MSNBC is actually defending Obama’s advocacy of maintaining one’s tire pressure to address energy prices, implying that McCain’s criticism of him is the truly ridiculous position to take.

Obama’s energy policy is akin to using a slingshot against an Abrams tank.

On a related note, I do enjoy the flaming chevette on the side of the road that MSNBC’s defense of Obama has become.

For anyone who doubts the leftist slant of the mainstream media, let us move past voting records, and issue polls of journalists, and move directly on to in-kind contributions, in the form of discounted ad rates

The Times acknowledged to The Post on Wednesday that the going rate for such an ad would be $181,692.

But a spokesman for MoveOn told The Post that the group paid just $65,000.

Amid a firestorm of criticism yesterday, the Times seemed confused about the proper ad rate.

Earlier in the day, the paper’s spokeswoman said MoveOn had received a discount and confirmed to Reuters the normal rate was “about $181,000.” But later, the same spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the proper rate for such an ad is about $65,000.

Saying he wanted to place an advocacy group ad similar to MoveOn’s, a Post re porter who contacted the Times without identifying himself was told earlier this week that the rate was about $167,000.

“We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad,” spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, confirming that the normal rate was “around $181,000.”

Of course you don’t. That’s why MoveOn.org received somewhere between a 61% and 64% discount on its “aid and comfort to the enemy” ad attacking the commanding general in Iraq for not adopting its fabricated version of complete disaster in the Middle East.

Of course, the Times, being the upstanding bellwether of responsible and fair journalism that it is, will certainly offer the same discount rate to Freedom’s Watch. Or not. We will certainly see. There is no debate that the price for the ad that was sold to MoveOn.org was $65,000.00. The real fun will be watching the debacle when the Times explains in its answer to a certain shareholders’ derivative suit why it has cut its ad rates by 60% at a time of self-described declining circulation.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Share on Facebook

Share and Enjoy:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Trent Seibert, noted Tennessean reporter, is heading over to Channel 2 WKRN.

First Brad Schmitt, then Steve Gill, and now Trent Seibert. WKRN is the New York Yankees of the Nashville broadcast media market.

Cuba has released pictures of an allegedly rehabilitating Fidel Castro. The question, as Matt Drudge posts it on his site, is whether they are real.

As Reuters had nothing to do with the pictures, the question becomes self-validating. The follow-up question then becomes whether we trust Cuba’s journalistic integrity over that of the infamous wire service.

Sadly, I’d almost rather get my photographic news from the island communist state.

The New York Times is cutting jobs and the size of their daily paper

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The New York Times Co. (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) plans to narrow the size of its flagship newspaper and close a printing plant, resulting in the loss of 250 jobs, the company said in a story posted on its Web site late on Monday.

The changes, set to take place in April 2008, include the closure of a printing plant in Edison, New Jersey. The company will sublet the plant and consolidate its regional printing facilities at a plant in Queens, the paper said.

We only could hope to be so blessed, that if there is sufficient good fortune available to the American public, that both Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd were among the 250 sent packing. Or at least if the smaller paper envisions a smaller op-ed section.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

This is what passes for blogging at the City Paper.

There are enough out there on the Left who claim, surprisingly to me, that there is no leftist bent to the belwethers of the mainstream media (or drive-by media, depending on your perspective and radio listening habits).  I normally don’t think twice about it anymore. It is clear to me there is a subtle undercurrent that determines the perspective from which stories and columns are written. This perspective determines the focus. This is what is meant by a liberal media bias.

It’s not purposeful per se, which is the alarming part. But your objectivity largely rests on your world view. The focus though is certainly consistent – for instance, today the Times has a piece on Bush’s continuing failing in approval polls, even though his overall approval went up two points from last time. Still within the margin of error, but certainly not indicative of a continuing negative trend, on which the Times focuses.

Then there is the Washington Post today, focusing on the extension of capital gains tax cuts about to be passed by the Congress. The sources first cited are clearly those who favor government spending, and who cannot fathom how cuts in investment taxes will result in more revenue (look at the Reagan capital gains cuts in 1986 to see that there is a precedent for that effect), or indirectly, how much growth will occur in the economy because of it, and the revenues that would stem from that. The story cites the $300 billion budget deficit as unmanageable, but historically, that’s not the case

   The increase in receipts in 2004 and 2005 played a significant role in bringing down the size of the deficit. Since the President set a goal of cutting the deficit in half from its projected peak in 2004 of 4.5 percent of GDP, or $521 billion, the deficit has come down markedly. The final 2004 deficit was 3.6 percent of GDP, or $413 billion, and the 2005 deficit fell further, to 2.6 percent of GDP, or $318 billion.

