CounterSpin is a Crock

I was on the road today and happened to be listening to National Public Radio. A program came on that was called CounterSpin. It purports to be a review of recent print and electronic media reports published or broadcast recently. It is a product of a group called Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). It only took several minutes to realize that there is nothing fair about this program. A rhetorical question: How far left do you have to be when you complain about the “conservative bias” of the New York Times and Washington Post? The “reporters” that present the stories throw in snide comments throughout the stories often. One of the guests was an investigative reporter named Mark Shapiro who was really giving a thoughtful review and analysis of the problems encountered when reporting on matters of scientific research. He has written a book about the dangers of chemical additives in commercial products in the United States. He later spent some time extolling the European Union because they have, in his opinion, done a better job of restricting chemical additives which can be added to products produced in China. In an interesting paradox, many pharmaceuticals are allowed to be sold to consumers in Europe which have not been approved for safety in the United States. I suppose you get to pick your poison literally. The person interviewing him could not let his very skilled answering of the questions stand without leading him toward criticizing any conservative policy or business. While Shapiro was very interesting and thought-provoking, the remainder of the program was an ode to socialization and had an obvious anti-business bias. After doing a little internet searching, it was easy to find out that one of the former leaders of FAIR was Laura Flanders, who hosts a program on the flaming left Air America. To be “fair”, the program does not report to be news; it is a commentary show. I can say without equivocation that there is nothing fair and accurate in the interpretation presented by this group. The FAIR group is as objective as the group Media Matters which has been shown over and over to be a left-wing smear machine. How anyone can claim to be an objective observer and be associated with this program is disingenuous.

How to Effectively Moderate a Debate

I was fantasizing about moderating a Presidential debate the other evening and thought I would reveal portions of my formula for an actually informative debate which, of course, the candidates would hate. I believe people get tired of lame generalities and talking heads waiting for the right opportunity to get in a good sound bite. Of course, that is fueled by the media only talking about the good sound bites in their post-debate analysis.

First, at the beginning of the debate, I would have the candidates stipulate that none of the others were trying to bring down the world as we know it and that the others were not inherently evil people. I would also have them stipulate that THEY, not their respective spouses, were running for office and that whoever won, the spouse would be fine as first whatever. I would have them agree that no one was supporting bad education, less health care, a weaker military, etc.

Second, I would have them agree I could cut them off when they drifted into talking points instead of answering questions. When they answer with "We need a President who can.... (list of generic issues they can spout on about)", the microphone gets turned off. Additionally, no meaningless sound bites (e.g., "We are not going to balance the Social Security system on the backs of the elderly", which sounds great but doesn't mean anything and just wastes time).

Third, I would make them answer questions specifically. When they say "We have to fix the Social Security system", I stop them and make them spell out their specific steps to do it. When they say, "I will bring our troops home", I stop them and ask specifically how and what they will do in Afghanistan and Iraq which will make that possible, or will they just leave those people in the lurch after we committed to them as a country. When they talk about "experience", experience doing what specifically? What did you accomplish or did you you just hang around a long time? "I worked to... (fill in the blank)" is a lot different than "I actually did something". The object is to point out the specific differences in what they propose to do.

Fourth, when they claim a statistic or make an accusation, I stop and ask them to provide proof of their statement. No more made up statistics or vague accusations.

Fifth, no personal stories. When the candidates get a hard question, they always respond with "I met Jane Doe in Smalltown, North Some State, and she... (heart wrenching story)". That is like the news media who, no matter how strong the economy is, can always find someone not doing well so they can criticize the administration. It contributes nothing and allows the candidate to avoid the question.

Sixth, no redirecting questions. None of the "That is a good question but what we should really be talking about is... (stump speech points)". Answer the question or quit wasting our time and shut up.

Final point (to the audience), as soon as the debate is over, turn off the television or change channels. Do not listen to the opposing spin-meisters talk about how great their candidate did. You watched the debate, you heard the candidates, you know what they said. That should be enough.

