Secrets of Neutral Objective Journalism: Deadline Stress and Lots of Coffee

Today, for reasons that need not be explained, I was looking through my American Spectator coverage of the Republican National Convention:

Five columns in five days, about 5,000 words in all, a good week’s work. The quantity included some genuine quality, considering that all of it was produced in a frenzied deadline rush late at night, during a week when I never got more than five hours of sleep a night. Re-reading those columns, I think the Aug. 28 entry was one of the fiercest all-out assaults on liberal media bias I’ve ever written:

TAMPA, Florida — The Republican Party has spared no expense to accommodate the hundreds of journalists who have come here to write dishonest stories aimed at preventing the GOP from winning this year’s election.
If you’ve been following major media coverage of the Republican National Convention, you know that the party’s presidential candidate is Todd Akin, who will campaign this fall on a platform of undiluted hatred and evil, with the able assistance of his running mate, Martin Bormann Jr. The Akin-Bormann ticket was personally selected by RNC Chairman Rush Limbaugh and endorsed by Karl Rove after consultation with a secretive cabal of right-wing Mormon billionaires. The Republican delegates who are assembling this week in Tampa are mere dupes hired by the Koch brothers to provide the superficial appearance of a “political convention” debating a platform and nominating candidates.
Such is the narrative subtext of most of the GOP convention coverage, which is provided by a political press corps that is overwhelmingly composed of people who would never vote for any Republican under any imaginable circumstance. . . .

Please read (or re-read) the whole thing.

 

Obama: ‘I’ve Got a Plan!’

Yesterday, I woke up and turned the TV to MSNBC (which I watch so you don’t have to), and they showed almost the entirety of a speech Obama gave at Davenport, Iowa. Perhaps you can watch it without succumbing to the urge to throw your computer across the room:

It’s particularly painful for me to watch something like that because, as shameful as it is to admit, I used to be a Democrat. I actually believed they were going to do things to help people, and I actually believed in all that idiotic stuff they said about rich people and eeee-vil Republicans.

Once you wake up and realize that they’re just running a scam, that they’re never going to keep their promises, and that it’s all just a cynical hustle to enhance their own power, this kind of stuff doesn’t fool you anymore. Instead, it makes you angry that there are still people so stupid as to fall for it, and not even I could be sarcastic enough to mock Obama as much as he deserves to be mocked. But I decided to give it a good try anyway:

Less than two weeks before Americans finally have a chance to vote him out of office, President Obama has begun shouting at campaign rallies: “I’ve got a plan!”
It’s really a slogan, not a plan, referring to a 20-page pamphlet that is about as plausible as Obama’s notorious June 2008 boast that his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Difficult as it may now be to recall, there were once “spiritually advanced people” who looked at this Chicago machine politician and saw “a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being … who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.” Obviously, none of these “advanced” people read The American Spectator, but many of them are still out there awaiting this “new way of being,” which is the only possible explanation for the crowds who show up to cheer their hero as he reads his lines from the teleprompter screens.
“We’ve got a long way to go, Iowa, but we’ve come too far to turn back now,” Obama declared at a rally Wednesday in Davenport. “We can’t afford to go back to what got us into this mess. We’ve got to stick with policies that are getting out of this mess. That’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States of America.”
The idolatrous horde burst into applause and began chanting, “Four more years!” And their idol hadn’t even told them about The Plan yet. The following passage differs from the official transcript in that it has been punctuated to convey more accurately the cadence of the Lightworker’s delivery: “Now, the good news is I’ve got a plan! That will actually create jobs! That will actually reduce the deficit! That will actually create middle-class security! And unlike Mitt Romney, I’m proud to talk about what’s actually in my plan! Because my math actually adds up!”
Spiritually advanced people don’t usually get too excited about math, but for a Lightworker, they’re willing to make an exception. . . .

Please read the whole thing at The American Spectator and, by the way, I’ve got my own plan: I’m going to rent a car today and head out on the campaign trail. We’ve only got 12 days to go,  and I’m planning to go all the way to victory on Election Night, so please hit the freaking tip jar!