…

While this increase in the deficit is unwelcome, a deficit at this level is still well within the historical range. At 3.2 percent of GDP, it would still be smaller than the deficits in 11 of the last 25 years. More importantly, if we build on the policies of economic growth and spending restraint reflected in this Budget, the deficit is projected to return to its downward trajectory and stay on track to meet the President’s goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

Further, the deficit projected for next year is 2.6%, which is less than most of the Clinton years, save the last term before the tech bubble burst. One way to ensure this decline is to ensure growth, something the left has never quite grasped. To paint a budget in deficit as stingy, as the Post does, is irresponsible and on its face, just plain silly. To cite “experts” who claim we absolutely need the money in the extended tax cuts (which, mind you, were not made permanent) requires a musical backdrop of “Bring in the Clowns”.

Read both articles. Notice the layout and the perspective. When conservatives mention a bias in the MSM, this is what we’re talking about.

Now, off to court.

One need only look to the Left to see that the conservative cause is not losing ground. From Drudge

‘PROGRESSIVE’ MEDIA STALLS: ‘AIR AMERICA’ IN AUDIENCE PLUNGE NYC, ‘DAILY KOS’ BOOK SELLS ONLY 3,600 COPIES
Wed Apr 26 2006 11:39:51 ET

Left-leaning new media has hit turbulence at the marketplace, newly released stats show.

A book hyped by major media as documenting a progressive revolution of “blogs” and political power, DAILY KOS ‘CRASHING THE GATE,’ has sold only 3,630 copies since its release last month, according to NIELSEN’s BOOKSCAN.

[NIELSEN claims only 2,062 copies of DAILY KOS have been purchased at the retail level; the rest coming through 'discount' outlets. The NIELSEN figures do include online sales from AMAZON.COM, and others.]

Meanwhile, the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience — in the past year!

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

A network source says the radio ratings released today do not reflect the overall growth of the broadcast.

“The demos are better, and listeners trust AIR AMERICA to give them the real truth on issues and the Bush presidency,” says the insider.

I am typically not one to make hay of others misfortunes for the sole sake of spite and mockery (well, sometimes), but the Kos numbers truly surprise me. I could write a book and find some way to get three thousand copies “sold”. On the other hand, the Air America story is not so surprising. That diminishing trend has existed for some time. Just listen to Randi Rhodes and you won’t wonder why. The content and presentation is simply not good. You can hate Limbaugh all you want, but you have to admit he’s entertaining. And he started and succeeded in New York. Not so with Randi and the rest.

I believe Air America died in Washington, DC late last year. Now it’s dying in New York, the bluest of the blue and the largest of the large. Air America has discovered a way to play Sinatra backwards. If you’re a liberal talk show host and you can’t make it in New York, good luck anywhere else.

UPDATE Apparently Drudge’s numbers were off a few thousand – actually, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 books were sold. Still, my original point stands.

Say Uncle takes issue with some of the reporting on the SKS found in that California school yesterday. Specifically, the terms used in gun story reporting.

First, yes, some guns look mean, but so do some dogs, and many people. Looks are deceiving. And guns are only mean when provoked.

Second, the difference between “automatic” and “semiautomatic” is easy. Automatic means you pull the trigger and more than one bullet comes out. Semiautomatic means when you pull the trigger, only one bullet comes out. The two terms have nothing to do with the way the gun looks.

And as a side note, that had to be one friggin’ big backpack to hold an SKS. It must have had a collapsable stock, but that’s another term of art for another day’s lesson.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Also of note is that the Nashville City Paper has a blog. It seems rather vanilla for the time being, but I’m sure that it will become more interesting as the writers do it more. Doing what he will likely do more of, Bill Hobbs offers some suggestions .

Michael Silence has some, as well as Say Uncle. The medium is maturing, and with that some basic rules are being formed.

Uncle makes a good point regarding what makes a blog effective, while Silence discusses the movement in more general terms. As far a blog’s readability, I agree with Uncle – if you don’t have an RSS feed of some type, I’m not reading your blog. There are one or two without feeds that I read, but I only do so every couple weeks, if that. If you want to get your content out and get linked, a feed is a must.

