July 21, 2010

Capricious & Disloyal Leadership

It turns out the Shirley Sherrod’s seemingly racist comments were taken out of context. Accusation of racism are often overblown. For Ms. Sherrod the consequences were swift and brutal; the Obama Administration fired her & the NAACP condemned her w/o giving her a chance to respond. They now feign outrage at being fooled. But doesn’t being fooled sometimes imply being a fool? And don’t the rules of good leadership and plain fairness require a little more from employers and rights organizations?

There is a big difference between what private individuals say and what employers, especially government employers, should do. When a story is published in the media - especially on a blog - people will talk about it and much of the initial information will be wrong. This is why there are so many accusations of wrongdoing compared to the actual convictions or proof. As conservatives, we are used to being accused of lots of things that turn out not to be true. Remember all those stories about elections in Ohio & Florida? How about those accusations about the tea party using the n-word? Or the NAACP's own James Byrd ad? This can be very annoying, but it is part of the give-and-take of public affairs. It is also clear that bloggers often lack access to the primary sources.

Jobs are different. Employers have access to the primary facts. They has a higher standard to follow. It includes at the very least allowing the person accused to tell her side of the story. This did not happen in Sherrod’s case. The Obama folks went into high hysteria and did what they do best – attack, duck and cover. They immediately called Ms. Sherrod and demanded she resign.

Reportedly, the Obama folks were afraid of Glen Beck (whose in charge around here?) and what he might have to say and now they are trying to blame people like Beck for what they did. It is a variation on the old “the devil made me do it” excuse. The Obama folks are evidently so afraid that racism will be revealed among them that they use the nuclear option to cover any PR problem. BTW – Bill O’Reilly invited Ms. Sherrod onto his program to tell her side of the story, which is more than her employer, the Obama folks, or the NAACP. O'Reilly also apologized for not doing proper fact checking, which is much more than we have heard from liberal pundits when they do this sort of thing.

Now let’s be very clear. The Obama folks didn’t seem to care if Sherrod actually WAS a racist. No, they were concerned with the PR fallout of her being seen to be one. This tells you a lot about their priorities and their fear of Fox News.

As a matter of chronology, the Obama folks fired Ms. Sherrod BEFORE the O'Reilly factor aired that evening. Say what you want about Bush, at least he showed a lot more loyalty.

As I wrote in a nearby post, charges of racism are dangerous and should not be made lightly. IMO, Ms. Sherrod made a mistake by telling the story the way she did, NOT because she was guilty but because in our charged environment any such reference will be misused. I also think that her referring to taking the white farmer to "one of his own kind" and all the lead up about "superiority" was unwise. As substitution is the test of fairness, imagine a white official talking about sending a black farmer to one of "his own kind."

I learned on this blog to be very careful setting up such scenarios, since inevitably someone will take the words out of context. Evidently the purport of Ms. Sherrod’s story was to show that she had been tempted to be racist, but had overcome the shameful idea, which is a useful story of redemption.

The lesson is that next time you hear someone play the racist card, take a deep breath and check into the facts again. This goes for what we hear on Fox, from the NAACP, from the ACLU and also from the Obama folks.

BTW - re being fooled - Ms. Sherrod spoke in front of the NAACP and did so as an official of the Obama Administration. It is kind of hard to claim to be fooled when it is your own organizations that have the full tapes and transcripts. One thing is clear. No matter how much they pretend not to, everybody has to watch Fox if they want to know what is going on.

Posted by Christine & John at July 21, 2010 08:06 PM
Comments
Comment #304066

C&J,

“You can fool all of the people all of the…. ummm,some of the people…ummmm, We won’t get fooled again.
W.

So, why aren’t you calling out Breitbart, Hannity and Oreilly on Fox for promoting a flat out and racist lie? Oh that’s not your agenda. Riiiiiggghht. When you start circulating the petition for Hannity’s firing and a boycott of Breitbart, I might actually believe you.


Didn’t fool me one bit.

Posted by: gergle at July 21, 2010 10:24 PM
Comment #304069

Gergle

O’Reilly admitted he was wrong and apologized. The Obama team and the NAACP acted BEFORE his show or Hannity aired.

Tell me that a similar video of a Bush official would not have made the evening news.

Bloggers and pundits bring up these kinds of things all the time. Lord knows we saw plenty of such things under Bush. But the Obama folks just threw the woman under the bus, without looking for the facts, which they also could have found.

So neither the Obama folks nor the NAACP can blame FOX. They acted BEFORE the evening programs.

But this is what happens when race is involved. As I wrote, racist allegation are usually overblown. I have been trying in my small way to de-fang the “racist” accusation. We have to learn to take them with a grain of salt and a lot of investigation.

We have to admit that we were fooled by the video. But consider the accusations that the tea party used the n-word at the Capitol. We don’t even have ANY evidence at all for that. In that case, even the context is made up.

Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2010 10:40 PM
Comment #304071

The Partisanship of this article is OVERWHELMING, completely dismissing the role the right wing blogger who edited the clips to create an impression diametrically opposed to what Ms. Sherrod had to say. Even if one buys this blogger’s tale that he requested only the “relevant” clips (from a right wing perspective), this blogger and FAUX News network ran with this reverse racism attack on the Obama Administration, obviously in retaliation for the NAACP’s claims of Tea Party participant’s racist signs and dogma.

To present this event without detailing its sources and roots, is to repeat the error of this right wing blogger attacking Ms. Sherrod, taking a story out of context.

The blame is AS Damning on the Right and Left, the private sector, the media, and the White House. All parties to it, failed even the most basic tests of ethics, and attempts at fair and balanced coverage of the content of this blogger’s edited video clips. And the failure continues with this article to provide complete context and fair assessment of the entire situation and accounting for all parties to it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 21, 2010 10:54 PM
Comment #304076

David

O’Reilly apologized for not fact checking, as I reported.

But the chronology is important. The Obama folks fired here BEFORE the evening news on Fox. The NAACP was fooled BEFORE the news appeared on Fox.

The important thing to remember is that both the Obama folks and the NAACP had access to the complete story … if they had cared to look at THEIR OWN sources.

Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2010 11:27 PM
Comment #304079

C&J,

Once again, you have your facts wrong:

But the chronology is important. The Obama folks fired here BEFORE the evening news on Fox.

Incorrect. They ran the initial story on the FoxNews website on Monday morning - before she resigned - and they had already planned to air it before she resigned.

Check out the next day’s story here here. It features this money quote:

” The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.”

Additionally, Bill O’Reilly - the first show to run the Brietbart segment - taped his show calling for her resignation BEFORE she resigned.

When the show ran Monday evening, she had already resigned and the show made note of that. But they had already taped and scheduled a segment about the story and featuring the video.

You can read about that AND his apology here.

Posted by: gergle at July 21, 2010 11:53 PM
Comment #304080

IMO the problem lies with the fact that there are no real unbiased journalist anymore they are either right wing or left wing and no one gets the true stories anymore. We get bits and pieces of what each side wants people to hear and not the whole story.

Posted by: MAG at July 21, 2010 11:57 PM
Comment #304081

C&J,

We have numerous incidents of racism in the Tea Party and the word of a respected civil rights pioneer.

Fox had the word of a known liar and ratfucker.

Your attempts at moral equivalence make me feel slimy just having to even deal with this kind of scummy race baiting.

Just give up. You’ve been shown to be promoting nonsense.

Posted by: gergle at July 21, 2010 11:58 PM
Comment #304082

C&J,

We have even more than that. We have video of rabid extremists spewing venom and spitting. How stupid do you think the general public is?

Defending a reasonble position is one thing. Defending Hitler for killing Jews is another. Stop defending Breitbart and his racist agenda. This is what is wrong with the Republican party, and so called conservatives.

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2010 12:03 AM
Comment #304084

Gergle, There is a $100,000 reward for that info why hasn’t anyone collected yet? As far as Breitbart I put him in the same category as the left wing rabid extremist spewing venom.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 12:11 AM
Comment #304087

MAG,

Have you ever miked a studio?

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2010 12:43 AM
Comment #304088

“IMO the problem lies with the fact that there are no real unbiased journalist anymore “

MAG, Are you joking? Faux has no journalistic standards period. Breibart obviously doesn’t either. They are propaganda mills not news organizations. The other American news outlets that claim to be news organizations, such as CNN , ABC etc. have standards which when compared to Faux are world class.

C&J, for all the nonsense you have just spouted in this post you have said only 1 thing that is even close to reality. The Obama administration and the NAACP both reacted way to quickly to the FAUX “exclusive” and should apologize not only to the lady in question but to the American public in general. After 2 years the Obama administration should have 2 things that would have prevented them going overboard on this issue. Number 1, the cajones to stand up to the misinformation half truths and outright lies of FAUX, Breitbart et. al. and 2. The brainpower to realize this video was a fraud from the get go. IMHO this is why the poll numbers for the Obama administration are so low, the base is tired of their silly belief that they can work with repubs/conservatives to fix the problems of this country.

What a wake up call this should be for both the Obama administration and the dems in Congress as well as the American people. If you continue to watch FAUX or Breibart then it isn’t news you are hunting for it is your daily dose of extremist kool aid. If you are part of the administration it is time to realize that a rapid response to the misinformation half truths and outright lies of the conservative propaganda mill is not as important as realizing that every thing they say needs to be fact checked first.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 12:52 AM
Comment #304094


When it comes to rabid extremism, there is no way the left can compete with the right. The left tries to compete but, to do so they have to master skills that come natural to the right. If there is a right wing nut in the room, very few are going to question how the spot got on the wall.

Extremism in the promotion of conservative libertarianism is no vice.

