuse for hiding the good news coming from Iraq, from you!

[Update] Is it any wonder we are distrustful of the media today? Gallup.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans in America today remain deeply distrustful of the national news media -- in sharp contrast to Democrats, who have a great deal more trust in the media's accuracy. Overall, less than half of Americans, regardless of partisanship, have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media. Nearly half of Americans -- including over three-quarters of Republicans -- perceive the media as too liberal while fewer than one in five say the media are too conservative. Americans are less likely to perceive bias in their local news media than in the national news media.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Sphere: Related Content