Additionally, bad format hurts a blog. I’m not a fan of anything not on white. A blog is not a place for a bunch of bells and whistles. That’s not what makes a blog great. Blogs are built on content. If there is no content, there will be no readership and no linking. Combining that with frequency of posting and you have a very readable, good blog.

Silence posts about the growth and evolution of blogdom in general. The blog has legitimized itself by doing what other media and news outlets have at times refused to do. If you want detailed and frequently updated content on a particular subject, or a tireless attention to detail on a breaking issue, you no longer go to a MSM outlet. You find that niche blog doing the grunt work. The Katrina aftermath is a great example, as well as the phoniness of the Rather documents. If it weren’t for blogs, Dan Rather would have wrongly ridden off into the sunset as a nonpartisan and respected journalist. It was this blog with Bob Krumm’s help (pre BobKrumm.com) that noted on Teddy Bart’s Roundtable that Bob Tuke predicted questions about Bush’s guard service before the Rather flap surfaced. In short, those who know are in the know because they know which blogs to go to. Tennessee government is better covered and analyzed by Bill Hobbs, Michael Silence, Rob Huddleston, Bob Krumm, Mark Rose, Adam Groves (sorry if I missed anyone) and the rest of us than any particular MSM outlet.

If anything, the last two years have seen the ascension of the blog as a legitimate format. Questions as to whether blogs are a positive development in the information revolution are answered affirmatively by everyone, save those in danger of exposure over something they’d rather keep hidden. When someone criticizes blogs for merely existing, always consider the source. CBS, for instance

People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it’s partisan. The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan.

That’s just funny.

2006 will be a year of sifting. Quality blogs will continue, and some with less commitment will wither. Longevity will depend on content and dedication. With contentious elections coming up, the political blogs will gain more of a following. Silence notes that readership has somewhat leveled off. This is likely true, until another chunk of the public figures out that blogs are the best and quickest source of information. When that happens, another bump in readership will occur.

The conclusion? Blogs are becoming more and more useful and powerful as a medium. In Tennessee we have an unusually high concentration of good and informed writers discussing state and local politics and current events. That gives us an interesting niche, and acts as a model for other blogospheric miniverses elsewhere. That’s the truly impactual growth I’m interested in seeing.

UPDATED for additional content.

UPDATE Silence adds some more

To prove that bloggers and Google News robots can’t do the work of trained reporters, Reader executive editor Michael Lenehan proposes a yearlong journalism strike. “I am urging reporters and editors around the world to put down their notebooks, close their laptops, hang up their phones. Lie down and be counted! Let’s have no reporting, no editing, no application of any human intelligence whatsoever to events public or private till January 1, 2007. I’m calling it the Year Without Journalism. Let’s all relax, let go, and float blissfully in the information-free state (excuse me, I mean free-information state) that our public awaits so eagerly. … Let’s see if Wonkette can deal with the devious bastards in the executive branch any better than Judith Miller did.” (Via Romenesko)

Cool. Then bloggers wouldn’t have to write about plagarism, gross errors, slanted reports, incomplete reports and columnists getting paid by the government.

Ouch.

Thanks to Sharon Cobb, I noticed that Bill Hobbs is taking on the topic of whether or not a blogger paid by a MSM organization (i.e. WKRN in Nashville) should express bias. Interesting question, and is well worth debate. I honestly have no problem either way. The rising of passions tends to increase interest, readership and debate – all net positives. But this comment from Bill’s post does no one any good, and I laughed so hard at the juvenile nature of it I had to reprint it (sort of … okay, so I heavily edited it) here

Bill Hobbs – Why must you be a c***f*&ed as*&@!e mother faker son of a female dog piece of s*%t!

Just saying that for Brittney because I know she can’t and I know she so wants to and you so deserve it. I know you won’t post this, and that isn’t my intentions. I just wanted you to read it.

Amy

Yeah, well, that certainly clears things up. With arguments like that, this MSM/blogging thing ought to be sorted out by New Years.

Drudge is now on Hannity & Colmes discussing the 1/15 second interval intermediate X’s splashed upon Dick Cheney’s face during a live speech. The link is here. Odd to say the least. Alan Colmes claims there is in fact an innocent explanation. We shall see.

Paul Krugman’s sources are revealed

Yep. It’s the leftist hate blogs. Are you surprised? Campus Progress asked Paul Krugman, “Do you read a lot of blogs?”