Speaking of cowardly, think of all those Republican politicians who are scared dungless by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Fox News. Moderate Republicans are more likely to become victims of Fox News and the tea party than liberals are. Even many of the conservative Republicans are not safe and have been warned to move further right. Their actions in Congress suggests that the Republican politicians got the message.

Posted by: jlw at July 22, 2010 01:16 AM
Comment #304095

CNN presented the story AFTER contacting and inviting Sherrod to present her side. That was fair. That was ethical. That was responsible journalism.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2010 01:17 AM
Comment #304097

loose lips sink ships. That has a far ranging meaning. How many of you rable rousers are counting the ships? There are a ton of claims made above but no backup. You people are pathetic. It’s no wonder we have a Congress full of liars, look who voted them in. And I am talking about liberals and dimocrats. Also the Grahamcracker from SC and some of his friends from republicianville are part of that group of thieves. What a miserable rat Graham makes. He should get back to the lab before they miss him.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 01:18 AM
Comment #304098

Here is a short statement about leadership.

“There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before. Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.” —economist Thomas Sowell

Mr. Sowell speaks volumes in what he writes. The left cannot stand him. That is common for the left.

The left must play the race card in order to have something to play when they are up against the people of the country who are using common sense which is also scary to the left. They are so morally bankrupt they have to carry a card in their wallet to be on the ready to heave the race card, because nothing else works. Don’t leave home without it you lefties.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 01:28 AM
Comment #304099

Here is a short statement about leadership.

“There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before. Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.” —economist Thomas Sowell

Mr. Sowell speaks volumes in what he writes. The left cannot stand him. That is common for the left.

The left must play the race card in order to have something to play when they are up against the people of the country who are using common sense which is also scary to the left. They are so morally bankrupt they have to carry a card in their wallet to be on the ready to heave the race card, because nothing else works. Don’t leave home without it you lefties.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 01:31 AM
Comment #304104


Tom humes, you want to pretend that Sowell is not a racist. He should stick to his profession rather than racist commentary. A racist hiding behind reverse discrimination. As if the Republicans haven’t been playing the race card.

What’s next? Beck finds proof in the Constitution that the slave owners and Jim Crow were liberals, progressives, socialists?

The people may well vote the Democrats out of control of the Congress but, it won’t be because they want Republicans in there. It is called choosing a political party by default. If the people had a viable alternative, both these corpocracy parties would be out on their rears. You may think that the people have forgotten what the Republicans did to them but, they haven’t.

I have no sympathy for the Democrats. They claimed they were offering us a change, then they chose to go with corpocracy and compromise; they were naive enough to believe that since they were willing to pretend to take on the corpocracy they would get cooperation from Republicans.

Reid was on his way to loosing in Nevada, we could have gotten rid of another corpocracy incumbent. But then, the tea party showed up.

Posted by: jlw at July 22, 2010 07:35 AM
Comment #304105

Gergle

I understand that the story broke before O’Reilly and Hanity. But the Obama folks hysteria cannot be blamed on them.

Come on. How craven are the Obama managers? They shoot first and ask questions the next day. I would never behave that way toward any of my colleagues and I bet you wouldn’t either. It just goes against all good procedures.

Based on the facts as they seemed in the initial video, I would have investigated and IF CONFIRMED asked for her resignation.

And if FOX is so dishonest, why did the Obama folks fear them so much.

Re the tea party - I believe this “civil rights icon” may have thought he heard the n-word, but was mistaken or maybe one guy in the many thousands uttered it, but the fact that there is no evidence - despite thousands of videos - indicated that it was not a big problem or maybe not a problem at all.

David

O’Reilly also invited her to come on. She declined or ignored the request.

J2t2

You got it. This post is about the cowardice of Obama folks. You guys can try to make it about FOX, but Obama’s people are the ones w/o honor in this.

Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 07:40 AM
Comment #304106

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
~Abraham Lincoln

That is a leadership quote, Sowell’s comment is just another dig at a leader, IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 07:52 AM
Comment #304109

C&J, No to be real you must add FAUX and Breibart to the “no honor” list. FAUX , Breibart and their fake news stories are as much to blame in this as the Obama administration is to be blamed for falling for these guys and their misinformation, half truths and outright lies.


“And if FOX is so dishonest, why did the Obama folks fear them so much.”

Precisely because they are so dishonest and yet have a viewing audience that swallows their kool aid with out using any critical judgment whatsoever. FAUX has the ability to sway the opinions of those that watch their misinformation, half truths and outright lies.


“Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (…) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (…) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.”

If you don’t think FAUX “news” to a T when reading this then here is another lesson on propaganda and how FAUX works.

“Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.”

So this is the reason to fear FAUX “news”. these quotes are courtesy of wikipedia quoting from Mein Kempf.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 09:20 AM
Comment #304110

C&J,

This post is so ridiculous I can’t believe anyone would respond to this nonsense other than to laugh at your desperation, hypocrisy and insane logic bordering on the absurd.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 22, 2010 10:05 AM
Comment #304111

I’m not quite sure why the left is so upset with C&J’s post. Have C&J hit a raw nerve?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 10:13 AM
Comment #304112

j2 you watch what you watch because you hear what you want to hear. I stand by what I said there are no unbiased journalist anymore.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 10:16 AM
Comment #304113

Obama and his people blew it. No defense, they were wrong. They were afraid of the bozos on the right and they fired a good woman because of a bunch of people who have never been deterred from their message by anything as inconvenient as facts. Obama has acted afraid of these bigoted bullies ever since he came into office. It’s shameful and cowardly. I wish he would stand up to those folks a lot more forcefully than he has. As best I can figure it’s a political calculation to not alienate the white vote. That is certainly realistic but still gets two thumbs down from me.

As to the blogger, Fox News, Limbaugh and whoever else ran with this fake story. We all know what a shameless group these folks are already. I don’t need to go into that.

Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 10:18 AM
Comment #304116

“j2 you watch what you watch because you hear what you want to hear. I stand by what I said there are no unbiased journalist anymore.”
Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 10:16 AM

MAG perhaps you are right on this. If there is any unbiased journalism out there it is few and far between. The issue is probably closer to “less biased” sources that actual unbiased sources. The most biased MSM is undoubtedly FAUX and that is only if you can really consider them to be a source of journalism at all. They seem to be mostly infotainment and propaganda IMHO. PBS seems to be unbiased more so than any other source and is probably the best example of less biased journalism.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 10:33 AM
Comment #304117

C&J, Tom Humes, Beretta 9,

A person edits a video in order to defame a person and you blame the people who watched this video and believed what they had seen?

Are you kidding?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 22, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #304118

tcsned:

This is a broad statement and you are alluding to it’s truth: “As to the blogger, Fox News, Limbaugh and whoever else ran with this fake story. We all know what a shameless group these folks are already.”

It is an assumption on your part. Perhaps you could provide some truth that they reported a fake story? The reason I ask is that Breitbart, RL, GB, and Fox News all reported the complete story. The only ones I have seen to make a decision not based upon all the facts is NAACP and bama’s admin.

.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 10:47 AM
Comment #304119

Mr. Hernandez:

Your previous statement was:

“C&J,

This post is so ridiculous I can’t believe anyone would respond to this nonsense other than to laugh at your desperation, hypocrisy and insane logic bordering on the absurd.”

I believe this is an attack on the messenger and not the message.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 10:55 AM
Comment #304121

Beretta9,

This post is so ridiculous I can’t believe anyone would respond to this nonsense other than to laugh at your desperation, hypocrisy and insane logic bordering on the absurd.”


I would like to offer my apologies for my reaction to the above, ill conceived, hypocritical, illogical post that borders on laughable.
Does that suffice.
You do realize that I killed the message again and not the messanger?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 22, 2010 11:17 AM
Comment #304122

The Red Column’s trying to cover it’s ass here.

You guys pushed the false story. Without the false story, there is no firing to apologize for. The Right was so eager to push the narrative that Democrats and the NAACP didn’t care about racism in their own ranks that it didn’t check its facts.

The real lesson for the Obama Administration is that it shouldn’t trust Right Wing News Sources when they make inflammatory charges, because they’re too busy trying to destroy Obama and the folks on the left to actually practice due diligence on the stories they push.

The Right-Wing is more interested in protecting and promoting its agenda than telling the truth.

You folks should be ashamed of yourself. You go around saying everybody’s biased, the whole media has a problem, and so on and so forth. But all you’re really doing is fielding apologetics for what crappy, undependable, intentionally biased reporters you have in your media.

Let me clue you in on something: the antidote to the evils of bias is not to set up a countervailing bias. It’s to figure out what’s actually true.

To wit, when I saw that this video was posted in the comments of your previous post on the recent racial controversies, I didn’t waste time reeling out partisan nastiness in kind. Instead, I found the articles, which I had read earlier in the day, and responded with the truth.

Yes, Vilsack was wrong to demand this resignation. And the Right was wrong to spread the lies that motivated that demand. Liars should suffer for their lies. Vilifiers too eager to push a narrative to check their facts should suffer for their false vilifications.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2010 11:19 AM
Comment #304123

j2 I differ with you MSNBC has by far more Democrat and left wing commentary but on FOX I see that they bring in little more balance to their commentary. By this I mean Schultz, Olberman, and Maddow tending to cater more to the left version of the days news then the right.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 11:20 AM
Comment #304124

I actually agree (gasp!) with C&J on this one.

The comment above from Gergle:

“When you start circulating the petition for Hannity’s firing and a boycott of Breitbart, I might actually believe you.”

Nope… not the same thing. The gentlemen (and I use that term LOOSELY) in Gergle’s quote are entertainers paid by Faux News to boost ratings and pander shamelessly to the extreme white… uh, I mean, right (woops). As disgusting and vomitous as the sewage that comes from their mouths is, they’re simply doing their jobs. To compare their actions with that of the administration in this case is completely off base.

