Original Link: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/no-hope-today-by-dday-we-live-in.html
by dday
We live in a bipartisan surveillance state.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise
“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”
"Work to remove" telecom immunity should be rewritten to "maybe show up to vote on some amendment that will surely be struck down and then whimper away." What a colossal failure of leadership.
Obama earns a Wanker of the Day from Atrios. And it's well-deserved. I thought he'd issue some vague statement of disapproval and then miss the vote. This endorsement of a X'ing out the Fourth Amendment is waaaay out of bounds.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Obama is shifting toward the center - what a change and hope person (=an opportunist)
Original Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama28-2008jun28,0,7896641.story
By Janet Hook
A handgun ban. The death penalty. U.S. wiretaps. Iran and Israel. Trade. On all of those issues, he has recently staked more moderate ground.
Barack Obama, as he introduces himself to the broader voting public, is emphasizing centrist -- even conservative -- positions on hot-button issues.
In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government's wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, he did not complain.
In the primary season, candidates' chief goal is usually to win their party's most ideologically driven voters; afterward the candidates often adjust their policy stances. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, has also changed tack on an array of issues. But Obama has drawn attention for the number of issues on which he has taken a moderate stance in recent days.
"I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.
At the same time, Obama has proposed a host of government spending initiatives that give Republicans plenty of ammunition to brand him a liberal. And they cite his ranking by National Journal magazine -- called misleading by Obama's aides -- that identified him as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007.
But other recent moves by Obama chart a more moderate course.
He disagreed with this week's Supreme Court decision barring the death penalty for child rape, saying that states should be able to impose such a penalty for "heinous" crimes.
Obama has long supported the death penalty, but he has also expressed doubts about whether it's an effective deterrent and applied fairly.
Obama's reaction to another Supreme Court ruling, which struck down a gun ban in Washington, D.C., stood in contrast to that of many local political leaders and was more tempered than that of many liberals. Whereas his hometown mayor, Richard M. Daley of Chicago, and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton sharply criticized the court decision, Obama was more welcoming. He said the ruling "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
Meanwhile, after calling the North American Free Trade Agreement a "big mistake" during the primary season and saying it should be renegotiated, Obama has recently toned down his rhetoric and emphasized his record of support for free trade. He also angered many union and liberal activists by naming a chief economic advisor who has extolled the virtues of globalization.
Facing criticism that he may be too willing to negotiate with Iran, Obama in a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee took a tough line on protecting Israel against Iran.
This month, he announced that he would opt out of the public financing system for presidential elections, continuing to raise money from private donors, rather than adhere to the spending limits that come with it. Earlier, he had pledged to take public funds if his GOP opponent did.
And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama's campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.
The changes carry some risk that Obama will diminish the image he has sought to build as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business. McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.
For example, McCain's campaign said Obama was unable to give a clear account of whether he viewed the Washington gun ban as constitutional, an issue on which Obama and his campaign have given mixed signals. And when Obama announced that his campaign would not take public funding, McCain's spokeswoman accused him of failing to stand by his principles.
But Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said the Illinois senator's record has been consistent, not tilting to the center for political purposes. "He's committed to making decisions he thinks are right," said Burton. "He'll continue to do that as president."
And some analysts say the moves amount to smart politics, showing that Obama is not chained to his party's most devoted liberals. "If Obama doesn't do what MoveOn wants, it will show some degree of independence," said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution.
"He's a good politician. He's doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate," said Matt Bennett, a policy analyst with Third Way, a Democratic centrist think tank.
While Obama is making a play for centrist voters, McCain's strategy seems more geared to pinning down his party's conservative base, as he has steadily tacked to the right on a range of issues.
He has abandoned or downplayed views on which his reputation as a maverick are based: his opposition to President Bush's tax cuts, his liberal approach to handling illegal immigrants and his opposition to offshore oil drilling.
McCain is bringing his campaign agenda in line with party orthodoxy because many conservatives still view him with suspicion due to past departures from core GOP positions. His burden is to mobilize a party that is fractured and seemingly unenthusiastic about its standard-bearer.
Eddie Mahe, a McCain supporter and former GOP official, said that McCain has to position himself for conservatives "in a way that provides them a motivation and incentive to vote."