Yeah, I do, they work as a … some of them do real reporting, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. Some of them serve as kind of information navigators, stuff that I would not have heard about otherwise, I pick up. That’s one of the reasons I read Brad DeLong’s or, yeah, I do love DailyKos, just to see what’s come up. Some of them are a lot of fun. I’m a fan of w, some people at one point actually thought was me. I think it’s a great thing.

Well, he apparently does not read MooreThoughts.

UPDATE In response to a couple of well-seasoned local liberal writers regarding the part in the pasted post that refers “leftist hate blogs”. I know not everything said on these liberal blogs is hateful, and I am to be charged with some sloppiness in copying and pasting. There are exceptions to every rule. But the latest post on Kos is calling “Scalito” a liar. The general tone of the blog is certainly disparaging on absolutely everything Bush does. That’s too much. In fairness Atrios is not that bad, though he thinks the word “Booby” is altogether too clever. Brad DeLong calling the Volokh Conspiracy the “Neo-McCarthyite Volokh Conspiracy” and placing the post under the category “utter stupidity” is certainly not within the realm of intelligent discourse.

Perhaps the line should have been “disingenuous leftist hate blogs”. With a caveat for Kos for a little hate every now and again. You need not say “I hate X” in order to hate.

If I had to pick Krugman’s favorite, I would have to pick DailyKos. I am still sure, however, that Krugman does not read MooreThoughts.

Ben Cunningham of Tennessee Tax Revolt sent out this in an email this morning

Tennessean columnist says the war against the income tax has been won. Hold on to your wallets, this is a SURE sign it will be back. And the editorial page says its all just a stunt. Probably a good idea to have your mechanic check your car horn and be sure its working reeeeal well.

Larry Daughtery is the columnist, and scribes these brilliant tidbits

That’s one way to avoid coming up with real dialogue about the state’s problems. And the empty posturing is one reason the Republicans can’t come up with a viable candidate to oppose Bredesen’s re-election next year.

The jabbermeisters, of course, can’t look into the future beyond next week’s ratings books. No one can accurately predict what Tennessee’s tax needs, and tax attitudes, might be in the next decade, when many legislators elected next year will still be serving.

Opposition to a state income tax is about as meaningful as opposition to the Civil War in 1890.

Right. Jabbermeisters? Really? Are they related to the Jabberwocky?

And he continues, listing a litany of alternatives to the income tax, obviously gleaned from his extensive collection of Democratic talking points

“I will watch Tennessee’s public schools sink to 50th in the nation, below Arkansas and Mississippi, before I will vote for an income tax.”

Yes, because as all good Democrats know, throwing money at problems solve them.

“I will allow Tennessee prisons to return to control of the federal courts and their mandates before I will vote for an income tax.”

Hyperbolic at best.

“I will continue to turn a blind eye to the hundreds of special interest exemptions from the sales tax, costing the state more than $2 billion a year, before I vote for an income tax or any other form of tax reform.”

Which is interesting, because Larry also says this

“I will continue to ignore the obvious fact that Tennessee’s tax system is regressive and punishes the poor as long as I don’t have to vote for an income tax.”

More sales tax is ok, but only when used in a rhetorical device to criticize small government conservatives. Oh yes, regressive tax – that’s a favorite of the Democrats.

“I will advocate the abolition of (fill in the state agency or service) before I will vote for an income tax.”

Not all government is vital, Larry. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it should keep existing.

“I will watch the state’s credit rating sink to junk bond status before I will vote for an income tax.”

Hyperbole again. I guess he’s never heard of something called TennCare, that’s done more to sink the state budget than any lack of a tax increase could.

“I will watch Tennessee and its small businesses lose hundreds of millions a year to the Internet because of high sales taxes, but I won’t vote for an income tax.”

A common problem to all states, not just Tennessee.

“I will tolerate double-digit tuition increases at state colleges until they are beyond the reach of middle-income families, just so I don’t have to vote for an income tax.”

That’s right – the Democrats believe that free education is a right. Remove the financial stake, and people won’t take it as seriously as they should.

The editorial carrying the lefter flank calls taxes a “phantom issue”. No thanks – we’re not going to take a nap. We’re getting ahead on this one. Heed Ben’s words. I have a feeling, like Ben, that there is a strategy afoot to lull concerned citizens to sleep over the tax issue.

