Why is the media wasting so much time on this?

[spence]

What's interesting about this is the pattern of behavior it highlights.

Right wing bloggers fabricate stories, then launder them though a series of "news" site like Brietbart and Druge where they get massive National play sending conservative bloggers into a tizzy.

FOX News then picks up the story, pounding it into sand across nearly all their shows, without doing any fact checking.

Story is then revealed as a deke, quietly goes away and no apologies or retractions are given. The damage though, has already been done.

Shameful.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What's interesting about this is the pattern of behavior it highlights.

Right wing bloggers fabricate stories, then launder them though a series of "news" site like Brietbart and Druge where they get massive National play sending conservative bloggers into a tizzy.

FOX News then picks up the story, pounding it into sand across nearly all their shows, without doing any fact checking.

Story is then revealed as a deke, quietly goes away and no apologies or retractions are given. The damage though, has already been done.

Shameful.

-spence

that opinion is completely fabricated....Hilarious

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

that observation is completely validated....Hilarious

Fixed.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What's interesting about this is the pattern of behavior it highlights.

Right wing bloggers fabricate stories, then launder them though a series of "news" site like Brietbart and Druge where they get massive National play sending conservative bloggers into a tizzy.

FOX News then picks up the story, pounding it into sand across nearly all their shows, without doing any fact checking.

Story is then revealed as a deke, quietly goes away and no apologies or retractions are given. The damage though, has already been done.

Shameful.

-spence

It may be a long while, but there may be a time when your "centrist" self opines. We may differ on what is "fabricated," but isn't this the "pattern of behavior" on the left as well as the right?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It may be a long while, but there may be a time when your "centrist" self opines. We may differ on what is "fabricated," but isn't this the "pattern of behavior" on the left as well as the right?

when the left...from Obama on down is pointing their finger and accusing vehemently of some transgression....it generally means that they themselves are engaged in the exact behavior and are creating false outrage to move attention away from themselves...they do it all of the time...and the problem is that they generally go WAY overboard and look rediculous as Spence has aptly demonstrated...

ya Know...if Obama would just issue an executive order shutting down Fox news, Drudge and the right wing blogosphere.....I'm sure that everything would be great suddenly...the economy would bounce back, we'd have more jobs than we'd know what to do with, the environment would be pristine and there would be no racial tensions anymore...he should do that....everyone hates Fox, Drudge and those annoying little sites anyway...

[scottw]

ahaaaa...and there you have it, the NAACP releases the full speech showing that the Breitbart clip was perfectly in context with this woman's thoughts and feelings on race....race obsessed apparently...which makes you wonder why Barry dumped someone who is a like thinker....and Spence...some very interesting new info surfacing detailing the coordination among the mainstream media outlets to attack percieved conservative threats and ignore stories that damage their collective agenda....see...you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house on a shaky foundation
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...sreel_opinion=

[Typhoon]

By definition the NAACP is the most racist organization in the country.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It may be a long while, but there may be a time when your "centrist" self opines. We may differ on what is "fabricated," but isn't this the "pattern of behavior" on the left as well as the right?

I don't think there's parity.

The only major cable outlet that will hammer "outrage" issues like this across programs is MSNBC, and most of the time they're outraged at what FOX News is reporting

Outside of this there really are few mainstream outlets on the web, radio, cable or print with a large readership/viewership which have a heavily liberal leaning.

For all the Right loves to bitch about "liberal media" I'm not sure the average person really experiences all that much of it.

I'm serious here, while I do think the likes of Maddow/Oberman aren't 100%, they do seem to pick fights they can win and are well researched. I don't see the same from a lot of the FOX programming, O'Riley perhaps being the best.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Fred Barnes: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy - WSJ.com

Yes, when I'm looking for objective analysis and opinion, Fred Barnes is my usual pick

This piece is a freaking joke.

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

then...

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Typhoon

By definition the NAACP is the most racist organization in the country.

The NAACP was born of race riots and lynchings. For a group to seek to advance themselves and overcome racial prejudice isn't racism.

Some argue there's a double standard...well, duh.

