A free and healthy democracy cannot function when it has no way to determine reality. We have our corrupt, degenerate, dangerous mass media to thank for this situation. The solution is simple: Destroy them. Don’t read them, buy them, or support them in any way. As somebody else said, “Let them die. I’ll dance on their graves.”
Whatever replaces our current media cannot possibly be any worse, and most likely will be better. More transparent, at least.
I've felt a lot better since I've just been ignoring them altogether and filtering my news through trusted sources.
Barack Obama has been on the national stage a shorter period of time than John Edwards, who managed to win only one Senate race and no national contests. Obama at least won his party’s nomination for President, but has two fewer years than Edwards in office at the national level. What exactly is the “Age of Obama” if Obama loses in November? And how would that impact Ifill’s sales?
I say it again: to hell with the media. I'll let Jeff Goldstein explain:
Freedom of the press only works when the press is truly representative of divergent opinions. But like many disciplines in the academy, the mainstream press has become nothing more than another “progressive” advocacy group — desirous of teaching the rubes whatever “lessons” are deemed necessary to get voters to think “correctly.” From there, it is but a small step toward convincing oneself that, as a “reporter,” the methods by which you achieve that end are subordinate to the end itself — and so certain literary license or a particular “framing” is perfectly acceptable, given that what is important is how people interpret. Give them what they need to make the “right” reading and you’ve done the nation a service.
Our press, conceived of in such a way and protected by the First Amendment and a mythology of its commitment to “objectivity,” is nowadays an embarrassment, frankly. And while the Palin feeding frenzy (based entirely on lies and sensationalism), when juxtaposed against the desire on the part of the press to bury unflattering stories about, say, John Edwards or Barack Obama (no matter how true they happen to be, or in Obama’s case, by refusing to do anything but the most cursory of “investigations” — be it into the Rezko connection, the Ayers / CAC connection and administration, etc.) clearly points to an almost in-your-face bias on the party of the mainstream press, unfortunately, the only people who know so are those that follow the news closely and skeptically.
if you think expanding a program by $3.9 million instead of $5 million counts as cutting funds, you’re qualified to work for one of America’s most esteemed newspapers.
Assholes. They'd be worthy of respect if they were only open about their ideology. As it stands, the media is worthy only of contempt.
According to a commenter (and why should I check?), Kos is claiming the smear didn't originate with him, but with "Alaska Republicans on the radio."
Ah. Yes, that's why we spent the weekend talking about it. Because we were all glued to our radios listening to Alaskan talk radio. We all got this from Rush's cousin, Slush Limbaugh, and his radio show, Slush Limbaugh's Right-Wing Agent Provocateur Gothic Fake Pregnancy Krazy Konspiracy Kavalcade & Professional Toboggan Fantasy League Report.
Hardly any comment is necessary on the bold portion of this article:
Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president. The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama—that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.
In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
It appears that our reporter has never heard of Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Black Liberation Theology, neither of which are either moderate, or arguably even Christian.
I forget who it was who noted this, but it's a brilliant point. During WWII, Japan's government and media always claimed Japan was winning every single battle. But careful listeners could divine the way the War in the Pacific was really going by noting the locations of each of these "victories" -- each of these "victories" seemed to be occurring closer and closer to the Japanese mainland.
In a near-exact reversal of that situation, the American media laments each and every American "defeat"... but careful readers will note that the "Zone of Quagmire" seems to be radiating farther and farther out from US power centers and closer and closer to the heart of Al Qaeda/insurgent/Sadrist control.
We began by losing in Fallujah so badly our troops now say there are weeks that go by without hearing a gun shot. It's quiet there -- too quiet.
We then lost Baghdad catastrophically. You can tell we lost because there are so few reports of mortar attacks hitting the Green Zone. The enemy won there by moving further and further out from the city. You know -- surrounding us.
We then lost in Basra so dreadfully it apparently simply vanished from the map entirely, perhaps sucked into another dimension through an interplanar vortex.
Next up we lost in Sadr's last bastion of power -- the slum he's named for -- which you can see by fact that the Iraqi Army is now patrolling the streets and conducts house-to-house searches for weapons. But we lost, because two concessions were made to the Sadrists -- "light weapons" (pistols, rifles) could be kept, one per person, and no US troops would accompany the IA. That last point really stung us, because you know our boys are heartbroken that the IA gets the glamor duty of patrolling this slum. Glory denied.