UPDATE Many in the blogosphere have jumped on this one. Bill Hobbs via Lance comments, with additional coverage here, Ben Cunningham offers his expected (and correct) perspective, and unsurprisingly, Jackson Miller enjoys excessive taxation (and throws in a comment of the “illegal war” variety for good measure.

FURTHER UPDATE Mark Rose weighs in as well.

It’s time to put the Valerie Plame scandal to rest, and if this won’t do it, I don’t know what will. Wizbang has it from Who’s Who

Melvin Schuetz from Baylor’s Moody Library forwarded Joseph Wilson’s bio from the 2003 edition of Who’s Who in America [Volume 2 (L-Z)]. He notes:

Wilson’s entry carries over about 5 lines to the next column, which is why it cuts off in mid-sentence at the end. The relevant text is “m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998,” which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!

So, via Who’s Who, the name “Valerie Plame” has been associated publicly with Joe Wilson since the Clinton era – nice secret…

Wow. Unless Rove was working in the Clinton White House, this story should never have happened. The MSM, with the massive amount of resources supporting it, would have earmarked some money for a Who’s Who subscription. Incompetence or rote partisanship – you take your pick.

Via Instapundit.

UPDATE In case you missed it, Andrew McCarthy provides a comprehensive look at the duplicity driving the Rove story, and the lack of truth pervading its coverage.

Newsworthiness of corporate malfeasance is directly proportional to the political cost to be exacted by those reporting it.
The Daily Standard has a fantastic piece on the story the media missed, and missed purposely. I pick up late in the story. If you want the element of surprise to be in full effect, just follow the link and read it yourself.

In fact, the amount in question now totals $875,000, which the corporation’s new ownership discovered on its own but never revealed to authorities. This company has now belatedly agreed to repay the money–but over two years, while the charity remains under funded for its tasks and suffered the loss of other government contracts due to its nonperformance on these earmarked grants. What a story! What a blockbuster!

One would think. Or maybe not.

Yet most of the mainstream media has been oddly silent. Why?

I have an idea.

WELL, FOR ONE THING, we have thus far neglected to name the corporation involved. The company that took money from
poor kids and Alzheimer’s patients to pay off its high-priced employees is Air America and the CEO was its original founder, Evan Cohen. Air America broadcasts its liberal views on American politics in several cities around the country, attempting to compete with the much more robust conservative talk-radio industry and mostly failing.

I have an idea of what the story would have been if this had been Clear Channel, or Cumulus Broadcasting.

I found this article in the Washington Post on Technorati yesterday, but didn’t take the time to dissect it and write a coherent analysis. Glenn Reynolds has just mentioned it, and made me think a little more about it.

“Thin” is a rather polite way of putting it, as Mickey Kaus does here.

There is due date for democracy in Iraq. There never will be one. We, here in the United States, the most successful and longest lasting democratic republic ever on this earth, took nearly 150 years from our inception to granting women the right to vote, and 89 years from our inception to outlawing slavery (and only by force). The new Iraq has existed for a smidgeon of that time, in a more hostile environment, unaided by a politically astigmatistic Democratic Party in American and an impatient public, too many of which are calling our efforts everything from a “quagmire” to a “failure”.

Iraq is a society where many are stuck somewhere before the Middle Ages, and where many others are suffering withdrawal symptoms from the now-dry Baathist teat. It’s going to take some time to reform the society that Saddam Hussein further destroyed, and it’s going to take the patience of the American People to enable democracy to take hold in a region that has never known it.

Which takes me to another, meandering line of thought.

How racist is it that some contend that the Middle East is not a region apt for democratic reform? Any people can rule themselves, and ought to be given the opportunity to do so. I believe in the superiority of Western culture, and the unfailing success of a free people to prosper and grow when allowed the opportunity.

These values can be exported. They have been exported. The only true hope for the world is the unhindered spread and support of these values. Articles like the one written by Robin Wright above are written by people living in the smallest of worlds and who possess the most limited minds. Failure is a foregone conclusion for these types, who cannot see past an unfortunate chosen failure by the United States in southeast Asia over thirty years ago. They do not see the good. They do not see the value of freedom. They abhor people making choices, and embrace theocratic and autocratic-longing engendered chaos as some sort of entrancing opiate. The impact and influence of such people is fleeting. History will not remember them, and if history does choose to recollect their inanities, it will be in a light that would not make Neville Chamberlain envious.