McCain Goes Nuclear on the Times

[darrels joy]

McCain Goes Nuclear on the Times

We noted here that the McCain campaign called out the New York Times in a press conference, denying the Times' legitimacy as a news organization and calling it what it is: a partisan arm of the Obama campaign. Today, McCain's team amplified on that theme on its web site, in response to today's attack on McCain by the Times. Strong words, truly spoken:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.
In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

It's a harsh but fair assessment, and one that will resonate with a large majority of Americans.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021593.php

[darrels joy]

Dubious Poll Conducted By Democrat Group With Michelle Obama On Its Board Says 83% of Americans are Dissatisfied With U.S. Foreign Policy



Here we have a textbook case in media bias. The Washington Post just essentially prints a release from a group called the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Americans expressed strong support for changes in U.S. foreign policy, with 83 percent saying it is "very important" to improve the standing of the United States in the world, according to a poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Here are other findings:

· Majorities said the U.S. should be ready to talk to Cuba (70 percent), North Korea (68 percent) and Iran (65 percent).

· 67 percent call for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq within two years.

· 68 percent say the U.S. should join the International Criminal Court to try war crimes and other grave offenses.

Gee, basically sounds like Barack Obama and the far left's foreign policy wishes.

Now how convenient this story goes out worldwide without anyone bothering to question the source.

The survey comes as John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, and Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, prepare to square up on Friday in the first presidential debate. The poll, conducted in July, suggests that most Americans think the US should talk to hostile states – a view more closely aligned with Mr Obama.

Now has any reporter even bothered to check out the Chicago Council on Global Affairs?

Of course not.

Why, look who sits on the board:

Michelle Obama
Vice President for Community and External Affairs, The University of Chicago Medical Center

Hmmm. Might it occur to anyone this poll is, um, maybe just a wee bit biased?

Wait, it gets better.

Conducted by Knowledge Networks from Menlo Park California, the survey was carried out between July 3 and July 15 with a total sample of 1,505 American adults. The margin of error is between plus or minus 3.7 percent and plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Let's overlook for a minute that a poll conducted 10 weeks ago is just released now, but does the name Knowledge Networks rings any bells?

Well, it should. Just the other day they released a poll claiming a third of Democrats are so racist they won't be voting for Obama, using some rather unorthodox polling methods.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

Interestingly, Sweetness & Light notes Knowledge Networks has a history of contributing to individuals of a certain party.

Take a wild guess which one.

So here you have a poll taken by a group partisan to Democrats released by a group with the Democrat nominee's wife on its Board of Directors finding results almost exactly in line with the Democrat nominee himself and nobody in the media questions it.

Now, does Barack Obama have the stones to cite this poll during his foreign policy debate with John McCain Friday? We'll see. We already know he has unlimited audacity.

Media bias? What media bias?

On a side note, what's the deal with the new 'do?



Update: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.co...-democrat.html

[darrels joy]

The point...

Is this the first election where we (yes Gimpy, that means you too) can read a news article, think "that doesn't make any sense", check the web for more information, make an informed decision?

What brought this up? We are in Clark County, Nevada, a "swing" state for this election where ALL the ads are shown. Even after Corning explained that the reason the plant was closed was there was no market for those big, heavy, glass tubes used in old TVs, the Obama ad is still running saying McCain supports sendind these jobs overseas. They are not making them in China either. There is no market for them. I haven't seen any TV ads with Corning's reply.

[colmurph]

The Dems are trying to blame the current financial crisis on the Republicans when they, in fact, are responsible for causing it by blocking all attempts at legislating oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[darrels joy]

My Own Personal Media Bubble
Posted By edgelings On November 7, 2008 @ 9:22 am In Opinion | 48 Comments
By Michael S. Malone

There’s nothing like writing the (momentarily) [1] hottest column in the country to get a sense of the changing balance of power between the traditional and the new media.

Two weeks ago, in my ABCNews.com column, I took off on a brief tangent from my usual technology and business orientation to instead discuss what I saw as shocking bias by the mainstream media - in particular, television network news, newspapers and newsmagazines - in its coverage of the Presidential campaign.