CNN and MSNBC Off the Cliff Again

CNN and MSNBC, fading quickly in relevance and audience due to the decidedly biased reporting they are now widely recognized for, have now started using the tabloid journalism trick of trying to create controversy when none exists. In their most recent attempt to rally their liberal viewers, they have attempted to create controversy surrounding comments by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. O’Reilly, who has the most watched program in cable news, was discussing how the gangsta rap culture does not represent the mainstream black culture in the United States with Juan Williams, a respected liberal journalist who writes for the Washington Post and is also a Fox News regular contributor. What O’Reilly said was that Sylvia’s, a well known restaurant in Harlem was no different than any other conventional American restaurant in atmosphere. CNN and MSNBC have attempted to construe those remarks as racist. Juan Williams, who is black and usually very restrained, has called the people at CNN “idiots” for their pretend controversy. I am not a big O’Reilly fan but I can certainly recognize sensationalized nonsense when it appears.

I watched this evening as Heidi Collins of CNN had two people on to discuss the topic. LaShawn Barber, a black woman, said that if you listen to his comments in context that there is nothing offensive about them whatsoever. However, in addition, they bring on a raving diatribe-spewing Boyce Watkins, who manages to accuse Bill O’Reilly of a long standing history of racism and hate and even manages somehow to insult President Bush in the process. This is their “expert” opinion? It is like Wolf Blitzer giving credibility to Jack Cafferty, the loudest whining shill of them all.

On MSNBC, there is Keith Olberman who apparently has some pathologic hatred of Bill O’Reilly as he devotes episode after episode of his cable-access style program to smearing O’Reilly and Fox News. Tonight, he had some “expert” who sounded more like an asylum escapee saying that Mr. O’Reilly is about to have a mental breakdown and talking about psychiatric diagnoses based on how Mr. O’Reilly pays for his food in restaurants. Who at MSNBC thinks that discourse of this low level has any place on television? Countdown with Keith Olberman cannot aspire to moving up to the class level of the Jerry Springer Show. The show is a total sham when it comes to any objectivity.

As I said earlier, I am not a big fan of the O’Reilly show. He is sometimes unnecessarily uncivil to guests and talks over them. But I am a fan of some semblance of objectivity. I am reminded of the McCarthy hearings. At long last, CNN and MSNBC, have you no sense of decency? Have you lost all of your self-respect? Are advertising revenues and ego so important that you are will to prostitute your journalistic values to this kind of phony controversy? It is shameful.

Here They Go Again

For the last few months, the country has been anxiously awaiting the progress report on Iraq by General David Petraeus in September. The Bush Administration and the Republican supporters of the war hope he will say that the surge in troop levels has been effective. The Democrats hope he will say the entire thing is a disaster and we should leave immediately. Everyone acknowledged when he took the job that as the US Army’s top counter-terrorism expert, he was the appropriate and best man for that job.

When Petraeus arrived in Iraq, he completely changed coalition strategy. Instead of operating out of isolated Forward Operating Bases, Petraeus instead has the troops interacting more with the local Iraqis in the population centers. This has led to more intelligence gathering as the locals begin trusting the troops and has also established working relationships between the local tribal leaders/warlords with the US troops. The result has been local cooperation and even fighting between the local population and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been mostly driven out of several of the formerly hottest provinces due to the cooperation of the local leaders. Even Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and no friend to the Bush Administration, recently returned from Iraq saying that significant military progress had been made. The Democratic presidential candidates admit progress has been made. I can tell you since I am deployed out here seeing what is happening that they are correct in their assessment. We are making a lot of progress.

With that as a background, what do CNN and MSNBC do? Because the anticipated report by General Petraeus is now widely expected to be different than the networks own agenda, they are starting a campaign to impugn General Petraeus’ integrity before he arrives to give the report. The same guy who was the best great hope a few months ago has these same network hacks saying he is a partisan lackey and has no credibility. These people are so transparent and vile that it should surprise no one that they have less and less viewers all the time.

