Malkin Pours On The Spin-Love Little Jimmy O'Keefe

Not content with even attempting honest investigative journalism, James O'Keefe and his blind compatriots at Project Veritas have cranked out another completely worthless video "expose". This time attempting to do something along the lines of point out hypocrisy regarding people that own guns and the poor decision of a New York newspaper that printed a map of registered gun owners in the region. At least this is what we are lead to believe.

 The only problem is they just wasted time, video editing equipment, internet bandwidth, but - but at the same time - managed to maintain the uncheck, unwaivering, and fawning support of select members of the Modern American Right that lap up O'Keefe's nonsenscial prattling and context free experiemnts like so much cream. Naturally, Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air attempted - and poorly at that - to approach this from a semi-professional bit of spin, twitching serial misinformer and mouth-breathing sychophant jumps with glee, but it was Michelle Malkin's metaphorical hand-job for young Jimmy that really made me laugh. In her latest piece of Malking drooling over O'Keefe entitled WHAT I ADMIRE MOST ABOUT JAMES O'KEEFE, the Purse Lipped Rage Princess traded in her faux indignation for a warm hand and some lubricated language to prove her undying affections for little Jimmy:

…is his willingness and unmatched ability to go after the most sacred of sacred cows: The sanctimonious beasts of the Fourth Estate;

…his relentlessness in exposing media double standards;

…his entrepreneurial independence;

…his indefatigable humor;

…and his success in bringing a smile to my face every time he produces another classic video using the very techniques of those hallowed beasts of the Fourth Estate who feign objectivity.

let's take these preposterous bullet points ( no pun intended ) one at a time.

- his willingness to distort, lie, misinform, edit, and go after people whom have done no wrong is certainly there.

 - Ah, the dreaded media that doesn't tow the Right Wing line. I would ask her what her alleged "standards" are, but I think that would fall on deaf ears. We know what they are anyway

 - There is NOTHING even remotely "independant" about what Project Veritas do. He was at the beck and call of the late deacon of "nu-media" lies, Andrew Breitbart and WELL funded by the corporate overlords that funneled cash into Breitbart's media complex. However, he is at least marginally considered "entrepreneurial", if only in the sense that even a liar can make a buck.

- I'm wondering where Malkin gets that O'Keefe is humorous in any shape of the definition.

 - The last bit is where Malkin finishes off little Jimmy with her silver-tongued prattlings. It's actually pretty disgusting when you think about it.

 It truly is a sight to see what the Modern American Right consider investigative journalism. But it doesn't matter to them, so long as it can be destributed and they control the narrative across legitimate media platforms that feel compelled to waste precious airtime on discussing such pointless and meandering fakery. But unfortunately, it happens will continue to.

 I guess I at least a little guilty in that regard simply because of this post.

Of Polling And News Sources

I'm not to terribly worried about this latest Rasmussen poll that shows the Tea Baggers have a negligible lead against Obama in terms of who is seen more favourable.

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

This, as well as the further breakdown of the data, shows that people are responding more to media noise ( *cough Fox"News" *cough* ) than the realities on the ground.

This leads me to wonder how this data set can be further expanded upon. Where do these people get their information from? What is their age group? What do they consider a "major issue facing the country"? That's a pretty vague question.

Also, were these 1000 people polled ( over the phone mind you ) all from one general, geographic area, or is this an apparent sample from across the country. If you polled a random 1000 people from the South, I can see how you would get the Tea Baggers coming out ahead. Conversely, if you polled that same number from the Northeast, the totals would likely shift a complete 180 degrees.

Conservatives Spin The New Yorker Cover

We've all seen political cartoons. Those of us with even a half-functioning brainsteam can see that they are satirical works of art that are meant to paint a caricature of a person. Of course, it helps to know what a caricature is. These are meant to exagerate the features and actions of a person or the perceived image of someone.

Enter The New Yorker.

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.
The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?

More from The Huffington Post.

Now, enter in the conservative bloggers. To maintain continuity with previous examples, we'll see what Michelle Malkin and her new boss @ HOT AIR ( Ed Morrissey ) are saying:

Michelle - in all her purse-lipped faux outrage - cries:

Barry,

So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art “tasteless and offensive.”

Welcome to public life.

Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one.

Her post goes on to state that Obama shouldn't be 'whining', and that Bush and his associates have had to endure much worse. This may be true, but according to Malkin, Obama is not allowed to respond. Her statements that he is 'whining' is pure spin. But, that's how the conservative script is written and the cast is expected to follow it to the letter. There is no ad-libbing.

