The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Barack Obama Is the Antichrist — and Other Neutral Objective Facts

Posted on | July 26, 2012 | 22 Comments

“I agree with the late Hunter S. Thompson that a lot of what passes for ‘objective journalism’ is bullshit. . . . The reason so many Americans hate the news media is because so many supposedly ‘objective’ journalists are transparently dishonest in what they’re doing.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 16, 2009

The futile pursuit of that elusive phantom, “objective journalism,” may be more than a mere waste of time, but also a disservice to readers:

A new experimental study . . . finds that opinionated reporting is better at motivating the politically unengaged than objective reporting.
For years, much of the media has assumed that objective education, alone, was enough to promote a healthy democracy. What traditional media failed to realize is that a good chunk of the population needs a reason to care in the first place. “News articles that are written through the eyes of a mere observer, without a perspective or slant, can foster political disaffection among citizens,” explains author Minha Kim of Sungkyunkwan University.

An “experimental study”? The science is settled! The study itself appears to be motivated by left-wing sentiment, but makes valid points:

In situations where news consumers have well-established knowledge of important issues and converse frequently with fellow citizens, objective reporting actually promotes the legitimization of political actions, resulting in stronger participatory intentions on the part of the news consumer. An obvious limitation of journalistic objectivity is that a journalist must take on the role of a disengaged third person, but the willful ignorance of such a practice is not supposed to be the goal of the public journalist. Instead, objectivity needs to be distinguished from social detachment, and it is the latter rather than the former that a journalist needs to overcome. Although it is true that objectivity and social detachment overlap each other to a certain extent, a careful examination of the desirable journalistic role allows the two to be distinguished from each other.

Of course, this study doesn’t really tell us anything that students of Gonzo journalism didn’t already know. Outside of hard-core political junkies, nobody gets much excited about political news reported with bland even-handed neutrality by a bunch of faceless nobodies.

Grant that somebody has got to perform the thankless task of filing that toothlessly objective Associated Press story about the State of the Union speech, and we would be shocked if we picked up our local paper and saw an article like this on the front page:

PRESIDENT’S SPEECH REACHES HISTORIC
NEW LOWS IN SHAMELESS DISHONESTY

By Helmund Gormworthy
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Obama’s annual State of the Union speech was a gigantic lie from start to finish, as he told one fib after another in an increasingly desperate effort to hide the multiple failures of his administration.
“My fellow Americans,” Obama began, in an obvious attempt to conceal his Kenyan ancestry, before proceeding to tell Congress a series of big fat whoppers in a deceitful lecture that continued for more than an hour before concluding with a trite and transparently insincere, “God bless America.”
During the course of his 72-minute speech, the president told 64 outright lies and more than three dozen half-truths, according to an analysis provided by the Republican National Committee.
“Frankly, the overwhelming stench of bullshit nearly made me vomit,” Speaker of the House John Boehner said afterwards. “This was the most heinously dishonest speech I’ve ever been forced to sit through. Not even Bill Clinton told this many outrageous lies.” . . .

You see my point, perhaps. What we are becoming accustomed to in the New Media age, however, is selecting our news from a vast smorgasbord of choices that didn’t exist 40 years ago, when the average person could choose from one local newspaper and three broadcast TV channels. Today there are not only multiple cable-TV news outlets — Fox, MSNBC, CNN — but also talk radio and a bewildering profusion of online sources, many of them strongly opinionated or at least quite selective in terms of their coverage.

I take it for granted that anyone reading this blog is a highly engaged news consumer, who is also gathering information from many other sources, and this assumption frees me from the burden of reporting everything in an entirely balanced way, as though my lack of objectivity might unfairly prejudice the reader’s viewpoint.

The larger the outlet, and the more it strives to be a “one-stop” outlet for news, the greater the danger that the biases of the editors and reporters might distort public perception.

