This story has legs

[HB1965]

Hey Man!

Thanks for the bump!



You lost all your credibility in two lines:

* It wasn't very widespread.
* It was almost completely ineffective (the Wright story wasn't buried at all).


"This is stupidity at its most sublime." Yes, indeed.

What? Wait! The Wright story was buried? Then how come most of the damn world knows about it?

Because he's right, it wasn't buried. You're the one who's the embodiment of stupidity.
Oh please, if there is a left wing media it's in response to the creation of a right wing one

 

[MeeMie]

Damn straight. Down with Andrew Breitbart!

Hardly comparative chump change.

 

[unregistered]

 

[statsultan]

[Breitbart and Journolist are] Hardly comparative chump change.

Really? Here're the statements I quoted from the article that you yourself posted in this thread.

#1. They have failed to satisfy the most basic standards not only of journalism (where fairness should be given a special focus) but of civilized human life.

The most basic standards of journalism - like verifying the accuracy and validity of the material you publish before, you know, actually publishing it? How about at least making the attempt to verify?

Breitbart received an edited version of a taped speech by a black USDA worker. It had been edited to make it appear as though she decided whether to utilize the resources of the US Gov't to help a farmer based on race. Breitbart knew it was an edited version of the speech. He made no attempt to find the original. He did not demand from his source the original. Instead, he published it. And the White House acted quickly in firing Sherrod because they made the mistaken assumption that Breitbart knew and exercised the most basic standards of journalism. Now we all see that Breitbart doesn't.


#2. It is by holding such people accountable that we as a society signal what sorts of behavior we will tolerate. Smear campaigns rooted in unjust charges of racism are obviously not to be tolerated.

Breitbart's story smeared Sherrod's good name, calling her a racist. When in fact the speech she was making was about events 25 years earlier, showing how she was able to overcome viewing the world by race (justified, I would think, from having the KKK kill her father) to see that race no longer matters in today's America.

But it certainly matters to Breitbart, doesn't it?

I think the comparison was apt, using your own source's argument too.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Really? Here're the statements I quoted from the article that you yourself posted in this thread.

#1. They have failed to satisfy the most basic standards not only of journalism (where fairness should be given a special focus) but of civilized human life.

The most basic standards of journalism - like verifying the accuracy and validity of the material you publish before, you know, actually publishing it? How about at least making the attempt to verify?

Breitbart received an edited version of a taped speech by a black USDA worker. It had been edited to make it appear as though she decided whether to utilize the resources of the US Gov't to help a farmer based on race. Breitbart knew it was an edited version of the speech. He made no attempt to find the original. He did not demand from his source the original. Instead, he published it. And the White House acted quickly in firing Sherrod because they made the mistaken assumption that Breitbart knew and exercised the most basic standards of journalism. Now we all see that Breitbart doesn't.


#2. It is by holding such people accountable that we as a society signal what sorts of behavior we will tolerate. Smear campaigns rooted in unjust charges of racism are obviously not to be tolerated.

Breitbart's story smeared Sherrod's good name, calling her a racist. When in fact the speech she was making was about events 25 years earlier, showing how she was able to overcome viewing the world by race (justified, I would think, from having the KKK kill her father) to see that race no longer matters in today's America.

But it certainly matters to Breitbart, doesn't it?

I think the comparison was apt, using your own source's argument too.

Breitbart is a journalist? I don't think so.

 

[Wrong Element]

Really? Here're the statements I quoted from the article that you yourself posted in this thread.

#1. They have failed to satisfy the most basic standards not only of journalism (where fairness should be given a special focus) but of civilized human life.

The most basic standards of journalism - like verifying the accuracy and validity of the material you publish before, you know, actually publishing it? How about at least making the attempt to verify?

Breitbart received an edited version of a taped speech by a black USDA worker. It had been edited to make it appear as though she decided whether to utilize the resources of the US Gov't to help a farmer based on race. Breitbart knew it was an edited version of the speech. He made no attempt to find the original. He did not demand from his source the original. Instead, he published it. And the White House acted quickly in firing Sherrod because they made the mistaken assumption that Breitbart knew and exercised the most basic standards of journalism. Now we all see that Breitbart doesn't.


