No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Day by Day cartoon

Archive for the 'Presstitute Follies' Category

May 19, 2011

Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – Day 21 (and all-but-done)

As I type, Waukesha County is working on the process of certifying its results after finishing the physical recount about 2 pm yesterday. With unofficial numbers from all of Waukesha County except the city of Muskego, most of the city of Waukesha, and most of the village of Summit (the last was reported to the Government Accountability Board but was still under review as of this morning) available from the GAB as of this morning, and certified numbers from the other 71 counties, 3,545 of Wisconsin’s 3,602 reporting units have been reported and at minimum reviewed by the Government Accountability Board, representing 1,477,284 of an original 1,498,880 votes. On a net basis, Justice David Prosser gained 368 votes over his pre-recount total in those 3,545 reporting units, challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg gained a net 678 votes over the pre-recount total, and an additional 162 “scattering” were recorded over the pre-recount total. That means Prosser lost 310 votes of his pre-recount 7,316-vote lead, and has an unofficial 7,006-vote lead.

Waukesha County is expected to finish the process of certification either today or tomorrow. Indeed, just before the board of canvassers broke for lunch, they completed the final canvass of Muskego. Once the certified results are transmitted to the GAB (note; if they’re transmitted electronically, they’ll be on the GAB county-by-county certified results/minutes page in short order), the 5-business-day window of opportunity to file a judicial appeal of the recount begins. If Kloppenburg, as the sole losing candidate, does not, do so, it will be Humpbot Time as Prosser is declared the official winner.

Since my last update on Monday, Kloppenburg penned an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel where she denied having made up her mind on whether to challenge the inevitable recount defeat in court, then proceeded to spend the remainder of the op-ed outlining why many, including both myself and the majority of the Journal Sentinel editorial board, believe she has already made up her mind to do so.

The Associated Press, in their Wednesday wrap (copy courtesy the Appleton Post-Crescent), decided to focus on the raw recounted numbers, without any perspective on either what the pre-recount numbers were in the same reporting units or what the change of margin has been, to repeat its Election Night “mistake” of giving Kloppenburg and her entourage false hope. For those who were tracking their numbers in the days following the election, they waited for several days after the failure to report the results of the city of Brookfield became common knowledge to correct their erroneous numbers.

January 11, 2011

New course offering from the network that gave you “Fake but accurate”

by @ 7:36. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, Genghis ran with the latest bout of outright lying from CBS, the originator of Yellow Telejournalism with their almost-completely-successful smear of Audi. This time, “Professor” Couric introduces us for the very first time to Judy Clarke, defense attorney for Timothy McVeigh. Never mind that no other source has ever found that connection; it is an essential part of the Bullshit Constant.

January 3, 2011

It’s time to play, “Name That Religion”, WSJ edition

by @ 9:51. Filed under Presstitute Follies, War on Terror.

Sean Gardiner of The Wall Street Journal reported on a draft study from the New York State Intelligence Center on 32 terrorism cases against the US. Despite noting that the report included, as two of its 25 variables, religion and affiliations, that the study began with Richard Reid’s attempted shoe-bombing and ended with Faisal Shahzad’s attempted Times Square bombing (both of whose ties to Islam and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were omitted from the article), and quoting the draft report’s finding that 82% of the 90 persons-of-interest were between 18 and 33 years old as “suggesting ‘that younger persons are less established, more impressionable, and therefore more susceptible to radicalization,’” there was no mention of the religious or other affiliations of those 90.

Gardiner, however, noted several other demographic trends, from a majority of the persons-of-interest being US citizens to a significant portion of those whose criminal histories could be established having prior records involving marijuana to a majority having at least some college education.

Who here thinks they found a bunch of Pentecostals and Alcoholics Anonymous members rather than Islamokazis and various left-wing/anarchist whackos? Anyone? Bueller?

October 13, 2010

Presstitute follies – The Chicago Way

by @ 19:16. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Dana Loesch put up some video of WLS-TV’s Charles Thomas and WBBM-TV’s Jay Levine aggressively protecting former White House Chief of Staff and Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel from the questions of independent journalist William Kelly. Levine went so far as to threaten to “deck” Kelly.

YouTube Preview Image

Just as a reminder, both WBBM-TV and WLS-TV are owned by their networks, CBS and ABC respectively.