This is why the biases of NBC Nightly News (about 8 million viewers) matter more than the biases of Fox News (about 3 million viewers for The O’Reilly Factor), especially because no one who tunes in to watch Bill O’Reilly is misled into thinking that he is strictly neutral in his viewpoint. I’ve repeatedly pointed this out: The combined audience for the “Big Three” evening news broadcasts is six or seven times larger than the Fox News audience, so why the Media Matters obsession with the alleged evils of right-wing bias at Fox?

What must be fought against is the journalistic herd instinct, the phony manufactured “consensus” of the Conventional Wisdom. The phenomenon we call “liberal bias” is merely one variety of this problem: Most news reporters and editors are liberal Democrats and therefore, however much they may pretend to be providing Neutral Objective Journalism, their coverage will necessarily reflect certain biases of their herd, for example in regard to the evils of homophobia, the dangers of global warming and the benefits of socialized medicine.

Those of us who don’t share those biases, and who wish to counteract the incessant yammering from vendors of Conventional Wisdom, are freed from any need to pretend that what we write is “balanced” to the point of being neutral. This doesn’t free us, however, from the need to provide readers with facts. Expressing our opinions is only helpful insofar as we are giving the reader access to facts they might not see in the mainstream media. One of my beefs about coverage of the 2010 mid-term elections is that it tended to downplay the sheer size of the Republican victory:

Buerkle’s victory brings to 63 the number of House seats gained by Republicans in the mid-term election. That’s the GOP’s biggest net gain in any election since 1938, and gives Republicans 242 House seats — the most they’ve held since 1949. Their majority is bigger by 12 seats than the one captured by Newt Gingrich’s GOP in 1994.

Nearly two years later, most people still don’t realize that the Republican victory in 2010 was actually bigger than in 1994, and I believe this lack of public awareness explains the persistent obstructionism — the do-nothing inertia — of Harry Reid’s Senate Democrats. Media talking heads keep whining about the alleged unwillingness of Republicans to “compromise,” but why should they compromise with the vastly unpopular liberal agenda of Democrats who just got embarrassed by one of the most lopsided electoral ass-whuppings in American history?

For essentially the same reason, I think the mainstream media are underrating the prospects of a landslide win for Mitt Romney in November. Defeating an incumbent president is, historically, a very difficult task. If you exclude LBJ’s decision not to seek re-election in 1968, only three times since 1932 has an incumbent president been defeated: When Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976, when Ronald Reagan beat Carter four years later, and when Bill Clinton beat George Bush in 1992. But all three of those elections occurred when the economy was bad, and this year the economy is much worse than it was in 1992, if not (yet) quite as bad as it was during the 1970s era of “stagflation.”

So when I went to an Obama campaign event in Virginia, which is supposed to be a crucial “swing state” this year, and found hundreds of fired-up Tea Party protesters outside the event, it struck me that the Conventional Wisdom might be completely wrong: Maybe Virginia will be safely Republican in November, and the public perception of Obama’s economic ineptitude will be so widespread that, rather than Obama hoping to win “purple” states like Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, the Democrats will find themselves fighting desperately to avoid defeat in previously “blue” states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

I’m not saying that will happen, but it could happen, and the only reason most in the media are ignoring the possibility of a complete Democratic meltdown this year is that the Conventional Wisdom blinds them to evidence that might indicate that possibility. They haven’t even acknowledged the significance of the Republican landslide in 2010, and seem to have in mind that this was a trivial aberration.

Everybody seems to be taking for granted that this is going to be another election decided by a few percentage points in the popular vote and a slight tilt in a few key “battleground” states and who knows? They’re probably right. But if things start shifting toward a GOP landslide, don’t let the mainstream media tell you this is a shocking and unexpected development, because there are plenty of little clues that this is well within the range of possible outcomes, although not what you’d call a “likely scenario.”