Last week, McCain reversed course and announced that he supports offshore oil drilling. On tax policy, McCain has come to support an extension of Bush's tax cuts. What's more, he has proposed additional cuts in corporate tax rates and other business breaks.
He has backed away from supporting an immigration plan that conservatives loathed because it offered a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants already in the country.
Despite those adjustments, many in McCain's party seem lukewarm about his candidacy. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found recently that 45% of those who planned to vote for McCain said they would do so with enthusiasm. By contrast, 81% of Obama voters said they were enthusiastic.
But Mahe said the Arizona senator will pick up support among conservatives as they learn more about Obama's record.
"The best shot they have to motivate the base," he said, "is to get people to see how liberal he is."
By Janet Hook
A handgun ban. The death penalty. U.S. wiretaps. Iran and Israel. Trade. On all of those issues, he has recently staked more moderate ground.
Barack Obama, as he introduces himself to the broader voting public, is emphasizing centrist -- even conservative -- positions on hot-button issues.
In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government's wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, he did not complain.
In the primary season, candidates' chief goal is usually to win their party's most ideologically driven voters; afterward the candidates often adjust their policy stances. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, has also changed tack on an array of issues. But Obama has drawn attention for the number of issues on which he has taken a moderate stance in recent days.
"I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.
At the same time, Obama has proposed a host of government spending initiatives that give Republicans plenty of ammunition to brand him a liberal. And they cite his ranking by National Journal magazine -- called misleading by Obama's aides -- that identified him as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007.
But other recent moves by Obama chart a more moderate course.
He disagreed with this week's Supreme Court decision barring the death penalty for child rape, saying that states should be able to impose such a penalty for "heinous" crimes.
Obama has long supported the death penalty, but he has also expressed doubts about whether it's an effective deterrent and applied fairly.
Obama's reaction to another Supreme Court ruling, which struck down a gun ban in Washington, D.C., stood in contrast to that of many local political leaders and was more tempered than that of many liberals. Whereas his hometown mayor, Richard M. Daley of Chicago, and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton sharply criticized the court decision, Obama was more welcoming. He said the ruling "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
Meanwhile, after calling the North American Free Trade Agreement a "big mistake" during the primary season and saying it should be renegotiated, Obama has recently toned down his rhetoric and emphasized his record of support for free trade. He also angered many union and liberal activists by naming a chief economic advisor who has extolled the virtues of globalization.
Facing criticism that he may be too willing to negotiate with Iran, Obama in a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee took a tough line on protecting Israel against Iran.
This month, he announced that he would opt out of the public financing system for presidential elections, continuing to raise money from private donors, rather than adhere to the spending limits that come with it. Earlier, he had pledged to take public funds if his GOP opponent did.
And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama's campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.
The changes carry some risk that Obama will diminish the image he has sought to build as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business. McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.
For example, McCain's campaign said Obama was unable to give a clear account of whether he viewed the Washington gun ban as constitutional, an issue on which Obama and his campaign have given mixed signals. And when Obama announced that his campaign would not take public funding, McCain's spokeswoman accused him of failing to stand by his principles.
But Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said the Illinois senator's record has been consistent, not tilting to the center for political purposes. "He's committed to making decisions he thinks are right," said Burton. "He'll continue to do that as president."
And some analysts say the moves amount to smart politics, showing that Obama is not chained to his party's most devoted liberals. "If Obama doesn't do what MoveOn wants, it will show some degree of independence," said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution.
"He's a good politician. He's doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate," said Matt Bennett, a policy analyst with Third Way, a Democratic centrist think tank.
While Obama is making a play for centrist voters, McCain's strategy seems more geared to pinning down his party's conservative base, as he has steadily tacked to the right on a range of issues.
He has abandoned or downplayed views on which his reputation as a maverick are based: his opposition to President Bush's tax cuts, his liberal approach to handling illegal immigrants and his opposition to offshore oil drilling.
McCain is bringing his campaign agenda in line with party orthodoxy because many conservatives still view him with suspicion due to past departures from core GOP positions. His burden is to mobilize a party that is fractured and seemingly unenthusiastic about its standard-bearer.
Eddie Mahe, a McCain supporter and former GOP official, said that McCain has to position himself for conservatives "in a way that provides them a motivation and incentive to vote."