Vilsack and the rest of the administration figures that forced this resignation are not entertainers, they are government officials who wrongfully dismissed an employee before gathering all the facts of the case. C&J is right on the mark here (again, GASP!) in pointing out that this was far more PR move than anything else.

I’m a little disappointed in the man I voted for for prez… I’ll probably vote for him again, but at this point, it might take me a second or two longer to actually pull the lever…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #304125

I couldn’t read all of this…

I agree with you completely that the Whitehouse should have done more fact checking, but you don’t hold a news organization to the same standard? Not to mention, this wasn’t caused by a lack of fact checking, it was a deliberate snippet of a speech taken out of context to mean the exact opposite of what was obviously intended.

Posted by: Max at July 22, 2010 11:30 AM
Comment #304126

Max, yes, I do personally hold a news organization to the same standard, and I do that by exercising my consumer power in the free market by not watching that gibberish. As unfortunate and inconvenient as it is, we DO have a little something called freedom of speech in this country… people are allowed to say ALL SORTS of crazy sh*t.

I am glad you agree that the Whitehouse should have done more fact checking than simply relying on Faux News.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 11:36 AM
Comment #304127

SD:

“You folks should be ashamed of yourself. You go around saying everybody’s biased, the whole media has a problem, and so on and so forth. But all you’re really doing is fielding apologetics for what crappy, undependable, intentionally biased reporters you have in your media.”

Would this be considered an oxymoron: “: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements”

You state that the right goes around calling the liberal media biased and then make the same statement that the media on the right is biased. What, pray tell, is the difference between your accusations and your statement?

I might also add, that every response, by a liberal, on this post, is accusing Fox, Beck, Rush, Brietbart, etc., as being biased. And at the same time we have this statement from j2t2:

“PBS seems to be unbiased more so than any other source and is probably the best example of less biased journalism.”

Pertaining to PBS bias:

http://oregonmag.com/PBSGAO.htm

NPR is part of PBS taxpayer funded broadcasting. This is from an article entitled, “NPR admits a liberal bias”, dated 11/10/2003:

“Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming. The daily program “Fresh Air with Terry Gross”-a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature and also politics-airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200311/ai_n9317144/


Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 11:38 AM
Comment #304129

I am still waiting for complete quotes or links to the mis-statements of Beck, Fox, Breitbart, etc. A lot of chatter on here, but like NAACP and bama admin, based on incomplete data.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 11:44 AM
Comment #304130

Doug Langworthy, your point is well made, the WH had a far greater responsibility to verify the information before firing Ms. Sherrod, than media had in defaming Ms. Sherrod.

I hope Ms. Sherrod sues Breitbart, Faux News, and the WhiteHouse for defamation. I think she has a clearly winnable case to make with real and tangible damages which resulted from the defamation.

Of course, down here in Republican Texas, she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, since, as a right to work state, she can be fired for any reason at all without effective recourse in Texas courts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2010 11:47 AM
Comment #304131

Stephen, Granted Fox did jump on a story after the woman was fired for fear of Glen Beck. Come on. Stephen need I repeat how those on the left jumped to conclusions about the marines in Hadathia, Murtha and his loud mouth had them convicted before they had their day in court. This was a bad experience but the blame goes 1st to Breitbart for being an idiot and then Obama and co. for jumping to conclusions and then to Fox for not fact finding. All since appologized to Sherrod, the only one she won’t forgive is Breitbart and I don’t Blame her.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 11:48 AM
Comment #304133

As usual, Barett9 sits around waiting for others to do his homework for him. Explains a lot of his under informed comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2010 11:49 AM
Comment #304134

C&J said: “O’Reilly also invited her to come on. She declined or ignored the request. “

I watch O’Reilly from time to time. If you do too, you will acknowledge the fact that he does not treat folks from the Left with respect or decorum on his show. If I were her, I would not reward his ratings with my presence on his show, EITHER! In fact, after the way the media handled it, why would she even consider rewarding them with ratings by appearing on their show? Smart lady, if you ask me.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2010 11:53 AM
Comment #304136

The left is showing its bias and fear above. Their claim is the other side does it, we don’t. That is a huge lie. Politicians are all in the same bag. They are powerful and are seeking more power. Over what? You and I.

Those comments that “FAUX” lies, spews venom, etc. are just opinions, of course. And you are entitled to those opinions. My question is how do you think you are convincing others to have those same opinions when all you do is fear monger? You do not cite a single case of what you accuse “FAUX” of doing. And has NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC ever spewed venom, distorted, lied, etc. Of course they have. I am not defending “FAUX”. I just think one is foolish to accuse one apple in the basket of being rotten when the basket is full of rotten fruit.

You on the left need to learn a bit of honesty in your opinions.

Thanks Baretta9, you beat me to the punch on your post.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 11:56 AM
Comment #304137

“j2 I differ with you MSNBC has by far more Democrat and left wing commentary but on FOX I see that they bring in little more balance to their commentary. By this I mean Schultz, Olberman, and Maddow tending to cater more to the left version of the days news then the right.”

MAG google msnbc news and compare the top listing to fox news. Fox includes O’Reilly and Beck as part of their news. MSNBC doesn’t include any of their commentators in the heading under news. If you are including Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly as catering to anyone but the far right I have to wonder about what you consider bias. The newscasters are often very biased when reading the news on Fox, IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 12:01 PM
Comment #304140

MAG the Bush administration filled the CPB with conservatives searching for bias in reporting news on NPR and PBS and found nothing. Because they may have a program that caters to a certain segment such as liberals doesn’t make them biased anymore than having car talk on once a week makes them mechanics. I stand by my statement that PBS, NPR are the less biased of all news sources.

“In contrast to Tomlinson, CPB’s two ombudsmen, Ken Bode and William Schulz, have found no evidence of liberal bias after five months on the job. Instead, they have mostly offered praise in the few reports each has issued since Tomlinson created their positions, which pay each of them $50,000 a year for part-time work. In a report issued Sept. 1, for example, Bode observed: “My own conclusion is no different than my perception of PBS and NPR when I accepted the position of ombudsman in April — that considerations of fair and balanced is not as big a problem here as elsewhere. This is not Fox News.” “

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601598.html

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 12:24 PM
Comment #304141


“My question is how do you think you are convincing others to have those same opinions when all you do is fear monger? You do not cite a single case of what you accuse “FAUX” of doing. And has NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC ever spewed venom, distorted, lied, etc. Of course they have.”

Tom here is but one of many links that will prove FAUX is a propaganda outlet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-KzzDZo6GY&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&playnext_from=PL&index=1

Now can you show me the same for the other outlets you mention?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2010 12:33 PM
Comment #304143

The right has filled the airwaves and other media with as much hate and discontent as is possible. Then jump on every chance to overshadow that by pointing fingers at and shouting about the few failures and weaknesses shown by some on the left. C&J are good examples, as they continuously attempt to equate a Whitehouse snafu with the incredible disingenuouness of the source of the problem for which the mistake was made. In their book, crime equals error…what a crock.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 12:52 PM
Comment #304145

j2 I don’t consider O’Riely or Beck News I consider them commentators Fox may consider them on their News staff but I don’t. I never said they didn’t cater to the right but that they have more of a mix then MSNBC. PBS I don’t listen to.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 12:54 PM
Comment #304146

Marysdude says: “as they continuously attempt to equate a Whitehouse snafu…”

Uummm… a ‘snafu’? So if you were fired from your job and made, by your former employer, out to be a racist in front of the entire country, would you consider that a simple ‘snafu’? Especially when your former employer did not bother to do a single bit of fact checking? I’m very sorry, but your argument is quite weak.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 12:59 PM
Comment #304147

Doug,

As disgusting and vomitous as the sewage that comes from their mouths is, they’re simply doing their jobs. To compare their actions with that of the administration in this case is completely off base.

Doug I’ll agree the USDA and even perhaps the Whitehouse did something stupid and has corrected that.

But to state that Breitbart and Hannity and Fox were just doing their jobs is utter nonsense. I suppose in Germany you would have said you were just doing your job. My point is there is no moral equivalency here. Breitbart is a ratfucker. That is a person who sets about to do political dirty tricks. He’s an independent operator for the Republican party. He should be lambasted by the MSM and banned from any further access, along with his supporter Matt Drudge, much like they did to Don Imus. That isn’t happening is it?

FoxNews is clearly not a news organization. It is a wing of the Republican party and should be required to disclose itself as such. A small elephant in the corner of the screen would be sufficient. The party should have to answer for their rants. The same can be said of most of MSNBC. Joe Scarborough the obvious exception.

I’m sick of the Republican talking points about black racism. No moral equivalence. It’s racist in it’s very nature. C&J will get no pass from me as long as they promote this subtle racism. This example should be clear evidence to thinking people of the agenda.

Racism is ignorance and should not be accepted where ever it occurs, but the difference between individual racists and institutional racism is obvious to anyone but an idiot.

Sadly, those who do not have the intellect to understand the objective in this racist agenda are being completely misled. It’s 1984. Affirmative Action is racism. Blacks now have all the advantages. Obama wouldn’t be president if he weren’t black. This is worse than Atwater’s Southern Strategy, but is a direct outgrowth of that.

The one person with a clear head in this is Sherrod herself. The real agenda is rich against poor. The Republican corporate machine is busily distracting the poor, uneducated and stupid with this racist nonsense. I will confront those who attempt to gloss this over with intellectual lies, and point out their utter racism in persuing this agenda.

Make no mistake. This is Nazi-ism. This is an attempt to obscure the real agenda by using racist, bigoted lies to stir up the masses, a classic tool of Hitler.

What will you say when your grandchildren ask, “Daddy what did you do when the racist Republicans took over?”