The prejudice of political pundits is to keep their predictions strictly within the realm of the most likely scenarios, which is why really important shifts in the electoral landscape are always a shock to the people who manufacture and consume Conventional Wisdom. Back in March, I warned that if Romney got the nomination and polls showed Obama losing ground, the media would start playing the Mormon card, so I was scarcely surprised to see Brian Williams raise the issue during his interview with Mitt.

That’s a legitimate issue for a Republican, whereas no one in the media can be permitted to mention the 20 years Obama spent in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American church.

Such are the parameters of public discourse as established by the Conventional Wisdom, and we aren’t supposed to notice the resultant artificiality of our political conversation.

Only by stepping outside that consensus to call attention to the overlooked facts — or to provide an interpretation of facts that doesn’t fit neatly within the consensus — is it possible to see anything other than what the Conventional Wisdom machine dispenses. If it were indeed a fact that Barack Obama is the Antichrist foretold in Bible prophecy, for example, you’d never see that reported on NBC News. The appearance of apocalyptic omens from the Book of Revelation would not be headlined as such in the New York Times.

RIVERS OF BLOOD, DARKNESS AT NOON
Women, Minorities Hardest Hit; GOP Denies Responsibility

Satan could not be reached for comment.

 





 

 


Category: Fear. Loathing., Media Bias, Neutral Objective Journalism

Michael Moore: Can I Out-Stupid @AmandaMarcotte? Why, Yes, The Founders Might Say That I Can

Posted on | July 26, 2012 | 19 Comments

by Smitty

Listen, Michael Moore, you corpulent Commie: the inalienable right of every man to defend himself is precisely what the Founders protected with the Second Amendment. The First Amendment means that the government cannot purge your rotten mind of its Marxist filth, and the Second Amendment means that you can defend all 17 feet of your circumference*.

As with Amanda Marcotte’s infamous tweet, Michael Moore’s absurd, ahistorical fantasies would have earned him a musket butt upside his fat head from just about any of the Colonials who fought, froze, marched and died for years to deliver the liberty that one who of the sort who “. . .never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it” so casually trashes in word and deed.

I’d close on a “get stuffed”, Michael Moore, but you’re clearly long since overachieved on the gluttony. However, Tina answers both you and the PHB in today’s Dilbert:
via The Blaze

Update: linked by Andrew J. Patrick, who would attempt to educate the hapless Moore.

*A prime number pulled from the air. I did not actually perform an orbit of Michael Moore to quantify his Jabba-the-Hut-ness.

Category: Culture

Tina Brown to Newsweek Staff: ‘Don’t Worry, We Can Lose Millions Forever’

Posted on | July 26, 2012 | 13 Comments

Or words to that effect. Tuesday we got the not-surprising news that the merger of Newsweek with Tina Brown’s Daily Beast has failed to stem the multimillion-dollar losses at both operations. Tina Brown has never done anything else but lose vast sums of money — a journalistic career written in red ink, as it were — and I had predicted exactly this result when the “Newsbeast” merger was announced in 2010.

After Tuesday’s announcement that the Harman family was pulling back from its “investment” (Sidney Harman bought Newsweek for $1 in 2010), this required some explanation from Barry Diller, whose IAC conglomerate holds the controlling interest in Tina Brown’s red ink empire. And in a Wednesday conference call, Diller seemed to signal that Newsweek would cease print publication later this year:

Newsweek will eventually transition to an online publication, owner IAC/InterActiveCorp (IACI) said today, marking the beginning of the end for the money-losing magazine’s 79-year run as a print weekly.
IAC Chairman Barry Diller made the announcement during a quarterly conference call, saying the New York-based company aims to curb investments in the business. Newsweek is projected to lose as much as $22 million this year, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. Still, Diller stopped short of saying the magazine would undergo a “total” shift online.
“The transition to online from hard print will take place,” Diller said. “We’re examining all of our options.”
A plan for Newsweek will be announced as early as September, Diller said. Newsweek became part of his media holdings in 2011 when it merged with IAC’s Daily Beast Co., an Internet news startup that Diller founded with former Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown. The merger was part of an agreement with the late Sidney Harman, who acquired Newsweek from Washington Post Co. (WPO) for $1 and the assumption of liabilities.

