No Neutrality

No Bias Here, Folks!

Talk about carrying the water. Get a load of this Reuter's article on the Abramoff scandal:

Democrats said the Abramoff case, along with other ethics issues, will give them valuable ammunition as they seek to take back control of Congress in November.

"We've been talking for months about the culture of corruption in Washington," said Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "When the Republican leadership is completely consumed with defending itself from ethics scandals, then the work of the people does not get done."

Dousing The Plame Flame

Wow.

Andrew McCarthy just demolishes the entire Rove-is-Spawn-of-Satan hypothesis in one article. 

Wonder if Joshua Marshall will take time from his obsession on proving Rove is BeelzeBub to read the article?

Hypocritically Aflame Over Plame

I don't have time to really post much today, but I have to put this question out there to you all:  Why is the MSM so upset over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame by Karl Rove (a canard if I ever saw one in my life!) but had NOTHING...ZIP...NADA...ZERO...EMPTY SET...NULL...NOTHING to say when the NY Times ran a whole story (registration required) "outing" a CIA covert operation which endangered who knows HOW many CIA agents?

Anybody on the Left care to comment?

UPDATE:

Looks like I'm not the only one with that question.  The folks at Powerline are asking the same thing.  And I didn't even mention the reaction on the Left with respect to Sandy Berger's theft of top-secret files (copies or non-copies).

Reuters Embarrassment

From Reuters: Taliban vows to kill 'captured' American in days - South and Central Asia - MSNBC.com

Note the comment in the Reuters article above:

A U.S. helicopter sent to aid the team was shot down the same day they went missing, killing all 16 troops aboard, the heaviest losses for U.S. forces in a single combat operation since they overthrew the Taliban in late 2001.

If what Hakimi is saying is true, it would be a major embarrassment for the United States, which is already suffering its bloodiest year in Afghanistan since invading in 2001.

That's almost enough to make a Christian cuss!! What in the world??? "a major embarrassment"?  This isn't a game, Reuters! This isn't a schoolyard confrontation between 2 James Dean wannabes, both trying to save face--this is war with real bodies and real people, not some contest between the Taliban and the US to see who can "embarrass" the other. 

Besides that, the US has NOTHING to be embarrassed about--despite the incessant yapping from the cowards who take verbal shots at real men, our losses in both Afghanistan and Iraq will go down in the books as a signal achievement of the United States armed forces.  Reuters ought to be embarrassed for printing this garbage.

Unbelievable...

Google Me Once, Shame On You...

Looks like Google is at it again.  I'm wondering when the average conservative user will get smart and realize that patronage of Google is only enriching an organization that then uses its dominance to push the Liberal agenda.  Call Microsoft what you will, but Google has far outstripped even the much-hated software giant in Redmond, WA, when it comes to blatant bias.

UPDATE:
Well open mouth and insert foot!  No sooner did I post this than a good friend pointed me to THIS foolishness.  I guess Microsoft was feeling the competitive heat.  At least they are just partaking in a parade instead of actually putting their politics in their product.  Sigh...

UPDATE II:
I just realized that in the interest of avoiding any appearance of having an axe to grind, I should let it be known that I currently work for the Redmond-based software giant.  I didn't think of it as a conflict of interest to blog about technology issues in favor of MS because I've always admired the company well before I came to it (which fellow DBPJ'er, Jeff, can attest to).  My main reason for not disclosing this had more to do with keeping my privacy.  But wanting to avoid the same fate as Armstrong Williams, I hereby disclose my "secret"!

P.S. DON'T ask me questions about your Windows PC either! Doh!

You're Not Smart Enough To Understand This

Since you knuckle-draggin', Right-Wing, inbreds out there (you know who you are!) lack the higher brain function required for sophisticated reflection, USAToday.com spells it out for you:  The Newsweek mess is really an issue of the "media vs. [the] White House" where BOTH parties share the blame.

You heard me right; don't sit there looking crazy at the screen!  For all of you who just don't get it, the Newsweek controversy isn't about:

• Professional journalistic standards being ignored through inadequate fact-checking and sourcing
• A major news organization stonewalling after being proven in error
• A strong appearance of bias tilting towards showing the US military in a bad light (after all, there are literally HUNDREDS of stories of tremendously HELPFUL things the US military does every month in the region that Newsweek hasn't seen fit to latch on to and report.  And guess what? They wouldn't require anonymous sources to back them up!)