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2010 01:03 PM
Comment #304148

O’Reiley’s apology:

“I owe Ms. Sherrod an apology for not doing my homework, for not putting her remarks into the proper context,” O’Reilly said, saying the “exact same thing” happened to him in 2007 around comments he made about black diners at Sylvia’s restaurant in Harlem.

But O’Reilly opened up a new line of attack on Sherrod, claiming that her story about taking a white farmer to a white lawyer — what she called “his own kind” and “one of his own” — reveals a racially-tinged worldview.

“If a white public servant referenced ‘his own kind’ or ‘one of his own’ when speaking about an African American, that white person would be fired on the spot,” O’Reilly said.

The irony I see will be wasted on most of you, but how can any intelligent human being say this was an apology rather than an attack in another direction?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 01:06 PM
Comment #304150

Doug,

SNAFU…Situation Nnormal, All F**ked Up.

The SNAFU was in giving ANY credence, whatsoever, to ANYTHING presented on the FOX NEWS channel. The rest is the horrible consequences of the SNAFU. AGAIN, the crime was in the publicizing, on the nation’s airwaves, a piece of trumped-up trash.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 01:11 PM
Comment #304152

Gergle… uummm… ok?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 01:12 PM
Comment #304153

PS:

The brag is that FOX is the nations most watched news channel. If the nation’s most watched news channel cannot be trusted to tell at least a modicum of truth in its reports, what kind of people would watch it?

If, indeed, it IS the most watched, how could the President of the United States just ignore such a report? His greatest sin is in not learning from the great ACORN fiasco. He is not as smart as I had first thought.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 01:17 PM
Comment #304156

Marysdude, let me ask you this…

If someone with whom you are acquainted, someone you KNOW to be a dirty, lying, cheating rat b*stard beyond any reasonable doubt, gives you information about an employee of yours, information that you know will benefit the rat b*stard but harm your employee, would you:

a. fire your employee on the spot, taking the rat b*stard’s information with no further investigation needed.

b. roll your eyes and ignore the rat b*astard as you know him to be a rat b*stard.

c. use your resources to investigate the rat b*stard’s claims against your employee, either proving the rat b*astard correct and then firing your employee, or discovering that it was all a hoax to begin with and exposing him to the public to show just what a dirty rat b*stard he is.

I’m pretty sure any reasonable person would choose option ‘c’. I’m sorry, but I just cannot blame anyone but the Whitehouse for this. We all KNEW the source to be a rat b*stard.

You folks on both the left AND right need to remove your filters and look at this thing objectively.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 01:29 PM
Comment #304157

Marysdude - apologies like that would earn me a thump on the head from my mom when I was a kid. If you’re gonna apologize then actually apologize. That is beyond weak. Though certainly keeping in character or lack thereof.

Ooops! I said something bad about Bill O’Lielly. Ooops! I did it again. I’d better apologize.

I owe Mr. O’Reilley an apology for not doing my homework. I am sorry that I had to point out that he is a disingenuous, lying sack of filth who doesn’t care about the consequences of his actions. If a liberal commentator had said the same thing there would be 10,000 Tea Baggers outside the TV studio with pitchforks and torches demanding his head.

How’s that for an apology.

Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 01:32 PM
Comment #304158

Marysdude said: “He (President Obama) is not as smart as I had first thought.”

It’s disappointing to me as well… but I fear you may be correct.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 01:33 PM
Comment #304160

Willy Nelson, who has been a leader in protecting ‘family farms’ for years with his Farm Aide program, had this to say:

During her time at the Federation, she fought to make sure that family farmers got what they needed to stay on their land. She has been a national leader for family farmers and a compassionate, courageous advocate for all struggling family farmers. Shirley Sherrod has dedicated her life to working on behalf of family farmers, civil rights and the alleviation of poverty and it’s up to Secretary Vilsack to right this wrong immediately.

This country desperately needs more farm advocates with Ms. Sherrod’s expertise. But this is not just about a job — it’s about ensuring that Shirley Sherrod has the opportunity to continue to support family farmers and the rural poor, something she has spent her life doing.

This is the woman FOX News defiled. The damage was probably irrepairable before anything else happened. I understand the right’s need to distract from the real issue involved here, but let me be clear…President Obama, mostly through his administrator, did a bad thing, and it damaged a fine woman. What the President did may actually be reversable, and this nice lady may go on to contribute much more than she already has. What FOX News did is make this wet dream of the right become reality.

Again, the conservative agenda is to commit the crime, detract from the crime and dwell on the resultant error. It happens over, and over, and over…ad nauseam. Is it so difficult to see the tree right in front of you, without being distracted with the paranioac defense from the falling twig?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 01:49 PM
Comment #304161

Marysdude… fair enough.

And the same can be said of the left.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 01:54 PM
Comment #304162

As I told MAG over in the left column…Wow!

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 02:00 PM
Comment #304164

Doug, I don’t think it’s a issue with Obama’s intelligence. It has a lot to do, I suspect, with the nature of the office of president and the structure and systems around that job. What is most disappointing is that he has not really risen above it as I had hoped and as he talked about when he ran for president. He and his staff make the same political calculations based on trying to keep their party in power as every other president has. I see why they do it but it is maddening to watch and endure. I hoped it would be different. Still much better off than if Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum had won the election.

Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 02:08 PM
Comment #304166

tcsned… with a grimaced face, I am nodding solemnly…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 22, 2010 02:20 PM
Comment #304168

WatchBlog Mgr.

Please address the situation of a poster using the word “rtf*****”. This is inappropriate language. If this is the only word the poster can find, then he sould be dis-associated from the Blog.

Thank you
Tom

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 02:28 PM
Comment #304170

Tom Humes,

Did you ever read All the President’s men?

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2010 02:51 PM
Comment #304172

Doug,

“If someone with whom you are acquainted, someone you KNOW to be a dirty, lying, cheating rat b*stard beyond any reasonable doubt, gives you information about an employee of yours, information that you know will benefit the rat b*stard but harm your employee, would you:”

What if the lying cheating rat bas*&rd has the ear of millions that may, or may not hang on his every word?
What if this rat bas*&rd has continually attempted to brig you down with half truths and outright lies?

Admittedly this administration has continually first gone to CYA mode and then falls back to damage control.

It far too easy, as the character assassinations have been unrelenting from day one, to say any one of us not in the shoes, would do differently.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 22, 2010 02:56 PM
Comment #304173

Tom Humes,

For your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks#Watergate-era_dirty_tricks

My use of the word is not gratuitous and is specific to the low life nature of the activities of Breitbart.

As Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth.”

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2010 03:03 PM
Comment #304174

gergle, wasn’t that term from Segretti a Nixon guy?

Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 03:04 PM
Comment #304175

lol - you beat me to the punch :)

Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 03:09 PM
Comment #304178

For a president who espoused he would correct race problems and race would be behind us, when campaigning, he certainly has dug us into a deeper hole. By the time he is booted out in 2012, we will probably be facing race riots. It would be easy for Obama to take care of this problem, but it would require him to actually address the people and say something intelligent. He will not do that because the race card plays right into the 2010 elections. If you can’t actually do something for America, then divide the nation for a get out the vote over hated and racism. He is disgusting. Race riots is exactly what bama wants.

This whole post is a smokescreen to get off subject; the problem is illegal invasion, jobs, and economy. In that order. Dems don’t want to deal with it, so let’s just make it about race.

Be careful Tom Humes about agreeing with me. You might get put on the crap list.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 03:34 PM
Comment #304179

jlw
Some examples of Tom Sowell being a racist.

Gergle
No. And I don’t intend to.

The term you used is profanity. It is opinion best kept to you. It is an invasion of privacy if you know for sure of the term being a fitting description of the person’s personal habits.

Now, you see the liberal, lefties just cannot restrain themselves in their lack of control of the English language. You have to be a guttersnipe to express yourself. If you would be willing I would offer a reference for anger management, but I am doubtful you would take me up on it.

Back to leadership, Joe Biden would fit in nicely with you that prefer to use the language that is so brazen. Of course he is one of the lefties leaders that has trouble telling the truth. People in high places use the word gaffe instead of lie. I want to expect some higher standard of behavior from the VP. Am I naive to expect that? For the President to say the things he said about his so-called health care reform and find that the truth was left on the cutting room floor, is shameful.

What a great leader he showed he was not involving the oil disaster.

What type of leader of this country should bow to foreign dignataries, apologize for our nation (for what, nobody knows), and sends gifts that are totally useless to the nth degree to the Queen of England, and further return a bust of Churchill to England, while dissing the PM of Israel, our stronget ally. That is not leadership. That is a big ego trip from a man from Chicago who was taught his skills from socialist Alinsky, communist Davis, terrorist Ayers, and racist Wright.

With that type of leadership why do we need enemies? We got them at the front door.

There is nothing to rebut here, so have at it you lefties and try to rip and tear at something that is not going to break.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 03:40 PM
Comment #304180

This may be a little of subject, but I love to watch “Whale Wars” on TV each week. The hippy looking, dope-smoking crew on the “protect the whales” ships reminds me of liberals. One of the best shows was on last week, when the Japanese harpoon ship ran over the “save the whale” small boat. I actually waited all season to see this one show. I DVR’d it so I could watch it again. Needless to say, I root for the Japs. Who cares if they eat whale meat, I don’t.

What we have is a bunch of bleeding heart liberals, who have never had a real job, and hold liberal arts degrees and feel it is their mission in life to save the whales. They actually all begin to cry (boo-hoo) when a whale gets harpooned. And yet I doubt that any one of them sheds a tear when an abortion doctor dissects and cuts a human baby into pieces as he removes it from the mother’s womb. Ironic isn’t it?

They attack the whalers with projectiles, throw ropes to foul their propellers, throw acid bombs, and have even shot flares at them. But, when the whalers strike back, they all cry unfair (they tried to hurt us, wha, wha, wha).