It has been estimated that the Daily Beast was already losing $10 million a year before the merger with Newsweek, a magazine that was carrying $50 million in debt when Harman bought it for a token $1. Jeff Bercovici at Forbes reports:

IAC doesn’t break out the Newsweek/Beast’s fiances, but published reports have consistently pegged its losses at around $30 million last year. . . . While Diller said in December that the losses were moderating, a source with detailed knowledge of the business estimates it is now on course to lose as much as $35 million this year, with Newsweek accounting for more than $20 million of that.

That’s a lot of money to lose on a Web site and a magazine. Nevertheless, when Diller expressed the obvious fact that these staggering losses cannot continue infinitely, it evidently set off a panic among Newsweek staffers, requiring Tina Brown to issue this note to her staff:

Barry Diller would like to make it clear that he did not say on the earnings call as reported that Newsweek is going digital in September.
He made the uncontroversial, industry-wide observation that print is moving in the direction of digital.
Below, in summary, are the points he actually made on the IAC earnings call when he was reporting the tremendous results of the company this quarter.
1. The Newsweek brand is strong, and far stronger than it has been in years.
2. We wouldn’t finance The Daily Beast at anywhere near the level of ‘12.
3. That eventually, over time, digital would replace much of print (hardly a controversial revelation).
4. In September we would be evolving our plan for the year ’13, with many options to choose from.
Best,
Tina

Lots to chew on in that brief note, e.g.: How is a brand “strong,” in a business sense, when it is synonymous with catastrophic financial losses? More important, however, is the revelation that Diller won’t continue funding Tina’s operation “at anywhere near” its current levels.

What that will likely mean — if you read between the lines — is a hiring freeze, at the very minimum, and the possibility of significant layoffs.

In other words, the gravy-train years at the Daily Beast are coming to an end, Diller’s stockholders can’t continue forever footing the bill for these extravagant expenses, and Tina’s employees will be expected to endure some belt-tightening measures in coming months.

Tina Brown herself, however, will continue to be the privileged publishing diva she has always been, with an amazing knack for convincing people to let her throw away their money.

Category: Newsweek

A Series Of Substantive Presidential Debates #YouDidntBuildThat

Posted on | July 26, 2012 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Three debates? That’s it? And only one for the Veep? The WSJ, formatting and emphasis from me:

  • The first, which will focus on domestic policy, is set for Oct. 3 at the University of Denver in Denver, Colo., the city that hosted the 2008 Democratic convention.
  • A second meeting in a town-hall format will take place Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and
  • the final meeting, focusing on foreign policy, will be held Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

Mallor on moderators: “we’ll probably end up with Wolf Blitzer, Diane Sawyer, Gwen Ifill, and Bob Schieffer.”

Not Chris Matthews, Christiane Amanpour, George Stephanopoulos, and Rachel Maddow?

Let’s face it: these debates are going to be so lame, rigged and devoid of life as to pass for an SNL cold open. Thanks in advance, Commission on Presidential Debates, for giving us prompt, sufficient, and informative debates that will enliven the national discourse and leave the electorate enriched. You guys are swell.

Vaguely related: timeline of #YouDidntBuildThat

Update: linked by Hogewash.

Category: Barack Obama, Election 2012, Mitt Romney

LIVE AT FIVE (CENTRAL TIME EDITION): 07.26.12

Posted on | July 26, 2012 | 8 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

TOP NEWS
Norks Reveal Kin Jong Eun Marriage In Shift From Father’s Secrecy

Kim Jong Un and his bride Ri Sol Ju

Another in a series of moves designed to evoke the image of his grandfather?

Obama Calls For Gun Control Deal In Wake Of Colorado Shootings
Okay, who had one week in the pool?