It's all set up in precise terms in order to completely avoid discussing issue, to push aside the message, attack the 'victim', or to create issue where there is none.

Obama, in there eyes, cannot be allowed to speak - whether to defend himself, his cause, anything. If he is mute on the issue, he is allowing himself to be run-over, which would show a sign of weakness. If he speaks, he is 'whining'.

Ed Morrissey takes a different approach:

The New Yorker is attacking conservatives, but Obama’s the one taking offense (and for good reason). Obama warned that the Republicans would obsess over his ethnicity, but so far only the mainstream Left has made it an issue.

Interesting, but just as predictable as Malkin. It appears - according to Morrissey's logic - that Ralph Nadar, Jesse Jackson, and The New Yorker constitue the "mainstream Left".

Here we see another tactic the conservatives like to employ. Make it appear that there is a "mainstream" presence that is doing the attacking. We see this constantly being parroted by conservative bloggers, reporters, and news organizations. "The Mainstream Media" or MSM as it is often called. The cute monicker works well, as people process 'gimmicks' with ease.

Those three examples do not a 'mainstream' make.

One can see how the cartoon clearly illustrates how many in the conservative realm see the Obamas. The 24 hour news outlets will make so much hay from this it will become tiresome before the prime-time opinion programs start up.

It becomes clearer and clearer how conservatives will use this New Yorker cover.

1 - If Obama responds, he's a 'whiner'

2 - If he doesn't, he is allowing himself and his wife to be 'walked all over' and his lack of a statement shows poor judgement, which means he won't be a good President.

3 - This shows that the 'mainstream Left' is who is really attacking Obama

Interesting spin, but nothing more.

You Can Try To Delete Him From Youtube, But Hagee Is Still Insane

It's always interesting to see people attempt to erase history by destroying audio or video that people have already seen. You may have removed them form being seen or heard by anyone else, but the damage is already done. Not only that, but your message - whatever it may be - is most likely still the same.

Late last week, with no prior notification, lawyers for the controversial evangelist John Hagee had a series of videos concerning the pastor removed from YouTube. The clips spanned from the contentious to the mundane; some included footage lifted from sermons Hagee had already made public, others involved documentaries made by filmmakers inside Hagee's conventions. All told more than 120 videos were taken down in the abrupt sweep.

The timing was, perhaps, more peculiar than the move itself. Clips that had been online for well over a year were now being subjected to "third-party" copyright infringement claims. And while Hagee had not been in the mainstream press since he and Sen. John McCain ended their official relationship a month prior, Hagee's Christians United for Israel annual summit is just days away, and at least one prominent McCain backer (Sen. Joseph Lieberman) is set to be in attendance.

Read more at The Huffington Post.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It has been stated by many, though reported by virtually none of the media-at-large, but Paster Hagee is just as inflammatory, if not more than, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

People are more apt to use sites like YouTube or even Google Video to learn about things that the media isn't covering. But, how does wone protect your video from being deleted?

One commentor at The Huffingotn Post has an idea:

The key is to include a snarky remark with the video clip you post. Then it is satire and falls under fair use.

ALWAYS MOCK YOUR UPLOADS PEOPLE.

Below, you'll see the kind of fear that is stoked within the religious-right in order to create policies that will "make America safe".





Hagee's lawyers may have scrubbed some of his "messages", but there are still plenty out there.

Just remember, it's important for someone else to interpret the Bible so that you don't have the burden of thinking for yourself.

Well, That Didn't Take Long - Right Wing Bloggers Foam At The Mouth Over NBC's Purchase Of The Weather Channel

In a previous post here, I hypothesized that the right-wing bloggers that find fascism, socialism, and pretty much every 'ism there is available within media that they don't understand ( read : media that doesn't fit into their canted, ideological view of the world ).

It appears though, that I was incorrect in my assumption. It turns out that this Ed Morrissey guy ( who appears to be taking over the HotAir site from Michelle Malkin - can she not do anything right? ) has launched in with his complaints:

The Weather Channel has been a major advocate for global-warming policies. Combining it with the Keith Olbermann/Chris Matthews network will probably result in a major release of greenhouse gases on its own. Given NBC’s inability to impose even a modicum of balance and objectivity at MS-NBC, we can expect Jeff Zucker to use this new outfit as a platform on which to push even harder for statist policies on energy production and use.