Last week, McCain reversed course and announced that he supports offshore oil drilling. On tax policy, McCain has come to support an extension of Bush's tax cuts. What's more, he has proposed additional cuts in corporate tax rates and other business breaks.
He has backed away from supporting an immigration plan that conservatives loathed because it offered a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants already in the country.
Despite those adjustments, many in McCain's party seem lukewarm about his candidacy. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found recently that 45% of those who planned to vote for McCain said they would do so with enthusiasm. By contrast, 81% of Obama voters said they were enthusiastic.
But Mahe said the Arizona senator will pick up support among conservatives as they learn more about Obama's record.
"The best shot they have to motivate the base," he said, "is to get people to see how liberal he is."
AP Tries to Kill Hillary’s Campaign Early
Original Link: http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=4606
Here comes the bum’s rush!
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
…
The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.
The 46-year-old first term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.
Well, it’s certainly nice that the AP has gone ahead and decided that the Democrats won’t actually need the convention, but that’s not how it works. There is no nominee until the vote the convention because of one very, very important fact.
No delegate is bound to vote for any candidate, no matter what the voters of their state decided during the primary. Every single type of delegate - pledged, unpledged, super, whatever - is a potential free agent in Denver this summer.
Now, I’m quite sure it’s in the AP’s partisan interest if we believe that things are done and the Obamessiah has limped over the finish line. It’ll give Obama time to relax a bit, collect some more donors, and spend a little time figuring out just how he’s goign to get all those white voters he’s spent the last six months calling racists inbred ignorant hicks. Then he’s going to have to figure out how to tell all his black supporters that they actually need white voters and can’t call them crackers and blame them for everything from scrofula to global warming.
The more time Obama gets before he has to take on John McCain, the better off he is. But he’s not going to get that time. Let me say this again. Hillary Clinton will not quit the race until the concluding vote at the convention in Denver. She will not fold her campaign. She will not concede.
It. Will. Not. Happen.
I don’t care how much daydreaming the AP does. It doesn’t matter how many pinky-promises it gets from members of Congress who have demonstrated over and over again how easily they can be bought. This game has rules and believe me, Hillary Clinton and her people know every single one of them. I would be absolutely shocked if she did anything but take the nomination all the way to a vote in Denver.
Here comes the bum’s rush!
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
…
The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.
The 46-year-old first term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.
Well, it’s certainly nice that the AP has gone ahead and decided that the Democrats won’t actually need the convention, but that’s not how it works. There is no nominee until the vote the convention because of one very, very important fact.
No delegate is bound to vote for any candidate, no matter what the voters of their state decided during the primary. Every single type of delegate - pledged, unpledged, super, whatever - is a potential free agent in Denver this summer.
Now, I’m quite sure it’s in the AP’s partisan interest if we believe that things are done and the Obamessiah has limped over the finish line. It’ll give Obama time to relax a bit, collect some more donors, and spend a little time figuring out just how he’s goign to get all those white voters he’s spent the last six months calling racists inbred ignorant hicks. Then he’s going to have to figure out how to tell all his black supporters that they actually need white voters and can’t call them crackers and blame them for everything from scrofula to global warming.
The more time Obama gets before he has to take on John McCain, the better off he is. But he’s not going to get that time. Let me say this again. Hillary Clinton will not quit the race until the concluding vote at the convention in Denver. She will not fold her campaign. She will not concede.
It. Will. Not. Happen.
I don’t care how much daydreaming the AP does. It doesn’t matter how many pinky-promises it gets from members of Congress who have demonstrated over and over again how easily they can be bought. This game has rules and believe me, Hillary Clinton and her people know every single one of them. I would be absolutely shocked if she did anything but take the nomination all the way to a vote in Denver.
How The Media Is In The Tank For Obama
Original Link: http://elanso.com/ArticleModule/W6TDL9IsJ2U0I5MbU0QmPUIi.html
The latest comes from the AP’s whitewash where after ignoring the controversy for as long as possible, they put out a piece titled Obama Decries Racial Rhetoric. The piece then omits the pastor’s actual comments from the readers, and minimizes them as “inflammatory.”
Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday decried “the forces of division” over race that he said are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest.