Senate Passes Obama’s Tax Hike 51-48
Lieberman, Webb vote against; bill likely DOA in House

POLITICS
Poll: Romney Preferred To Manage Economy 2-1 Over Obama

Mitt Romney. He does stuff.

Democrat attacks having zero traction: is the MittStar fully operational?

Mother Of Man Shot By Anaheim Police Begs For End To Violent Protests

Occupod Pleads Guilty In Bridge-Bombing Plot

Another Politician Flexes Political Muscle To Block Chick-Fil-A, This Time In Chicago

Presidential Debates Set

Palin, DeMint Among Tea Party Cavalry Riding To Reinforce Ted Cruz

U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Endorses George Allen

THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Crude Falls On High US Stockpiles, Strong Dollar: NYMEX $88.67, Brent $104.11
Ex-Citibank CEO Sandy Weill: Break Up The Big Banks
Zynga Reports $22.8 Million Loss In Second Quarter
ROK Economic Growth Slows
Drought To Force Food Prices Higher: 3-4% Increase Expected
Geithner Under Fire On Capitol Hill Again, This Time Over LIBOR Scandal
Hyundai Motor Logs Record Profit On Overseas Sales
YouTube Creator Space London Offers Pro Kit For DIY Content
Microsoft Overhauls Printing: An End To Plug & Pray?
How VMWare Embraced Its Open Source Nemesis
Former FBI Agent Warns Of Cyber-Threats, Asks Hackers For Help At Black Hat Conference
Fourth Expansion For World Of Warcraft Coming September 25
Apple/Amazon War Heats Up

SPORTS
U.S. Women Rally To Beat France 4-2 In Soccer

Megan Rapinoe and Alex Morgan celebrate after Morgan's second goal

Ladies fight back from 2-0 deficit for victory

Furcal & Cardinals Spoil Ramirez’ Dodger Debut, Win 3-2 In 12

Suns Move Lopez, Warrick To Hornets In 3-Team Trade

SecState Clinton Asks IOC for Moment Of Silence In Remembrance Of Israeli Olympians Killed At Munich

Hamels, Phillies Agree To Six-Year/$144 Million Extension

A’s Crush Blue Jays In Brutal, Record-Settting 16-0 Shutout Beatdown

Strasburg K’s 11 As Nationals Sweep Mets With 5-2 Win

FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
“Game Of Thrones” Star Lena Headey Files For Divorce

Lena Headey

Plays Queen Cersei Lannister on the smash HBO series

Kristen Stewart Apologizes To Robert Pattinson For Cheating

Katherine Jackson “Devastated” She Lost Custody Of Son Michael’s Kids
Tito Jackson’s son TJ, 32, will be their temporary guardian

Lindsay Lohan – Another Day, Another Fender Bender

Demi Moore’s New Boy Toy Revealed

Holly Madison: I’m Adopting!

Carly Rae Jepson Nude Photo Scandal

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Extend Contracts With Comedy Central

Sharon Osbourne Leaving “America’s Got Talent”

Jenna Jameson Pleads Not Guilty In DUI Case

FOREIGNERS
Syrian Rebels, Loyalists Mass Troops In Aleppo For Decisive Battle
Turkey Seals Syrian Border To All But Refugees
Will Ghana’s Success Survive President Mills’ Death?
Boy, 11, Boards Plane To Italy In Manchester Without Passport
Rumors Swirl Over Beijing Flood Death Toll
Nork Womens’ Footy Squad Flips Over Accidental Use Of ROK Flag
Assam Violence Continues; PM Singh To Visit July 28
Philippine Judge Orders Release Of Ex-President Arroyo
More Syrian Diplomats Defect

