You are browsing the archive for TWD.

“Who Is The Left Equivalent Of Andrew Breitbart” Anderson Cooper?

7:49 am in Uncategorized by sluggahjells

(From TWD)

CNN’s primetime host thought he was hitting all the rights notes (because that’s what they always think at that network, no matter how cookie cutter and disturbing recalcitrant they have become over the years to real political reporting) in this screed last night.

(The video you can view here.)

From 50 seconds on, it was a total trainwreck, made a disaster by Cooper and his network’s truest downfall: "False equivalency disease."

We all know and exasperate when we see that full sad condition time and time again, pushed by every strategist and politician on the nutty party’s side, from the asylum unit throughout Capital Hill to "Take any order" slime snakes like Ron Christe always on the "The Ed Show" whenever, wherever.

That disease however is worse on Time Warner’s beloved news channel, exhibited fully by their 10 PM darling last evening.

In his (of all the titles in the world) "Should Be About The Truth" commentary moment, Cooper didn’t care about that truth and in labeling just how someone on the left was just as terrible and video manipulating like our "insane clown of the year candidate."

"And that’s how ideologues think, both on the left and the right," said our journalism man of our times! "Andrew Breitbart is conservative, but as I said, there are liberals online and on TV who do the exact same thing. They cherry pick the facts to prove their argument, not the facts that reveal the truth."

"Those hypocrite liberals" is probably what one causally political independent was saying last night watching, believing that Cooper is the most trusted voice in cable TV because he doesn’t at all seem like an ideologue and he hosts everyone! Yet Cooper gave them the typical "Oh, it’s the left too" that we know and love without even bothering to list just one, ONE, example of ANY prominent left site doing anywhere near what Freightfart did.

Not the Huffington Post, not TPM, not Media Matters, not FDL, and finally, not the Daily Kos. None.

Not a single left site that Cooper indicts so freely and recklessly to some politically casual worshipping viewer of his last night could he name.

What makes it so sad is that Anderson Cooper truly believes in his heart that he and his colleagues at CNN are quality journalists. And he most likely also feels, when he sees Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann’s success leap MSNBC Primetime (and only MSNBC primetime) past his sorry network, that both rivals cable networks primetime lineup is filled with ideologues instead of actual "factism" as he says.

Ironically, he got that "Factism" term in his self-righteous screed last night willingly from David Frum of all lying enablers. But I guess he didn’t bother to do his "fact checking" on that one either I guess.

The tired, banal excuse of lumping the left with the likes of Andrew Freightfart despite no concrete evidence to fully exhibit that isn’t the main problem with neo-CNN. It is the fact that they, just like Cooper, fully believe that they still practice world class appropriately journalism, figuring what they do is the ideal way to go!

So, until their numbers and credibility continue to proportionally go down where it finally makes them break (or some celebrity publicly calls them out on their network with 3 times the damage of what Michael Moore did Wolf Blitzer and Dr Sanjay Gupta in the run up to his "Sicko" film), they will continue to believe that their "journalism" is thee journalism on cable TV.

They will continue to have John "Milquetoast" King give the "wonderful likes" of Erick Erickson the same platform as the incomparable Amy Goodman because of their arrogant indolence. And they will also be proud of King saying something like "Breitbart sparks debate on racism" while continuing to believe they are fine and dandy journalists. (Note: After getting slammed on Twitter , they altered the title to "Breitbart Post Ignites Race Debate.")

Most importantly, they will continue to have Mr. AC360, whether in the studio, in the gulf, or anywhere else he thinks he should be, go around and slam those imaginary evil video docketed people on the left, just like their ideological opposite Mr. Freightfart.

Our Jokenalism 2010, because it sure isn’t journalism.

Why Do Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews Hate Unions Practicing Democracy?

10:44 am in Uncategorized by sluggahjells

(From TWD)

Village stupid elitist at it’s very worse, courtesy of the Bi-polar one and Alan Greenspan’s wife:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You get that ladies and gentlemen. "Union leaders were so dumb," and "Blanche Lincoln was running against the establishment."

Let me repeat that last sentence for you, because I know it is hard for you to digest and not spit something out on your computer screen when you heard and read it.

"Blanche Lincoln was running against the establishment."

Only in the Village can the Villagers can say something so extraordinary like that. Only in the Village.

What makes this so appalling is that Mitchell and Matthews give the viewer their personal pathetic feelings of love for their Beltway friend Blanche, and how the White House should have protected her at all costs so their friend won’t have to leave the "House of Lords", I mean, the Senate. And they don’t want to be dejected to see their friend go because of the White House not giving her the type of backing they gave their other dear friend, Arlen!