 





How Do You Spell ‘LOL’? Idiotic Error by Former New Yorker Fact-Checker

When Bob Tyrrell told me about this on the phone, I was astonished: Evidently, James Pogue is a person with literary pretensions who once worked as a fact-checker for the New Yorker. In order to support his literary pretensions — he’s “writing a novel,” as are, inter alia, about nine thousand unpublished lawyers who dream of becoming the next John Grisham — Pogue managed to con somebody at Vice magazine into an assignment to cover the presidential campaign.

Pogue showed up a couple of weeks ago at a Romney-Ryan rally at the Dayton Airport in Vandalia, Ohio, an event I also covered (see the Sept. 25 blog posts “ROMNEY-RYAN AT DAYTON AIRPORT” and “SCENES FROM ROMNEY-RYAN RALLY,” as well as my Sept. 26 American Spectator column, “Spiking the Ball Early?“). While awaiting the start of the rally, I was inside the “press filing” pen and wandered over to the edge of the pen to smoke a cigarette, talking briefly with Byron York of the Washington Examiner, who was standing outside the pen.

This utterly routine encounter — Byron is ubiquitous on the campaign trail, and I’m always standing around smoking outside campaign events — got “reported” by Pogue at Vice, thus:

In the crowd section, leaning on the fence of the press corral, was a man in a Filson jacket who looked in person so much like Jonathan Franzen that I had visions of a scoop:
“NOVELIST TRAILS ROMNEY CAMPAIGN: MOTIVES UNCLEAR”
But this man was actually Byron York, the conservative writer, occasional Fox News talker, and sort of multi-purpose representative of those post-Buckley elitist conservatives who still exist in America. Smoking and speaking quietly with York from inside the corral was a man wearing an outback hat and jeans so long he’d had to roll them up to avoid walking on the hems. This man was Robert Emmett Tyrell, the founder and editor-in-chief of the American Spectator, a magazine whose diminished state might be taken as representative of the fates of those Yorkite conservatives. I came over and offered to buy a cigarette from him. York looked disgusted. Tyrell looked amused. He introduced himself and said he didn’t need my money. I said hello to York and he refused my handshake and walked away. . . .
York wandered away. Tyrell took down my name and said he’d google me.
Writers who don’t do this sort of thing for a living, who go out and lark it for a while as political journalists, tend to come to events like this and focus on the mechanics of the event, to touch a bit on the crowd, and to write a great deal about the other journalists. Everyone does it, from Hunter Thompson to David Foster Wallace, and it’s always seemed to me to be a bit of a cheap trick, on the reasoning that a smart guy with the freedom of a big word count ought to be able to come and draw political lessons from the same material the newspaper writers work with. Now I get it. There’s nearly nothing else to talk about. . . .
And who are these reporters who produce the optics? They’re an astonishingly slovenly group. Tyrell turned out to have been one of three men, out of maybe 15 of us, whose pants were so ill-fitting that he had to roll up the legs to avoid the mud. There were uncountable pairs of square-toed loafers; cheap pinstripe suits. We could be on a used car lot in Bucharest. The Romney aids dress the same way. It wasn’t that they’d been on the trail and their wardrobes were bare and dirty, that much seemed pretty clear. They just didn’t know how to dress. . . .
And then we had Romney. Tyrell leapt up on the fence to get a view, and the iPhones went up, and the women behind us began a chant again, “Rom-ney, Rom-ney” and this time the crowd joined in. . . .

Well, how much more wrong could you possibly get it? To begin with, R. Emmett Tyrrell spells his surname with two R’s, and I’m not him, and Tyrrell doesn’t smoke. Exactly how on earth Pogue made this ridiculous mistake, I don’t know. Tyrrell is a dashingly handsome fellow who I am certain is grateful he looks nothing like me.