June 17, 2010

Expect the unexpected

by @ 9:21. Filed under Economy, Presstitute Follies.

If there’s bad economic news, in this case a sharp increase in weekly initial jobless claims to 472,000, one can count on the likes of Reuters to term it “unexpected”:

Jobless claims unexpectedly higher last week

The number of workers filing new applications for unemployment insurance unexpectedly rose last week as the manufacturing, construction and education sectors shed employees, adding to worries that the economic recovery is slowing.

(Revisions/extensions, 10:05 am 6/17/2010) – Hot Air commenter mankai found that the first version of AP’s story (thanks to Breitbart for not sending the original down the memory hole like everybody else) also used the “unexpectedly” adverb. Also, in the main post, Ed Morrissey noted that, thanks to a revision of the prior week’s claims, this week’s increase wasn’t exactly followed by 3 weeks of drops as the AP would lead one to believe.
Since Ed Morrissey decided to link here, and he has the most-exhaustive list of the press terming bad economic news “unexpected”, let’s count the number of times this year he’s caught the presstitutes using their favorite adverb:

This is hardly an exhaustive list, but that’s 22 “unexpected” bad-news items, another 2 “unexpected-by-another-phrase” bad-news items, and 2 “unexpected” good-news items. That’s an average of every other week.

June 7, 2010

Headline of the day

by @ 19:17. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Courtesy Jon Ham regarding the suddenly-retired Helen Thomas on the editorial page of The Washington Times

Hag gagged

I wish I had written that one.

December 7, 2009

NPR v Liasson/Fox News/Williams

by @ 10:34. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

(H/T – Howie)

Politico has the news that top executives at National Public (read – taxpayer-funded) Radio told Mara Liasson to reconsider her appearances on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” and Fox broadcast network’s “Fox News Sunday”, all-but-ordering her to watch the network for 30 days to try and convince her to end her appearances on the “more-partisan” network. She did, and to her credit, told them to pound sand.

Poltiico also has this pot-and-kettle moment:

One source close to NPR executives said their discomfort with the Fox appearances by NPR personnel has been long-standing and has intensified over time.

“This has been a building thing. There has been a concern in the upper regions of NPR that Fox uses Mara and Juan as cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is populated with right-wing voices, said the source, who asked not to be named.

One complaint from NPR executives is that this very perception that Liasson and (Juan) Williams serve as ideological counterweights reinforces feelings among some members of the public that NPR tilts to the left. “NPR has its own issues in trying to convince people that, ‘Look, we’re down the middle,’” the source said. “This is a public and institutional problem that has nothing to do with Mara. Obviously, you can’t give Mara a hard time for what’s coming out of her mouth. … She’s very careful. She isn’t trashing anybody.”

NPR hugs the left gutter of Karl Marx Street.

It Might Only Be A Horse!

While continuing to avoid stories on Climategate, the AP is focused on creating “news” where none exists.

In an article on Sunday, the AP attempts to be the first to announce that Sarah Palin is running for the Republican nomination for President.  They conflate Palin’s book tour appearance in Iowa with a confirmation that she is running for the nomination.  They do this on one simple argument; because Iowa is the first State to have a caucus for the nominations and Sarah Paling is in Iowa, she must be running for President. 

The AP tries to bolster their assertion that Palin is running for President by getting a comment from a “Veteran Republican activist” to chime in.  Says Tim Albrecht:

politicians don’t just happen to stop in Iowa and Palin must know that her visit is seen as a signal she is considering a run.

Mr. Albrecht was previously National Director of Communications for the American Future Fund which does fine work on conservative issues.  However, Mr. Albrecht does live in Iowa.  Not that living in Iowa is bad, Mrs. Shoe and I lived there ourselves for a couple of years.  My point is that when living in a state, people have a way of thinking that that state is the center of the universe especially if it happens to have a claim to fame that is coincidental to the topic being discussed.  To conclude that Sarah Palin is running for President because she has a book tour stop in Iowa would be like Sarah Palin being at her book signing in Minnesota wearing a plaid, flannel shirt and when asked what I thought she was going to do next, I answer “she’s going ice fishing!”