I wrote a piece a while back about how the other news network anchors, particularly the ones with obvious agendas, constantly publicly trash Fox News. However, on one recent ratings night, the viewer numbers were:

FNC O'REILLY 2,260,000
FNC SHEPPARD SMITH 1,308,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,286,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,278,000
FNC GRETA 1,031,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000

No wonder they trash Fox News. They are being whipped like a Michael Vick dog. Like most liberals, their inflated egos lead them to believe that the people are stupid and are being led around by Fox and the evil Rupert Murdoch. They can’t imagine that most people are fed up with their trashing of the American system and character assassination tactics. In one of the seemingly hundreds of Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton recently said about her negative numbers in polls that any of the other Democratic candidates will have high numbers after the “Republican hate machine” gets through with them. She won’t acknowledge that maybe people just don’t like her or maybe people actually loathe her. In typical liberal fashion, it couldn’t possibly be her fault. Well, folks, keep railing on. People will vote with their remote controls and MSNBC, CNN and the other left agenda news organizations that purposely trash America will continue to wither on the vine. Rush Limbaugh calls them the “drive-by” media for their tactics. I will now refer to them as the “Raisin media” because they are drying up so fast.

Fooling Them Most of the Time

An interesting Zogby poll came out in the last couple of days which shows some of the influence of the main stream media and in some ways how it causes results it doesn’t desire. While the networks and cable outlets have been trashing the Bush Administration for years and managed to get the approval rating for the President down to the lower 30s, the approval ratings for the Democrat-led Congress they favor is down to a historically low 18%. The House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi has effectively done nothing and the Senate is the same under Harry Reid. Both leaders spend all their time making speeches about how bad the current administration is but never seem to offer more effective alternatives. In the public’s view, the Democratic Party is determined to lose the war without regard to consequences and they plan to lose it as a way to gain political power. This is clearly not the way to win in November 2008. The latest stay up all night and debate Iraq stunt was seen for the inane political theater it was and the public does not seem to be pleased. I have no idea who is advising Harry Reid but, whoever he is, his former career as a grocery bagger seems a safe bet in the near future. Reid, one of the two Senators from “the state which shouldn’t even be a state” (almost all federal property), is the poster child for inability and distasteful politics. The best thing for the Republicans to do between now and November 2008 is to have Reid and Pelosi on television as much as possible. By constantly giving coverage to these two shrill whiners, the networks have created a result they clearly don't want.

The other interesting item from that poll is how about 60-70% of people polled were quite content with their personal finances. However, despite all-time record high stock market closings, low unemployment, record home ownership, etc., only 20% thought the US economy was doing well. Let’s see if I have that straight: most feel they are doing well, almost everyone has a job and has a place to live, stocks are booming but the economy stinks. That demonstrates the mainstream media in action. They rave about how good the economy was at the end of the Clinton presidency, which was not nearly as strong as today’s, but at the same time say today’s economy stinks. These are the same people who lambaste Fox News and claim that they themselves have no political agenda. There are a lot of ill-informed and gullible people in this country but I don’t think there are enough for the Democrats to pull this off. At least I hope not.