What happened next is, I think, an interesting glimpse into the dynamics of the traditional and digital media now, nearly a decade into the new century, and a dozen years after the widespread cultural adoption of the Internet.

I began writing my ABCNews.com column during the Dot-com Bubble of 1999. And I’ve been writing it, week in and week out, in good times and bad, for nearly a decade now. Hundreds of columns, in fact - by a factor of about three the longest single writing gig of my professional career. And over that time I’ve learned a lot about both column writing and the new media world. I’ve learned that you can carefully craft a thoughtful column . . .and have nobody read it. And you can dash out a column just to meet your deadline . . . and set the world on fire. I’ve learned how to momentarily goose one’s readership (slam Apple Computer) and how to lose it (write about semiconductors). And I’ve learned that sometimes that one solitary reader out there who understands what you’ve tried to say is worth hundreds who don’t.

The genesis of my media bias column began with a conversation. Last summer, with two other Valley veterans, I started an on-line tech-business newspaper called Edgelings.com. This being a virtual enterprise, each morning the three of us hold an editorial meeting over the phone. Needless to say, it being election season, the conversation often turned to politics - a touchy subject, as one of my partners was an Obama supporter, the other was for McCain. For my part, I try not to talk about politics.

But one morning I found myself interjecting, “Well, one thing we can agree on is that the mainstream media is more one-sided and biased than we’ve ever seen it. I’m ashamed of my profession right now.”

I had never really verbalized that before, but it had certainly been on my mind, especially after perusing the most recent issue of Newsweek, a magazine I’d read since childhood, but which was now so obviously in the tank for Sen. Obama that I swore, on ethical reasons alone, to never read it again.

At midnight a few days later, once again as always up on deadline, after seeing the kids and the pets to bed and saying goodnight to my wife, I sat at the computer in my home office, wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt and wrote my column on media bias. The words, as they sometimes do (in good columns and bad) poured out, suggesting that I had already been composing the piece in my unconscious. I tried to write from the heart, and at the same time not come down politically on one side or the other - but just to call for balanced, unbiased reporting from my peers.

I finished at 1:15 a.m., filed the piece and went to bed. At the time I had only two concerns: that there wasn’t enough tech in the column, and that it was about 200 words too long. In the morning, once I was sure it was up on ABCNews.com, I also posted it on Edgelings, and scheduled it to also be carried on our media partner, Pajamas Media.

And that was that. When I checked in at noon, there were about thirty reader comments on ABC and about the same number on Edgelings. I had no emails from friends about it - which most often happens when I write an editorial for the Wall Street Journal. So, I basically shrugged, filed the column away in my mind as a moderate success, and then went about my day.

Then all hell broke loose.

What happened next is a lesson not only in the growing power of certain key nodes in the blogosphere, but also the surprisingly enduring cultural strength of the traditional media.

The column seemed to strike a chord in readers, particularly Republicans, for whom the obvious bias of media coverage of the campaign was a growing source of anger. The first major site to pick up the story was Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs. Because I could track link-backs through Edgelings, I spotted the story on LGF within minutes of its appearance . . .and watched in amazement as the number of comments quickly grew into the hundreds - the fastest reader response cycle I’ve ever seen.

Meanwhile, the number of comments on Edgelings, no doubt powered by LGF, blew past 100 faster than any story we’d ever written. Then, just as the attention began to level off, the most powerful one-man blogger on the planet, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, linked to the story. Glenn has often linked to my column . . . and each time produced what blogospheres call an ‘instalanche” - a sudden and massive spike of traffic. ABC loves them, as do I. But this time, Reynolds linked to the Edgelings version, and now the comments there blew past three hundred and climbing (it would finish at 450), while traffic skyrocketed.