And their feelings of anger at the White House (especially the wife of Alan Greenspan) at the Obama Administration is made furthermore stupid by the fact that the White House did, you know, back and support Lincoln.

Obama did robo calls for her. But don’t tell that to these Beltway socialites and their preference to never have a story leave their deluded and sickening Village perspectives.

(By the way, what’s the point of Obama going down there when you have Bill Clinton still be an influence there in the first place? That clearly made the difference.)

It’s people like this that make me marvel at people like Digby, Atrios, and Media Matters who digest this elitist nonsense every single day, and document it in the full detail.

And they still can’t leave Al Gore alone, it you didn’t notice.

Mitchell: "And you have to wonder if Al Gore had not trusted his instinct, and (if) Al Gore brought him (Bill Clinton) in 2000.

Man, they just won’t stop hating that man. It’s like their life’s calling card, "To hate Al Gore we must in order to be apart of the Beltway."

Oh, and one more thing Bi-polar Chris Matthews. Joe Sestak, if you forgot, beat the establishment in Pennsylvania just a month or so ago. Sestak doesn’t need Bill Clinton to win Pennsylvania, but your little Beltway arrogant mind always want the outsiders to follow your tired narratives.

If you ever needed a guide to how the Villagers think, I hope this post was a paradigm for you that was difficult to swallow.

The NYT & Chris Matthews: Apologize To Blumenthal ASAP!

6:22 am in Uncategorized by sluggahjells

(From TWD)

After assessing over the situation from a variety of perspectives , it is without a shadow of a doubt time for Richard Blumenthal to be delivered a heap of penitence from a wide variety of people, including myself.

Most importantly however (because the campaign of the World Wrestling Entertainment group won’t even dare bother to do so), the apologies to this man and the fierce blacklash that he has faced from this highly sensitive issue should come first from Raymond Hernandez, spokesperson Diane McNulty , and the rest of the New York Times .

Just from a young fledgling journalist’s perspective, seeing the New York Times have another embarrassing moment highlights how much of an utter hell hole journalism has become in America (and continues to diminish by the second), and how mind-numbingly depressing it can get witnessing it.

But with how long they took to show any remorse for James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart scribing their ACORN story for them, I don’t expect any forthcoming pronouncements of "We messed up, we apologize to Attorney General Blumenthal" from the folks at the Grey Lady.

That shouldn’t exonerate them however, and it certainly shouldn’t exonerate the Tweety one either.

The last few days, Chris Matthews has been on this utterly bizarre "Blumenthal has shamed veterans" crusade that he even idiotically had on the potential opponent for the Connecticut AG in the general election this fall. How he and his producers thought it would make more sense to have Rob Simmons on the air yesterday instead of actually doing the reporting the AP and Greg Sargent did to follow the story speaks to how sad this situation is for "news reporting" in America.

Of course, with how he gets on his blowhard nature, I don’t expect the Tweety one to immediately do a 180 and say "I eat my words, I’m sorry Mr. Blumenthal" either. And that further exacerbates the problem of what used to be called journalism in this country, the ability to hold one’s self accountable for one’s own mistakes.

Even Ed Schultz (and I love Ed Schultz) hasn’t given Blumenthal a second look here. And though he has nowhere acted to the ridiculous level of the Times, or the guy that comes on right before him on MSNBC, he too (along with the great Bill Press as well) jumped on Blumenthal without giving the needed retraction that the situation calls for now. I mean, both him and Press listened to and agreed with Ron Christe of all nutcases, for goodness gracious sake!

All that I can say is this: Richard Blumenthal, I’m sorry.

I’m sorry for all the half jokes that I made on Tweeter, and thinking facetiously of how Ned Lamont needed to replace you on the ballot. I’m just sorry at my profession basically making your life probably a living hell the last few days.

I just hope that the Tweety one, or Eddie, or Mr. Press give some apology to Richard Blumenthal. Because it sure as hell won’t be coming from the New York Times anytime soon.

Unless they have a rare, and needed, humbling moment of maturity.

Is Gawker Trying To Smear Wikileaks In Their Ongoing Tension With Facebook?

5:56 am in Uncategorized by sluggahjells

(From TWD)

In the last development between tension between Wikileaks and Facebook (as well as Facebook’s latest possible disturbing actions), the social protocol giant took down the "fan-generated" Wikileaks page that had 30,000 people on board and had been operating for a few years. For the moment however, the Wikileaks "Official Fan Page" on Facebook is still up.