#2. It is by holding such people accountable that we as a society signal what sorts of behavior we will tolerate. Smear campaigns rooted in unjust charges of racism are obviously not to be tolerated.

Breitbart's story smeared Sherrod's good name, calling her a racist. When in fact the speech she was making was about events 25 years earlier, showing how she was able to overcome viewing the world by race (justified, I would think, from having the KKK kill her father) to see that race no longer matters in today's America.

But it certainly matters to Breitbart, doesn't it?

I think the comparison was apt, using your own source's argument too.

Libel cases are awfully hard to prove, and I think that's mostly a good thing. The hardest standard to meet is proving what's called actual malice--printing something that is not only false, but it is known to be false--or disseminating information without making any sort of effort to determine its veracity (such as putting a clearly edited snippet of a speech on your website without determining the full context of the speech, or even knowing who your benefactor is).

I think Sherrod just may have a libel case against Breitbart. Was the charge against her false? Yes. Was it defamatory? Calling someone a racist clearly qualifies. Was there actual malice involved? Kinda looks that way.

 

[MeeMie]

What? Wait! The Wright story was buried? Then how come most of the damn world knows about it?

Because he's right, it wasn't buried. You're the one who's the embodiment of stupidity.
Oh please, if there is a left wing media it's in response to the creation of a right wing one

FOX mainly.

You know, the single news network that covered conservative viewpoints fairly balanced, which you would most likely interpret as "a right wing one".


The main street ObamaMedia articles downplayed Obama's association with Wright, contrary to volumes of proof to assert otherwise.




I guess you didn't read the links provided where the JournoList group, comprised of main stream media players, tried to kill the story by not reporting on it.

No, didn't think so.
That's the best way to preserve your ignorance ... just refuse to acknowledge or consider possibilities that differ from your own opinions.




It's being reported all over the place, really.

Seriously, I'm surprised you missed it.




The Rev. Wright Media Cover-Up

How the media conspired to get Obama elected


From 2007 until last month, some 300 liberal journalists and policy wonks exchanged ideas and commentary on a secret, off-the-record Internet email group called JournoList.

It was shut down after portions leaked, leading to the resignation of Washington Post writer David Weigel last month over his intemperate criticism of conservatives he was covering.

But someone who belonged to JournoList continues to leak information from its archives, providing a fascinating glimpse into how some liberal journalists coordinate their story lines to protect their favorite politicians and ideas.

The Daily Caller website reports that at several times during the 2008 presidential race, "employees of news organizations including Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the Washington Independent, The New York Times, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Barack Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage."

Some of the comments will no doubt revive conservative allegations of a liberal news media conspiracy. Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, now at Wired, urged fellow journalists to kill the story of Mr. Obama's ties to the controversial Revered Jeremiah Wright by going after some of his critics. "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists," he urged. "What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."

Chris Hayes of the Nation magazine urged "those in the ostensible mainstream media" who were on the list to ignore the Rev. Wright story. He insisted the real issue had nothing to do with Mr. Obama's pastor and instead "has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country."

Apparently, many on JournoList had an agenda that had little to do with covering legitimate news stories, but instead were concerned with protecting their friends and trying to ensure they had "control of the country."





Liberal Journalists Plotted to Protect Obama From Rev. Wright Scandal


A group of liberal journalists in 2008 sought to sweep under the rug the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal that threatened to derail then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign...

The documents offer evidence to conservative critics who have long held that the mainstream media were in the tank for Obama, and bolsters the argument that reporters with major news outlets are biased in their coverage.


As opposed to Chicago news:

Wright offering fresh fodder to Obama critics

The controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Sen. Barack Obama's pastor -- is speaking Monday at the National Press Club as part of a divinity conference of black church leaders.

Wright's decision to headline an event at the Press Club -- open to all media -- risks giving Obama's critics more fodder, as if they don't have enough already.

Fresh material from Wright -- no matter how well-intended -- is not what Obama needs.