That's not to say that the NAACP doesn't at times overstep their bounds...this does happen, and as we progress the line becomes even finer.

Issues like these make we wish we could all walk in others shoes for even just a short while.

-spence

[buckman]

I had hoped when the President, the racist and the white policeman drank beer in the rose garden, we would put all this black/white stuf behind us.

[scottw]

the NAACP was founded by:

William English Walling (1877–1936), a prominent socialist and journalist, was descended from wealthy Kentucky slaveholders.

Mary White Ovington , a suffragette, socialist, unitarian, journalist, and co-founder of the NAACP.

Edward Russell, authors and outspoken socialist and with the pen and voice have contributed materially to the general educational campaign along radical social lines.

Henry Moskowitz (1879–1936), a Romanian Jewish émigré, attended the University Settlement’s boys’ club as a youth. There he met fellow socialist William English Walling, with whom he traveled to Eastern Europe in 1905 to study social and economic conditions.


notice any trend???...weird

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

the NAACP was founded by:

William English Walling (1877–1936), a prominent socialist and journalist, was descended from wealthy Kentucky slaveholders.

Mary White Ovington , a suffragette, socialist, unitarian, journalist, and co-founder of the NAACP.

Edward Russell, authors and outspoken socialist and with the pen and voice have contributed materially to the general educational campaign along radical social lines.

Henry Moskowitz (1879–1936), a Romanian Jewish émigré, attended the University Settlement’s boys’ club as a youth. There he met fellow socialist William English Walling, with whom he traveled to Eastern Europe in 1905 to study social and economic conditions.


notice any trend???...weird

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

socialism is SLAVERY....just a different massa...

[ecduzitgood]

[scottw]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Spence is becoming quite a nasty little socialist... isn't he... kinda like Obama just lashing out and blaming and impuning everyone that he disagrees with or disagrees with him....bad habits

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

It's easy to see how those just coming out of the darkness of slavery would have a long way to go in understanding very much at all, including the value of a free market. Regardless of the reason why, the early ignorance of their ancestors is not an excuse for descendants remaining ignorant 150 years later. Besides, slavery was highly regulated, and it was not an absolutely free market. Free markets do not bar opposing entrepeneurs. Slavery was a closed society, very restrictive, and very harsh to those who opposed it. That those whose presumed ancestors were slaves are not now the the most ardent supporters of individual freedom and a free marketplace is an incomprehensible irony to a free thinking mind.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think there's parity.

The only major cable outlet that will hammer "outrage" issues like this across programs is MSNBC, and most of the time they're outraged at what FOX News is reporting

Outside of this there really are few mainstream outlets on the web, radio, cable or print with a large readership/viewership which have a heavily liberal leaning.

For all the Right loves to bitch about "liberal media" I'm not sure the average person really experiences all that much of it.

I'm serious here, while I do think the likes of Maddow/Oberman aren't 100%, they do seem to pick fights they can win and are well researched. I don't see the same from a lot of the FOX programming, O'Riley perhaps being the best.

-spence

The "parity" (parity is not necessary to the argument nor is it possible) is not in the specifics. If the specifics were all the same the stories, actors, media, etc. would be identical. The "parity" is in the "pattern of behavior": Right wing bloggers to Fox news (if we presume this is a pattern)/ Left wing orgs. (Move on dot, NAACP, Soros, political spinners, left wing TV shows to ABC, NBC, CBS, and even to Fox. You say RW blogs to Fox not being fact checked and eventually found to be untrue and no apology is a "pattern". I'm sure it sometimes happens, but a "pattern"? It certainly, as well, happens from left wing orgs. to mainstream media, e.g.: "the Tea Party is racist"--unchecked for facts, unproven, story doesn't go away, there is no apology.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

it's all in the emails...just like East Anglia...the fraudsters sure get angry when you expose their fraud....more and more the mainstream media is exposed as abdicating it's duty in favor of coordinating a message and pushing a political agenda favoring particular candidates and playing attack dog for democrats, and you are fine with that as long as it's your agenda as well...Pathetic

Sherrod: Shutting down Breitbart site ‘would be a great thing’

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 -- 1:43 pm

Sherrod says she might sue Breitbart, who's "one person I'd like to get back at, because he came at me"


""Would you consider a defamation suit against Andrew Breitbart?" CNN's Kiran Chetry asked.