This show reminds of the way liberals act. It’s ok for the left to attack and personally destroy someone who disagrees with them, but the right better not dare do the same thing to them.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 03:51 PM
Comment #304184

Baretta9 - Obama’s at fault for not putting race behind us as a nation? Nice one. I wished I lived in a fantasy world too.

You make a great argument but you have the wrong target. Obama has bent over backwards to make issues that are so obviously about race not about race. He has gone too far in the face of blatantly obvious bigoted remarks, attacks, and behavior in my opinion. It’s the right that is doing everything you say.

Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 04:02 PM
Comment #304188

The administration is still trying to appease those who can’t be appeased. Didn’t work again.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 22, 2010 04:25 PM
Comment #304189

Tom humes,

Once again, your response is ignorant of the meaning of the word.

While I don’t expect everyone to have a complete grasp of English, but when one refuses to read based on some prejudice and fails to read links provided in a response, then I have to presume one simply chooses to be ignorant.

What is laughable is when one uses an offensive word in a whine about being offended.

guttersnipe
noun street urchin, waif, ragamuffin, mudlark (slang), gamin, street Arab (offensive) An elocution expert plucks a guttersnipe from Covent Garden market and teaches her to talk like a lady.

Ignorance causes odd things to occur in language and logic. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they are just pathetically sad.

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2010 04:32 PM
Comment #304190

Here is another short item on our lack of leadership in the Potomac Basin. Nomination of a female to the SC who has virtually no trial experience, no judicial experience, extreme views on the culture, and perversion of truth. If voted in she will be an albatross for 40 years. Is this the best we can do? It is a long way from the best. This president is trying his best to bring the country to its knees so that he can give us the final solution. Nationalist government control of our lives like we canno imagine. He could go get FDR’s cigarette holder for a little photo op that might go over.

Reminds me of joke.

Bob saw Joe smoking using a cigarette holder. Bob did not know what it was and asked Joe what it was. Joe responded that it was a condum. Bob wanted to know where he could get one and Joe told him at the drugstore.
Bob went to the drugstore and asked the clerk for a condum. The clerk asked what size. Bob responded that should be big enough for a camel.

That is how liberals treat our nationalist budget. Not knowing what it is but big enough for whatevr they can imagine.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 04:33 PM
Comment #304191

When experts talk I listen

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 04:37 PM
Comment #304194

“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.


“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.


The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz: “You’ve said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as ‘young and dynamic and optimistic,’ that that’s worth maybe 15 points.”
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: “Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I’m not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don’t think it’s worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say.”
Kurtz: “Is it worth five points?”
Thomas: “Maybe, maybe.”
— Exchange on CNN’s Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004.

“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.


“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002


“[Journalists] have a certain worldview based on being in Manhattan…that isn’t per se liberal, but if you look at people there, they lean’ in that direction.”
— Columbia Journalism Review publisher David Laventhol, as reported in “Leaning on the Media” by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.


“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias….[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.


“I’m not sure it’s useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that’s virtually impossible for the audience to sort out.”
— PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS’s ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.


“As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
— Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 22, 2010 04:42 PM
Comment #304195
Nomination of a female to the SC who has virtually no trial experience, no judicial experience, extreme views on the culture, and perversion of truth. If voted in she will be an albatross for 40 years. Is this the best we can do? It is a long way from the best. This president is trying his best to bring the country to its knees so that he can give us the final solution. Nationalist government control of our lives like we canno imagine.
tom humes - if this is true, and I think pretty much none of it is, then it’ll make a god match for that quack chief justice that Bush put in there. Posted by: tcsned at July 22, 2010 04:46 PM
Comment #304196

>There is nothing to rebut here, so have at it you lefties and try to rip and tear at something that is not going to break.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 03:40 PM

Well, I guess we’ve been put in OUR place. How refreshing to know how you REALLY feel.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 04:47 PM
Comment #304197

Tcsned said:

“Baretta9 - Obama’s at fault for not putting race behind us as a nation? Nice one. I wished I lived in a fantasy world too.
You make a great argument but you have the wrong target. Obama has bent over backwards to make issues that are so obviously about race not about race. He has gone too far in the face of blatantly obvious bigoted remarks, attacks, and behavior in my opinion. It’s the right that is doing everything you say.”

Kevin Jackson, the author of “The Big Black Lie”, stated ““Obama is the best kind of racist to whites, but the worst kind of racist to blacks.”

Okay, let’s look at his record:

1. In his book “Dreams of My Father”, Obama said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”; “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.

2. “Obama learned this racist ideology during his formative years from his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a self-admitted communist and sexual deviant, and most certainly a racist—the kind that blacks say cannot exist.
As Robin of Berkeley in an article in American Thinker suggested, “Davis blamed racism and capitalism for all of the problems in society and instructed young Barry, ‘Don’t fully trust white people,’ and ‘Black people have a reason to hate.’”

3. “Absent the tutelage of Davis, Obama’s next biggest “non-influence,” as it were, came in his twenty-plus year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama sold his racism to whites during his presidential campaign, saying that he didn’t really listen the hate-speech wrongfully labeled “sermons” at his so-called church. This was a “church” that practiced Cone’s Black Liberation Theology—a “theology” that if the word “black” were replaced with “white,” the “church” would have undoubtedly been considered a haven for the Aryan Brotherhood. The Acton Institute reports:

The echoes of Cone’s theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class (“rich white people”) and is incapable of understanding oppression (“ain’t never been called a n-gg-r”) but Jesus knows what it was like because he was “a poor black man” oppressed by “rich white people.” While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright’s generation are burdened by Cone’s categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual “victim.”

4. “As for Obama’s racism against blacks, you don’t have to be a genius to understand it. However it is easier to understand if you are not a product of government schools. Obama’s racism against blacks is much more subtle, though exponentially more insidious.
Obama actually believes he helps blacks through his policies, when in fact the outcome devastates blacks. A good example is education.
Blacks recognize almost universally that education is the key to escaping the “cycles” of poverty, and other ills plaguing the black community.
Obama’s first racist act as president was to remove the voucher program that Bush had established in DC, and a program that Democrats vote against overwhelmingly. A program, which was producing proven positive results, was gone — and black children in DC were relegated to socialized schools in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods. Simply put, why give black children the choice to opt out of the indoctrination? “

http://theblacksphere.net/obama-the-racist/

I might note, Obama’s own children were exempt.

5. Obama took the side of a black professor, by calling a policeman a racist.

6. Obama passed healthcare that was nothing more than a means of restitution.

7. Obama’s expansion of unemployment is nothing more than another welfare program to enslave.

8. His justice department’s refusal to bring to trial a black panther who stood at a voting station and intimidated voters with a night stick.

But, what’s the sense, you know these things and you know he is a racist…

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 22, 2010 04:51 PM
Comment #304198

Maybe I’m a little confused.

Presented with evidence that a government official was racist, she was immediately asked to resign. This shows that the administration has zero tolerance for discrimination, particularly black vs white discrimination. I’m not convinced this is a bad thing.

Upon finding out that the video was doctored to make the administration look bad, the President (who almost certainly was not consulted in the firing) apologized immediately and profusely.

As far as I can see the only arguement the right has to make here is that the head of the USDA should have known that he couldn’t believe anything FOX News has to say.

Or am I missing something?

Posted by: bdubuis at July 22, 2010 04:55 PM
Comment #304199

The People & The Press, 1997


One of the most comprehensive surveys of the public’s general opinion of the media was done in 1997 by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, formerly known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press. This research compared poll results from the mid-1980s with the late-1990s, (using identical questions) and determined a growing percentage of the public realize the media are biased.
KEY FINDINGS:
Two-thirds (67%) said agreed with the statement: “In dealing with political and social issues, news organizations tend to favor one side.” That was up 14 points from 53 percent who gave that answer in 1985.
Those who believed the media “deal fairly with all sides” fell from 34 percent to 27 percent.
“In one of the most telling complaints, a majority (54%) of Americans believe the news media gets in the way of society solving its problems,” Pew reported.
Republicans “are more likely to say news organizations favor one side than are Democrats or independents (77 percent vs. 58 percent and 69 percent, respectively).”
The percentage who felt “news organizations get the facts straight” fell from 55 percent to 37 percent.

.http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp



The entire MSM covered that story and many worked overtime to brand the Tea Partiers as “AstroTurf” in an effort to discredit a genuine, homegrown movement the likes of which has not been seen in this country in decades.
Despite the fact that tens of thousands of people were part of hundreds of protest events held around the country on Tax Day 2009, NBC’s Chuck Todd appeared on the Today Show telling Matt Lauer the Tea Party movement was one that “hasn’t really caught on”:
On August 4, of last year, while on MSNBC’s Hardball, Senator Barbara Boxer joined in the discredit chorus, telling Chris Matthews that the protesters were “too well dressed” and too well organized to be legitimate:



The signs even have the tag- “Paid For By Kesha Rogers for Congress” – on the bottom.
But, the state-run media won’t run this photo.
They won’t publish this photo because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Remember last year when the Democratic-Media Complex reported that the tea party protesters were waving Obama-Hitler signs? What the media purposely omitted from their stories was the fact that the protesters waving these astroturfed Obama-Hitler signs were radical left-wing extremists. They were radical activists from the LaRouche organization. But, this didn’t fit the state-run media’s narrative that tea party activists were radicals and racists so they omitted this from their reports.