And now we're losing in Mosul, of course.
If we lose in Iraq, it's going to be because the left decided that they wanted to.
The most rewarding thing about a day like today, when some liberal’s in trouble and anxious to save his own ass, is watching the worst, most predictable, most embarrassing hacks on the other side go face-first into the tank, exactly as you’d expect they would. Sullivan? Check. Matthews? Check. The New York Times College of Cardinals? Checkity check check.
The problem with many liberals is that while they say they espouse tolerance, love for your fellow man, and discussing problems instead of resorting to fisticuffs, when they’re actually expected to “walk the walk,” things get ugly. To them, just listening to conservative ideas is akin to Dracula finding out about a nationwide tainted blood supply. It’s painful when liberals realize that not everyone thinks the way that they do: that there are unenlightened souls out there who don’t recycle, who go to church once in a while, who respect our military, and who don’t think that the sun shines out of Barack Obama’s nether regions. So, being the enlightened, progressive types that they are, instead of listening respectfully to what the other side has to say — and possibly learning something new — they stick their fingers in their ears, chant “I can’t hear you,” and complain to the person in charge about how awful the experience was.
It’s sort of like the people who believe that vandalizing and bombing military recruiting stations is a great way to get their message of peace out to the masses.
In a move that is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning, Rolling Stone magazine has joined the media choir to sing the glorious praises of the holy one, Obama! And as a delightful bonus, they've created this creepy, semi-fascist looking image of the Chosen One emitting what appears to be force-lightning from between his shoulder blades.
Basking in the warm afterglow of what must have been an especially satisfying session of endorsement writing, the genius copywriters at our premier journal of crap had this to say about our new political messiah:
Illinois senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama graces the cover of the new issue of Rolling Stone, which hits newsstands today. Having galvanized an exciting new movement and shattered the conventions of typical beltway politics, Obama has sparked a social revolution the likes of which haven’t been seen since the 1960s.
Really? You mean that chanting "hope" and "change" while channeling Walter Mondale's politics is all it takes to start a revolution? Damn. Too bad Walter Mondale didn't catch on to that.
To the staff of Rolling Stone, each and every one of you record and movie industry pimps and pushers, I say: Welcome to the cult of the Obamentarians.
I think that's Jann Wenner on the podium.
Who does Rolling Stone think Obama is? Via Ace, a commentary from The Onion:
Based on their latest cover, here's a short list of who Rolling Stone thinks Barack Obama is:
Jesus
Superman
The totally awesome, glowing, superhero/savior spawn of Jesus and Superman
The radioactive president of America's dreams
A dewy Venus, majestically stepping forth from a serene ocean mist, but, like also a guy who's running for president.
The late-90s sitcom character, Teen Angel.
Not just the president of the ShinySuit 3000 Club For Men, but also a client.
The only reason my wife and I subscribe to the Grand Rapids Press is for the Sunday grocery ads. And the only reason that we get the Press during the week is because the practically pay us to take it. I have no idea how they're making money, and I highly doubt their claims about increasing circulation. (If the claims are true, my guess is that they're true because they, well, give the paper away.) These thoughts pop to mind as I read this stinging editorial on the gradual demise of another hometown paper, the Kansas City Star:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism began its 2006 annual report by asking, "Will we recall this as the year when journalism in print began to die?" The answer preceded the question. A business that exists solely to give credibility to a minority point of view just isn’t a smart proposition. The Pitch, KC's left-wing tabloid, already does a better job reaching the Star’s market than the Star does, and they do it for a lot less money. Meanwhile, newsroom Darwinists can look past the Pitch to craigslist.com and see the local paper of the future.
So conservatives worked up over the Star’s coverage or its editorials or its story selection or its letters column should just take a shower, pop a soda and relax. A friend of mine, the late George Leinwall, a Joycean scholar and a bibliophile, once advised me against wasting energy on getting angry at a guy who had done me wrong. “His punishment,” Leinwall said, “is his life.” Same with the Star, except for the "life" part.