So unsurprisingly, Wikileaks tweeted about that 30,000 fan-generated page being taken down out of nowhere.

In its usual snarky tone that can either make you love them or hate them, Gawker and their writer for this story in Adrian Chen points out the Facebook and Wikileaks acrimony from the past, highlighting the following episode in 2008.

In short as you will see from the link, a Swiss bank named Julius Baer wanted to sue someone at Wikileaks for posting stolen documents of one of its clients. Since Wikileaks owners are basically specialist in being incognito and anonymous (up until the recent interviews with Julian Assange), Baer decided that suing an officer on its then Facebook fan page in 2008 was the right way to go.

So….

In the course of the trial, Julius Baer subpoenaed an officer of a Wikileaks Facebook page, mistaking him for an officer of Wikileaks itself. According to Network World, Julius Baer’s lawyer sent the following to the guy—a Stanford student named Daniel Matthews:

Wikileaks lists you as an officer of the company on its Facebook page. As an officer of a defendant in this action, my client is entitled to serve you a copy of the summons and complaint pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

And Gawker’s Chen writes from the thought that Matthews was possibility not very happy with having to represent Wikileaks instead of true owners of the site like Julian Assange:

Since Julius Baer wasn’t able to get hold of a real Wikileaks employee—scattered worldwide as they are—some random Stanford student had to go to trial on their behalf in a high profile lawsuit. (He was listed as the "Stanford representative" of Wikileaks on the page.) He was not pleased. And the possibility of Facebook users being sued simply for belonging to groups probably gave Facebook headaches, too. (The suit resulted in Wikileaks being shut down for a bit by a judge, before the bank ultimately withdrew their case.)

But when you click on that link, it tells a far different story painting Wikileaks in a much better light while the banker as one with serious problems.

The judge rescinded his earlier decision of favoring the bank’s yearning for a restraining order on Wikileaks. He (who is unidentified in the article) altered his original verdict thanks to pressure from civil liberties groups explaining how the major problems raised by his first decision.

Given a better understanding of the issues in the case, the judge this weekend rescinded the Dynadot agreement and the temporary restraining order. He also pointed out that federal courts are unable to take cases between two foreign nationals, and that he "may well lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter in its entirety."

Not only that, but that Stanford student’s anger is directed to not to Wikileaks, but at the Swiss bank:

So why was a case between a Swiss bank and an anonymous group of wiki operators ever tried in a US court? One reason was that Dynadot was in California (though Dynadot had nothing to do with the content in question). Another was that Julius Baer said that Daniel Matthews, a Stanford graduate student in mathematics, was an "officer" of Wikileaks. And how did they know this? They read it on a Facebook page.

Matthews, who points out that he is only the "Stanford representative" for Wikileaks, says he knows nothing about the internal operations of the group, the owners of the site, or even what software they use to run it. He is an "officer" only of the Facebook group in question.

In a statement to the court, Matthews went on to take full aim at Julius Baer. "The crowning irony is that Plaintiffs—who purport to be shocked, shocked that Wikileaks has promised anonymity to leakers—are a Swiss bank and its Cayman Islands subsidiary," he said.

Gawker’s Chen writes that Facebook had "headaches" over this and that it is a reason why they have gone to this length now to take down Wikileaks fan page (since it’s Official page is still very much up).

But what "headaches" is Chen talking about if the case was then thrown out? And even if they do have "headaches", this is just a raw example of the digital information democratic age that we are currently in at the moment.

And we all know that with how "Mark Zuckerberg Inc." has become a billion dollar invention, Facebook faces legal headaches almost everyday, especially in regards to all of the rapid and sometimes controversial charges they have made over the last few years with the protocol. In addition, was this fan page necessary to even delete? It wasn’t like Facebook was receiving lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit about this page anyway from what it appears.

In short, Chen’s article in my mind is kind of a smear towards Wikileaks, an attempt to paint the organization as narcissistic complainers who are truly about themselves, are creepy, and really aren’t the full "truth-tellers" they claim to be.

It was very indolent of Chen and Gawker to just languidly say, "The suit resulted in Wikileaks being shut down for a bit by a judge, before the bank ultimately withdrew their case," when there are far more details towards that case.

And in my mind, it makes Gawker appear as not taking affinity, or full respect, of the impact Wikileaks has made in the last few weeks thanks to their usual very snarky tone.

(From TWD, have a great day folks, and thanks for even reading.)