Wow Ed, way to cram as many fear-inducing names into one paragraph as you can. Let's see, you've got global-warming right up front - that will score points with the Hannity crowd. Then you've got Olbermann AND Tweety back-to-back. Not pulling any punches, are we? Oh, but you can forget the catalyst of conservative hysteria, the source of sleepless nights for Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Ailes, and Murdock - the dreaded MSNBC. Ooooooh, so scary. And you polished it off with a good-ole reference to "statist policies".

Seriously, it's the fucking weather channel.

But, the start of the piece kind of caught me off guard:

NBC Universal announced a $3.5 billion acquisition of The Weather Channel, helped along by Mitt Romney’s firm, Bain Capital.

Maybe i'm just reading more into this than I should. Why is it relevant that Mitt's firm would be mention so up front like that? There are several probable reasons, none of which make much sense to me right now.

But seriously, it's the fucking weather channel.

Here's some of the comments from the HotAir piece:


This guy wins the award for rehashing Bill O'Reilly's rambling hysteria.

Don’t forget GE and its “progressive” CEO Jeff Immelt. He’s in the hot seat. GE tank has tanked big time. The WSJ today has a piece on Immelt’s problems as head of GE. This won’t help restore GE’s image as America’s prime industrial/technological entity.

In case you haven’t noticed, the libs are grabbing hold of corporate America. It started with the Silicon Valley type co’s, but now reaches into industrial companies. Bad, bad news.

JiangxiDad on July 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM

This one is just too hillarious.

This is the point that FOXNEWS needs to create a competing Weather Channel.

“The Weather Changes”. Observance of and predictions for the infinitely variable atmostphere of our planet.

Motto: Cyclones are the only Spin you’ll get here.

babylonandon on July 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Then this guy dives right into the shallow end of the pool - head first.

Given NBC’s inability to impose even a modicum of balance and objectivity at MS-NBC, we can expect Jeff Zucker to use this new outfit as a platform on which to push even harder for statist policies on energy production and use.

A global tax is the ultimate aim. If Obama wins, this will be one of the major objectives. You read it here, as I repeat myself on some topics.

Entelechy on July 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM

And I have NO idea what this guy is even attempting to say.

So how many Nothing But Crap channels will this make?

Anyone else notice the weather channel temperature maps are being recalibrated, making them appear more orange-red. The shift seems to come by making the inflection point about 70 instead of about 75, Subtle propaganda, now the whole US map appears orange or red in the summer.

How soon before they all get the orders?

I wonder why they are doing that? I notice our local channel still has the old style ‘cooler’ maps where about a third of the country appears blue-green.

tarpon on July 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM

So, is it Marxists, Fascists, Communists, Socialists. These guys can't even make up their minds.

Looks like Marxists are even taking over the weather…If Fauxbama does get into the White House, I’m going to feel like I’m in the middle of “Invasion of the Marxist Body Snatchers” Isn’t anyone going to expose this fraud???? Where’s my country indeed………..

adamsmith on July 7, 2008 at 3:28 PM

These people are offically insane.

Will The Weather Have A Liberal Bias Now?

NBC is set to buy The Weather Channel:

NEW YORK — NBC Universal and two partners said Sunday they have reached a deal to buy The Weather Channel from Landmark Communications Inc., ending a drawn-out process that had attracted interest from several major media companies.

Financial terms weren't disclosed, but a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity said the purchase price was $3.5 billion in cash. NBC was joined in the deal by the private equity firms The Blackstone Group LP and Bain Capital LLC.

In addition to The Weather Channel, which can be seen by 97 percent of U.S. cable subscribers, the deal also includes several related assets such as weather services for newspapers and radio stations and the widely used Web site Weather.com.

Nevermind the fact that the amount of cash that NBC is getting ready to throw down for The Weather Channel is not only going to buy the cable channel, but don't you think that NBC could have bought something better?

The Weather Channel?

Sure, Storm Stories can be pretty interesting, maybe even a little cool, but all I'm seeing with this purchase is more fuel for the Fox"News'" fire. And by that, I'm speaking about Bill O'Reilly.

He's made it his mission to try and pin everything from fluctuating stock prices, media bias, and bad goings-on in the alleged "war on terror" on Jeffery Immelt - who happens to be the CEO of GE.

So, what does this have to do with NBC buying The Weather Channel and the whole 'liberal bias' title of this blog?

Well, that's because GE owns NBC, who is the 'parent' of MSNBC, home of O'Reilly boogie-man du jour Keith Olbermann.

From the Washington Post.

Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News star, is mounting an extraordinary televised assault on the chief executive of General Electric, calling him a "pinhead" and a "despicable human being" who bears responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.

On the surface, O'Reilly's charges revolve around GE's history of doing business with Iran. But the attacks grow out of an increasingly bitter feud between O'Reilly and the company's high-profile subsidiary, NBC, one that has triggered back-channel discussions involving News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, NBC chief executive Jeff Zucker and General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt.

Ailes called Zucker on his cellphone last summer, clearly agitated over a slam against him by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn't stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O'Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.

Both Fox and the Post are owned by Murdoch, who complained about Olbermann's conduct in separate calls to Zucker and Immelt.

The high-level appeals failed, and O'Reilly has escalated his criticism of GE in recent weeks, declaring, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt."

None of this really has to do with Immelt, Iraq, Bin Laden, Terrorism, or NBC. It all revolves around the infated ego of Bill O'Reilly and his seething hatred for Olbermann. But, in reality this could have been anyone. The reason is that O'Reilly fancies himself a 'journalist' and, well, he just isn't.

So, there is another media entity for O'Reilly to attack now. But, I have a feeling that people are going to have have a hard time following O'Reilly's 'logic' if he sets hi sites on The Weather Channel.

I'll let Olbermann sum this up as only he can:

Fox"News" : We Don't Just Alter Facts Anymore

Was there ever a day when Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes network was actually credible? Seriously, I don't think I'm the only person that has ever asked that question.

By default, morning-show programs on ANY channel aren't exactly designed to stimulate your neurons into firing to such a degree that you have a grande epiphony and then set out to make your world a better place. They are scripted, formatted, and put into place for the express purpose of being back-ground noise while you eat your cereal and read newspaper or this blog.

Enter in two of the "three stooges" of the morning-show circuit: Brian Kilmede and Steve Doocy ( Gretchen Carlson was absent this one, but there's plenty the airhead princess has done or yet to do to get called-on later ).

The two did a segment on "Fox and Friends" recently where they were speaking about Fox's, The Bush Administration's, and their frothing-at-the-mouth followers' favorite boogie-men ( and women ) The New York Times.


From Editor and Publisher and Editor and Publisher

On the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," claiming that Steinberg's June 28 article on the "ominous trend" in Fox News' ratings was a "hit piece." During the segment, however, Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head. Fox News gave no indication that the photos had been altered.

After putting up the photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe, Fox & Friends also featured a photograph of Steinberg's face superimposed over that of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over that of the man holding the poodle's leash.

Below is a screenshot of Fox & Friends featuring the photo it used of Steinberg, with the original photo on its left. Comparing the two photos, it appears that the following changes have been made: Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further.

On Wednesday morning's edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade aired the photos while discussing a piece in the June 28 edition of the New York Times. The piece pointed out what the newspaper called "ominous trends" in Fox News' ratings.

Neither Steinberg nor Reddicliffe were reachable for comment Wednesday. But Times Culture Editor Sam Sifton called the Fox photo work "disgusting," and the criticism of the paper's reporting "a specious and meritless claim."

"It wasn't a hit piece," Sifton told E&P. "It was straight news. This was a hit piece by Fox News. It is beneath comment." Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox's actions, he said no: "It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it."

In his TV spot, Doocy called the Times report, written by Steinberg, a "hit piece" ordered up by Reddicliffe. The pair then made reference to Reddicliffe's tenure as editor of TV Guide owned by Fox News' parent company, News Corporation, which ended in 2002. Reddicliffe was hired by the Times in 2004.

Of course, to take anything that Fox does seriously is kind of a mistake in-and-of-itself. But, this is how the entire network operates. All their programs follow the same format - twist stories into such inrecognizable shapes that people are either confused or outraged. And if the outraged people say anything, just bring on 6 hard-line conservative guests and one milquetoast "liberal" guest. The later is beaten to a bloody, pulp to create the illusion of "power"

But, let's get back to the photoshop bit. Whom is the intended audience for this? Who is actually going to believe what is 'reported' about The Times? Do people actually believe they are being told the truth?

Truth-be-told, there is no intended audience. Not for "Fox and Friends", not for any program. It's all propoganda for people that already believe in every conservative meme there is.

The Wort Person In The World

I've been a fan of Keith Olbermann since his days at Sportcenter. He and Chris Berman provided me with not only sports highlights, but laughs as well.

His show Countdown on MSNBC has been part of my nightly routine for as long as it's been on. This is in part due to Keith's particular style of presentation, his ability to present an issue in more of a straight-forward manner than others on in his timeslot, and that wit, sarcasm, and satirical flare that he commanded while at ESPN.