"I really think I should, Sherrod replied.

"Would you like his site to be shut down?" Chetry continued.

"That would be a great thing," replied Sherrod. "I don't see how that [site] helps us at a time when we ... should be looking at how we can make space for all of us in this country so that we could all live and work together. He's doing more to divide us."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The NAACP was born of race riots and lynchings. For a group to seek to advance themselves and overcome racial prejudice isn't racism.

Advancing as a group at this stage in American history is not only antiquated, it is slower than a snail in molasses. It's about time for Afro/black/Americans to bust out on their own each to find his personal identity APART FROM THE GROUP and fulfill his destiny as an individual. That is the gift he inherits as a citizen of this country. It is pitiful if he chooses to remain in the pack of fear.

Some argue there's a double standard...well, duh.

Are you saying the double standard is OK? Doesn't the double standard actually retard the progression to individualism?

That's not to say that the NAACP doesn't at times overstep their bounds...this does happen, and as we progress the line becomes even finer.

Are you contradicting your own teaser?

Issues like these make we wish we could all walk in others shoes for even just a short while.

-spence

I think we've been walked through "others" shoes by our various media and by our educational and societal institutions nearly ad nauseum. It would be wonderful if the "others" could begin, or at least to begin to take an interest in, walking in the shoes of a free, individual citizen of this great country. So long as the "others" continue to cower in the path of their group, they miss out on the greatest opportunities and experiences that freedom has to offer. And if we keep assisting them to stay there, we may all catch the disease.

[scottw]

Obama doesn't mind shutting things down...and the cheerleader media ignores this one too

July 22, 2010
Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures
By William Tate

The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general.

Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.
[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.
But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'" I always picture Obama saying "shared sacrafice" as expensive wine runs from corner of his mouth out onto his plate of lobster and $100 a pound beef
Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him
that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money -- and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.
And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.

The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that
experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...]

Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]
Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."

That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.
Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%.

The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.

As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."

Included among those undisputed facts:

-"[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships";

-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";

-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.

the MOST RACIAL President

[Joe]

GM has returned to profitability and paid back government loans in full GM Pioneer Player

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Joe

GM has returned to profitability and paid back government loans in full GM Pioneer Player

I call BS!!!!

[The Dad Fisherman]

I guess the bigger question is "Why are Fisherman Wasting so much time on this?"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

I call BS!!!!

yes...that was another LIE completely ignored by the MSM....and GM was running commercials making this claim and it was completely and demonstrably untrue....

but my favorite is Harry Reid claiming the other day that the auto bailout probably saved Ford ???? he's lost....I guess when you lie long enough and frequently enough it becomes hard to distinguish between reality and fiction....it's really turning into quite a mess...isn't it? but this is what happens when you elect a class of people who are deeply dishonest and have tremendous disdain for this country

hey Joe, are you suggesting that discrimination based on race and gender and political leaning in the closing of dealerships is justified if GM has supposedly returned to profitability and paid back every dime?

[Joe]

Bait fish, not people. I said GM was profitable and paid back the loans - it's b.s. though. Now I'm so embarrassed I'm going to cry. They're saying Ford is profitable too - that must be b.s. also.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

Bait fish, not people. I said GM was profitable and paid back the loans - it's b.s. though. Now I'm so embarrassed I'm going to cry. They're saying Ford is profitable too - that must be b.s. also.

GM did use the $6.7 billion they were loaned. They had a separate account of "free" money the government set aside for them which they used to pay off the loan.

GM was making a big deal about “paying off” their loan when in reality, they were only “paying off” a portion of the “loan.”

“At first the entire amount of U.S. aid was considered a loan as the government tried to keep GM from going under and pulling the fragile economy into a depression.

But during bankruptcy, the U.S. government reduced the loan portion to $6.7 billion and converted the rest to company stock, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans.”