.http://bigjournalism.com/tag/astroturf/

MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are ‘White’ Racists… Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race.
.http://vodpod.com/watch/2081946-msnbc-gun-toting-protesters-are-white-racists-black-guy-with-ar-15-edited-to-conceal-his-race- Posted by: Weary Willie at July 22, 2010 05:08 PM
Comment #304200
An analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs of midterm election stories aired on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts Sept. 5-Oct. 22 found that 2006’s coverage has been almost five times as heavy as in the 2002 midterm elections: 167 stories, compared with 35 four years ago. The study found that three out of four evaluations of Democratic candidates’ chances of winning — such as sound bites — were positive, compared with one out of eight for Republicans. Coverage has been dominated by two major themes: the effects of the Foley scandal, and the impact the Bush presidency is having on the party’s congressional candidates.
.http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2006-10-30-media-mix_x.htm


This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.

.http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 22, 2010 05:10 PM
Comment #304204

Another lederless example. The stimulus.

ASU gets $50million. How many jobs created? Less than 100. Less than 50. Less than 25. 10 jobs created using $50 million. If this admin wants to be in a demolishion derby there are thousands of race tracks and jalopies out there for them to use. Just quit using my money to do it!!!

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 06:40 PM
Comment #304205

Weary Willie-
You know, since this whole debacle here is the result of a big-name Conservative News icon ****ing up the story, I don’t know why LIBERAL bias seems to be the big problem in your view. FOX got it wrong. CNN got it right. If bias is indeed the problem, then I think the problem is with the people getting their facts wrong.

MAG-
It was not jumping to conclusions to conclude that something had happened in Haditha. There were bullet holes in people who were supposed to be killed in a blast. There was documentation from our side that this was the case.

Simply saying that there had been a civilian shooting and that it was a pretty nasty piece of work, given who was killed is not convicting anybody, much less jumping to a conclusion. That’s just simply stuff reactionary Republicans said trying to paint a man who had fought in two wars as a traitor to his country and his soldiers.

But I do agree: Obama should never take a Fox or Breitbart newstory on face value ever again without outside corroboration.

Beretta9-
Funny how you pin this President as a race-baiter, mostly on what other people say. This President has had every opportunity to be a rabble-rouser. He has the bully-pulpit. So what happens when he has his chance to help out a Sister and back her in a controversy against whitey?

He agrees with the White guy who fired her, initially.

As for doing something for America, I seem to remember him passing one reform-minded piece of legislation after another. He’s doing something, even if you don’t agree with it. It’s his rivals who seem to be doing nothing, and that’s something you should acknowledge, even if you agree with it.

I think it’s utter BS that Obama wants race riots. I think you want them, so you can hold them against Obama. So far, he’s done his absolute best not to drag racial issues into his presidency. So far, you folks have done your best to drag them in yourselves. I wonder why that is?

tom humes-
Sorry, but rat****ing is an actual term used to describe covert operations intended to destroy opponents.

As for your other complaints? You listen to too many stupid people who don’t do their research. Bush and his predecessors bowed to other world leaders before. Your buddies simply weren’t looking for every excuse to destroy the leader in question. There are a million things I’ve heard Republicans bash Obama over, that I later find out are either normal, standard, or the same things that Presidents like Bush and others did previously.

The simple fact is, you folks want to destroy him, and you don’t care about the facts. This time, you folks got burned, and you should have the decency and the honesty to actually admit that you are the people who got the story wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2010 06:52 PM
Comment #304206

The award for hitting the nail on the head goes to…….
Bdubuis!!!!!!
Just my opinion here, but it seems like Vilsack didn’t want there to be even the appearance of racism. Thus the poor decision to can Sherrod. Look at the alacrity with which the Obama administration moved to rectify what, in retrospect, was such a terrible move. Anyone imagine a certain faux Texas-accented head of state digging in his heels and asserting the righteousness of his foolish actions? Ahhhh , how refreshing is the ability to admit wrongdoing and quickly acting to correct it!!!!

And the testicular fortitude award of the day? Why, to C&J of course, for trying to shift the blame from the originators of the story, who purposely tried to mislead the public into believing a public official acted on racism in her official capacity, to the administration official who acted swiftly, trying (however mistakenly) to do the right thing. If the allegations were not regarding racism, perhaps more time might have been taken before acting so rashly. Like it or not, race is a highly charged, hot-button topic in America today.

Beretta nine: You do know that whaling commercially has been banned among civilized nations for some time now, and that the United States’ position on whaling is that it is a cruel, barbaric, misguided thing whose time has passed?? And that the Japanese are whaling in internationally protected waters?? That whales are majestic singing creatures with highly evolved intelligence and social skills (in direct opposition to some who post here) who live underwater lives that almost deny comprehension???

Maybe you could travel to Japan, heck, even MOVE there, where you could munch on all the whale blubber sold due to the “research” ships so kindly slaughtering the Goddamned things……sheesh

Posted by: steve miller at July 22, 2010 06:55 PM
Comment #304212

So, FOX, the NAACP and the Obama folks jumped to conclusions. Presumably the NAACP and the Obama folks had access to the most complete information. Of the three, only the Obama folks acted on their mistake and caused actual harm. Shame on FOX for not checking its facts. In this case it is not better than MSNBC or CNN. Shame on NAACP for its rush to judgment. And mostly shame on the Obama folks who didn’t check its facts, rushed to judgment AND fired her.

BTW - the White House will probably throw Vilsak under the bus now.

Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 08:22 PM
Comment #304213

C&J said: “the White House will probably throw Vilsak under the bus now. “

I have said elsewhere, were I Obama, Vilsack would be sacked, by me, personally, and PDQ! What he did was grossly incompetent, and the cost to the President in political capital is proving enormous. Why would anyone in Obama’s position NOT sack Vilsack, unless they are a practicing Christian, capable and willing to forgive mistakes, the FIRST time? Obviously, I am not a Christian.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2010 08:27 PM
Comment #304214

Causing actual harm: costly.
Standing up and rectifying the wrong you have done? Priceless.

How about the slime who deliberately contrived the entire affair? Contrition? Ha ha haaaaaaa!!
Everyone says they want accountability in politics; here we actually seem to be getting some. At least from one side.
:)

Posted by: steve miller at July 22, 2010 08:38 PM
Comment #304215

David

Do you really think Vilsack did this kind of thing w/o consulting someone in the White House?

I think that if/when they sack Vilsack, this will come out. That is why they are going slow.

If Obama sacked all the dummies in his administration, there would not be many left.

Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 08:38 PM
Comment #304216

steve miller

I do not give the Obama folks credit for doing what any decent employer would. I do hold them responsible for doing what no decent employer would do the day before.

The Obama folks really screwed the pooch on this one. It shows their lack of loyalty, as well their cowardice. I think that Obama folks know where they stand now.

Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 08:42 PM
Comment #304217

Steve Miller

Re the contrived nature - the original posting included the end of the story.

And the Obama folks fired Sherrod before the story aired on FOX. Unfortunately, some people on FOX figured that if the White House fired the woman, it must be true. The lesson is that you cannot trust the Obama folks.

Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 08:45 PM
Comment #304218

SD
Psychic Stephen who do I listen to? You don’t know and neither does anybody else on this blog and what difference does it make. I am old enough to think for myself and I do it with daily regularity. Don’t that just make you sick, that a person who believes in the Constitution and small government can think for himself. My, my what’s this world coming to. I don’t need someone else to tell me what to think, or say or live. I am doing just fine. I am grateful that I don’t listen to people on this blog generally to get my living instructions. I would have crashed long ago.

Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2010 08:47 PM
Comment #304219

I trust them a little more than I did before they admitted screwing up; and acted to fix it…..fast.

I don’t admire your trying to turn their moving quickly (yes, too quickly) to quash the appearance of a racist official into some kind of cheap victory, while essentially giving those who twisted the truth, or propagated same, for…….a cheap political victory.

Disgusting.

Posted by: steve miller at July 22, 2010 08:50 PM
Comment #304220

Steve Miller

They fired her BEFORE the Fox evening programs. Chronology is a hard master, isn’t it?

So this is how it went down.

- A blogger posted a clip from an Administration official addressing the NAACP. In this clip she talked re how she had acted in a racist way, but the clip did not include that they had seen the error.

- The Obama folks heard about the clip and that FOX had it. W/o checking into the facts or asking the employee, which would have been very easy for them to do, they fired her.

- FOX aired the clip and reported that the WH had fired the woman involved, which added to the impression that she was guilty.


I know you read blogs. Do you believe everything you see on them? If I say something - as a blogger - and then you act on it w/o checking the facts or using your own judgment, who is the fool?


Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 09:08 PM
Comment #304222

Stephen, Your right something did happen in Hadathia but the fact that Murtha, Pelosi and a few others condemning the Marines before all the evidence was JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, as did Obama the USDA, and FOX with Sherrod.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 09:22 PM
Comment #304223

Just my opinion C&J, but I seem to be worried about the right thing being done. And you seem to worry more about scoring points. You keep skirting the ethics of selective editing to ruin someone’s reputation in favor of trying to focus on the chronological sequence of events. Which don’t even fully support you, as has been noted on this page. Vilsack made a serious error in firing Sherrod without vetting the allegations. AND it was by way of containing a volatile situation which, by it’s sensitive nature, didn’t leave room for anything but swift action. Go ahead, gloss over what precipitated this; how it was a fabrication, via editing. Score (or try to score) your points.
But I see a marked and very refreshing difference between the present and the prior administration. Time will tell as to the public’s perception of the firing gaffe.

Posted by: steve miller at July 22, 2010 09:38 PM
Comment #304226

Steve miller

Everybody did the right thing … after they did the wrong one. This includes the blogger, FOX and the Obama folks. What are the ethical differences between FOX not checking the facts and the Obama folks not checking the facts? I just point out the the Obama folks failed first and that Obama failures tended to reinforce the FOX evening programs.

So how is this point scoring that I am doing but you are not. Don’t we just all see the same facts? I have criticized the blogger, FOX, Obama folks and the NAACP. You can blame the blogger for starting the ball rolling, but after that FOX, Obama folks and the NAACP all made the same sorts of factual errors. NO difference except the Obama folks acted on their errors and compounded them.