Fox News has been all over Wright -- helicopter shots of his Tinley Park mansion under construction -- and host Bill O'Reilly has been pounding Obama over Wright regularly on his show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlLv00Ww_CI

 

[MeeMie]

Breitbart is a journalist? I don't think so.

He fails to realize that a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States being protected from negative reporting by numerous main stream news outlets isn't comparable to an online opinion commentary video showing a woman, who is a federal USDA official appointed by the administration, filmed in March 2010 at a NAACP event, explaining her racial bias explicitly, and the video originally presented was shortened to exclude that she stated she overcame it eventually,

 

[RightField]

Thank you for this thread. It's nice to have news of this media cabal all in one place. It is interesting reading.

 

[Ham Murabi]

This sums it up nicely:


Dezinformatsia: Leftmedia Spiked Campaign Stories

It should come as much more of a surprise than it does: a liberal media plot to protect then-Senator Barack Obama from the Jeremiah Wright scandal. Sadly, for those of us who have followed the coverage of Obama's campaign and his subsequent acts as president, the only surprise is the explicitness of the evidence and how it came to light.

The Daily Caller, an online political journal founded by conservative-libertarian Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson, recently uncovered documents in which journalists from such notable publications as The Washington Post, Time, Politico, Baltimore Sun, the Guardian and the New Republic conspired how best to deflect the public attention from Obama's relationship with "Reverend" Wright. Their answer: Run a smear campaign against Obama's conservative critics, below the belt and without regard to truth or fundamental journalistic ethics.

"What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left," wrote Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent. "[L]et the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. ... If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists."

Apparently the above were peeved when ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had the nerve to ask Sen. Obama "tough questions" during one of his debates with fellow candidate Hillary Clinton, so they plotted on "Journolist," an exclusive online forum for leftist media. "This isn't about defending Obama," wrote Michael Tomasky of the Guardian, "This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people." Only a liberal could argue that he is burying information in the interest of "discourse that actually serves the people." It'd be comical, were it not so shamefully despicable.

Journolist was shut down last month after a leak exposed the liberal bias of David Weigel, the Washington Post's blogger covering the conservative movement. The information is still flowing from its archives, however, including the involvement in the "discourse" of Jared Bernstein, who became Vice President Biden's top economist. Apparently, a little ethical lapse here and there was worth gaining, as they put it, "control of the country."

 

[MeeMie]

The Racist Rorschach Test


“Why is there no socialism in America?” German philosopher Werner Sombart famously asked more than a century ago. It was not for lack of trying. New Harmony, Brook Farm, Oneida, and scores of other 19th Century communes underscored the effort, though ultimately the failure, of socialism in the New World.

Lacking the class conflict of Europe, and offering an abundance of opportunity, America proved an inhospitable soil on which to grow the alien doctrine. Sombart concluded: “All Socialist utopias came to nothing on roast beef and apple pie.”

Dividing America between the “haves” and the “have-nots” proved a fool’s errand in a country where the factory worker wanted not to kill the foreman, but to be the foreman. This hasn’t stopped the left from repeatedly trying.

Fired (and perhaps soon rehired) Department of Agriculture worker Shirley Sherrod’s speech, in which she conveyed how she overcame seeing the world through a racial lens by seeing it through a class lens, is the latest instance of a public figure embracing class division as a defensible, nay, laudable outlook.


Ginning up class hatred doesn’t do in America what it does in class-conscious Europe. Race, which is more central to the American experience, has traditionally been far easier to exploit for political gain.



The Obama Administration has brazenly demagogued race for the entirety of its term.

Rather than paying off politically, crying “racism” seems a sign that liberals are losing the argument.



The debate over an increased federal role in healthcare seemed to have little to do with race. But Obama’s supporters found a way to make it about race.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid likened opponents of the bill to proponents of slavery. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus melodramatically performed a civil-rights-movement-mimic march to the Capitol prior to the vote, during which Rep. John Lewis heard himself called the N-word 15 times but the arsenal of recording equipment chronicling the media circus failed to it pick up even once.

