Sunday, November 28, 2004

More random links!

I was gone for the weekend, so no updates then. But now i'm back and there's hell to pay!

First off, i read Media Matters For America: so you don't have to!

Various appendages of the "news corpse" have allowed conservative religious leaders to define "moral issues" post-election

Kenneth Roth (of Human Rights Watch) requests apology from Bill O'Really for, basically, slander.

Fake Hillary Clinton quote picked up and repeated ad-nauseum by right wingers, rest of world unsurprised

Falwell thanks God for Limbaugh, Newsmax, etc and he damn well better!

Chris Matthews appears to have not watched the fucking campaign. Despite, you know, actually covering the Democratic National Convention. On national TV. Matthews also claimed that Kerry claimed all soldiers in the Vietnam War were murderers. He never claimed that, big surprise.

The Republicans are pretending the "Istook Amendment" inserted itself into that one bill... right, we believe you...

Tucker Carlson said the Democratic party is owned by "feminists with mustaches". Why hasn't anybody informed me of this yet? Am i not high enough in the "secret circles" yet? Or do they just not trust crazy anarchists with deep, dark secrets?

G. Gordon Liddy: listening to Hitler "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before" Ah yes...

O'Neill's claim to "political independence" is highly suspect

"You don't want to go here, Peter," snapped Clinton [to Peter Jennings]... "Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like."

A mysterious pro-Bush billboard apparently appeared in Florida.

Fake "balance" still dominates

Speaking of which, even is succumbing to the "fake balance" disease. They always had a slight problem with it, but recently they've been getting into the false equivalence stuff big-time. For example, from their article on "the whoppers of the 2004 Presidential election" they state:

A new Kerry ad that began airing late last week repeats this falsehood even more starkly than at first, claiming Bush and his Republican supporters "were hoping to keep it a secret" that they "are planning to privatize Social Security after the election" and that the plan "cuts Social Security benefits by 30 to 45 percent." It repeats: "Bush and the Republicans, a plan to cut Social Security benefits."

Yet Bush's claim (contrary to his established policies and, in fact, articulated plans) that he won't cut benefits is certainly not a legitimate counter-point to the large amount of solid evidence that he not only will cut benefits, but may well cut them in precisely the way the Kerry campaign claimed. is still better than most of the so-called "mainstream media" on this issue, but i tend to hold them to a higher standard...

But i'm not the only one complaining about false equivalence.

Mainstream reporters have, however, been moving away from what Nagourney calls "false equivalents" - producing stories that give equal weight to the claims of both sides, even when one may be demonstrably inaccurate.

"There has been a realization among reporters, certainly me, to move away from false equivalency," he said. "A newspaper needs to help people understand, and if [one candidate] is qualitatively worse, we ought to say it."

From Orcinus: The "Dean Draft", on Creationism and science, the Federalist Society's assault on privacy, and the media "feeding us the mandate".

Since you're liable to hear it from the anti-gay contingent and elsewhere, a discussion on the "new evidence" in the Matthew Shephard case.

Speaking of Tacitus, i made an interesting connection today regarding this post by Bird Dog on CAIR.

Now, one thing to note about Bird Dog is that every post he makes has a political motive behind it. He might deny it, but he's really all about propping up the Republican Party regardless of any truth. So when he writes this, ostensibly non-political, post i get confused. Everything in that may be absolutely true (or it may not be) but it probably wouldn't be posted if Bird Dog didn't see some political points to be scored by it.

Now, the most obvious argument goes that this is just another salvo in the continuing culture war to determine who gets to rule the planet for the next century (or at least, that's how it is being framed). But that's a boring theory.

I think the real reason has something to do with this, though.

Finally, some notes to myself: airport security measures cause trouble for those with mis-matched gender and sex, not to mention other problems and some talk about GLBT students in schools today. Also: The ninth amendment of the Constitution of the USA.


Post a Comment

<< Home