There is indeed a difference with this administration. The Obama folks panic easier; they are less loyal to their people & they are much more interested in public perceptions.

Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2010 10:33 PM
Comment #304227

May I also add C&J it is easier for the Media to retact a story and appologize for the error then it is for the President and his admin. to retract when acting stupidly on a fabricated story.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 10:39 PM
Comment #304228

C&J-
They jumped to YOUR conclusion. If we hadn’t have cleared her name, you’d either be looking for your next example of racism, or you would be cheering the quick firing.

This wasn’t some no-name blogger. This was Andrew Breitbart, who happens the same fellow who posted another famous video that only later turned our to have been so heavily edited as to distort the entire truth of the encounter. This is the head honcho of Big Government, the site that many of your big pundits look to for news and exposes. He is influential. He should have some sense of responsibility. If he is a real journalist, he should know better than to just post a video like that.

Public officials do not always have the luxury of time to make their decisions, to find out all the facts, and in this case, we have an administration that has had to field constant unending controversies from sites like this.

And unlike with the last President, this President has a sense that if the controversy has some real merit to it, there is no point in embracing the person in question.

What bugs me is that your side treats this failure to get the facts straight as incidental, rather than as a crucial mistake. Rather than back off, you continue to to try and make a controversy out of this, this time from a hypocritical position of sympathy to the person whose reputation you were earlier knowingly trying to destroy.

Or, you start to claim things like the old couple are plants (I don’t think they’re that boring), or that the audience reaction justifies further allegations.

STOP. For the love of Christ, give it rest. When does it end? When does the acid quit corroding the good character of Conservatives across this nation? When do Republicans finally realize that to be a real party that does real good, and that earns real political progress, it has to let go of the notion that the GOP is simply here to be the antithesis, the shadow to the Democrats.

When Republicans can think for themselves, can compromise towards things, can lay out policy that isn’t just about not doing what Democrats are doing, they will be a party that can manuever without checking to see what the Democrats are doing. They can agree that global warming is a problem, and a solvable one. They can recognize that some level of regulation and govenment authority is required to keep people secure enough to want no more. They can look at their tax policy and admit it doesn’t add up. Hell, they can admit that raising taxes is not always a bad, much less evil thing.

Republicans are so straitjacketed, and I look at the Tea Party, and only see it getting worse.

Republicans have to stop trying to establish themselves as diametric opposites of the Democrats, and have to start moving to govern on a practical, observant basis. Rather than simply push agenda items blindly, the GOP has to choose what is right over what fulfills the party wishlist. If it hasn’t set itself up so that it can do the right thing, the party has nothing to offer Americans, besides its own inevitable trajectory of failure.

Tom Humes-
I’m not going to tell you who to listen to. I’m going to tell you to find out what the facts are, learn what things are about, and value a persons understanding of a subject over their political leanings. I want you to think for yourself.

Hell, that’s my whole problem. For all your boasting, do you think you sound any different than any number of similarly proud folks?

And if you wonder why I find your policies so problematic, well you asked the question: what has this world, this country come to?

The answer is out there. A market devastated, an economy that is anorexic, a job market that just plain sucks. You tell me my people are to blame, but my people were aware of problems in the economy long before you guys finally stopped saying the fundamentals of the economy were sound. You pluck up your scapegoats, and you make your sadly unoriginal claims that it’s all the liberals’ fault, and then berate people like me for being unimpressed, for thinking the arguments a little dull.

I don’t want to give you your living instructions. But I don’t want to get my living instructions from your side. I don’t care for your interpretation of the constitution. I think it conveniently ignores some key concepts that are inconvenient for an authoritarian mindsetl. I don’t care for the constant race and religion baiting that I see your sites. I’m absolutely disgusted with the way that the Right has run the military into the ground.

You folks were supposed to be the responsible party on fiscal matters. Now you want both your job back and your old policy back, and not one Tea Party hack out there is even bothering to blow their stack at this repetition of the policy that is part and parcel of the big deficits they hate! The blindness on this policy front is not merely wrong, it is fundamentally dangerous. You would make permanent our nation’s worst, most costly fiscal mistake of all time.

It just seems to be that “Let’s vindicate all the policy decisions we made that ended in disaster.” is the theme of modern Republican politics.

You can think for yourself. But why don’t you? Why don’t you come to a different conclusion? You fail to recognize that you have surrounded yourself in a medium of wishful thinking, of rivalry-based contrarianism.

We can no longer count on the Right to pull itself back from the precipice of disaster. I once thought you folks would do that. That you would have common sense enough to say, “this policy won’t end well.” or “this failed.”. Instead, it’s all about winning an argument with us.

We’re not always right. But simply holding on to a bad policy in order to keep us from winning a particular debate helps no-one.

Republicans have become dangerously insular. And that Dangerous, locked-off quality, not some real strong leftist spirit, is most of what motivates me to so bitterly oppose the right nowadays. I just don’t trust you folks to recognize, much less undo your mistakes. You’re too busy trying to prove people like me wrong, and make yourselves invulnerable to criticism from outside in order to run things competently or steer aside from looming disasters.

I have no problem with real conservatives, but I would wish for them to express their conservatism constructively within the context of the times, and of the needs of the nation, rather than try to impose by force of will some abstract agenda with utopian goals. I am a pragmatist at heart, and what scares me most about Republicans is how little they care to be brutally aware of the consequences of their policy. No government, in practice, can long take your route and not destroy itself and its country.

MAG-
It’s Haditha, and there is more to the story than you’ve bothered to look at. It’s not some Congressman flying off a handle that cast suspicion on these people. We know a bunch of people got shot who were reported to be the victims of an IED explosion. Those Marines knew that report was false, and evidence gathered by our own people casts doubt on their story. The problem with getting convictions on the matter, if any were to be gotten, was that there was a gap of about a year, and the crime scene was in the middle of a warzone.

To actually, not merely in some vague media sense, get past the presumption of innocence, you have to actually show that a crime took place, and that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of it. Now try to determine that with a situation as volatile as Iraq. Witnesses dead or fled to other parts. Evidence degraded, destroyed by time and warfare. There’s nothing nice or neat about the acquittal of those marines.

And no, it did not help them to do things this way, to have this come to the surface after so much time. The Fog of War renders them innocent, rather than a strong, exonerating case dependent on present facts and firm evidence.

You think keeping the lid on Abu Ghraib helped? You think such secrets are good for morale, such moral abominations? Only when justice is clear, and the line between right and wrong is as crisp and bright as it can be in a war, do the soldiers have the luxury of believing that they are fighting a noble cause, rather than having to tear their way through a moral and ethical quagmire. A soldier is not most free to act to do what’s right when the discipline is not there and the policies are permissive. They are most free when policy backs good behavior, rather than promotes nastiness and darkness behind closed doors and within the fog of war.

They are free when their hearts are most unburdened by secrets and lies.

People are most free when they don’t have to live a lie.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2010 10:53 PM
Comment #304230

The point is Stephen, people do make mistakes and jump to conclusions. No matter if they are Dem or Rep or media. The other point is the enlisted men were exonorated by a military investigation but Murtha had them guilty Didn’t he
Stephen didn’t he jump to a wrong conclusion as did a lot of the bloggers here.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 11:06 PM
Comment #304239

C&J, how convenient for your comment to leave the entire issue of malicious intent and motive out of the picture. Your argument can ONLY be valid logically, if intent and motive are excluded. Your comments have quite a proficiency with sophistry. You really would have made a capable lawyer.

There was no malicious intent on the part of the WH. There was malicious intent by Faux News and Breitbart and his video provider. Motive and intent are often the difference in our courts between mistakes and crime.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2010 02:39 AM
Comment #304243
I am still waiting for complete quotes or links to the mis-statements of Beck, Fox, Breitbart, etc. A lot of chatter on here, but like NAACP and bama admin, based on incomplete data.

Beretta9 asks for it, and…Voilà!

Here’s a site dedicated to Mr. Beck - www.glenn-beck-sucks.com

Homework already done for you on Mr. Breitbart - Big Falsehoods: A guide to Andrew Breitbart’s lies, smears, and distortions

Your fav “news” - News Hounds - We watch FOX so you don’t have to.

Read and learn.

Yes, yes, I know, it’s not a “complete” list, but it’ll get you started.

Posted by: boomxtwo at July 23, 2010 10:10 AM
Comment #304249

‘TOUCHE’

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2010 11:14 AM
Comment #304264

In response to the boomxtwo links and DRR’s “TOUCHE’”:

You really got me; your first two links say nothing about Sherrod. I believe the subject was Sherrod. You links are no more than second hand speculation about Beck and Breitbart. As for you last link; did you read it? In fact did you or Mr. TOUCHE’ read the story?

Here is a quote:

“But for all the chatter — some of it from Sherrod herself — that she was done in by Fox News, the network didn’t touch the story until her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the exception of brief comments by O’Reilly. After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: “Let’s take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let’s make sure we do this right.”

Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the fear that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her. As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tried to pressure her into resigning, Sherrod says Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say “do it, because you’re going to be on ‘Glenn Beck’ tonight.” And for all the focus on Fox, much of the mainstream media ran with a fragmentary story that painted an obscure 62-year-old Georgian as an unrepentant racist.”

Was she on Glenn Beck?

I love it when liberals don’t know what they are talking about. It makes them look really stupid…

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 23, 2010 03:24 PM
Comment #304265

Baretta9

That means we get to laugh at those stupid whatevers, because for them it appears 24/7/365 and sometimes an extra day.