Immigration is at least tangentially connected to race, but even when the Arizona state legislature explicitly excluded race as a factor to investigate whether a detainee is here illegally, leftists still made it about race. Guitarist Tom Morello explained, “Rage [Against the Machine] is playing just one show in North America this year, and the reason we’re doing it is to stand up against legislation that just reminds me of the worst aspects of apartheid.”

The Tea Party movement has been transfixed on smaller government, cutting taxes, and fidelity to the Constitution. Nevertheless, opponents of the Tea Parties have made the Tea Parties about race, too. “The Tea Party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches,” opines Salon.com’s Joan Walsh. For anyone who found that assessment too subtle, Walsh adds that the movement is “the spawn of George Wallace racism.” Comedienne Janeane Garofalo explains, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”



The spastic invocation of racism at every turn serves those afflicted with Political Tourrette’s Syndrome. They elevate themselves to a noble moral plane as they relegate opponents to the gutter.

This comforting tactic allows them to dismiss rather than engage the arguments of their ignoble adversaries, lest they sully themselves by getting in the gutter too. It’s a massive dodge.



Like a psychiatrist’s sex-on-the-brain patient who sees his fetish in whatever ink blot passes before his eyes, liberals answer every Rorschach test with “racism.”

Out-of-power Tea Partiers seeking to cut government spending? “Racists!”

Exasperated Arizonans hoping to secure their border with Mexico? “Racists!”

Protestors on the National Mall demonstrating against Obamacare? “Racists!”



The tactic is not only morally indefensible but politically ineffective.

A new CBS News poll reports that 74% of Americans believe Arizona’s new immigration law is “about right” or “doesn’t go far enough.”

A Rasmussen poll of a week ago shows that 56% of Americans favor repeal of Obamacare while just 38% wish to keep it.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce poll from earlier this month found that 78% of Americans are “concerned” or “very concerned” over the growth of government. As one side cathartically calls its adversaries name, the other side has successfully made its case to the American people.



A century ago, American Socialists quixotically seeking to establish the United States of Socialism mistook the history of Europe for their own country. Race-obsessed leftists similarly mistake 19th Century America with contemporary America. Just as leftists of a hundred years past didn’t know what continent they lived on, today’s leftists are clueless about which century they live.

 

[MeeMie]

Race Card Fraud

by Thomas Sowell



Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race card fraud is an even bigger problem.

Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.

No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons-- and it worked.



This year's target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.

All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.

When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable-- indeed, unbelievable-- that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.


The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.

This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race card fraud is especially painful to see.

Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.


Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.


Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.

Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.

On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.

As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.

You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer-- Ring Lardner, I believe-- once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."

You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody-- even the members of Congress-- to know what was in those bills.

Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.

Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.

A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.

Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn't know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future.

Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.

 

[MeeMie]

ObamaMedia Exposed Again

GE Execs Encouraged CNBC Staff to Go Easy on Obama


On last night's 'O'Reilly Factor,' Fox Business Network, reporter Charlie Gasparino claimed that during his time at CNBC, General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt suggested to senior CNBC staff that they were being too hard on President Obama.


Gasparino did not say that it became official CNBC policy to tone down criticism of the president. But he claimed that "the question of whether they were being fair to the president was brought up" and that he had "never heard that before."

Keep in mind that at the time GE stood to make a whole lot of money from some of Obama's key policies. NBC and its affiliates have conspicuously shilled for such policies before.


Even absent an official NBC or CNBC policy on criticizing the president, the incident demonstrates a profound lack of journalistic neutrality.

There has always been a looming conflict of interest at GE's television arm. The possibility that higher-ups suggested reporters go easy on the president raises all sorts of questions about the abilities of NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC to fairly and accurately report the news.



http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnzkUSUuz

O'REILLY: You worked at CNBC, that's a business network.

GASPARINO: Sometimes opinion.

O'REILLY: Did you see left-wing stuff there?

GASPARINO: Well it was interesting. There was - and it turned out to be true, I think the New York Post reported it - there was this issue where Jeff Immelt, chairman of GE, which used to own NBC Universal, called in some of the senior staff, and clearly was worried, according to the people I spoke to who were in that meeting, about the possibility that we were becoming too anti-administration. This was when the Obama administration first took over, and some of the spending plans came out, and the markets reacted.

