No bias to see here, folks
Greyhawk notes two more egregious errors committed by MSM defeat-hypers:
Perhaps the Post could launch an “Investigative Journalism” department, and use it to notice what the President says?
These aren’t minor points in the war on terror – and I’m not assigning motive here, but if you’re getting your information about Iraq from US newspapers you are getting it from people who aren’t really paying attention.
Oh, they’re paying attention all right, ‘Hawk. The word you’re looking for here is not inattentive, but dishonest.
Not that the fact that all their myriad “errors” seem to go one way, and one way only, means they’re biased at all. Perish the thought.
Update! And yet another one of those “errors” that are not in any way evidence of any sort of bias, but are merely honest mistakes that could happen to anyone. As long as by “anyone,” you mean “anyone liberal-biased right down to their socks and shoelaces,” that is.
Updated update! Dean Esmay spots one of the most stupefying examples of pure DNC propaganda masquerading as news that I’ve seen in 46 years on this planet. Don’t miss this one, folks, but have a friend standing by to spot for you when you try to pick your jaw up off the floor; it’s simply incredible, and I’m not in any way kidding.
Update to the updated update! Re. the Jennifer Loven abomination mentioned directly above, Jeff has a quite worthwhile assignment for you all, should you choose to accept it. My already famously-limited capacity for self-restraint when it comes to rhetorically attacking these third-rate Goebbels wannabes will self-destruct in three…two…one…
Updates, forsooth! Captain Ed, on the NYT’s usual half-hearted and completely buried “apology” for their “error”:
The correction, quite frankly, stinks. First, it appears in its Saturday edition when the fewest readers will be likely to see it. Second, when reading the actual text of the correction, the Times only takes partial responsibility. It starts out by accepting responsibility for shoddy research, but then blames everyone else for getting suckered. PBS reported it first. Vanity Fair did the same thing. The Times even blames activist attorneys who would have been delighted to get any bad press against the US military on the front page of the Times — instead of scolding itself for using them as a corroborating source from the beginning.
But the worst part of this correction comes when the paper blames the military for not doing the reporter’s research for them. “The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.” It then says it should have been “more persistent” in getting an answer from the Pentagon, but in the same paragraph notes that the military named the correct detainee two years ago — and that the Times reported it!
Is it the Pentagon’s fault that the original reporter, Hassan Fattah, is too incompetent to do a search through the archives of his own newspaper?
No, of course not — it’s George W. Bush’s. We all know that.
- Entries
Funny as in he's been president for just over five years.
Sad as in they are geared for perpetual duplicity and can't seem to find the strength to abandon it for once.
NB: There is a difference (not for you, Mike, Al, Joe, Christiana, etc.) between what he says he is going to do, and what he says he wants to do. You guys and gals can figure that difference out.
"To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."
The problem is finding that sort of spine in any of our political leaders. Thankfully, it has been shown by those who can, and do, volunteer for the US army, navy, marines, airforce, coast guard, their reserve contingents, national guard, and auxiliary. And from those who support them.
Now, to support those who bear the sword and shield, for isn't an embarrasing calling at all, for "The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace."
"An' its Tommy this, an' its Tommy that..."