The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy

In the past on TV, there was a sort of unwritten rule that one network never mentioned another network, as if they didn’t exist. For example, a television actor promoting their show on the Tonight Show would never state the name of the network on which the show appeared, if it wasn’t NBC. I can’t help but notice the recent coordinated effort on the part of the liberal news media to collectively try to make the Fox News network look biased and disreputable. Everyone knows that Fox News was originally created because of the liberal bent of the mainstream news media so it shouldn't be surprising that the network would be more accomodating to conservative viewpoints.
It is nauseating to see a smarmy ideologue like Keith Olberman, who does not have a reputable cell in his body, interviewing a host of an Air America program about Fox News. If Olberman had another nerve cell, he could make a connection. Air America, the ultra-liberal talk network which went bankrupt because no one watches it, is a competitor of Fox. That is like interviewing Target about how great WalMart is doing. Olberman called the people at Fox “idiots” on the air. The Air America host said that the Fox News network is a part of the Republican Party. No matter your political persuasion, that is not journalism of any quality, whatsoever. I suppose they are just upset because CNN’s viewership is at an all-time low and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC are insignificant. Fox News now has three times the viewers that CNN does. It would be a bigger deal if anyone actually watched Olberman’s show but since hardly anyone does, he can spread his rants without much consequence.
Along the same lines, CNN is another pot calling the kettle black. Lou Dobbs does a show that is supposed to be a news show but he makes biased comments about every story and never presents both sides of any story. It is like they hired him to do a one hour diatribe every night and pretend to be news. On Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, I know Jack Cafferty is a liberal ideologue but I can’t say recently how bad he is since I started muting the television every time I see his image now. He is the most whining harpie on television and, since he never had anything resembling useful information to say, I no longer waste my time listening to his spewing. He always reinforces his rants with poll questions like “Do you think the Bush Administration should continue to starve the American people?" It is always a “Do you still beat your wife?” type question.
Don’t misunderstand. I actually like to hear both sides of a debate but I want to hear facts on the news with commentary and analysis correctly labeled as such. Even CBS, which historically is one of the most liberal networks, had Eric Severeid come on with the label “commentary” when he appeared. News is fact and commentary is opinion. They should be kept separate.
I find that when two opposing sides give information, the truth is usually somewhere between the two. That is why I like both sides to explain their views. Calling the other side names and yelling does little to clarify debate and expose truth. But since Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are fading like cheap wallpaper in the sun; I guess they feel they have nothing to lose by compromising journalistic standards and whining about declining viewer numbers.

Intolerance and the Inane Media

This latest flap in Nevada about the Democratic Party not wanting to debate on Fox News reminded me of the intolerance of ideas in America. It is similar to the rhetoric post I made earlier in some ways. The same people at liberal arts universities who scream for anti-war, abortion freedom, gay rights, and entitlement program “freedom of speech”, will not allow anyone of contrary views to even make a speech. What an incredible double standard. Without taking a side on any of those issues, it is easy to see why it is just ludicrous to support that. Freedom of speech was first and foremost put into place to protect political discourse (not strippers, sorry). Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists, or anyone else should be able to discuss their own views with anyone who cares to listen, as long as it is not something illegal like inciting violence or creating an unacceptably dangerous public environment. The Founding Fathers knew that representative government works best with an informed electorate who are free to exchange ideas and attempt to influence others to their point of view. A group can never achieve consensus if none of the members ever communicate with the other members. The world is a Bell curve. There will always be people on both sides of any issue. To say that the other side cannot even express their views about the issue revives the specter of totalitarian societies. Ann Coulter is obnoxious in presentation to liberals but she has the right to speak. Bill Maher clearly has brain damage to conservatives but let him talk. People who make no sense, make moronic statements, or have nothing of clarity to say expose themselves by speaking loudly. It is the best way to ferret them out. It is better to have them expose their inconsistencies and errors in logic than to have people assume that their arguments are credible because their name is familiar. If you disagree heartily, you don’t have to attend a speech or you can use the ultimate weapon, the remote control. If you think about it, why would political candidates trying to reach the voters not want to appear on the most-watched cable news channel? It is going to be your own words that are broadcast. Conservatives appear in front of liberal political fronts like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Liberals appear with staunch conservative Sean Hannity. If your ideas have merit, you will be able to defend them.

Along those same lines, I am tired of the news media assuming that I am stupid. When I watch the State of the Union speech in January, I don’t need someone to come on immediately after the speech and tell me what the President said. After all, if I am tuned in to that channel, I listened to the speech. If you want to analyze program changes, spending initiatives, diplomatic initiatives, etc., okay, but I heard what he said. I also don’t need to hear the requisite two political hacks: the incumbent party representative talking about the second coming of Abraham Lincoln in the speech, and the opposition party declaring every program, even ones not yet thought of, “dead on arrival”. I also do not care about the staged “standing ovation” count or how many times each side stood. It is scripted and stupid. Why report on it other than to demean the artificiality of it? It is not news if it means nothing. It is an offensive and insulting waste of my time. Therefore, for major speeches, CSPAN it is. I pity those without cable television who are subjected to that nonsense each time.