Hey, AP, while the obvious eludes you, it’s apparent that jumping to conclusions doesn’t!  How about this line of reasoning:  Sarah Palin is trying to sell books.  To do this, she is on a book tour to meet, greet and sell her books.  Her publicist has chosen several states and sites that they believe Sarah’s appearance would have a large impact on awareness for the book.  While Palin will sell books in all states, there is no secret that her appeal is higher in red states or states who lean towards small government ideals.  Believe it or not, Iowa fits that description.

The AP could use a bit of sage advice that I heard years ago:  If you hear clip clop, clip clop behind you, it would be silly to assume that if you turn, you will see a zebra.  It’s much more likely that it will just be a horse!

October 27, 2009

Apology to the Lawton family and note to my readers

by @ 12:27. Filed under Presstitute Follies, The Blog.

Last night, I linked to an audio report from WTAQ-AM’s Jerry Bader which offered a guess on what caused Barbara Lawton to abandon her gubernatorial run that ultimately turned out to be wrong. I apologize to Lawton and her family for running with that, as I believed that Bader had run down a sufficient number of sources.

I forgot one of the cardinal rules of journalism; if your mother tells you the sun is shining at noon, go outside to check. I do have to thank WIBA-AM for doing what I should have at least attempted to do, and ask whether there was any “there” there.

When I discovered that WTAQ initially pulled the story earlier this morning, before either the retraction from Bader or the WIBA/Lawton interview had come out, I attempted to find out why the story had been pulled, and when I did not get a response, I decided to delink to the audio and note that it had been pulled. I further attempted to find out and notify those who got the story from me to let them know that the story had been pulled.

October 24, 2009

US News earns its ObamiNation Approved badge (warning, strong language)

by @ 15:00. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

(H/T – Dan Collins)

Dan already walked up one side of this tripe passing as a “news” story from US News and World Report, but he didn’t put enough 4-letter words in. I guess it’s up to this Ace of Spades HQ-certified Moron to drop a few bombs on the other side of it (besides, I haven’t really let loose with the language lately, and it shows).

The White House’s feud with Fox News has caused an irresistible buzz in Washington, but many are wondering precisely what prompted President Obama and his advisers to go ballistic against the network.

Since I filed this under “Presstitute Follies” and gave US “News” its ObamiNation Approved badge, you can bet your sweet ass that what they claim it is isn’t that the thin-skinned narcissists (blatantly stolen from Dan), starting but not nearly ending with Obama, are strict adherents to the 110% Fealty Doctrine practiced equally by Leftists, despots, and Islamokazis, even though that’s precisely what it is.

Here’s the answer: Team Obama was pushed over the brink by a growing list of what it considered outrageous anti-Obama conduct by Fox that showed no sign of stopping. Obama’s advisers say that they seethed while Fox commentators used their shows to encourage protests against Obama’s healthcare proposals last summer. Team Obama fumed as Fox personalities tried to pressure some controversial Obama advisers to resign. White House officials say that Fox has continued to stir the pot against Obama in a regular pattern—raising a criticism, having Republican congressional leaders comment on it, and then using those comments to keep the criticism alive.

I’m going to have to let the Emergency Blogging System break in at this point.

This is the Emergency Blogging System. This is not a drill; drills go Black-and-Decker-Black-and-Decker-Black-and-Decker. Steveegg at No Runny Eggs has issued a Crying Bullshit River Flood Warning for the White House, to be in effect until Obama departs. You are strongly urged to don hip waders, turn on the pumps, fling the bullshit right back at them, and use every last opportunity to deny them even more control, especially any national-level elections that may be in your area. This concludes this transmission from the Emergency Blogging System.

Don’t you dare fucking question Teh Won, otherwise his prissy little feelings will be hurt (oops, too late).

A break point came when Fox tried to create the impression that angry anti-Obama protesters at congressional town hall meetings last summer signaled that Obama’s healthcare proposals were dying, a story line that other news organization picked up. White House officials say this was untrue, that those proposals were not dying at all.

Want to bet that support for PlaceboCare isn’t dead amongst the populace? Shoebox and I (but mostly Shoebox) have noted that in poll after poll, support for PlaceboCare has reached Code Blue. I believe the Bones McCoy character in “Star Trek” said it best regarding public support – “It’s dead, Jim.”