“We have to come together,” he told a town-hall meeting at a high school.
He cited videos of inflammatory sermons given by his pastor that are now being used as political ammunition against him — remarks that Obama has denounced.
“If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked,” Obama said.
Terry Trippany provides more evidence against the AP being in Obama’s favor. It is also interesting to note how Rolling Stone changed the title of one of their pieces on Obama to something a little less “radical” after the media storm on the Wright controversy.
Mike Allen of the Politico tries to explain why the media ignored Wright for so long:
To reporters who had followed the campaign, it was an old, oft-written story. But this time it had video of Wright saying things like “U.S. of K.K.K.A.,” available on YouTube and played endlessly by cable news channels.
The minister’s controversial history has been written about countless times throughout the campaign. Wright has ties to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist leader of the Nation of Islam — a fact that has been noted in more than 100 news stories just in the past few months, according to the Nexis database of news coverage.
Tom Maguire rips into this poor excuse:
Oh, stop - Tim Russert asked Obama about Farrakhan during a televised debate. But I just don’t recall Tim asking about “God Damn America”, or whether America deserved to get attacked on 9/11, or “Hillary has never been called a n****r”. Hmm, that last would have made for great live television; you’d think I would remember it.
Furthermore Tom Magure provides a bullet point anaylsis on the media ignoring all of this.
Yes, bloggers have known about this, but the media have ignored it for at least a year. Now they are doing their best to whitewash it.
dmann at Hot Air sums it up best:
For the MSM it is CHANGE and HOPE, change the story and hope the sheep buy it.
Meanwhile at Barrack Obama’s website…Wright goes down the memory hole.
The latest comes from the AP’s whitewash where after ignoring the controversy for as long as possible, they put out a piece titled Obama Decries Racial Rhetoric. The piece then omits the pastor’s actual comments from the readers, and minimizes them as “inflammatory.”
Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday decried “the forces of division” over race that he said are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest.
“We have to come together,” he told a town-hall meeting at a high school.
He cited videos of inflammatory sermons given by his pastor that are now being used as political ammunition against him — remarks that Obama has denounced.
“If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked,” Obama said.
Terry Trippany provides more evidence against the AP being in Obama’s favor. It is also interesting to note how Rolling Stone changed the title of one of their pieces on Obama to something a little less “radical” after the media storm on the Wright controversy.
Mike Allen of the Politico tries to explain why the media ignored Wright for so long:
To reporters who had followed the campaign, it was an old, oft-written story. But this time it had video of Wright saying things like “U.S. of K.K.K.A.,” available on YouTube and played endlessly by cable news channels.
The minister’s controversial history has been written about countless times throughout the campaign. Wright has ties to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist leader of the Nation of Islam — a fact that has been noted in more than 100 news stories just in the past few months, according to the Nexis database of news coverage.
Tom Maguire rips into this poor excuse:
Oh, stop - Tim Russert asked Obama about Farrakhan during a televised debate. But I just don’t recall Tim asking about “God Damn America”, or whether America deserved to get attacked on 9/11, or “Hillary has never been called a n****r”. Hmm, that last would have made for great live television; you’d think I would remember it.
Furthermore Tom Magure provides a bullet point anaylsis on the media ignoring all of this.
Yes, bloggers have known about this, but the media have ignored it for at least a year. Now they are doing their best to whitewash it.
dmann at Hot Air sums it up best:
For the MSM it is CHANGE and HOPE, change the story and hope the sheep buy it.
Meanwhile at Barrack Obama’s website…Wright goes down the memory hole.
In the Tank, Corrupt Media, Who is paying the media to lie and how do we expose it and stop the lies?
Original Link: http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=211357
Throughout the campaign, the media lied, did not report objectively, honestly fairly. They were smearing Hillary as they are now doing wtih McCain, while Obama gets away with anything and everything. Not only are the media corrupt, but they help make Obama more corrupt when he doesn't have to answer anything. They allow him to hide behind race, but in the end, Obama will turn on the hand that fed him. He has a history of throwing everyone udner the bus, including his biggest supporters, the people who helped him get where he is. Rev Wright.