Posted by: tom humes at July 23, 2010 03:28 PM
Comment #304267

For all the blather from the left about Breitbart, Beck, and Fox; I still haven’t seen on you-tube or in any article an actual quote that was a lie or misled. It is simply a smokescreen to get everyone off subject. What Americans are concerned about is illegal aliens, jobs, and the economy; and with all 3, this administration has failed.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 23, 2010 03:51 PM
Comment #304269

I don’t think anything else is needed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/fox-news-shirley-sherrod_n_657512.html

I just lick that old egg right off and go on about my business…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 23, 2010 04:47 PM
Comment #304272

Marysdude,

I don’t know about you but I am just shocked.

BTW I heard the other night that Beck has speculated that this was all a Obama administration conspiracy (dun, dun, da) to smear Breibart.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 23, 2010 05:08 PM
Comment #304275

Rocky perhaps it has to do with a payout by the USDA, for past injustices to black farmers in the south, that is coming up for a vote in Congress. Perhaps in a military appropriations bill or some such bill. (I think it was the Chris Matthews show I seen this on.)SO perhaps it was repubs/conservatives in Congress asking for help from Breitbart, Faux et.al. in an attempt to keep from paying out the settlement to the black farmers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11239918

Posted by: j2t2 at July 23, 2010 05:47 PM
Comment #304277

Marysdude, Gingrich sure shot himself in the campaign, didn’t he?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 23, 2010 05:59 PM
Comment #304278

j2t2,

Here is an article with a littlt more detail.

http://www.aolnews.com/article/usda-to-pay-black-farmers-1-25-billion-in-discrimination-case/19369678

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 23, 2010 06:14 PM
Comment #304280

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5gRklaVG6U&feature=player_embedded

For background, the Pigford Farms case is a class-action lawsuit filed against the federal government on behalf of black farmers and black wannabe farmers, who say they were discriminated against in loan proceedings. The federal government settled Pigford Farms for an unbelievable $1.15 billion. An incredibly high percentage of those receiving awards under this settlement have done so fraudulently.

Shirley Sherrod was not only an initiator of the Pigford Farms case, she received a chunk of change for her company, New Communities, Inc. To be accurate, she received the largest chunk of change for New Communities — $13 million. New Communities was a bankrupt commune-type land trust held by Sherrod and her husband. She and her husband personally received $150,000 each to compensate them for “pain and suffering.”


The bottom line

While all the numbers supplied by USDA aren’t up-to-date, it can be safely said that the original estimate of $300 million or $400 million needed to resolve Pigford v. Glickman was grossly underestimated. Using the numbers provided (including the $615 million cited by USDA as what Track A $50,000 payments have cost) the grand total thus far is $680 million and change. And it should be noted that the $680 million cited does not include Track B payments, current cases under appeal or claimant attorney fees.

I didn’t write this. I c&p from a page and I lost the link. Don’t shoot the freakin’ messenger.


http://deltafarmpress.com/news/farming_pigford_case_costs/

This is the only link I have left.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 23, 2010 06:54 PM
Comment #304281

I found it! Go figure.

http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2010/07/22/congressman-sherrods-hiring-should-be-investigated/

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 23, 2010 07:02 PM
Comment #304289

Stephen

How did “we” clear her name. The complete transcripts and video were available to the Obama folks and the NAACP because she was a government official who gave the speech at the NAACP. THEY didn’t check.

Bloggers do a lot of weird things. Remember all those stories about voter intimidation in Ohio or Florida? Any evidence ever surface? How about the calls for Rove to resign over Plame? Did they stop when “we” cleared his name by identifying Armitage as the source? I don’t recall Murtha or liberal media apologizing to the Marines they accused of murder after “we” cleared them with due process. And what about that highly edited wikileaks video? When the whole video came out, showing the innocent journalists walking with guys carrying RPGs, did “we” hear an apology?

The fact is that the Obama folks acted too quickly and hysterically. Maybe you should stop defending them.

David

“intent” is always interesting. What was the Obama “intent” in firing the woman before they had investigated or asked her side of the story? I would not accept such an excuse that they meant well but did the wrong thing.

It is an Obama pattern. Think of the “beer summit”. Why was that necessary? Because Obama jumped to a racist conclusion before he bothered to check the facts.

Posted by: C&J at July 23, 2010 08:16 PM
Comment #304301

Weary instead of Breibart’s site why don’t we try one that has not been so tarnished by doctoring video tapes. They lose all credibility when they do that. Here is a site with much more info and in fact has reviewed Breibarts so we don’t have to.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007230029

Posted by: j2t2 at July 24, 2010 12:28 AM
Comment #304474

C&J-
They filed a false report. People were shot, not blown up by an IED, as was claimed. The Navy investigative services themselves documented the casualties, so Murtha wasn’t talking from ignorance or prejudice.

To my perspective, this is a matter of the fog of war being compounded by the delay in the investigation.

All the coverup, even if it didn’t cover up convictable actions, only functioned to muddle the proper clearing up of the matter.

I think the doctrine that soldiers should be simply let lose to fight the enemy is a naive one at best. Disciplined forces are required to prosecute wars correctly, especially ones involving counter-insurgency.

You treat me and other liberals like we were dogs snapping at these people’s heels. But our line of thinking is, when the evidence tells you something’s been covered up, it’s better to find things out and put things to rest, rather than aggravated whatever bad situation has arisen by trying to sweep things under the rug.

I’m a supporter of the military. But I am not an unthinking booster. I believe we can’t shield these people from accountability and do them any favors. There will always be a tension between the demands of war and the demands of honorable behavior, especially in insurgency-oriented wars, but I don’t think a counter-insurgency war works well if your soldiers don’t follow orders properly, don’t observe the rules of war properly. Atrocities don’t win hearts and minds wars.

So as a supporter of the military, and not merely some steretype of military glory, I want the rules enforced, and the incidents that inevitably occur investigated, so that we don’t encourage a lack of discipline on one hand, as we ask for it on the other.

Republicans rush to conclusions when they accuse people like me and Murtha of betraying the soldiers. This is not the Mafia we’re dealing with here, where silence is necessary to protect the organization. Here silence and coverups undermine the organization, its prestige, its honor. Folks covering up Abu Ghraib may have thought that it helped the soldiers, but the inevitable burst of it onto the news created a nastier backlash, and created the circumstances that helped kill hundreds, if not thousands of Americans.

More than having it revealed and investigated on our terms, I think we shouldn’t have adopted the “dark side” approach in the first place, since that created the strategic liability in the first place.

There’s the intent to protect an institution and then there’s the result. All too often, people try to protect the institution and end up undoing its reputation. Then others try the same thing, on the theory that somehow they’re fighting against those whose revelation of their secrets hurt the organization. That tends to turn out no better. The best way to protect an organization is to steer it clear of bad behavior as much as possible when all eyes are not on it, and when bad things inevitably get discovered, dealing with them honestly, forthrightfully, and assertively.

To do otherwise is to dig yourself into a hole when people aren’t looking, and dig yourself even deeper when they are.

I see organizations do this time and time again, and I always think, “how pointless and stupid this is.” Realities always find a way to leak out around the edges. Face them, or face their consequences.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2010 07:32 PM
Comment #304493

SD
You support the military but….

What branch of the military did you serve in?

I think one has to serve to be knowledgeable about how to conduct oneself while in the military. Some how that just didn’t come out as one who had served.

BTW I volunteered seven times and each time there were health issues. I wanted to serve in the military in the bet possible manner, but it was not to be. I have a son in the NG. He joined the AZNG after serving time in Korea. I am proud of him. And he is only 20 years old.

Posted by: tom humes at July 26, 2010 12:14 AM
Comment #304527

tom humes-
I’ve never served, but I’m familiar with military history and strategy. Learning about that has given me a more nuanced perspective on military affairs. I never was the kind of pacifist you would believe people in my party to be, and I’ve never been shy about supporting military action.

But I do not let politicians hold soldiers hostage for the sake of bad policy. If you go back through my archives, you’ll see somebody whose main motivations for reforms to Iraq policy were centered on improving the chances of winning the war, and most importantly, winning the peace. A lot of my anger against the Bush Administration came from the fact that I thought their policy problem were losing us the war, and it was especially galling to me to see them using the soldiers and their morale and wellbeing to trying an paralyze even folks just trying to suggest alternative policies towards victory.

Republicans were supposed to be good at winning wars, and it seemed to me that Bush was more interested in winning Election Day 2004.

I’m a pretty patriotic person. I think this country is an amazing achievement in World History. But to me, Patriotism carries with it duties, duties that pride should call us to. One of those duties, I think, is making sure the country is kept right when it’s going right, and corrected when it’s going wrong. There are policies and mistakes that I feel should be beneath our country, not excused in order to support a naive sort of glow about it’s perfect goodness.

To me, to support the soldiers is not to shout down dissenters, but rather to figure out how best to use our soldiers, and then not to **** around with the support of that mission. I don’t think the White House under Bush did either well. They were too concerned about confronting and preventing media bias and dissent against the war, not concerned enough about running good intelligence, or good strategy in the actual war itself.

If you had asked me ten years ago whether Republicans would have lost a war, I would have thought you crazy. If you had told me that Bush would have squandered the surplus, that we would be in the closest thing to a great depression in decades, same thing.

Republicans lost it, and the pity is, they still don’t realize it, because their media is too focused on anesthetizing the right on how far from the mainstream its gone, and how badly its policies have failed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2010 01:40 PM
Comment #304534

SD
So when we lose the Afghan war it is still a republican loss.

Liberals must have derived that title from a Burmese fruit.

Posted by: tom humes at July 26, 2010 02:18 PM
Comment #304585

The Afghan war was lost the day we turned away from the established goal there, foolishly invaded Iraq, and took the necessary resources away. Obama can lay claim to misunderstanding the gravity of the defeat, and believing he still had a chance, but as to who will take the historical blame for the loss…the one who actually lost it.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 26, 2010 10:07 PM
Post a comment