Olbermann Establishes His Stupidity Credibility

Newsweek runs a story with flimsy factual support, and 15 people die as a result of the riots that every major news organization agrees was triggered by the Newsweek story. Obviously, someone should be fired for this travesty of journalism.

Only a pseudo-blogging pseudo-journalist could be stupid enough to insist that the person fired should not come from Newsweek, but from the White House.

Only a buffoon would call the White House "treasonous" for not stopping journalistic flops, as if there was a First Amendment exception so that the White House could countermand the freedom of the press, in just those instances that freedom might make the press look bad. Or in Olbermann's case, perhaps it was just wishful thinking, coming far too late in his career.

In any event, thank you, Keith Olbermann, for further cementing America's dwindling respect for the credibility of the liberal media.

Remember kids,

"Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Journalism Safety PSA

"Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People."

Kids, remember to follow these simple rules if you find a journalist:

STOP AND DON'T TOUCH IT.
LEAVE THE AREA
TELL A RESPONSIBLE ADULT WHAT YOU FOUND

The adult should NOT touch the journalist either.

Even if the adult is familiar with journalism safety rules, the journalist should not be handled.

The journalist could be essential evidence that could be used in a solving a crime and the mere position of the journalist could be important. Not to mention footprints, fingerprints, clothing threads, blood, tire tracks or cartridge cases that might be in the immediate area.

If you are alone, remember exactly where the journalist is.

Carefully leave the area without disturbing anything.

If possible, post a sentry or responsible person to keep everyone away from the area.

As soon as possible, bring a police officer to the journalist. Don't pick it up and bring it to the police station.

Thank You.

(with apologies to http://www.savetheguns.com/safety_rules.htm)

Note: If anyone has a "Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People." tee shirt or bumper sticker for sale other their site (hint, hint), let me know and I'll link it in.

Update: Vilmar has an intersting take on this story defending Newsweak... sorta.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

The Indepedent's Incredible Self-Fisking Mr. Buncombe

The UK-based Independent (Robert Fisk's employer) is running an Andrew Buncombe story reporting an "AWOL crisis" as a result of the War on Terror, with this lede:

As the death toll of troops mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's military recruiting figures have plummeted to an all-time low. Thousands of US servicemen and women are now refusing to serve their country.

The problem is, the Independent don't have any figures to support that contention, and the one set of hard numbers the author provides at the end of the article suggests just the opposite; a significant reduction in desertions since 9/11.

Welcome to the self-Fisking of Andrew Buncombe.

Instead of interviewing credible expert witnesses, the Independent reporter stoops to using unsupported these third-party anecdotes:

Staff who run a volunteer hotline to help desperate soldiers and recruits
who want to get out, say the number of calls has increased by 50 per cent since
9/11. Last year alone, the GI Rights Hotline took more than 30,000 calls. At
present, the hotline gets 3,000 calls a month and the volunteers say that by the
time a soldier or recruit dials the help-line they have almost always made up
their mind to get out by one means or another.

"People are calling us because there is a real problem," said Robert
Dove, a Quaker who works in the Boston office of the American Friends Service
Committee, one of several volunteer groups that have operated the hotline since
1995. "We do not profess to be lawyers or therapists but we do provide both
types of support."

In other words, the author is relying upon uncorroborated information from biased sources that readily admit to providing services for which they are not qualified (other than Congress).

In addition to collecting hearsay evidence from these amateur therapists, the Independent author also interviewed three soldiers who went AWOL:

• Jeremiah Adler: who admitted to lying about being homosexual to get out of boot camp;
• Jeremy Hinzman: a Fort Brag paratrooper who's application for amnesty was rejected by Canada;
• Kevin Benderman: a Bradley IFV mechanic that claims to have seen acts that would constitute war crimes... if they turn out to be real.

These three soldiers were the only ones interviewed, but what about the growing thousands of other soldiers that are deserting according to the Independent? They don't exist. The preceding 20 paragraphs of Buncombe's thesis were completely undone by his final three lines.

It turns out that the number of soldiers deserting is on a significant decline:

The Pentagon says it does not keep records of how many try to desert each year.
A spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, said the running rally[sic] had declined since 9/11 from 8,396 to the present total of 5,133.[emphasis added --ed.] She added: "The vast majority of those who desert do so because they have committed some criminal act, not for political or conscientious objector purposes."

I think I'm going to become of conscientious objector myself, at least as it relates to Mr. Buncombe's shoddy and eventually self-defeating brand of journalism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Isikoff: the MSM's Lyndie England

Newsweek's liberal--oops, I meant libel--has managed to kill 15 people so far as a reporter intent on tarring the government and the US military ran a story that now seems rooted in...

Almost nothing.

According to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, a "trusted source" told him the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book, was defaced in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two other sources Isikoff asked about the incident did not support the allegation, so what did Newsweek do?

They ran the story.