Furthermore, to classify Byron York among “post-Buckley elitist conservatives” is absurd: He’s a splendidly down-to-earth guy, and no self-respecting “elitist” would ever talk to me. Nor, I think, do post-Buckley elitists spend much time hanging out with Bob Tyrrell. I vaguely recall giving Pogue a cigarette and refusing his offer to pay for it, a courtesy from a fellow nicotine addict who has more than once had to bum a smoke after forgetting to bring along a spare pack. (For some reason, campaign events are almost never held in the vicinity of convenience stores, and once you get inside the security perimeter, you want to stay there, or else you’ll be forced to go through the metal detectors again when you come back.)

Incidentally, when Tyrrell first told me about this Pogue article and mentioned Byron York, I was confused as to which Romney-Ryan event he was referring to: At a Ryan event in Lima the day before, I’d run out of batteries for my camera and been forced to bum a couple of AAs from York, for exactly the reasons I’d described in reference to the cigarettes: If you go outside the perimeter once the candidate is on the scene, the Secret Service probably won’t let you back inside, media credential or no media credential — “Just following orders, mein herr.”

As to the length of my jeans: My thrifty wife bought me a new pair of jeans a few months back — found them on clearance somewhere and couldn’t resist the bargain — and it was also she who packed my suitcase for the Ohio trip. My wardrobe was chosen hastily at the Dayton hotel where I was staying, as I hurried to get ready to go to the airport rally. Frankly, I don’t give much thought to fashion when I’m on the campaign trail, or anywhere else for that matter. Back when I was young and single, I was quite stylish, with a wardrobe that included shirts by Yves St. Laurent and Pierre Cardin, and ties by Alexander Julian, but no longer give a damn about impressing anybody with my fashion sense, even if I could afford to be such a fop.

Well, what the hell, huh? Rolled-up jeans are the New Black!

Also: The “leapt up on a fence” is wrong. What I did was climb the steps to the camera riser, and the reason was not just “to get a view,” but rather to get photographs, like this one giving the readers some sense of the size of the crowd. See, the polls had Romney down by 10 points in Ohio, and all the pundits were writing him off as doomed, which made the turnout at the Dayton airport on a drizzly day — 4,000 people — kind of newsworthy, certainly more newsworthy than whatever fashion statement I was making with my rolled-up jeans.

This is what makes James Pogue’s reference to Hunter S. Thompson so stupidly offensive: Yes, if you “don’t do this sort of thing for a living,” it is perfectly natural to report on the mechanics of the campaign, including the habits of the press corps — and I do that, too. Why? Because so many of the reporters are caught up in the Daily Horse-Race Narrative of the campaign that they almost never report the size of the crowd, the weather, or the other interesting little details of the carnival-like atmosphere that surrounds a presidential campaign.

Understand that I’m not competing with Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times to provide the Page One inverted-pyramid Definitive Account of the campaign. No, my coveraage here and at the American Spectator is a sort of colorful “news feature” version of the story, and even though I sometimes actually break news in the process, there’s no point chasing the Drudge link because, frankly, we don’t have enough server capacity to handle that kind of traffic.

The day after “Super Tuesday,” I attempted to explain my concept of what I’m doing in a post: “Memo From the National Affairs Desk: ‘Committing Acts of Journalism’.”

Does it make sense as a business model? Is there a market demand for this product? I do OK. I don’t usually run too late on deadline, and I at least try to get basic facts right, whereas literary pretender James Pogue makes a complete fool of himself.

With more than a week to write his account of the Sept. 25 Vandalia rally, which didn’t appear on the Vice.com site until Oct. 5, Pogue got the facts hilariously wrong and, in doing so, destroyed whatever flimsy claim to journalistic integrity he might have thrown behind his assertion that, at this rally, “there was a fat little man in a windbreaker” selling anti-Obama stickers with a racist theme.

Damn you to hell, James Pogue.

Go find some other some other profession to disgrace.

UPDATE: Ladd Ehlinger spots an error by Pogue that should have been obvious to anyone who’s ever been within range of my voice, which is usually about a quarter-mile:

“Speaking quietly,” me? LOL.