No, it's about

...the risk that the nation could lose the war against terrorism for failing to understand Islamic culture. And it is about another setback in the war of ideas between the West and Islamic fanatics for the minds of moderate Muslims.

"What's wrong with that?" you ask.  Not so fast, effendi!  USA Today is not saying that it's about how the media fails to understand Islamic culture and how Newsweek's unhelpful rush to put junk forward as news unfairly damaged American prestige in the Muslim world.  No, no, my slow-minded friend.  The Bush administration is also guilty of the same thing:

The magazine and the administration are guilty of the same sin: They failed to recognize how acts of sacrilege can be exploited instantaneously to inflame Muslims around the world against America - a danger that is growing as the Internet expands and speeds news around the world. [emph. mine]

And where does USA Today get that assessment from? The administration is guilty of this too?  The same administration that has been schooling Newsweek about its error and pointing to the damage done to US interests and image abroad?  Where do you get that from? Oh! Of course. From the Newsweek guy that ran the bogus story! 

"Neither Newsweek nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did," Michael Isikoff, the reporter responsible for the item, told The New York Times.

And here I thought they were relying on some bogus report, "anonymous" source, or some guy in the hot seat trying to do a cover-my-butt-by-spreading-blame-around" routine for their analysis.

We're not done yet, though:

But deeper in the administration, [Deep, deeeep, in the lower recesses of the administration, where Karl Rove lurks at night, asking the chill, dank air, 'What's the frequency, Kenneth?' and eating fried chicken] that cause has been undermined. The Abu Ghraib abuses might seem minor to some Americans, particularly in the context of the 9/11 atrocities and the brutality of Saddam Hussein. But in the Muslim world [and in the US mainstream media, who couldn't seem to stop talking about it], they were the equivalent of handing arms to terrorists.[or conservative blood in the noses of left-wing media sharks]

Any Muslim would identify with prisoners stripped naked and sexually degraded by female guards. [so would Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy. So what?] They are precisely the sort of images Osama Bin Laden would order up to enrage the Muslim world, which already sees the USA through a very dark lens [patent held in the US, of course]. A Pew Research Center poll in March 2004 found large majorities in four Muslim countries hold negative views of the USA; in Jordan, only 5% held a favorable view of the nation. [well if freedom-loving JORDAN looks askance, I don't know WHAT I'll do with myself!]

So that must be why the US mainstream media stayed on the story for endless days--to prevent just that sort of "enraging" effect that Osama was after, right?  Making sure they repeated the story over and over with words like "torture" being flung around, right?  Nevermind that the media discovered the story AFTER the US Army did and AFTER the US Army was already well into its own internal investigation where names were being named and discipline was in the works.  No, if the stupid administration had just kept that .00001 percent of its troops from putting an 18 hour bra on Ali, why, most of this US hatred wouldn't even exist!  We know that Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld are omnipresent and control the actions of every single one of the troops under their administration, but come on!  The media must have kept the Abu Ghraib story around and worked itself up into a lather over the event, all in an attempt to be "fair,and balanced," I guess.

More recent allegations of religiously rooted abuse from prisoners at Guantanamo [they obviously have the judiciary committee confused with Gitmo] further fuel Muslim anger, as does the administration's failure to fully disclose what happened in the prisons and why.

Allegations, hmm?  From who? Names? Sources?  Is this thing on?  These wouldn't happen to be allegations from the Al Quaeda "affiliated" prisoners who are taught to make prison abuse allegations as part of  Al Quaeda psychological warfare against the US, would they?  Anyways, allegations are as good as proven guilt.  Must be why the administration has "failed to fully disclose" what happened (proof? sources? links? <sound of crickets and lonely wind ensue...>)

Newsweek's blunder fully exposed how explosive this is. The story was a relatively small one - part of the magazine's front-of-the-book "Periscope" roundup. The reference to the Koran was just 13 words. A few years ago, it would have drawn little notice.

NEWS FLASH: Tropical Storm NewsWeak has been downgraded from "full exposure of bias" to "blunder."
Here's the real ranslation of that last graph: "Newsweek story? Wasn't that big a deal, really.  Besides, it exposed what the administration is playing with when it floods the war zone with lusty Utah Guardsmen who've watched one too many "Jackass" episodes."