Another break point came when Fox commentator Chris Wallace called White House officials “crybabies.” A senior Obama adviser tells U.S. News that White House staffers developed “a growing realization” that the president would never get a fair shake from Fox.

Somebody get Obama and his fellow crybabies a fucking Waaaaaaaahmulance! Paging Col. Jessup. Paging Col. Nathan R. Jessup. Please pick up the gold phone.

Conservatives realize that they never get a fair shake from the likes of PMSDNC, CNN, CBS, most of ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post,…(need I go on?). Do you see national conservatives boycotting the Left-Stream Media en masse?

White House insiders say that, at some point, White House officials will appear again on Fox, but they will do so expecting an antagonistic atmosphere, as if they were appearing on conservative talk radio.

STOP THE TAPE! Since when is the job of a proper press to swallow whole and then simply regurgitate? Oh wait a minute; we’re talking about presstitutes. ROLL TAPE!

…Asked what White House insiders hope to accomplish with the feud, the adviser says, “We are not spending much time here at the White House thinking about Fox” but are focusing instead on the president’s agenda, including healthcare legislation, the economy, regulatory reform, Afghanistan, and Iran. “Fox is using this to promote themselves,” the adviser says. “Our hope is simply that responsible journalists will not go chasing after Fox stories” as if these stories were legitimate….

That’s why they’ve spent all week trying to get the rest of the press corps to join in their little quest for Moby Dick’s hide. Slight problem; “responsible journalists” don’t like to be told what to cover and not to cover because having the government deeming what stories are “legitimate” tends to raise the hair on their necks (presstitutes, on the other hand, tend to have gone Brazilian).

And the Fox experience has toughened the White House’s attitude about taking on other critics, such as the health insurance industry. “We are not going to allow people to misrepresent the president or his program,” a White House spokesman warns. “We won’t allow people to attack the president and his programs without making sure the president’s voice is heard in the process.”

Translation: “You know that clause in the First Amendment about the right to redress grievances? We’ll make it so fucking painful that nobody will dare speak up against us.”

For their part, Republicans say they are delighted that the White House is focusing on Fox, because it distracts the Obama team from more substantive issues and makes it look nasty. The GOP officials see a pattern. “Any time anyone on Capitol Hill or in a news organization challenges the administration, they go to their standard playbook response—to demonize them,” says a top Republican strategist.

I like the “for their part” horseshit disclaimer. After dedicating six paragraphs to sucking up to Teh Won, they didn’t even have the balls to get somebody from Fox News to retort. They had to reinforce the ObamiNation FOX = GOP meme instead, and then promptly blow the smear attempt because Fox News isn’t saying that the war is distracting the White House from its attempt to resurrect the Soviet Empire on this side of the Atlantic. Rather, the war is to distract the sheeple from that attempt.

August 21, 2009

Local blogger singled out by the national presstitutes as example of blind blogospherical hostility along ideological lines

by @ 23:28. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

No, it’s not your friendly neighborhood bomb-thrower, who has gone soft since Shoebox came on board. Lance Burri earned that honor from the Pew Research Center for plastering a WaPo columnist.

Guess I’m going to have to start trying harder (or not go on vacation and miss opportunites that Lance seized).

July 22, 2009

Impress the Press

President Obama will once again face the preprogrammed withering onslaught of questions from the compliant skeptical press this evening.  We’re being told that amongst other things, President Obama will be telling us that six months into his term, he has saved the economy.

Originally, tonight’s press conference was to be held at the White House.  However, I’ve been told that due to the importance of tonight’s message, the President has decided to change venues.  The new venue for tonight’s presser is shown here:

Mission Accomplished

July 2, 2009

WaPo now selling itself as the official paper of the ObamiNation – UPDATE – Sale cancelled, stench remains

(H/T – Karl, who uses my term to describe it)

Politico reports that the Washington Post is circulating flyers to lobbyists offering access to its reporters, members of Congress, and Obama administration officials, for between $25,000 and $250,000 per meeting. Politico reposts the text of the flyer that a health care lobbyist received from the Post:

“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m.”

As mhking would say, “Just Damn!” Somehow, I doubt that the WaPo either has registered as a lobbyist, or the money spent on this lobbying effort will get reported.