O'REILLY: So Immelt himself intruded on the editorial position of CNBC because he felt that you weren't giving Obama a fair shake?

GASPARINO: They will deny it, officially, but from what I understand, and I spoke with people there, people got called into this meeting, and they were basically, not exactly read the riot act, but the question of whether they were being fair to the president was brought up. I've never heard that before.​

The most interesting aspect of Gasparino's claim is the circumstances under which CNBC's editorial position was reportedly brought into question.

Gasparino is claiming that when the Obama administration first released its spending plans, markets reacted poorly, and CNBC, being a business network, reported those facts and, presumably, opined that Obama's spending plans had something to do with poor market activity.

But General Electric at the time was hoping to profit handsomely from policies that would benefit a few companies, including GE, at the expense of the majority of the economy.

Cap and trade is a perfect example.

According to the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney, "GE has also launched a venture dealing in 'greenhouse gas credits,' which are literally worthless until Congress starts limiting greenhouse gas emissions." GE has extensive investments in alternative energies, the values of which would skyrocket under a plan making fossil fuels more expensive.

Cap and trade will hurt most businesses by raising the cost of energy, which in turn raises the cost of just about everything. So while GE stands to gain, most businesses stand to lose.

GE has invested in government, so to speak. It has made investments that will only pay off if and when the federal government intervenes. So while the larger business community may be crying out for a free market, GE stands to make far more money in a decidedly unfree market (at least in a few prominent sectors).

If CNBC were to channel the attitude of the business community generally on many prominent Obama initiatives, it would actually be running against the grain of its parent company's financial interests.



All of this makes Immelt's intervention in CNBC editorial policy very fishy. It once again raises the specter of a massive conflict of interest at General Electric's communications arm.

Yet even reporters and commentators who claim concern about journalistic ethics - especially when it comes to "corporate media" - have adopted a see-no-evil attitude towards this conflict.

NBC's Matthew Sheffield wrote in 2008:

We often hear lefties rage against Rupert Murdoch for allegedly harming the objectivity of his employees by forcing his "right-wing" politics on them. At the same time, however, our journalistic bluenoses routinely turn a blind eye to flagrant corporate-sponsored journalism such as "Green is Universal campaign" or the equally disturbing case of an Australian company literally banning its employees from criticizing its own "Earth Hour" campaign.

We all know the reason why media-beat reporters are unconcerned by such actions of course. It's because they support liberal policy goals. Sadly, in the eyes of many left-leaning journalists, good journalism is liberal journalism.

As troubling as the fact that NBC News has willingly prostrated itself before its corporate master is, it's probably less disturbing than the fact that the entire "Green" campaign seems to have been cooked up by NBC Universal's own parent company, General Electric, as a way to make money for itself...

Is "green" journalism the new yellow journalism? It's sure starting to look that way. The slogan for the campaign is "Awareness. Activation. Results." A news company should not be trying to lobby for "results." NBC and MSNBC owe viewers a tremendous apology.
​

Add CNBC to that list, but don't expect an apology




* General Electric and CEO Jeff Immelt paid ZERO taxes in 2009
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=33903085&postcount=151



...

 

[MeeMie]

On and on .......

Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit


The lack of access for White House beat reporters has become a sore spot between the White House press office and the White House Correspondents Association, which has complained that Mr. Obama is too stingy in granting interviews to the people who might know his administration best.

Some have special privileges.

Mr. Obama invited a group of only about a dozen White House reporters to have lunch with him on Thursday.

There was one catch: they couldn’t write about it because the lunch had to be "off the record".



The "off-the-record" event is something the president has done in the recent past with mostly liberal-leaning columnists and pundits. Mr. Obama has hosted the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS, Gloria Borger of CNN and Gail Collins of The Times at previous "off the record" gatherings.



The White House reporters who were invited are keeping quiet about their "off-the-record" lunch today with President Obama — even those at news organizations who've advocated in the past for the White House to release the names of visitors agreed to keep details of the lunch secret.