Don't miss the finish, though:

Newsweek's mistake has again turned angry Muslim eyes on America. [have they ever stopped looking? And when AREN'T they angry?]

That cannot be undone. But it gives every publication reason to take particular care that the picture those eyes see is an accurate one. And it gives the administration cause to make sure that an accurate picture is one that respects Islam, and in so doing serves the American cause.

I see.  So we've all got a little part to play in this act of contrition.  Don't you single out Newsweek as the bad guys!  We know you Right-Wing, blog-reading Ditto heads are just going to whine that it's a case of media bias!  No, Bush better keep his goose-stepping kiddies in line from doing mean stuff to Muslim prisoners (remember all the "allegations"?) because THAT'S what's really making us look bad! I don't care that we're the country that has special procedures in place on how the Koran should be handled (literally with gloves!)--rules that we don't apply to any other Holy book; we still have a looooong way to go under THIS administration before we go gettin' all self-righteous against the media. 
And finally, to Newsweek, a quick aside: "We all make mistakes; just try to be a little more accurate when you're trashing the U.S. military, OK?"

Sure glad we have these smart guys in the media to keep us thinking straight!

Doubt No More!

I'm still shaking my head after reading this transcript of a press briefing that White House spokesman Scott McLellan gave yesterday.  If you've ever...EVER doubted the bias of the press toward conservatives, just take a look at the questions that were asked, paying particular attention to the assumptions, and tone of suspicion and doubt evidenced by many of the questions.  It would just be a repeat of most of the transcript if I posted the whole exchange; besides, I want you to get the cumulative effect of the questioning by listing them one after another.  In some instances, I had to include Scott McClellan's statements in order to give context that gives the questions required context. Also I've emphasized the phrases that caught my eye as revealing either the assumptions, bias, or aggression of the reporter.  Here are the questions:

• Let me just go back to the constitutional idea here. You said it again today, and you've said it many times in the past, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote. Can we agree that the constitutional requirement of the Senate is for advice and consent, but nowhere in the Constitution does it -- but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that nominees are guaranteed an up or down vote.

• With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?  You're pressuring them.

• Right, and he's made that clear. You made clear just a moment ago that he opposes judicial activists. And, yet, if you take a look, as I'm sure you have, at the records of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both records reveal, according to conservatives -- not me, but according to some conservatives -- judicial activism, number one; and, number two, a judicial temperament which is, at times, very sharp, very acerbic in their opinions, and not consistent with what some people consider the kind of judicial temperament that would be appropriate for the kind of circuit court positions that they're being nominated to. Is there -- is the President sort of violating, in these nominees, his own principle for what he wants to see --

• [You need the context of McClellan's comment here so let me include that first] Scott McClellan: Let me point out a couple of things about these two nominees you bring up. Both these nominees are individuals that are highly respected and have enjoyed strong support in their respective states. Judge Priscilla Owen has served on the bench of the Texas Supreme Court for some time now and has enjoyed strong support from the people of the state of Texas. Judge Brown is someone who was recently retained with 76 percent of the vote in California. They are --
  Reporter: This isn't a popularity contest, these are --

• Let me follow up on that. What -- you said that -- what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here? Are you asking them to write a story?  Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

• Scott McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --
  Reporter: Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

• And second thing is that it's not only Newsweek story. In the past, well-known people who can make and break a society, they make statements against other religions, like Mr. Pat Robertson against Hinduism in the past. How can we prepare for the future all these stories, it doesn't happen again in the future? Do you think the President can come out and make sure, because that's what the Muslims are calling on the President to come out --

• On the next question -- Nelson Mandela's visit with President Bush -- the White House is saying that it's pushing the idea of absolving the African nations of debt. Nelson Mandela wants to cancel the debt, but the concern is, is that the United States is not living up to its commitment of authorizing $15 billion over five years for this fund to fund malaria, AIDS and TB -- TB research, prevention and things of that nature. It's a contradiction there. Is the White House --

• Judicial filibusters, Scott. The President has said repeatedly he needs bipartisan cooperation on Social Security, other second term priorities, energy. Does he not worry that by bringing the filibuster issue to a head, he may well sacrifice key elements of his second term?