Revisions/extensions (10:04 am 7/2/2009) - The Post sent this trial lead balloon to Politico:

The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers. As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this.

We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity.

The newsroom will participate where appropriate.

I believe my bullshit meter just pegged.

R&E part 2 (10:17 am 7/2/2009) - Sister Toldjah has the killer headline on this one – “The WaPo or the WaHO”.

Meanwhile, the commenters over at HotAir dug up an interesting January 2001 WaPo editorial:

Gone from any of this is the notion that people give money to candidates or parties for reasons of governing philosophy or positions on issues. The big-money folks give to those who have won or might win. Those in power threaten the contributors in plain language: Give to us or you’ll be squeezed out of the game; give too much to the other guys and you’ll be sorry. It’s the kind of sordid operation that a Mafia don would understand, and both parties play with equal vigor. “We’re a hot ticket these days,” one Democratic fundraiser boasted to The Post. “The fifty-fifty split [in the Senate] means something. People want to play, for sure.”

Plenty of members of Congress dislike what they have become, which is one factor that gives reform this year at least a ghost of a chance. They’d rather be legislating than extorting. But as Arizona Sen. John McCain’s battle for change an uphill one. But the sickening spectacle of a speaker-for-rent as a commonplace of Washington politics makes reform as urgent as it is difficult.

Why do I get the feeling this was an intended, rather than an unintended, consequence of McCain-Feingold?

R&E part 3 (10:22 am 7/2/2009) - HotAir commenter thomasaur has the perfect comment:

Presstitutes working for W. H. O. R. E.

White

House

Office
of
Reality

Enhancement

R&E part 4 (12:11 pm 7/2/2009) - With a tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey, the Post’s Howard Kurtz is now saying that the series has been cancelled. Of course, the less-destructive meme that they were selling access to themselves is getting a lot more play than the probably-illegal one of them selling access to the politicians outside the scope of lobbying laws.

June 23, 2009

The obligatory L’affair Flynn-McBride followup

by @ 14:06. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Semi-retired blogger James Wigderson, in the comments of my original post, pointed me to Milwaukee Magazine Bruce Murphy’s response to Dan Bice’s multi-day attack on Jessica McBride and Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn, specifically focusing on McBride’s actions while working on the profile of Flynn and prior to its publication, and on Bice’s insinuation that the affair happened during the creation of the profile. While it doesn’t change the stupidity shown by both McBride and Flynn, it does at a minimum mitigate the breach of journalistic ethics by McBride, and introduces one by Bice.

Murphy laid out the timeline of Milwaukee Magazine’s involvement in this:

  • Murphy wanted to do a profile of Flynn, and McBride accepted that in late October, 2008.
  • In December 2008, McBride had a single face-to-face interview with Flynn, with police spokeperson Anne E. Schwartz in attendance. There were some follow-up e-mails, and Murphy maintains that that was the extent of communications between the two prior to the publication of the Milwaukee Magazine story in mid-April.
  • On April 23, after publication of the story, and after McBride asked Murphy about any reaction from Flynn, Flynn e-mailed McBride, using his police office computer network, complimenting her on the story and suggesting they get together for coffee, something done on May 1. Of note, this e-mail was not part of Bice’s stories, but was released by McBride afterwards.

Murphy goes on to include evidence that McBride sought to include several negative quotes in the profile, including those rejected by Murphy, and then holds that up as evidence that she wasn’t in love with Flynn. While I’m not a professional reporter, I will not take the inclusion of negative quotes in both the original submission of the piece in January and the final rewrite in February as anything more than what it is; an attempt to present a “balanced” profile.

Murphy also stated that both he and Schwartz provided Bice with evidence that the affair did not begin until after the profile was published. Bice chose not to include that.

John McAdams has done yeoman’s work and tracked down Bice for reaction to that. While Bice hadn’t read the Murphy piece, he does some refuting and counterpunching of his own:

  • The infamous “love letter” has a pair of quotes refering to the December meeting when McBride became smitten with Flynn.
  • A claim that the April 23 e-mail referenced above was private and not subject to open records requests.
  • Bice further claims that Murphy should have informed his readers there was a problem with the profile because he knew about the affair for at least the two weeks Bice had been working on the story.