Note the irony that news organizations have been at the forefront of the fight to make White House visitor logs public. Virtually every newspaper that covers the White House filed briefs for exposure in that argument.


Here's the lineup attending:
Ben Feller (Associated Press), Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler (Wall Street Journal), Michael Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post), Caren Bohan (Reuters), David Jackson (USA Today), Carol Lee (Politico), Peter Nicholas (Tribune Co.), Margaret Talev (McClatchy) and Julianna Goldman (Bloomberg).


Readers here likely have memories of certain of the above reporters going out of their way to protect Barack Obama or to bash President Bush.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to keep an special eye on each of the lunch's attendees for the next few months.



One other thought:

Things are pretty bad in journalism when the security-leak sieve known as the New York Times leads the way in ethics by declining the invitation and choosing not to participate in the "off-the-record" luncheon.



I wonder if they have secret decoder rings now.

 

[MeeMie]

Internet ObamaMedia Worst Case Sample


12 Hottest Politicians Wives

Guess who's in the first spot? LOL!



1) Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama – half of the coolest couple on the face of the Earth and possibly the most beautiful first lady ever. Standing at 5′11”, she’s as tall as a supermodel, she’s a trained lawyer and she is an icon of style. Would you rather get stuck in an elevator with this lady or with Barbara Bush? Without a shadow of a doubt, we know which way we’d swing.






Worth reading just for the comments. : (unanimous disagreement)

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/08/popcrunch-tells.html#more

 

[MeeMie]

A wonderful new trend!

The AP is actually starting to fact check Obama's bullshit:


Finally, the AP notices the whiff of the flip-flop on the surge, and wonders why Obama didn’t bother to explain it:

Obama is reciting almost the exact language of the Bush administration’s rationale for the Iraq surge: to buy time and space for the Iraqis to reach political accommodations and to strengthen their own security forces.

That’s quite a change from Obama’s stand as a presidential candidate, when he criticized it.

Obama seems to be embracing the troop surge logic now, even though it’s clear that the Iraqis have yet to achieve the necessary level of reconciliation to form an enduring government.

If he had to explain it, then he would have had to credit George W. Bush for implementing it and defying Democrats to stick with the plan — including then-Senator Barack Obama.

Apparently, that was a task that proved too much for our current Commander in Chief.

 

[MeeMie]

Obama’s Electioneers:
Documentary to Reveal the Extent of 2008 Voter Fraud





The New Black Panther case?

That type of behavior didn't just happen on Election Day. It was rampant during the Democratic primaries.




I am a documentary filmmaker, a Democrat.

During the 2008 primaries, I was asked by a former congressional investigator to watch for and document any voter fraud occurring in the Democratic Party caucuses. Complaints had been filed, claims that Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote but lost the caucus vote.

What I witnessed in Texas — and later in many other states — were things I could never forgive.

The New Black Panther case — think that was an isolated incident? It certainly wasn’t. That type of lawless behavior got started in the primaries.

I listened to first-hand accounts of Obama’s supporters threatening Clinton’s. I heard accounts of Obama supporters stopping fellow Democrats from voting Hillary by any means possible — intimidation, locking doors to prevent entry, sending elderly voters to the wrong address, putting false start times on buildings, fabricating counts, using false information on caucus sign-in sheets, even stealing and altering caucus results.

I recorded eyewitness accounts of people being bussed in from out of state to caucus in Indiana.

And in Kansas.

And Iowa.

I heard of addresses and names being copied out of the phone book to nudge the results towards Obama.

I heard of Obama supporters being allowed to vote without ID. Heard of Hillary voters being flat-out lied to: told they were not on the list and unable to vote, when they were.

In El Paso, at a 13-delegate precinct, Obama supporters attempted to award him 19 delegates.

I was horrified that this was occurring in America and that it would continue on at the Democratic National Convention.

Worst of all, our protected free press was nowhere to be found: Hillary’s team tried to alert the media, but very few listened.

Caucuses are undemocratic — politicians know this, but not all Americans, and you simply must.

The documentary has a clip of Gloria Allred saying: “Lets get a Democrat in the White House, and then we will take care of the caucus.”

http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

This has, of course, not occurred — in fact, quite the opposite.