A list of ways to stop the corrupt media and the people they sometimes support.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
AntiSemetic BBC: Corrupt Media Pays to Cover-up
Quote:
This is a stunning story. We are used to seeing a media hell bent on pursuing their agenda no matter the cost to journalism standards. Code of ethics ha! Running Abu Gharib on the front page of the New York Slimes every day for 44 days is more subtle as is ignoring the Oil-for-food scandal (the largest scandal in human history) but running false stories knowingly, KNOWINGLY, as the Times did this week in the case of the soldier alleging she was raped in Iraq (and she had never been to Iraq), lat year's fauxtography scandal, the staged AP photos,- each incident moves the line in the sand. Lying deceiving the American people has become a daily occurrence.
The latest ought to be the nail in the coffin of a corrupt, dishonest, malevolent power without accountability. It ought to be,but it won't
BBC pays £200,000 to 'cover up report on anti-Israel bias'
by PAUL REVOIR hat tip Zall
The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.
The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards "palestine".
BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public.
The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC's coverage in the region.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...metic_bbc.html
Is the Media Morally Corrupt? Do they need Moral policing?
Television is probably one of the most powerful media today.
Quote:
So the decision makers sitting at pivotal positions in this industry have got to be level headed persons. They are the one's who decide what incidents are to be reported and how.
Every successful channel is running on a carrot/stick policy with political parties. A clear you scratch my back & I will scratch yours policy is being followed. In the recently concluded Tamilnadu elections both the major parties used their individual channels to wash dirty linens.
What is "News" - News is first hand reporting of facts, however nowadays we see more of Opinions from these news channels than News. Most of these Opinions are Biased depending upon their individual Favorites.
During a recent fashion show there was a wardrobe tragedy when a couple of models lost some critical portion of their dress on the ramp. "What did the media do".....There was a non-stop video telecast for 3 days of this embarassing incident. "Where did the morals of the channels go". This entire incident was used by the media for monetory benefit without delving deep into the actual morals of the issue. I remember one of the popular English news channel actually selling advertisement time before telecast of this video. "Did they share any of this money with the poor embarassed models"
Do you think if the media is left totally out of control then with the amount of Power they carry in terms of reach to this massive population it could be used as a tool for all the wrong purposes.
Do they need moral policing?
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-KmU8i...P0-?cq=1&p=103
HOW CORRUPT IS THE MEDIA?
Short answer: more corrupt than you could ever guess.
Quote:
EX:
So far, the biggest political story of the year has been the racist-lite Photoshop scandal by C. Virginia Fields, a story I and I alone broke. The entire media got the jpeg from me and NONE would mention that I was the one who broke it, because that would've given my candidacy even more credibility and attention. (Only the NYObserver's blog gave me credit!)
HOW is it not 1% "relevant" that the man who ruined her campaign was her Democrat opponent, CXB???
EX:
The "Polls" they are using to tell you which candidates your neighbors really like are TOTALLY FAKED and every journalist knows this but won't tell you the truth. Because they use these fake polls to SCAM you in a thousand ways. EX: they used them to exclude me from ALL articles and ALL debates about the mayor's race, by saying I wasn't "popular" like 10% Weiner and Miller! (They gave Weiner and Miller over 50 million dollars in free advertising and STILL voters don't like them.) (YET the entire media covered Thomas Ognibene and Steve Shaw who were not polling at even 1%, proving every jounalist and debate sponsor was LYING to the people of NYC.)
http://www.mayorbrodeur.org/media.html
A Corrupt Media.
by canadian gal, Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
Cross posted at Kickin it With CG
Quote:
I originally wrote this about a month ago - but am hoping that this now gets a bit more attention.
As some will note I have written several diaries now on the failure of the fourth estate during this primary season. The reactions to these pieces were mixed from agreement, indifference and denial of any bias in the coverage. But with the recent feeding frenzy of the press in response to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book - nothing could be clearer: A CORRUPT MEDIA HAS FAILED.
Amongst other things, McClellan's asserts that the media's failings are primarily responsible for the rush to war in Iraq and complicit in enabling the Bush administration.
And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it... the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth--about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict--would get largely left behind...