That leaves three items in contention: whether Milwaukee Magazine should have either put a warning on or spiked the profile, whether merely being “smitten” with one’s source constitutes an irrepairable breach of journalistic trust, and Bice’s actions in pursuing and ultimately breaking the story. The first is the simplest – given the available evidence, Murphy had no reason to suspect that there was so much as a romantic spark between McBride and Flynn prior to publication.

Regarding the “smitten” relationship, McAdams said it best – “We would argue for ‘bright line’ standards where journalistic ethics are concerned. Whether a journalist is smitten by somebody she is writing about (and whether this has distorted the reporting) is very much a judgment call. Whether she and a subject have romped between the sheets is a hard factual issue.” If Murphy’s recounting is accurate, it doesn’t appear that the profile was distorted by the fact McBride was “smitten” by Flynn. Indeed, Murphy is standing behind the profile as published.

That is not to say that the between-the-sheets romp that happened over the last two months does not represent a irrepairable breach of journalistic trust going forward, especially as it relates to McBride’s teaching of journalism. It does.

Finally, there’s Bice’s actions. For reasons known only to him, he left out several items in his series, and proceeded to write it in a misleading way. Further, Mark Belling, on his Friday show, noted that Bice was claiming Belling was working on the story and that he would break it on Thursday’s show in order to get the early admission from Flynn. Belling said that, while he was aware of the story, was not pursuing it, and in fact told Bice that on Thursday when asked.

June 19, 2009

The obligatory L’affair Flynn-McBride post

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Dan Bice broke the news that Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn and UW-Milwaukee journalism lecturer/freelance journalist Jessica McBride (both married, and not to each other) had an affair at roughly the same time McBride wrote a lengthy piece on Flynn in Milwaukee Magazine. There are a few different directions I can take this bout of stupidity from the two of them.

First, if other rumors are true, this is not the first time either one of them have had an extramarrital affair. That limits my sympathies to the children of McBride and her husband, and any minor children Flynn may have.

Second, while this is a serious ding in Flynn’s credibility, it is not quite fatal for him. For those on the left that want to bleat hypocrisy, there is a major difference between Flynn and former President Bill Clinton – unlike the serial denier, who lied about L’Affair Clinton-Lewinsky to a federal grand jury investigating him for sexual harrassment, Flynn got out in front of this and admitted it, as well as apologized, before the story hit print. In fact, the Journal Sentinel reports that both Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett and the Fire and Police Commission are standing behind Flynn.

The same cannot be said for McBride. She has in the past taught journalism ethics, so she knows that it is a serious breach of trust to be bedding one’s sources, whether it is before the stories are written or whether merely the spark is formed during the course of pursuing the stories with ignition shortly thereafter.

Revisions/extensions (2:07 pm 6/23/2009) - Thanks to James Wigderson, there’s a follow-up that includes Bice’s questionable tactics and writing, based on a revealing of the timeline.

April 9, 2009

The News Organization That Cannot Be Quot…er, Embedded™ strikes again

by @ 8:45. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

TechCruch is following the battle between The News Organization That Cannot Be Quoted™ and WTNQ-FM, an AP affiliate in Lafollete, Tennessee sent a cease-and-desist notice over the station’s embedding of AP YouTube videos on its website. If The News Organization That Cannot Be Quoted™ doesn’t want people to embed their videos, then why do they allow embedding on YouTube?

I will cheer when they go out of business.

January 7, 2009

NRE ban on NBC lifted

by @ 12:32. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Ed Morrissey has the oh-so-delicious video of Ann Coulter filleting Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. I know it’s not Allahpundit with the video, but Ed’s the next best thing (especially since they both blog at Hot Air), so the ban is over. That won’t stop me from ridiculing NBC at every opportunity though.

On a related note, I’m now taking odds on whether Ed gets Coulter on The Ed Morrissey Show before her next NBC family appearance.