In the resulting uproar, 15 are dead, and westerners in the Muslim world are now at a heightened state of risk, all because of a half-baked rumor in an incomplete draft report that someone might have heard about. Great sourcing, guys. Glad to see you learned a lot from Mary Mapes.

When an idiot by the name of Lyndie England exhibited foolish, unprofessional behavior that embarressed people, she was charged with crimes that could eventually land her in prison for a decade or more. As Michael Isikoff's foolish, unprofessional behavior got 15 people killed and scores wounded, I can only assume his prison term will match that of any other person who incites multiple murders (h/t: Austin Bay).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrats Claim Political Balance on PBS is ILLEGAL?

According to Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, and Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Michigan, attempting to have political balance on PBS should be illegal. Obey and Dingell are accusing Center for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson of "pushing a Republican agenda."

Tomlinson has taken the "disturbing" and "extremely troubling" steps of trying to add balance to PBS programming, such as when he added Journal Editorial Report to counterbalance Now With Bill Moyers, a show with a notoriously biased liberal bent.

From an Tomlinson in On the Media:

"I don't want to achieve balance by taking programs that are the favorites of good liberals off the air. I want to make sure that when you have programs that tilt left, we also have some programs that tilt right so the viewer can make up his or her own mind...

"...I am for good investigative journalism in the tradition of "Frontline" and "60 Minutes." I have no objection to politically tilted programs. Will there be times when reporting supersedes the issue of balance? Absolutely. The public understands what it is. People here in Washington understand what it is. They can see the tilt. And what I want to do is, I want people not to regard public broadcasting as the voice of one particular ideological side in this country. I want them to hear the voices of America, the diverse voices of America on the public television." [ed.--emphasis added]

Tomlinson was an appointee of President Bill Clinton to the Center for Public Broadcasting board, after serving as the Director of the Voice of America from 1982-84 under President Reagan, and was confirmed as a member of the CPB Board in September 2000.

This is not the first time Democrats have looked to restrict free speech in recent memory.

I'm rather certain it will not be the last attempt, either.

Update: The LA Times now has an article up on the subject.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

Lies by Omission

In a syndicated article aptly titled "Final Insult," liberal NY Times columnist Paul Krugman proves once again why he is a columnist, and not a reporter or an economist. Reporters are supposed to present facts, and economists are supposed to be good with numbers. In this column Krugman proves he is good with neither facts nor figures.

Krugman writes:

Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits.

If the plan really would do that, it would be worth discussing. It's possible - not certain, but possible - that 40 or 50 years from now Social Security won't have enough money coming in to pay full benefits. (If the economy grows as fast over the next 50 years as it did over the past half-century, Social Security will do just fine.) So there's a case for making small sacrifices now to avoid bigger sacrifices later.

It is certain that Social Security will not have enough money to pay full benefits to retirees. For Krugman to deny this is either transparently dishonest, or it displays a pathetic ability to do basic math. There is no "protection" under the current system.

When Social Security was set up, more than a dozen people were paying into FDR's Social Security Ponzi Scheme for every person that drew benefits. As the Baby Boomer Generation retires, and lives far longer after retirement than previous generations, as few as two people will be paying into the system for each person drawing out, and each person drawing out will be pulling out far more money than the two working people put in. The system is unsustainable, based purely upon the hard numbers of those working versus those drawing on the system.

Krugman's not-so-artful dodge using the red herring of historical economic growth does not support his position. Economic growth is irrelevant to the hard numbers of people paying into the Social Security system versus people drawing for the Social Security system. Good economy or bad economy, people are going to grow old and retire. His argument is completely irrelevant to his position...

...But it provides excellent support for Bush's plan to allow people to privitize part of their savings and invest it into the economy through conservative investments. The economy has not only grown over the past fifty years, but over the past 100, including the Great Depression. Long term investments in government bonds, index funds, and other diversified investments will yield a much higher rate of return that pouring money into the hole of Social Security. How much would it mean to you? Figure it for yourself.

The difference for my decidedly-middle class family is a net gain of $1,570/month more under the Bush Plan, which throughly trumps my projected benefits under Social Security's current guise. Of course, the current Social Security program will be out of money by the time I retire, so actual returns under Bush's plan look far better than the calculator would indicate.

Krugman then goes on a disingenuous attack, claiming that Bush's plan would cut taxes, but cut benefits far more. But Krugman only provides part of the story, and lies by omission; he doesn't apparently include in his calculations the private accounts that are a key component of the Bush plan. In short, he presents all the negatives of the plan, without any of the positive.

When all you tell someone is that you are going to cut out their diseased heart, you are telling them they are going to die. By leaving out the key fact that you are going to put back in a stronger, more vibrant heart, you give them a prognosis 180 degrees away from the truth. Yet this is exactly what Krugman does, while have the gall to say, "I'm not being unfair."

You're not only unfair Mr. Krugman, you're blatantly dishonest.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.