And now they used TARP money to “pay off” the $6.7 billion and trumpet this as a "return to profitability"

GM used taxpayer money that they weren't required to pay back to pay off their taxpayer loan that they were required to pay back.

the govt still owns 60% of GM(is your house paid off if the bank still owns 60% of it?)

sounds like what goes on in Washington everyday...it's all very dirty.. and this was approved by Treasury...you know Geitner the tax cheat...surprise..

Ford "returned to profitability" the old fashioned way...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This piece is a freaking joke.

then...

So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

just for starters....

1. Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington
Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
2. Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
3. Mike Allen - POLITICO
4. Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
5. Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
6. Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
7. Ryan Avent - Economist
8. Dean Baker - The American Prospect
9. Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
10. Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
11. Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
12. Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
13. Michael Berube - Crooked Timber (blog), Pennsylvania State University
14. Lindsay Beyerstein - (blogger)
15. Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
16. John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
17. Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
18. Rich Byrne - Playwright and freelancer
19. Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
20. Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
21. Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
22. Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
23. Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
24. Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
25. Joe Conason - The New York Observer
26. David Corn - Mother Jones
27. Daniel Davies - The Guardian
28. David Dayen - FireDogLake
29. Brad DeLong - The Economists' Voice, University of California at Berkley
30. Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg
31. Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
32. Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
33. Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
34. Henry Farrell - George Washington University
35. Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
36. James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin (professor)
37. Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
38. Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
39. Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
40. Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
41. David Greenberg - Slate
42. Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
43. Chris Hayes - The Nation
44. Don Hazen - Alternet
45. Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
46. John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
47. Michael Kazin - Georgetown University (law professor)
48. Ed Kilgore - Democratic Stategist
49. Richard Kim - The Nation
50. Mark Kleiman - The Reality Based Community
51. Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
52. Joe Klein - TIME
53. Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
54. Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
55. Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
56. Alec McGillis - Washington Post
57. Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
58. Ari Melber - The Nation
59. Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
60. Luke Mitchell - Harper's Magazine
61. Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
62. Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
63. Michael O'Hare - University of California, Berkeley
64. Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America's Future
65. Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
66. Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
67. Katha Pollitt - The Nation
68. Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
69. David Roberts - Grist
70. Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
71. Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
72. Laura Rozen - Politico, Mother Jones
73. Greg Sargent - Washington Post
74. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
75. Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
76. Michael Scherer - TIME
77. Mark Schmitt - American Prospect
78. Adam Serwer - American Prospect
79. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun (columnist), University of Maryland, Baltimore County (professor), FiveThirtyEight.com (contributing writer)
80. Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
81. Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
82. Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
83. Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
84. Ben Smith - POLITICO
85. Sarah Spitz - NPR
86. Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
87. Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
88. Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
89. Sam Stein - The Huffington Post
90. Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
91. Steven Teles - Yale University
92. Thoma - The Economist's View (blog), University of Oregon (professor)
93. Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
94. Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
95. Rebecca Traister - Salon (columnist)
96. Cenk Uygur - The Young Turks
97. Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
98. Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
99. Moira Whelan - National Security Network
100. Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
101. Kai Wright - The Root
102. Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
103. Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
104. Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
105. Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
106. Julian Zelizer - Princeton professor and CNN contributor
107. Avi Zenilman - POLITICO

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

just for starters....

1) Many (if not most) of these people aren't even part of the mainstream media
2) Being on "a list" isn't guilt of anything
3) The idea that admittedly liberal writers would discuss how to attack conservative issues is...pretty obvious

I think I'll go back to my no evidence position. Lame...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, when I'm looking for objective analysis and opinion, Fred Barnes is my usual pick

Barnes admits his bias, you don't admit yours. Objective analysis and opinion doesn't seem to flow from your supposed "centrist" position.

This piece is a freaking joke.

The vast left wing media conspiracy thing is a joke . . . an obvious one feeding off of Hillary Clinton's nonsensical "vast right wing conspiracy" which was supposedly serious objectivity.

Then . . . So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

His point was, not that juornolist had a vast conspiracy to smear conservatives by calling them racists (ONE of their members suggested it and that may have resulted in shutting the group down), but that they had gotten together as a "group" with the intention of aiding Obama, rather than being traditionally "independant" journalists.

Pathetic.
-spence

Nice try at misinterpreting Barnes' article.