January 5, 2009

Coulter banned from NBC, NBC banned from NRE – UPDATE – Ban might be lifted

by @ 18:04. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

(H/T – Mary, who has the back story including the marching orders from Media Matters)

The Drudge Report reports that NBC, at the last minute, pulled Ann Coulter from her scheduled appearance on tomorrow’s “Today” show in favor of Perez Hilton (he of the $1,000-to-pie-Coulter offer) and banned her “for life” from the NBC family of networks. In response, I am banning all future positive or neutral references to NBC, CNBC, MSNBC (both the website and the channel), The Weather Channel, USA, Sci-Fi, Bravo, Telemundo or any other entity NBC is involved with. They can choke on The Championship Game That Cannot Be Named™ and the Olympics. In short, FUCK THEM!

Revisions/extensions (7:04 am 1/6/2008) - With yet another tip of the hat to Mary, Politico is reporting that NBC has offered Coulter a spot on Wednesday’s edition of “Today”. I’ll believe it when Allahpundit puts up the clip.

December 3, 2008

RIP NBC

by @ 5:40. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Tim Russert had been the most of Meet The Press for 17 years until his untimely death in June.   While strongly aligned with the Democratic party, Russert aggressively questioned Democrats and Republicans alike.   He did his job so well that if you didn’t know about his previous work for Senator Moynihan and Governor Coumo, you would never have known his political leanings.   Russert had a reputation as having the toughest interview regardless of your party affiliation.

Apparently six months is what the GE management handbook says is the official mourning time for the last person in your employ who was able to exhibit any level of professional integrity.

Based on reports by AP and others, David Gregory will be announced as the permanent host of “Meet the Press.”   Yes, THAT David Gregory!

The David Gregory who made this appearance on Imus:

And the David Gregory who provided this professional insight when Helen Thomas asked him why politics had become so polarized:

While NBC has been in an integrity coma since Russert’s death, there was hope of a reawakening or at least a stabilization, with a permanent host who would not replicate Russert’s style but honor his intellectual drive. If Gregory is named the permanent host, how long before the plug gets pulled?

November 7, 2008

Now I’m Going to Cry

First we had Chris Matthews with tingles in his leg and now we’ve got Harry Smith crying as he purges his white guilt.

Being a male of German descent, I don’t relate to these public displays of emotion. Can we please just get back to our regular doses of excessive fawning?

August 27, 2008

Huh?

by @ 5:07. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

Take a look at this live TV entertainment:

What is going on with Joe? Is he:

A. Just going for ratings?
B. Looking for a new employer?
C. Thinking he can push and push because once he’s gone, MSNBC has no plausible deniability of being the Obama Network?
D. Thinking it’s time for a new Congressional run?

July 30, 2008

“Recession” or “Healthy Correction”

by @ 8:46. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

As the various stock indexes dropped 20% Reuters and other news agencies were reporting that the country was in fact in a recession.

This morning, as oil has dropped nearly 20%, Reuters runs this headline and opening paragraph:

As oil nears 20 percent “bear” market, bulls unfazed

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – As the rout in oil prices nears the 20 percent mark that for stocks would signal a bear market, many analysts offer a word of caution — don’t mistake a healthy correction for the end of a multi-year bull trend.

If I read this right, news that is generally bad for the economy is a recession, news that is good for the economy is a “healthy correction.”

Uh huh

July 21, 2008

New York Times all the way in the tank for the Obamination and Al Qaeda

(H/Ts – Sister Toldjan and Jim Geraghty)

The same day that Rasmussen Reports released a poll stating that 49% of those polled believe that the presstitutes are in the bag for Barack Obama, The Drudge Report breaks news that the New York Times Sedition Slimes rejected the following John McCain op-ed piece:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City"”actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war"”only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that one of the leading mouthpieces promoting the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act would use its status as an exempted press organization to shill for the DhimmiRAT and against the co-author of that act. NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley (who Drudge reminds us worked as a Bill Clinton speechwriter) explains his decision to shaft McCain thusly:

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information; while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans….

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.

McCain’s piece works for me because it offers a direct retort to the Obamination. I also could have sworn that “creating (a) stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic all(y)” qualifies as a concrete term of McCain’s definition of victory in Iraq.

I guess that hack wants McCain to accept retreat and defeat. I strongly suspect it will be a cold summer in Hell before that happens.

Revisions/extensions (1:18 pm 7/21/2008) - Lawhawk goes into the memory hole to dig out not only the fact that tne NYT allowed Hamas access, but defended that access by saying that it wasn’t in its interest to present only one side of the debate. I guess that only applies if the one side presented is not the New Sedition Slimes’ side.