Sure, he has his detractors - and there are many. But if there is one thing that these people don't have, it is the ability to at least pretend that they are human.

Olbermann has a segement that appears in the last quarter of the show called "The Worst Persons In The World". If there is no other reason that anyone should watch the show, this should be it. Of course, Keith himself has addressed the fact that there are far worse people in the world than those he points out each night. The purpose of the segment is to, in essence, hold those accountable for the idiotic things that they either say or do. His book, of the same title, addresses this fact better than I can.

So, each day i'll present the previous night's Top 3 here for your enjoyment.

Movies That Make You Think : V2.0

Take everything that you've heard about fuel efficiency in cars, how automotive manufacturers are workng on cars running off alternative fuels, the cost of oil, the cost of research and developing these vehicles of the future, of government, and of how we get our information - then watch this:

Who Killed The Electric Car

NAS vs. Fox"News"

Though the world of hip-hop and rap are often maligned as one-and-the-same, it is apparent that both of these are fantastic 'boogie-men' for Fox"News" and the conservative-right.

I'm not a very big fan of NAS, though some of his older material is quite powerful in it's own right.

From a report by Reuters' Hillary Crosley:

NEW YORK (Billboard) - Seated in a quiet corner of New York restaurant the Spotted Pig, Nas is drinking a glass of rose. He's dressed comfortably in jeans, Velcro-fastened sneakers and a white T-shirt featuring the image of a poster from Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier's "Thrilla in Manilla" fight. His black Rolls Royce is parked outside and he's awaiting a few cigars from his driver.

In here, the noise surrounding the rapper's new Def Jam album, formerly known as "N--ger," has faded, but Nas is still happy to discuss the grand implications of it all.

NAS drew fire from Fox's own thuggish-ruggish superstar, Bill O'Reilly, when it was announced that he would perform at Virginia Tech at a benefit the following semster after the shooting there in 2007.

Now, it's no shock to anyone that has listened to 'gansta' rap that it can and is quite violent. Some people would argue that this is the root cause of violence in urban society while others would indicated that it is the main factor in the degredation of women in society. While everyone on all sides would love to have a tangible person(s) to pin the blame on, it is important to realize that NAS, and many "artists" like him are no longer the powerful street poets that they once were.

Long gone are the days when NAS, or Jay-Z, or 50 Cent were considered untainted by the corporate system. They are no longer individual voices that speak for the common man. They are, by and large, marketable facets of the music industry. They are compensated well for there violent imagry. They no longer are part of what HIp-Hop is about. They are traded as easily as Vivendi stock - nothing more than another 0 before the decimal in "L.A." Reid's bank account. But, despite the fact that so much of their creative soul has been syphoned away, they occassionally have moments where that fleeting creative flame burns as bright as day one.

"Sly Fox" from NAS' re-titled ablum "Untitled"




Update:

It appears that some people are insisting that this piece is somehow a slight against NAS. They are only partially right, as it would be nice to see that the above clip is indicative of NAS returning to his roots with his records, not trying to conform to a stereotype that the record companies are trying to perpetuate, being cutting-edge rather than cut-and-paste.

Media Reform Is Bad? Well, If You're Bill O'Rielly It Is

Last night, the self-proclaimed 'humble correspondant' did a segment on the National Conference On Media Reform. Bill Moyers, as shown i a previous entry here, was in attendance as well as may others who strive to take the partisanship, the fear-mongering, sexism, and racism out of news. So, considering that that is O'Reilly's bread-and-butter, he's really trying to make this conference look like a bunch of crazy, drugged-out hippies running naked around a fire and chanting about how America is nothing but evil.

Segment on The O'Reilly Factor with Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham


It's interesting - and WAY too predictable - that O'Reilly constantly chooses Juan Williams when he wants to prove that he is 'kind' to African Americans. I know that I don't speak for all of the caucasians in America simply because I am white. So, why does O'Reilly expect America to believe that Juan speaks for all of the African-American community simply because he is black?

Robert Greenwald ( director of the film Outfoxed and the guy behind the Fox Attacks website ) pointed out early on in the conference that O'Reilly's producers ( slaves willing to sell their soul and clean Bill's ass with a loufa to make it in 'media' ) and informed those in attendance that Fox'News' would try and make the conference into something that it clearly wasn't.



So, the question stands - and not just for Fox - do you think the media in the country isn't informing you but distorting your perceptions?