• I understand what you're saying, and I heard it. What it sounds to me like you're saying is that the Democrats are going to block us anyhow, so what do we have to lose? Does that means he's given up on bipartisan cooperation?

• Are you telling me that if the President called Bill Frist and said, look, the rest of my agenda is at risk here, let's not push this now. He would do that?

• And this doesn't mean he's given up on bipartisan cooperation, he still expects bipartisan cooperation?

• The Jerusalem Post reports that PA Chairman Abbas invited leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to relocate from Damascus to Gaza after the Israelis leave. And they also report that leaders of the Abbas co-founded Fatah organization sent birthday greetings to Saddam Hussein, wishing him, "Long life to free the Arab nation." What is the President's reaction to these actions? This was the greeting that Fatah sent to Saddam Hussein, wishing him, "Long life to free the Arab nation." What does the President think about this? [Context needed here too]
  Scott McClellan: I think the President has made his views very clear, Les. And I don't -- I just haven't seen what you're bringing up.
  Reporter: Q Well, it's been reported, Scott. I mean, what does the President think of this?

• Just to be specific, Scott, who's responsible for activating the internal system here, what was described to us as the Emergency Notification System? Is that the Secret Service or is that --

• So has it been determined why the Office of Administration didn't turn it on --
  Yes. You know, evacuating this building, evacuating the Capitol, Treasury Department, and all the time, NORAD, the FAA had never believed that this was really an imminent threat. Nobody thought that there was any terrorist intent -- But it wasn't seen as being a high threat, though

• With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't.

Too bad Newsweek reporters don't question their "anonymous sources" that thoroughly. 

(Hat tip - Drudge)

Some Nerve!

DBPJ foreign correspondent "Scootch" alerts us to this incredible display of chutzpah by Democrats when it comes to media bias claims (from Drudge): 

Two congressional Democrats called Wednesday for an investigation into recent activities by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, suggesting that efforts by the Republican chairman of the private nonprofit to add more conservative programs onto PBS may violate federal law.

Is there a person left in America who truly thinks that PBS is "balanced"?? 

Google This!

I knew there was a reason I switched to MSN Search instead of Google.  Not only because the Microsoft Research Center, one of the most heavily funded computer science research centers in the WORLD, helped the MSN group with a new, re-tooled version of MSN Search, but because I'm sick and tired of throwing my money at Leftists like those at Google who take my money and then thumb their noses at me.

Little Green Footballs relays the scoop on the most recent display of Google bias.  Seems that Rightmarch.com conducted an experiment to see if they could draw out the bias that has evidenced itself before at Google.  In a nutshell, they took an anti-Tom Delay ad that is running on Google and substituted the name Pelosi (D-California).  When they applied to run the ad, Google rejected the ad with the explanation,

Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization.

Michelle Malkin has previously noted a USA Today article that shows Google staff run overwhelmingly Democrat in their political tastes if you can judge by the fact that 98% of their private political contributions went to Democrats in the 2004 elections.  (An interesting irony, by the way, is that they are supporting the very party that is most likely to push to tax the Internet, the lifespring of the search engine giant.)

I suppose the Google Ad staff need to read their own code which reads:

The core message is simple: Being Googlers means striving toward the highest possible standard of ethical business conduct. This is a matter as much practical as ethical; we hire great people who work hard to build great products, but our most important asset by far is our reputation as a company that warrants our users' faith and trust. That trust is the foundation upon which our success and prosperity rests, and it must be re-earned every day, in every way, by every one of us.

Unless you're a Republican/Conservative.  Then we don't want your trust or your business.

Eason Jordan Keeps Digging

As has been noted all over the blogosphere, Captain Ed has dominated the Eason Jordan story. Last night, Jordan once again made an attempt at damage control rather than do the right thing. His lame explanation? When he says "targeted" he means in a purely legal sense in that someone's gun had to be aimed at them to kill them, therefore they were "targeted":

To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq...

Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage." That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time.

Got it....

I thought he was trying to "be clear." In other words, Mr. Jordan, you don't believe they were murdered, you just believe they were killed on purpose.... Are we stupid enough to believe that when he says people were "targeted", he actually means it was an accident?  Why bring it up then?

Be sure to read Ed's great response.

Apologies to Steve.