BTW, I just saw that Paul Ryan will be heading back to Ohio on Saturday. Whether I make that trip or not, I’ve got to get back on the campaign trail pretty soon, so please hit the freaking tip jar.

 




How to Deal With Biased Media Liars (and Other Such Worthless Scalawags)

“My God, Scarlett O’Hara! When I start out to cut somebody up, you don’t think I’d be satisfied with scratching him with the blunt side of my knife, do you? No, by God, I cut him to ribbons.”
— Tony Calvert, in Gone With the Wind

Well, that’s merely an analogy — a colorful literary allusion — and my concern for the First Amendment requires that I condemn anyone who might contemplate dealing with even the most dishonestly biased journalist in the manner by which hot-tempered young Calvert dispatched his villainous hellbound foe.

No, not even Chris Matthews.

“When I start out to cut somebody up,” therefore, I’m limited to such damage as can be done by words, but I’m pretty handy with a rhetorical knife. With that in mind — and thinking what might possibly pain the conscience of even the most shameless liberal hack — please read my latest column at The American Spectator.

And be sure to read it all the way to the end.

Polls: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies?

DAYTON, Ohio
By the time you read this, I expect to be on the road to the Columbus suburb of Westerville, where Mitt Romney will have a rally with a special guest, golf legend (and Ohio native) Jack Nicklaus. Doors open at 6 a.m. for the event that begins at 8 a.m. and a recent poll shows 47 percent of readers believe I’ll be driving 90 mph to get there.

Why should we care what the polls say? Why has second-guessing polls become such an obsession of Republicans in recent weeks? That’s a main theme of my American Spectator column today:

Nearly 4,000 people turned out Tuesday to cheer Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at an airport rally here, their numbers and enthusiasm contradicting polls that show President Obama leading by a wide margin in the Buckeye State. This contradiction inspired me to conduct my own poll, although my methodology might not have been entirely scientific: I walked up to the crowd behind the barricade and shouted, “Does anybody here believe the polls?” The crowd shouted back in unison: “No!”
Perhaps my survey wasn’t based on a random sample, but I’m pretty certain of the conclusion: Republicans here are profoundly skeptical of polls indicating Obama on the verge of walking away with Ohio’s 18 Electoral College votes. Nor is this skepticism limited to Ohio. A Web site devoted to examining sources of bias in polls, UnskewedPolls.com, has become increasingly popular among Republicans. The site’s proprietor Dean Chambers echoes many in pointing out how “the weighting and/or sampling of Democrats, Republicans and independents in each survey” can produce numbers wildly at variance with the likely results on Election Day. Many of the polls that show large advantages for Obama also show a “skew” in party identification toward Democrats – over-representing them compared to their numbers in previous elections — which can be “enough to make the results unreliable,” as Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com says.
What causes conservatives to complain about these skewed polls is that so many journalists seem more interested in covering the polls than in reporting about the actual campaign. This produces headlines and TV coverage that seem intentionally designed to demoralize Republicans and persuade undecided “swing” voters — who have a tendency to vote for the candidate they perceive as the likely winner — to support Obama. The polls which most favor Obama, including a Washington Post poll released yesterday that showed Obama leading by 8 points, get hyped by the media and are incorporated into a pre-fabricated media narrative that depicts Romney as hapless, ineffective and “out of touch.” That such poll-driven coverage could function as a self-fulfilling prophecy — in fact creating the result it pretends to predict — is an increasing worry for conservatives. . . .

Please read the whole thing.

The Best Revenge: Ohio-Bound

By the time you read this, I should be within a couple hours of Lima, Ohio, where Paul Ryan is due for a 2:30 p.m. rally. Right now — as I’m writing this — it’s about 2 a.m. and I’m awaiting my ride while laughing at the latest ridiculousness from Neal Rauhauser:

McCain has never filed for a peace order. McCain has never shown a police report. McCain has only misrepresented his change of address and sudden need for a much higher income as a threat from another victim of the fringe right’s obsession, rather than the inevitable outcome of his indecent behavior. He is defrauding the Tea Party masses with his act, a common tactic for the people he associates with, such as Ali Akbar.