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&cd=28
Corrupt polling and the media:
Quote:
It's amazing how a debate that no one saw can have such an impact on regional and national polls. Perhaps this is what they mean when they say that the Obama Camp and the Edwards Camp are going to get aggressive. Debates that every one watches in which one candidate blasts another candidate out of the water usually have marginal repercussions in the polls. You're telling me there was a thirty percent shift in the polls after the last debate which no one saw. Give me a break!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...m_b_71724.html
Obama's secret weapon: The media
By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI 4/18/08 7:05 PM EST Text Size:
Are journalists not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon?
Quote:
My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.
Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?
Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.
That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans — some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places — who are doing the whining.
The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.
Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.
But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.
The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleading.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html
But America isn't the only country with media that are corrupt:
January 18, 2008...11:27 am
Quote:
Corrupt Barbados Media Stand Charged With Unforgivable Deceit
Jump to Comments
http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.c...ivable-deceit/
How do we stop the corruption, their lies, what they are doing?
Throughout the campaign, the media lied, did not report objectively, honestly fairly. They were smearing Hillary as they are now doing wtih McCain, while Obama gets away with anything and everything. Not only are the media corrupt, but they help make Obama more corrupt when he doesn't have to answer anything. They allow him to hide behind race, but in the end, Obama will turn on the hand that fed him. He has a history of throwing everyone udner the bus, including his biggest supporters, the people who helped him get where he is. Rev Wright.
A list of ways to stop the corrupt media and the people they sometimes support.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
AntiSemetic BBC: Corrupt Media Pays to Cover-up
Quote:
This is a stunning story. We are used to seeing a media hell bent on pursuing their agenda no matter the cost to journalism standards. Code of ethics ha! Running Abu Gharib on the front page of the New York Slimes every day for 44 days is more subtle as is ignoring the Oil-for-food scandal (the largest scandal in human history) but running false stories knowingly, KNOWINGLY, as the Times did this week in the case of the soldier alleging she was raped in Iraq (and she had never been to Iraq), lat year's fauxtography scandal, the staged AP photos,- each incident moves the line in the sand. Lying deceiving the American people has become a daily occurrence.
The latest ought to be the nail in the coffin of a corrupt, dishonest, malevolent power without accountability. It ought to be,but it won't
BBC pays £200,000 to 'cover up report on anti-Israel bias'
by PAUL REVOIR hat tip Zall
The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.
The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards "palestine".
BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public.
The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC's coverage in the region.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...metic_bbc.html
Is the Media Morally Corrupt? Do they need Moral policing?
Television is probably one of the most powerful media today.
Quote:
So the decision makers sitting at pivotal positions in this industry have got to be level headed persons. They are the one's who decide what incidents are to be reported and how.
Every successful channel is running on a carrot/stick policy with political parties. A clear you scratch my back & I will scratch yours policy is being followed. In the recently concluded Tamilnadu elections both the major parties used their individual channels to wash dirty linens.
What is "News" - News is first hand reporting of facts, however nowadays we see more of Opinions from these news channels than News. Most of these Opinions are Biased depending upon their individual Favorites.
During a recent fashion show there was a wardrobe tragedy when a couple of models lost some critical portion of their dress on the ramp. "What did the media do".....There was a non-stop video telecast for 3 days of this embarassing incident. "Where did the morals of the channels go". This entire incident was used by the media for monetory benefit without delving deep into the actual morals of the issue. I remember one of the popular English news channel actually selling advertisement time before telecast of this video. "Did they share any of this money with the poor embarassed models"
Do you think if the media is left totally out of control then with the amount of Power they carry in terms of reach to this massive population it could be used as a tool for all the wrong purposes.
Do they need moral policing?
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-KmU8i...P0-?cq=1&p=103
HOW CORRUPT IS THE MEDIA?
Short answer: more corrupt than you could ever guess.
Quote:
EX:
So far, the biggest political story of the year has been the racist-lite Photoshop scandal by C. Virginia Fields, a story I and I alone broke. The entire media got the jpeg from me and NONE would mention that I was the one who broke it, because that would've given my candidacy even more credibility and attention. (Only the NYObserver's blog gave me credit!)
HOW is it not 1% "relevant" that the man who ruined her campaign was her Democrat opponent, CXB???
EX:
The "Polls" they are using to tell you which candidates your neighbors really like are TOTALLY FAKED and every journalist knows this but won't tell you the truth. Because they use these fake polls to SCAM you in a thousand ways. EX: they used them to exclude me from ALL articles and ALL debates about the mayor's race, by saying I wasn't "popular" like 10% Weiner and Miller! (They gave Weiner and Miller over 50 million dollars in free advertising and STILL voters don't like them.) (YET the entire media covered Thomas Ognibene and Steve Shaw who were not polling at even 1%, proving every jounalist and debate sponsor was LYING to the people of NYC.)
http://www.mayorbrodeur.org/media.html
A Corrupt Media.
by canadian gal, Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
Cross posted at Kickin it With CG
Quote:
I originally wrote this about a month ago - but am hoping that this now gets a bit more attention.
As some will note I have written several diaries now on the failure of the fourth estate during this primary season. The reactions to these pieces were mixed from agreement, indifference and denial of any bias in the coverage. But with the recent feeding frenzy of the press in response to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book - nothing could be clearer: A CORRUPT MEDIA HAS FAILED.
Amongst other things, McClellan's asserts that the media's failings are primarily responsible for the rush to war in Iraq and complicit in enabling the Bush administration.
And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it... the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth--about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict--would get largely left behind...
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&cd=28
Corrupt polling and the media:
Quote:
It's amazing how a debate that no one saw can have such an impact on regional and national polls. Perhaps this is what they mean when they say that the Obama Camp and the Edwards Camp are going to get aggressive. Debates that every one watches in which one candidate blasts another candidate out of the water usually have marginal repercussions in the polls. You're telling me there was a thirty percent shift in the polls after the last debate which no one saw. Give me a break!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...m_b_71724.html
Obama's secret weapon: The media
By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI 4/18/08 7:05 PM EST Text Size:
Are journalists not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon?
Quote:
My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.
Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?
Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.
That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans — some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places — who are doing the whining.
The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.
Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.
But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.
The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleading.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html
But America isn't the only country with media that are corrupt:
January 18, 2008...11:27 am
Quote:
Corrupt Barbados Media Stand Charged With Unforgivable Deceit
Jump to Comments
http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.c...ivable-deceit/
How do we stop the corruption, their lies, what they are doing?
Once Again, the AP Takes Obama's Side
Original Link: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/2008/06/once-again-ap-takes-obamas-side.html
Here's a very one-sided article from our favorite Obama propaganda machine, the Associated Press: Obama Launches Site to Debunk Rumors
Nedra Pickler, author of the article, is a name I recognize. She has been one of the few AP political reporters covering the Democratic primaries, with her coverage skewed towards Obama the whole campaign. The entire article she wrote is completely biased towards Obama, and tries to portray any negative information put out against him as a lie that is being drummed up by conservatives. For example, she writes:
It's a particular problem for Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics who is still unknown to many voters and has been the target of persistent misinformation campaigns online.
Right. So all the information out about Rezko is just a "persistent misinformation campaign."
She also goes so far as to equate negative information on Obama as an Internet hoax, by writing:
E-mails about Obama rank No. 2 on the list of "Hottest Urban Legends" on snopes.com, an Internet rumor-debunking site, behind e-mail greeting cards that could expose computers to viruses.
The final straw for me was reading the following graph:
There have also been more insulting attacks, and not just limited to the Internet. The Fox News Channel recently labeled her as "Obama's baby mama" and also raised the inflammatory suggestion that she gave her husband a "terrorist fist jab" when they bumped knuckles the night he clinched the nomination.
Oh gee, poor Obama. You mean he's finally getting a small taste of what Hillary had to endure her entire campaign? Boo hoo.
Nedra Pickler has obviously been in the tank for Obama for a while now. Whether she's just a fan of his or actually getting encouraged by the higher ups at AP to support him, this article is yet another example of Obama propaganda.
I'm not saying all Internet rumors about Obama are true, but a real reporter would look at some of the more substantiated charges, such as his associations with Ayers and Rezko. To not do so is not journalism, but rather a rehashing of an Obama press release.
Shame on Pickler, and the AP for putting forth this shoddy journalism.
Here's a very one-sided article from our favorite Obama propaganda machine, the Associated Press: Obama Launches Site to Debunk Rumors
Nedra Pickler, author of the article, is a name I recognize. She has been one of the few AP political reporters covering the Democratic primaries, with her coverage skewed towards Obama the whole campaign. The entire article she wrote is completely biased towards Obama, and tries to portray any negative information put out against him as a lie that is being drummed up by conservatives. For example, she writes:
It's a particular problem for Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics who is still unknown to many voters and has been the target of persistent misinformation campaigns online.
Right. So all the information out about Rezko is just a "persistent misinformation campaign."
She also goes so far as to equate negative information on Obama as an Internet hoax, by writing:
E-mails about Obama rank No. 2 on the list of "Hottest Urban Legends" on snopes.com, an Internet rumor-debunking site, behind e-mail greeting cards that could expose computers to viruses.
The final straw for me was reading the following graph:
There have also been more insulting attacks, and not just limited to the Internet. The Fox News Channel recently labeled her as "Obama's baby mama" and also raised the inflammatory suggestion that she gave her husband a "terrorist fist jab" when they bumped knuckles the night he clinched the nomination.
Oh gee, poor Obama. You mean he's finally getting a small taste of what Hillary had to endure her entire campaign? Boo hoo.
Nedra Pickler has obviously been in the tank for Obama for a while now. Whether she's just a fan of his or actually getting encouraged by the higher ups at AP to support him, this article is yet another example of Obama propaganda.
I'm not saying all Internet rumors about Obama are true, but a real reporter would look at some of the more substantiated charges, such as his associations with Ayers and Rezko. To not do so is not journalism, but rather a rehashing of an Obama press release.
Shame on Pickler, and the AP for putting forth this shoddy journalism.
Barack Obama and the Media: In the Tank for Obama
Original Link: http://journals.aol.com/skip3366/TheMaverickConservative/entries/2008/04/16/barack-obama-and-the-media-in-the-tank-for-obama/4071
"Barack Obama can take some solace out of Hillary Clinton’s new television ad in Pennsylvania. At least one of her supporters featured in the spot hammering Obama for his small town comments isn’t registered to vote in Pennsylvania."
Okay. The above is from the chicagotribune.com, which is a leftist newspaper in Illinois (Obama's home state). I guess this is a matter of: "What can you expect?". However, this utterly stupid story is linked on Drudge, and will probably receive national play in the pro-Obama leftist press (not a description that applies to Drudge, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that Drudge is picking this story up as an anti-Clinton story that can be hyped, even though it is of no significance).
Since when have "fact checkers" checked on the VOTER REGISTRATION of people in an ad. Note that this non-story does not suggest that the person is queston was not offended by Barack Obama. Rather, the story suggests the totally ridiculous idea that it matters that the person in question is registered to vote in New Jersey rather than Pennsylvania.
If Barack Obama is reduced to taking solace from this reaching attempt to discredit a Clinton ad, he is in BIG trouble. I actually think he is.
Note how long it took for the mainstream media to "check" the false Clinton sob story about an allegedly uninsured, pregnant woman who was denied (not actually uninsured or denied) health care. That was because the media agreed with that agenda.
This is totally a story with an agenda, and not any kind of "news".
"Barack Obama can take some solace out of Hillary Clinton’s new television ad in Pennsylvania. At least one of her supporters featured in the spot hammering Obama for his small town comments isn’t registered to vote in Pennsylvania."
Okay. The above is from the chicagotribune.com, which is a leftist newspaper in Illinois (Obama's home state). I guess this is a matter of: "What can you expect?". However, this utterly stupid story is linked on Drudge, and will probably receive national play in the pro-Obama leftist press (not a description that applies to Drudge, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that Drudge is picking this story up as an anti-Clinton story that can be hyped, even though it is of no significance).
Since when have "fact checkers" checked on the VOTER REGISTRATION of people in an ad. Note that this non-story does not suggest that the person is queston was not offended by Barack Obama. Rather, the story suggests the totally ridiculous idea that it matters that the person in question is registered to vote in New Jersey rather than Pennsylvania.
If Barack Obama is reduced to taking solace from this reaching attempt to discredit a Clinton ad, he is in BIG trouble. I actually think he is.
Note how long it took for the mainstream media to "check" the false Clinton sob story about an allegedly uninsured, pregnant woman who was denied (not actually uninsured or denied) health care. That was because the media agreed with that agenda.
This is totally a story with an agenda, and not any kind of "news".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)