A DNC committee co-chaired by Claire McCaskill has since voted to establish more caucuses, minimizing what transpired and disenfranchising the thousands of voters who sent complaints to Howard Dean, the DNC chair at the time.



Why did a party, why did our country tolerate this behavior, which deserved nothing less than a protest march on Washington?

Are this many Americans comfortable with abandoning the foundation of our republic?



In 2008, most of my fellow Democrats cared about nothing more than winning the presidency and anointing this Senator Obama their savior.

The liberal press, the Democratic Party, and the Obama fraudsters chose victory over truth.



Dr. Lynette Long performed a study on caucus fraud, and her discovered accounts are devastating. Her site and mine link a complaint letter from the Hillary Clinton team to Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby, alleging:

There was a premeditated and predesigned plan by the Obama campaign to engage in systematic corruption of the Party caucus procedures. Compounding this blatant distortion of the caucus rules was an egregious effort by the Obama campaign to manipulate the voter registration process in its own favor, thereby disenfranchising voters.


Look out for my documentary, and know that what happened in 2008 will happen again this year.


I hear Republican bravado lately, talk of taking back Congress — they better be on guard in November. This historical chapter of rampant Democratic Party voter fraud is still being written.

 

[RightField]

Nice legs.

Want to talk about Journolist again?

 

[MeeMie]

* General Electric, MSNBC and CEO Jeff Immelt paid
ZERO taxes in 2009

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=33903085&postcount=151

And here's the price for googlewashing and their youtube editing:


Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes

Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...illion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

 

[MeeMie]

This friggin asshole has no shame whatsoever...


After news of Google tax dodges,
Obama raises money with Google execs



On the day it was reported that Google uses income shifting techniques known by such arcane names as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich" to avoid paying taxes on its foreign profits, President Obama attended an intimate, high-dollar fundraiser at the Palo Alto, California home of a top Google executive.

He didn't mention Google's tax tricks, according to a White House transcript of his remarks.

The Democratic fundraiser, which guests each paid $30,400 to attend, was at the home of Marissa Mayer, one of Google's best-known executives. At the lavish home, which was "decked out in Halloween decorations on steroids," according to a White House pool report, Obama spoke briefly and had nothing but praise for Google. He spoke fondly of his first visit to the company when he was an Illinois state senator. And of his work as president dealing with the recession, he said, "My task over the last two years hasn’t just been to stop the bleeding. My task has also been to try to figure out how do we address some of the structural problems in the economy that have prevented more Googles from being created…"

(Although founded in the 1990s, Google went public and prospered enormously in the years that Obama and his fellow Democrats characterize as an economic disaster.)


Google, according to a report by Bloomberg News, has used paper transactions to shift $3.1 billion of its income to Bermuda and other low-tax havens in recent years.

The company's aggressive use of such tax dodges has reduced its overseas tax rate to just 2.4 percent.


"Google has cut its effective tax rate abroad more than its peers in the technology sector," Bloomberg reports. "Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue."



In the past, Obama has been sharply critical of companies that move their income around the globe to avoid paying taxes.

But with Google, whose employees give an estimated 75 percent of their political contributions to Democrats -- well, the president didn't have much to say about taxes.


Google gave $456,119 in political contributions, 75 percent of which went to Democrats.







...

 

[RightField]

Dems are all about favortism....and you don't have to be in a union to qualify!

 

[MeeMie]

GOOGLEWASHING redux

This is just the tip of the iceberg:



Watchdog wants probe of Google's 'unusually close' ties to Obama



As House Republicans plan an ambitious oversight agenda for the next session of Congress, a watchdog group is calling for a probe into a company that it says is far too cozy with the Obama administration: Google.


The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a group that advocates for a smaller and more ethical government, wrote to leaders of the House Oversight Committee this month urging them to investigate a major privacy breach by Google. It wants to know if the company's ties to the administration helped it dodge penalties after the incident.


The group also urges a look at Google's ties to the administration more generally, pointing to what it calls "a growing body of evidence" that shows the administration's "unusually close relationship with Google has resulted in favoritism towards the company on federal policy issues."