You see? It is absolutely true that I’ve never filed for a peace order, I’m neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in anyone’s lawsuit, and there is no police report — why would there be?

This whole sue-me, sue-you game may be fun for civilians, but I’m a professional journalist and it would be impossible for me to report on a story while simultaneously suing (or pressing criminal charges against) the subject of the story. One of the reasons my location remains undisclosed is to prevent any sort of incident that might involve me in such legal hassles and interfere with my continuing coverage of The Kimberlin Files.

My “indecent behavior … defrauding the Tea Party masses”! These heinous slurs are outright lies fabricated from whole cloth, a classic example of the “accuse the accusers” tactic that Rauhauser and his client Brett Kimberlin have been using for months.

You know the Miranda warning? Well, whenever you’re targeted by the Kimberlin-Rauhauser Axis, everything you say can and will be used against you in their next vicious smear. They accuse, accuse, accuse, expecting their targets to deny, deny, deny — or to explain, explain, explain — so that they can then twist the target’s denials and explanations as “evidence” for their next accusation.

Screw that. I’ve been very careful not to play that game (also not to sue anybody or to file any criminal complaint), leaving them with nothing else to do except recycle old smears. And my “much higher income”? Yeah, armagnac and decolletage!

What I am paid to do is cover the news. These distractions from Rauhauser aren’t going to stop me from earning my pay, and so I’m off to Ohio to cover the Romney-Ryan bus tour, thanks to those who’ve contributed generously to the Shoe Leather Fund: Charles in Georgia, Jackie in Salisbury, William in Dallas, Mike in El Segundo, Jeff in Chesapeake, Jack in Oklahoma, Geoffrey in Washington State, Sean in Connecticut, Richard in Hollywood, Diana in San Francisco, and Jeff in Walla Walla.

Do any of you guys feel “defrauded” by my “indecent behavior”? I think not. And here’s my latest American Spectator column:

The Romney-Ryan campaign kicks off a three-day bus tour through the key swing state of Ohio today. Folks arriving early at the Republican rallies who pay attention to the warm-up music played before the events may hear an old blues-rock tune that has become a staple in the rotation, the first verse of which proclaims, “I was born lonely, down by the riverside. Learned to spin fortune wheels and throw dice.”
“Ramblin’ Gamblin’ Man” was the title track of Bob Seger’s 1969 debut album. It was incorporated into Mitt Romney’s campaign-rally music back in February when the candidate was fighting a GOP primary battle against rival Rick Santorum in Michigan, home state of both Romney and Seger. No one has ever confused the Republican presidential nominee with the rock singer, but Seger’s lyrics might offer some valuable inspiration to Romney as he rambles across the Buckeye State this week, trying to beat the increasingly long odds in his campaign to defeat Barack Obama.
To listen to some people, in fact, you might get the idea that the campaign is already over. Last week’s Romney “gaffe” — the secret video that was, in fact, recorded in May — was supposedly the fatal blow to the GOP challenger. The liberal media said so, as did certain Republican commentators who were vehemently denounced by Rush Limbaugh. “The glitterati, the intelligentsia, the stars inside the Beltway think Romney lost the election yesterday — they really do,” Limbaugh told his nationwide radio audience Wednesday. “I never met a bunch of quitters like these in my life. I never met a bigger bunch of defeatists! We haven’t even had the debates. It’s not even October yet.”
Indeed not, but the time is getting short. Election Day is six weeks from Tuesday, early voting has already begun in half the states and, after a month of non-stop negativity from the media, Romney needs to recapture the excitement generated by his Aug. 11 announcement of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate. . . .

Read the whole thing. Me? Babe, I gotta ramble . . .


Paul Ryan in the American Spectator

When you think about qualifications as vice president, the first thing you have to ask is, “Have they written for the American Spectator?”