R&E part 2 (8:22 pm 7/21/2008) - The Nose On Your Face dug up Shipley’s proposed rewrite of McCain’s op-ed (H/T – Doubleplusundead)

July 17, 2008

President Pelosi? Not so fast.

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

ABC News engages in some fantasy about how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) can maneuver herself into the Oval Office come January 20. Let’s more-fully explore this.

The first trigger in this series of events would be a failure of either John McCain or Barack Obama to get to 270 votes in the Electoral College as recognized by a joint session of Congress. The most-likely method is a “clean” 269-269 split, but it’s not the only one. There are also the possibilities of a “faithless elector” denying one or the other 270 electoral votes, and a third-party candidate getting at least 1 electoral vote.

I will briefly touch on the possibility that a sufficient number of challenges to the electoral votes in Congress exists to prevent a certification of all 538 electoral votes. That very-nearly happened in the 1876 election, with the final Congressional acceptance of the results (as judged by a special joint Congressional/Judicial commission) on March 2, 2 days prior to the expiration of the term of Ulysses S. Grant. 3 U.S.C. Sections 15-18 govern the counting of the electoral votes and resolution of challenges to same, and under the limits of debate and recess, Congress would be able to handle no fewer than 56 objections prior to noon on January 20.

At the point no candidate gets at least 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment provides that the House of Representatives chooses the President:

…The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice….

ABC News claims that the Democrats currently have a 26-21 advantage in this, with 3 states having evenly-divided delegations. They neglected to factor in the Democratic pick-up in Mississippi, which makes their advantage among the state delegations 27-21-2. That would suggest an Obama victory should it go to the House. However, it won’t be this Congress that will decide this; it will be the next one. I haven’t taken the time to evaluate the possibility of Republican pick-ups (or further losses) outside of Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional, which would make Wisconsin’s delegation evenly-divided if John Gard were to oust Steve Kagen, so I can’t evaluate whether there would no longer be a majority (vice a plurality) among the delegations.

Let’s say that the House deadlocks. The 20th Amendment provides that the Vice President elect would assume the duties until such time that a President qualifies. However, the same situations that would cause an Electoral College deadlock would likely cause it to not choose a Vice President elect, as the 12th Amendment further reads:

…The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed,…

In that case, the Senate would choose the Vice President under the authority of the 12th Amendment:

…(I)f no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice….

ABC presumes that the Senate could deadlock on this issue, with the line of succession as delimited by 3 U.S.C. Section 19 (under the authority of the 20th Amendment) giving the keys to the White House to Pelosi. Indeed, even though the Democrats have an absolute plurality of 49-49-2, and a working majority of 51-49, Joe Lieberman is unlikely to vote for Obama as he has endorsed John McCain. However, in addition to the fact that it won’t be this Congress doing the voting, there’s the “slight” matter of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution – “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” As the Senate would be choosing between the top 2 vote-getters, and as the 111th Congress would be at the beginning of its term, essentially the only way for the Senate to not get a majority on its own is if they were evenly-divided at 50, which would give Dick Cheney the 101st and decisive vote.

Keep dreaming, ABC.

July 9, 2008

Name That Party – crAP edition

by @ 11:18. Filed under Presstitute Follies.

(H/T – Don Surber via Lawhawk)

Former Congressman Gary Condit’s (D-CA) lawsuit against author Dominic Dunne alleging slander over the death of government intern and paramour Chandra Levy was dismissed yesterday. While Reuters properly identified Condit’s party and McClatchy didn’t identify at all, the original crAP dispatch dispatch from Erica Werner slandered the Republican Party in the sixth paragraph (thanks to Google for keeping the original dispatch handy; I do have a screenshot ready just in case this goes into the memory hole):

Condit, a former Republican congressman from California’s Central Valley, has denied any involvement in or knowledge of Levy’s May 2001 disappearance at age 24, or her death….

I do have to note that the current dispatch has the correct party affiliation.

Considering the Condit/Levy affair was the biggest news item on September 10, 2001, I rather doubt that it was an honest mistake. No wonder why The News Organization That Cannot Be Quoted™ doesn’t want to be quoted.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]