When will the media get a clue? Look, bias I can live with, but straight out lying I cannot. For decades the media has known that while lying is not a good thing for them, they could make some lies and never really get caught, because who was going to check the facts? And even if some reader did check the facts, how would they manage to get the word out to other readers? Well with blogs that's all changed, but the newspapers and magazines and TV news networks don't want to admit it. Powerline has an interesting spat going with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. It seems this paper had soem editorials way back in 1994 denouncing the filibuster as an enemy of democracy or some such thing. More recently, during the whole judicial nomination pissing match in DC, this same paper published an editorial pronouncing filibusters as essential to democracy and only a group seeking tyranny or some such rhetoric would dare to try to eliminate the filibuster. Powerline asked why it was bad when the Dems were in power, but now it's good. They even had pictures of the editorials, with the ability to enlarge them to be readable. The editor of the paper wrote in to say they were lying and the paper never said those things back in 1994. He didn't even bother to follow the links to the images of the editorials. Eventually he realzied he's wrong and promised an explanation, but none has been forthcoming, and their opposition to ending the filibuster, 180 degress from their 1994 stance, continues, as do the lies. Today they had an editorial in which they repeated the lie that Albert Gonzales said called Judge Priscilla Owens an activist judge. He did, but only if you cut out the context of everything else he said. The Star-Tribune is deliberately spreading this lie, thinking they won't get caught. They have gotten caught, but unfortunately it's still not easy to get the word out about this sort of stuff. ANyway, they are shooting themselves in the foot, because the public is losing confidence in the media. This isn't the fault of bloggers. I'd like nothing better than if my main complaint about the paper is that they talk about American Idol too much. Unfortunately there is something wrong when my main complaint is that the front page is filled with lies and contradictions.
A Daily Dose of Ben
Sometimes not quite daily!

4 Comments:
Ben,
Here's the latest news on the Washington state gubernatorial race:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/election_challenge
You accuse the democrats of constantly blaming Bush for the casualties in Iraq, and not "moving on". Well, it's an ongoing war with casualties still occuring daily, so it's not in the past. But Republicans are doing the same thing you are accusing Democrats of, and that is not "moving on" with the Washington gubernatorial race. They lost...move on!!
Dave.... Learn the facts. The GOP won the Washington State race. Then there were allegations of fraud and the Democrats "found" a bunch of ballots, and the GOP let a recount happen and the Dem candidate now won. Since then they have found far more other lost votes, as well as discovered hundreds or more votes by felons (who are ineligible) that were 90% for the Dem candidate. But the Dems won't recount. They aren't as gracious or anxious to get the correct result. They just wanted power, and then shut down the apprattus to find the truth as soon as they got the count they wanted. The Dems didn't "moveon" when the first count elected the GOP guy. The GOP just wants a fair count with no felon votes and no repeat votes, which were also in abundance in several Democrat dominated counties. But hey, you read one AP story, so you know everything, right?
No, actually the GOP has nothing to do with "allowing a recount". The secretary of state ordered a recount because of how close the race was (Rossi ahead by 261 votes). Both candidates have a right to request a third recount after 3 days of the second recount. It's state law, and not up to a political party. The secretary of state in Washington is actually a Republican, but respecting the law he allowed a machine recount (Rossi ahead by 42), then a hand recount (Gregoire ahead by 130). The Republican Secretary of State acknowledged this as the final recount, with Gregoire as winner. A candidate cannot declare themselves the winner, the state has to. From a Seattle Times article, dated Dec. 23:
"The auditors agree with Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed, Mattingly said, that state law prohibits counties from recanvassing after their results have been certified.
"This is the end," Mattingly said. "You don't just keep recertifying and recertifying."
So basically this is no different than the Gore-Bush election, except the end results are different than first reported. I know, the Democrats appealed and appealed as well. Doesn't make it right, but the Republicans are no better.
Ok, Dave, you won this one, I guess. But it's not much of a victory sine it's not an issue I brought up or care about. Of course if the actual vote, without repeat ballots and without felons, was counted, then the GOP guy wins. It is different than Bush/Gore, because Gore was never declared the winner, only Bush was, and only after long exhaustive recount, which was obviously not done in Washington state, or they would have known the GOP guy was the real winner long ago. Pretty sad when the only way your party can win elections is with fake fake ballots and ineligible voters. I'd prefer to win because people agree with my platform.
Post a Comment
<< Home