While all of this was going on, the blogosphere was lighting up as well. Scores of blogs, some of them in other countries, now began to comment on my column, many drawing their own collections of comments and reader debates. But now, for the first time, I also began to see the power of the traditional media when it came to conferring credibility. As much as what I actually said, what seemed to matter most to many of these bloggers was who I was when I said it: Mike Malone, of that embodiment of the traditional media, ABC. I was variously described as a ‘liberal reporter’ who had seen the light, and (briefly on my Wikipedia page) a “right wing journalist”. I suspect that most of these writers visualized me sitting in some newsroom at ABC headquarters in New York, heroically taking on the media overlords around me - not a middle-aged guy sitting in his den in California.

Many noted the disclaimer at the end of my column (”This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News”) and assumed it had just been put there by ABC to distance itself from my apostasy - and that, once the hullabaloo I had created died down I would be summarily fired and driven off into oblivion. In fact, the disclaimer was put there years ago (after I called for Dan Rather to be fired in the National Guard letter case) and, though the powers that be at ABCNews.com were a bit stunned by the huge response, in point of fact my editor had merely cleaned up my copy a little and posted the piece. He knew it was controversial, but he also knew that was my right as a columnist. Any credit for courage goes to him.

By Friday afternoon, the requests for media interviews began - and that’s when I knew I had touched a nerve. What is interesting to note here is that none of the requests came in through Edgelings, but rather through ABC or, incredibly, the publisher of my last book. Apparently, that remains the sole province of the traditional media.

In the end, I only did two radio interviews: one with a Denver station, the other with Lou Dobbs. The latter was especially fun, because Dobbs was even more incensed about the subject than I was and we chatted like two old newsies sitting in a bar swapping horror stories. But after that, I realized that I risked becoming Joe the Journalist, and not wanting my life vivisected by vengeful bureaucrats and fellow reporters, I stopped all interviews.

I’ve been around enough news cycles to sense when a story is winding down, and by Sunday morning I thought it was about done. Both ABC and Edgelings had a couple hundred comments, I’d probably reached two or three million readers and listeners, and it was time to start thinking about next week’s column.

Then came Matt Drudge - the single most influential journalist in America.

On Sunday afternoon, when I spotted a mention of my column on the Drudge Report, my jaw dropped. I knew what was coming. Nobody on the planet, perhaps nobody in history, can move as many readers as Drudge can with a single sentence. Whatever readership I had before now probably increased ten-fold. So did the comments. Because Drudge linked to the ABC version of the column, by Monday morning the number of comments about my column on ABCNews.com had jumped to two thousand. I was now, despite having gone to ground, officially a news phenomenon. The next day, after a friend called, I turned on Fox News to watch as Britt Hume, under a photo of me and above a news scroll carrying my name, read from my column to set up a debate with his panel on media bias. Sean Hannity read a lengthy passage from my column on his radio show.

It couldn’t get much crazier than that - and it didn’t. In the end, the meme I created took on a life of its own and left me, happily, far behind. My column had, unexpectedly, accomplished what we columnists dream of happening just once in our careers: it set off a national debate, and freed people to talk about a topic that had been gnawing away inside their hearts. Within days, other, more famous journalists came forward to agree with what I said. Pew and the Media Research Center released surveys that seemed to confirm widespread and egregious media bias - a belief underscored by multiple polls of the general public. And I noted, with great satisfaction, that in the last twenty four hours of the campaign, the media - embarrassed at last - seemed to try a little harder to balance its reporting . . . only to backslide (as noted even by Tom Shales) on election night.

So, what did I learn from this experience? That it is possible in this new cyber-world to be a lone writer sitting at his laptop in suburbia and write something that actually changes the course of events and, momentary at least, sets the national debate. I also learned that the raw power -and the ability to mobilize people — of the Web and the blogosphere is both immense and growing fast. But legitimacy is still conferred by the traditional media - which makes their duty to be fair and unbiased even greater.

Finally, I also learned that, while it is unsettling to be a momentary media star, it is also depressing afterwards to go back to writing about semiconductors and the Microsoft-Yahoo deal. . .

---

Article printed from Edgelings.com: http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/20...-media-bubble/
URLs in this post:
[1] hottest column in the country : http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/its-emb...-a-journalist/