Paul Ryan’s byline first appeared in the American Spectator in July 2009, and today he’s back with a column slamming Obama’s “you didn’t build that” rhetoric:

President Obama recently made a stunning remark about business owners in America’s free enterprise economy. After dismissing the hard work and ingenuity of successful individuals, the president said, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Who? Ultimately, the government.
Yet this was only the latest version of the president’s four-year disparagement of American entrepreneurialism. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said he intended to “spread the wealth around” — not his own wealth through voluntary transactions, of course, but the earnings belonging to American families through coercive redistribution. In April 2009, he claimed that the founding principles on which America was built are too weak to withstand 21st century pressures. He called our free economy a house built upon sand, destroyed when the financial storm of 2008 hit. America must be reconstructed, he asserted, upon a “new foundation” of “pillars” hewn from the solid rock of big government.
The agenda he promoted demonstrated in a practical way what his rhetoric meant. He pushed unprecedented stimulus spending, a government-driven health care overhaul, further distortions in the U.S. financial sector, an expensive cap-and-trade system to restrict American energy, and more. His transformative proposals were based on a vision of a government-centered society that conflicts with the foundational principles of freedom and equality rooted in our Declaration of Independence. To support his expansive new vision of government without limits, the administration sent Congress four massive annual budgets that called for crushing levels of debt. The Democrat-controlled Senate, cognizant of the political peril of voting for such reckless spending, taxes, and new debt, gave up on budgeting altogether. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected Obama’s budgets, without passing any budget of its own for over three years.
The failed leadership and the dismal results from a president of such great promise have been disappointing. . . .

Read the whole thing.

And, by the way, while I am not a candidate for the vice-presidency — doggone that “vetting” process! — I am still a correspondent for the American Spectator, and have my own column there today.

A Couple Things Wrong, Jim Antle

Jim Antle of the American Spectator gets almost everything right in this column about the 2012 campaign. His two most glaring errors:

Yet if Santorum had done just a bit better in Michigan and Ohio, we could be having a very different discussion right now. Santorum showed future conservative contenders how to go hunting where the ducks are. As the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat observed, a Republican like Bobby Jindal could take the Santorum coalition — Southerners, Midwesterners, evangelicals, Catholics, and Reagan Democrats — and build on it.

  1. Error: Never quote Ross Douchebag.
  2. Error: Bobby Jindal zigged when he should have zagged.
    I remember the Sept. 13 CNN Tea Party Express debate in Tampa, encountering Bobby Jindal as he exited the CNN tent outside the auditorium. Jindal had endorsed Rick Perry and was appearing on CNN as a Perry surrogate along with Objective Political Analyst Erick Erickson.

The Perry campaign was a predictable disaster — “The Phantom Menace” — and the way Jindal climbed aboard that bandwagon irritated me at the time. I’ve always liked Jindal, but Ross Douchebag’s idea that Jindal “could take the Santorum coalition” is based on the presumption that Santorum has no future plans for that coalition.

It’s one of those ideas Ivy-educated Boy Geniuses get, like “Tim Pawlenty, Conservative Alternative to Romney,” or “Second Look at Newt.”

Pundits like to think up clever ideas that impress their peers as “counterintuitive,” but are actually just counter to common sense. The really genius ideas, however, are always the kind of common sense things that seem stupid to people who think of themselves as clever.

What does common-sense genius look like? I remember when Steve Foley called me on Election Night 2010 and said, “Whaddya think about Herman Cain?” That was a genius idea. I remember when Lisa Graas said to me in August, “Hey, while you’re in Iowa, do you think you could go check out Rick Santorum?” That was a genius idea.

Now, here’s another common-sense genius idea: Rick Santorum spends the next four months working on his convention speech. And I mean honing it ’til it shines: Every word, every pause, the whole thing committed to memory and rehearsed until it is absolutely perfect.

So that when Santorum gets his primetime moment in Tampa, millions of Americans will say, “Damn. Why didn’t Republicans nominate him?”

Yesterday, somebody started the “Rick 2016? Facebook page.

Common-sense genius, you see.