BLOGS & STUFF
Lonely Conservative: Dems Leery Of “Audit The Fed” Bill
Power Line: The Battle For Ballot Integrity In Pennsylvania
Protein Wisdom: Alderman To Chick-Fil-A – No Deal
Volokh Conspiracy: No Building Permits For Opponents Of Same-Sex Marriage?
Rush Limbaugh: Gallup Poll Shows Democrat Enthusiasm Down Sharply
Moe Lane: American Crossroads Releases “Two For Flinching” Ad
Legal Insurrection: Bring On The “You Didn’t Build That” Counterattack
Forbes: Tina Brown Tells Newsweek Staff To Calm Down, They’re Not Closing
Ed Morrissey: CIA Asks, “Did You Mean These Documents?”
Weekly Standard Blog: Blind Quote Used To Inject Race Into Presidential Election
NRO Corner: On Romney, Obama, And Anglo-Saxons
Zilla Of The Resistance: Bloggers Beware – An Important Reminder

Category: Live at Five

It’s Homophobolicious!

Posted on | July 25, 2012 | 19 Comments

Today my 13-year-old son Jefferson coined that word while we were driving to Chick-fil-A, a dinnertime decision I made after reading how intolerant bozos are trying to ban Chick-fil-A in Boston and Chicago. After seeing the headlines at Memeornadum, I did a quick Google search and learned that the nearest Chick-fil-A is 15 miles away — a relatively short distance to drive for freedom.

When we got there, the line for the drive-through was backed up — at 8 o’clock on a Wednesday night. We ordered five Chick-fil-A sandwiches, two large orders of waffle fries and two large sweet iced teas. When we got to the window, we paid $21.95. because freedom isn’t free.

Given the surging popularity of Chick-fil-A — and also, the penis-and-vagina combo — I think heterosexuality and freedom have a fighting chance.

Category: Gays

‘Gentleman’ Jim Moran Has The Right Of It: Audit the Fed Passes House, 327-98

Posted on | July 25, 2012 | 13 Comments

by Smitty

Good news via Freedom Works: the Audit the Fed bill passed. And now it goes to the Senate, where Dingius Maximus (Harry Reid), remains mostly paralyzed by a head-shaped object in an unlikely location (emphasis mine):

“Ron Paul’s ‘Audit The Fed’ bill is a reminder of his tireless efforts to promote sound money and a more transparent Federal Reserve,” Romney posted on Twitter.
The bill, of course, is not without critics. Democrats say the Act could “politicize” the Federal Reserve’s decisions–what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called a “nightmare scenario.”
“This bill would … jeopardize the Fed’s independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to GAO audit,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland. “I agree with Chairman Bernanke that congressional review of the Fed’s monetary policy decisions would be a ‘nightmare scenario,’ especially judging by the track record of this Congress when it comes to governing effectively.”
While Wednesday’s passage in the lower chamber is a victory for Paul and his supporters, the bill is considered dead on arrival in the Senate. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader and Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to put it to a vote.

Now, why would you put it to a vote, Harry? That would be like doing your job, or engaging in reasonable stewardship while in office. Which would be totally out of character for you, sad clown.

Props to Jim Moran, my Congressman, for getting it right.

Category: End The Fed

Bucket List: @JonahNRO Retweet For “You didn’t do that”

Posted on | July 25, 2012 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Because it seems to piss #OccupyResoluteDesk off so much, let’s encourage every blogger to devote a post a day to some variation one Barack’s collectivist “You didn’t do that” them.

Possibilities are only bounded by the fact that you didn’t do that, but could include:

  • Mocking the Obamateurism of the Day
  • Lampooning Obama’s risible record in office
  • Pointing out the things that Obama himself didn’t do, e.g. release any academic records

This blog has suggested to VodkaPundit that such posts could make a good Week In Blogs feature:


So, keep it zany, but, unlike Lefty work, fact-based. Nothing makes a liar feel self-righteous like an error of fact. Though I did hear that Obama’s last budget sucked so bad, it received a negative number of votes. Maybe delivering a comic book to Congress in lieu of a budget wasn’t a swift idea. But hey, when Pee Wee Herman is your Chief-of-staff. . .

Category: Barack Obama
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin