-
Too Much Tim Russert Coverage?
The late Tim Russert, Moderator of NBC’s Meet The Press
Good Grief, the HYPERBOLE is overwhelming.
-
Cox & Forkum: Opus Akbar
New item: Washington Post, Other Newspapers Won’t Run ‘Opus’ Cartoon Mocking Radical Islam.
A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.
The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday’s installment of Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
The installment did not appear in the Post’s print version, but it ran on WashingtonPost.com and Salon.com. The same will hold true for the upcoming Sept. 2 strip, which is a continuation of the plotline.
The Jerry Falwell comic strip is here.
The Wahington Post and other American newspapers have NO problems with political satire on the comic pages if it involves the Christian RIGHT but are afraid when it involves Islam.
Remember the FLAP over the Muhammed Caricatures from Denmark last year?
The August 26th Opus strip about fundamental Islam is here.
The Washington Post Writers Group syndicates “Opus,” and the Post is the cartoon’s home newspaper. The syndicate sent out an alert about the two strips in question, according to Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago.
There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources.
Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate’s newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.
“The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers,” Lago said. “I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. … We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever.”
Sounds like a DOUBLE STANDARD to Flap.
Is the Washington Post afraid of offending the Muslims? Or afraid of a backhanded sex joke?
Oh PLEASE………
The Wapo will publish America’s national security secrets without hesitation and have done so on numerous occasions.
Maybe Wapo editors are afraid the Islamic fundamentalists might burn their building down? Or kidnap and behead their reporters?
Is there any WONDER why the American newspaper industry is dying a “SLOW DEATH?”
Freedom of speech – NOT found at the Washington Post.
Technorati Tags: Cox & Forkum, Opus, Washington Post, Muhammed Caricatures, JderryFalwell
-
Fairness Doctrine Watch: House Moves to Prohibit Return of Broadcast Fairness Doctrine
House Moves to Prohibit Return of Broadcast ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ Just in Case
The House voted Thursday to bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the broadcast “fairness doctrine†even though there are no legislative or regulatory proposals to bring back the rule.
Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former conservative radio talk show host, offered an amendment to the bill funding federal financial entities (HR 2829) that would block the FCC from spending money to restore the mandate. The rule, repealed 20 years ago, required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a balanced manner.
During floor debate on the spending bill, José E. Serrano, D-N.Y., chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, quickly agreed to accept the amendment. But that didn’t stop Republicans from taking to the floor to warn of a free-speech threat on the airwaves.
In recent days, conservative talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have cited public comments by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Dianne Feinstein of California and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois as evidence that Democrats are trying to bring back the fairness doctrine.
Well, if the Left cannot make it in the marketplace then why not regulate it so they can get their “fair share?”
Yeah right – except that it is an unconstitutional restraint of a free press.
Besides the MSM is owned by the Left………
Guess they want it ALL.
Technorati Tags: Fairness Doctrine, Talk Radio
-
Journalists Dole Out Cash to Democrats Over GOP 9 to 1
Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
And this is a surprise?
The Media Company Donors (Partial List):
Magazines:
Newspapers:
McClatchy Newspapers D.C. bureau
The Commercial Appeal, Memphis
The Daytona Beach News-Journal
Corpus Christi, Texas, Caller-Times
Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel
Martha’s Vineyard Times, Mass.
NPR affiliate in Washington, WAMU
Non-English news:
***********
Flap supposes that the harping of the right blogosphere about left-wing democrat bias of the MSM is correct, now isn’t it?
Some of the comments of the “CAUGHT” journalists are funny:
The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor, $2,000 to John Kerry in three payments in 2004. Hertzberg often writes the Comment in the front of the magazine, and was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.
Hertzberg, in answer to the question whether he made these donations, sent this reply: “Damn right.”
***********
Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume’s “Special Report,” $300 to Senate campaign of Harold Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, in March 2006, $200 more in June, and $2,100 more in September.
Brooks, who said her family is friendly with Ford’s, said she raised much of the $2,600 from friends — it wasn’t her money alone. “A lot of Fox employees have contributed to Democratic candidates. I know I’m not the only one.”
***********
Update:
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has his favorite journalist comments:
A particular standout is Mark Singer, who gave $250 to “Victory Campaign 2004, which supported America Coming Together, which opposed President Bush.” He says:
“I believe very much that writers have to be aware of conflicts of interest in all sorts of situations. Probably there should be a rule against it. But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler–a journalist interviewing him had murdered him–the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”
And……
Then there’s Randy Cohen, who writes the “Ethicist” column for the New York Times and gave $585 to MoveOn.org, an Angry Left Group”:
Cohen said he thought of MoveOn.org as nonpartisan and thought the donation would be allowed even under the strict rule at the Times.
“We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities–help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity,” Cohen said in an e-mail. “But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I’d say not. Unless a group’s activities impinge on a reporter’s beat, the reporter should be free to donate to a wide range of nonprofits. Make a journalist’s charitable giving transparent, and let the readers weigh it as they will.
“Those who do not cover anything, but write a column of opinion should have even more latitude. It is such a writer’s job to make his views explicit. Those donations to nonprofits will no doubt reflect the views he or she is hired to express. In evaluating such civic engagement, it is well to remember that to have an opinion is not to have a bias. To conceal one’s political opinions is not to be without them.”
After MSNBC.com checked the names of Times staff and contributors on this list with a spokesperson for the Times, Cohen sent this addendum:
“That said, Times policy does forbid my making such donations, and I will not do so in the future.”
James Taranto:
Cohen’s effort at self-justification approaches high comedy: If it’s OK for his colleagues to make donations to nonpolitical organizations that he finds politically objectionable, it must be OK for him to make donations to political organizations! And anyway, he thinks of MoveOn.org as nonpartisan! We haven’t read Cohen’s column in ages, but we recall that his guiding principle always seemed to be that the ends justify the means, so long as the ends are liberal.
One could argue that journalists who make political donations are doing the public a service by disclosing their own biases. The reason that many news organizations bar such contributions (though not all do; see this sidebar for the details) is to protect their institutional credibility–that is, the plausibility of the claim to be unbiased.
So, what does Flap think?
I think this quote is especially appropriate:
Abe Rosenthal, the former New York Times editor, who is reported to have said:
“I don’t care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don’t cover the circus.”
Each news organization which is a private concern and not regulated by the government must develop their own policies and disclose them.
A free press with disclosure will expose the bias – as it has.
But, what is scary are attempts like this to regulate the press – in particular talk radio by government action.
Stay tuned……
Previous:
Talk Radio Watch: How to End Right Wing Domination
Technorati Tags: media bias, journalism, journalism ethics
-
Rudy Giuliani Watch: Los Angeles Times Hits Rudy’s “Prickly Style”
Readers: Please Vote in Flap’s January 2008 GOP Presidential Poll
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and his wife Judith, right. pass a cluster of photographers and reporters as he tries to leave the Palace theater in Manchester, N.H., Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007.
Los Angeles Times: Giuliani plays it close to the vest
New Hampshire may be uniquely suited to the promise and perils of a Giuliani presidential run.
His profile — permissive for a Republican on social issues, conservative on fiscal matters — is well tailored to a state where Republicans tend to be moderate and independents can vote in the GOP primary. “Anybody who’s been to New York in the last few years can’t help but be impressed,” said Charles Arlinghaus, a longtime Republican activist and head of a free-market think tank in Concord.But Giuliani’s famously prickly style could be a problem. New Hampshire voters expect a highly personal touch, not the kind of imperious display the Giuliani camp put on Saturday. As the ex-mayor was being swept into an SUV outside the Palace Theatre, a man pushed his way forward and threw an arm over Giuliani’s shoulder, posing for a picture. A burly security guard lifted the man’s arm off, like a piece of bad meat.
“He’s only been exposed to rock star audiences up here,” said Andrew Smith, the state’s top political pollster. “What happens when he’s asked not tough questions, but annoying questions? It will be interesting to see how Giuliani deals with them.”
The good old MSM spin and bias. And then the pick-up.
Rudy had a good trip but he hasn’t decided yet if he is running.Rudy had a good New Hampshire trip but he is too moderate on social issues to be nominated by the GOP
Rudy has a “prickly style.”
Hasn’t this reporter ever heard of security?
And from the folks I have heard from in New Hampshire, Giuliani was not disconnected from the voters but was mobbed.
And such courting began a few minutes later across the Merrimack River as the Giulianis just happened to pop into Blake’s Family Restaurant for an afternoon bite with a handful of customers and a dozen or so waiting journalists.
“What should we have?†Judith Giuliani asked a few diners.
Chicken fajitas, she was told.
So it was chicken fajitas and a bacon cheeseburger for the New Yorkers (they shared) as they dove into the nitty-gritty of New Hampshire retail politics.
“Eating in diners three times a day, meeting people, that’s the easy part,†Giuliani said with his broad smile.So, for the umpteenth time, is he running, or not?
“The reality is we’re getting closer and closer,’’ Giuliani said.
If the Los Angeles Times wants to anoint Hillary – go ahead and do it on the editorial page.
But, Flap supposes it is understandable. After all, you reporters have to “SUCK UP” to the new FOB (Friend of Bill) owners of the Times – or you are out.
Right?
Captain Ed sees some bias with the Gray Lady treatment of Giuliani in the New York Times.
This is nothing but a silly attempt by the New York Times to damage Giuliani’s well-earned reputation for leadership. They’re trying to paint him as vacillating and indecisive, when the entire nation watched Giuliani during the aftermath of 9/11 and saw for themselves his ability to make decisions and take responsibility for them. In doing so, they try to claim that his decision not to run against Hillary Clinton for her Senate seat in 2000 had more to do with political cowardice than with his diagnosis of prostate cancer and the effect that would have on his ability to campaign aggressively against her.
Sam Roberts loses sight of one important fact: it’s only January 2007. In years gone by, candidates wouldn’t have even begun putting together teams or forming exploratory committees at this stage. It would have waited until the summer, while they spent the winter and spring traveling, making speeches, and taking the temperature of places like Iowa and New Hampshire to see whether a Presidential run had any chance of success.
In fact, Giuliani has been doing all of the above, and he formed his exploratory committee ahead of most other candidates. Was Barack Obama being vacillating and indecisive because he formed his committee in January, after Giuliani did? I don’t recall that being part of the Gray Lady’s warm reception of Obama’s entry into the race.
We know the NYT’s editorial board has a long record of detesting Giuliani. It seems obvious that their attitude has infected their news division as well.
Indeed……
Stay tuned……..
Update:
Kavon W. Nikrad over at race42008 adds his personal observations of Rudy Giulian’s “Prickly Style.” Which, of course is NOT PRICKLY at all.
Former New York City Mayor and possible Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani (L) and his wife Judith Nathan (C) greet delegates and guests at the New Hampshire Republican convention in Manchester, New Hampshire January 27, 2007.
Previous:
Giuliani Notes: Dollars for Rudy
Rudy Giuliani Watch: Who Has the Vision and Who Can Perform?
Rudy Giuliani Watch: Scouting New Hampshire at Littleton Chamber of Commerce
Rudy Giuliani Watch: Bush Iraq Plan Should Be Given A Chance
Rudy Giuliani Watch: Paul Cellucci, Former Massachusetts Governor Endorses Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani Watch:Giuliani 30% Leads McCain 22% and Romney 10%
Rudy Giuliani Watch: Latest Time Magazine Poll Has McCain Leading Giuliani by 4 Points
Rudy Giuliani Watch: What Does a Mayor Know About Iraq?
Technorati Tags: RudyGiuliani
-
Hot Air Watch: Vent The Associated (With Booty Calls) Press
Michelle has it RIGHT – as usual!
ASSociated Press indeed……….
Technorati Tags: MichelleMalkin, HotAir, AssociatedPress
-
BBC Watch: View of US’s Global Role ‘WORSE’
Readers: Please Vote in Flap’s January 2008 GOP Presidential Poll
BBC: View of US’s global role ‘worse’
The view of the US’s role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests.
The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington has dealt with Iraq.
The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas have been handled.
The poll, released ahead of President Bush’s State of the Union speech, was conducted between November and January.
Read the rest of this CRAP story and absurd poll.
The poll can be accessed here.
Flap has never seen as BIASED a piece of “NEWS” in a MSM publication. The BBC makes NO pretense in its anti-American LEFT-WING Agenda.
There is so much wrong with the polling methods and construction of the questions. And what about the sampling methods? How about providing the poll internals?
The reader does not have to be a statistician to see what a POS this piece is.
And lookie lookie who is involved – the Left-Wing Brookings Institute and Steve Kull of PIPA and LEFTY Collaborator I.M. Destler.
Old Clinton and LBJ Democrat Hacks providing disinformation to the BBC.
What a surprise?
NOTÂ
Technorati Tags: BBC, WorldServiceSurvey, GlobeScan, ProgramonInternationalPolicyAttitudes, Pipa
-
Los Angeles Times Watch: Dog Trainer Year in Review 2006
Patterico (Via Michelle Malkin): Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2006
This year’s installment covers a number of topics, including the Michael Hiltzik sock-puppetry controversy; the alleged Ramadi airstrike; the paper’s decision to reveal the Swift counterterror program; the firing of the paper’s editor and publisher; the Iraq war and the war on terror; the paper’s shilling for Democrats during the 2006 election; and my decision to cancel the paper — among many others.
This post summarizes an entire year’s worth of work documenting omissions, distortions, and misrepresentations by this newspaper. I have made an effort to document my arguments that this paper is a regular practitioner of liberal bias. As with my previous posts, the proof is voluminous. As a consequence, don’t feel that you need to read the entire post in one sitting. Feel free to bookmark it and return to it in the coming days, browsing through the categories as they interest you.
Read it all……
One of the blogosphere annual gems and Patterico is a member of the Bear Flag League.
Los Angeles Times writer Michael Hiltzik and a sock puppet
Technorati Tags: LosAngelesTimes
-
Hillary Clinton Watch: Time Magazine Photo Manipulation Ages Hillary
We’ve now heard from the Iraq Study Group, but we need the White House to become the Iraq Results Group.— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clintonresponding to the Iraq Study Group’s recommendationsGraphic: Time Magazine
Power Line: D. Gorton looks at Time’s Hillary photo
Our old friend D. Gorton is the former New York Times White House photographer has emailed us his analysis of the photo above that I found unusually unflattering and posted this morning in “While Washington slept.” Mr. Gorton writes:
The photo of Hillary Clinton in Time isn’t just “unflattering,” it’s a classic case of artful manipulation. Bear in mind that we have all been wary of the news media’s use of manipulated imagery in Iraq and especially during the recent Israeli Hezbollah conflict. But that’s not the only place where it happens, of course. I think that the OJ Simpson magazine cover on Time that portrayed him as a dark, black, villain comes to mind. Regardless of OJ’s suspected crimes, he was unfairly portrayed based upon a racist stereotype. Time later apologized for the image.
Read it all.
Flap is certainly not an expert in photography or Fauxtography but this photo is definitely unflattering.
Is Time telling the Clinton media machine that the gloves are off?
Technorati Tags: HillaryClinton, TimeMagazine
-
Los Angeles Times Watch: Big Media Journalists Often Rely on Sources That Are Unreliable
Patterico (Via Hugh Hewitt): Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda? Or Is There Another Reason The Paper Is Getting Basic Facts Wrong and Failing to Report the Military’s Side?
Conclusion:
In doing so, I found I learned something important about reporting from Iraq in general. Big Media journalists often rely on sources that are unreliable. They don’t tell you the pressures these sources might be under from insurgents and terrorists. They refuse to tell you who their stringers are, so we can assess their motivations. They get quotes from doctors who seem to see only civilian deaths. If the military has been given insufficient time to respond to an allegation, these journalists don’t check with the military later, to verify that the story they’ve written is accurate. And sometimes, as here, their stories are completely at odds with numerous other accounts reported in other press outlets — and they seem to have no interest in finding out why.
It’s very sobering to realize that much of the news coming out of Iraq is completely unreliable. And it’s a bigger issue than whether the L.A. Times got a single story wrong on November 15.
Hugh Hewitt has it RIGHT:
Any self-respecting newspaper would launch an internal investigation of this story. Keep in mind that the paper did such an internal investigation when the famous Staples Center controversy erupted. That story concerned crossing the lines between news and advertising.
This story concerns crossing the lines between America and its enemies. Let’s hope the paper is at least as concerned about the latter as it was about the former.
Indeed and the Tribune Company wonders why the Los Angeles Times circulation is in a declining spiral?
Blogosphere:
Technorati Tags: LosAngelesTimes, Iraq, IraqWar, Ramadi