The NLPC letter encourages House Oversight Chairman Edolphus Towns (N.Y) and ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) to pick up where it believes federal regulators fell short in investigating Google's Wi-Fi privacy breach.


After Google admitted last month that it collected and stored private user information, including passwords and entire e-mails, from Wi-Fi networks, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) closed an inquiry into the issue, citing promises from the company that it would improve its privacy practices.


But NLPC alleges that Google's political clout might be the real reason the FTC dropped the probe. "Google has an exceptionally close relationship with the current administration," the letter says.


"There is another deeply disturbing aspect to the FTC’s decision," Kenneth Boehm, the NLPC chairman, writes in the letter to Capitol Hill. "Less than a week before Google’s announcement, President Obama went to the home of Google executive Marissa Mayer for a $30,000-per-person Democratic Party fundraiser."

Boehm calls for the House to "conduct a fair and dispassionate investigation as to any linkage in these three events: the fundraiser, Google’s disclosure and the FTC’s action."

He cites instances where the FTC may have been tougher on other companies, including Twitter, Sears and CVS, which were fined for privacy breaches in the last two years.


Boehm mounted six pages of evidence arguing that Google is too close to the Obama administration, including the fact that Andrew McLaughlin, a former Google employee, is now the U.S. deputy chief technology officer.


"The FTC’s decision to close its investigation into Google’s unauthorized gathering of private data through its Google Street View program is troubling enough. But looked at in the context of this Administration’s extraordinarily close relationship with Google, no fair-minded person could look at the record so far and not believe that further investigation is warranted," the letter says.

Google has apologized for the privacy breach, saying it collected the private data by accident. That claim has prompted skepticism from privacy advocates and at least one lawmaker. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said last week that he thought Google's actions were intentional. He said he would likely investigate Google's Wi-Fi breach if he were to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a position he is campaigning for.

Issa, who has promised a thorough investigative agenda when he ascends to the top of the House Oversight Committee, has previously worked to shed light on ties between Google and the administration.



http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/128455-google-clout-with-obama-administration-deserves-an-investigation-watchdog-says

 

[MeeMie]

It's refreshing to see that lately ObamaMedia is starting to report the negative aspects offsetting their usual blind adoration.


Bam AWOL on Vets Day


Today is Veterans Day. Do you know where your president is?

With his feeble flame of "hope" thoroughly doused here in the United States by last week's elections, President Obama has set out around the globe in search of throngs still enthralled by his flowery rhetoric.

He found them, of course, in Indonesia this week by telling them about how Americans must stop mistrusting Islam.

So that is why your president is halfway around the world instead of being here in the United States to celebrate the sacrifices American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made around the world to keep the real, still-burning flame of freedom alive.

Obama honored our veterans from afar by laying a wreath during a ceremony at an Army base in South Korea last night.

That is a distance from here matched only by the chasm that has opened up between him and the voters who elected him two years ago.

This aloofness of his really is becoming a problem.

Not that Obama doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of veterans. He absolutely does. Just ask the Indonesians.

He was in Jakarta for their Heroes Day this week to honor their veterans "who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country."

"This great country," of course, being Indonesia.

"When my stepfather was a boy, he watched his own father and older brother leave home to fight and die in the struggle for Indonesian independence," Obama told the audience.

And the White House wonders why so many people think there is something foreign about this guy.

In the same speech, Obama gave voice to a harsh criticism he has heard about freely elected governments.

"Today, we sometimes hear that democracy stands in the way of economic progress," he said.

The shocking statement raises the question:
Where has Obama heard this fatuous claim and with whom has he been talking politics?

Thankfully, your president tepidly disputed this calumny against democracy, but the alarming questions remain. He went on to tell the Indonesians, "Democracy is messy."

"Not everyone likes the results of every election. You go through ups and downs," he said.

At least it sounds like Obama is starting to get the message voters sent him last week.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_awol_on_vets_day_IxEoyioHbtjAsNjGmbZoIP

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

Didn't he do the same thing last year?

Yup ... must be a scheduling problem.

Ask the Boy Scouts.