It’s Simple Eric Cantor: Apologize or Resign

5:19 pm in Uncategorized by sluggahjells

(From TWD)

 

Enough is enough.

When I saw this tweet from Alan Colmes last night on a thought from Alan Grayson passed to him, it was one of only two resolutions I could see for this ugly situation to end appropriately:

Though I’m not sure if Grayson and his office will actually do this since I haven’t heard back from his press secretary yet after emailing him, it would do us all good if this is the end result.

Or, with how this shameful story has evolved, the only other thing that should be acceptible from Eric Cantor is to show penitence for his unsurprisingly but still nevertheless very shocking and disturbing actions.

Nothing else.

It’s already deplorable enough that the Sad Obnoxious Party won’t take (or are alarmingly slow) any responsibility for their tea partiers dropping coffins, throwing bricks, or leaving chilling phone calls in Democratic officers.

But what Cantor (and Jean Schimdt, more on her in a second) did by trying to join his party in the "victim circle", and burden America with another false equivalency nonsense for the media to play with is too much to take.

It is highly dangerous what Cantor and his press office are continuing to do by now changing every bit of his "high noon talk of a loon" moment. And everyone out here should be slamming him for feigning seriousness, when all he was doing was just an irrational, angry attempt at winning a game.

It’s always a game with him and his pathetic party, no surprise there. But the limits of how low they go is already pass a point where something further toxic and horrible can happen thanks to their lack of maturity.

A handful of extremist actions have been speculated on Democratic Congressional figures this week. But to create that stunning balance effect that our corporate media always is glad to run with, the SOP has Cantor’s ever evolving insanity and a phone call to Schmidt’s office that though was very harsh, did not call a threat on her.

There was no powder or drop dead message that Anthony Weiner received yesterday. There was no obvious signs that family members could get attacked like Louise Slaughter received. And outside of a brick being thrown at a Virginia GOP office that we don’t know anything else about, there has been nothing. (And frankly, who knows who really did that one?).

But we’re all cognizant of the fact that Eric Cantor further disgraced himself by playing the victim card (with him mentioning that he was Jewish too by the way), accusing Democrats of political opportunists in such a serious situation, and then proven to be brazenly disingenuous and a fraud.

This is just an unbelievably, unacceptable action that Cantor has committed in front of the American people, and especially to his fellow Congressmen on the other side of the isle. Cantor must be politically humiliated in some way, and that will only come with a public apology or leaving office for good.

Enough is enough.

Then again, how many times have we said that line in the past, only to see us say it once more?

(From TWD, have a good rest of your Friday and thanks again for even reading.)

The New York Times “Sort Of” Too Little Too Late Apology To ACORN

7:12 am in Uncategorized by sluggahjells

(From The Whole Delivery)

Today, despite being vindicated time and time again over the last few months, ACORN continues to spiral towards bankruptcy.

The New York Times spilled the details of how a conference call led by the organization’s CEO Bertha Lewis will talk about filing for Chapter 7 (unless it has already happened already). And barring a miraculous influx of ostentation coming in, the nutty Right will have officially scored a win at the expense of the poor of the nation (if they haven’t already with how publicly ridiculed the organization has received).

But the most revealing thing about that report today was not the fact of ACORN’s impending bankruptcy. Rather, it was the fact that it came from the New York Times. Why is that a salient characteristic?

Because this is the same newspaper that won’t admit publicly that it facilitated in ACORN becoming poor in the midst of fighting for……the really poor.

As Media Matters has documented as astutely as they always do, the New York Times was among virtually everyone else (outside of MSNBC to their rare credit) to get swept up in McDisguise Wannabe Phone Idiot’s foray into being a pimp by writing down every word they got from whenever he was interviewed on the Fixed Propoganda Comedy Clown Channel.

They believed he was in his pimp attire every single time he entered an ACORN office, only to have that fact not be a fact at all.

As we noted last week, the New York Times, and specifically its public editor, Clark Hoyt, managed to emerge among the losers in the ACORN pimp hoax story. Why? Because the Times, both last year and this, erroneously reported that James O’Keefe had worn his outlandish pimp costume into the ACORN offices last summer.

But that was just bogus right-wing spin.

Worse, when confronted with the facts by blogger Brad Friedman, the Times’ Hoyt agreed the pimp costume was not worn, but then refused to recommend that the newspaper correct the record.

Now ACORN has asked simply that the NYT just simply act like mature grownups, like Marc Ambinder did yesterday with the fake memos (and unlike the idiots at Hackio).

The New York Times continues to refuse to state the obvious — that O’Keefe deceived the public, specifically by editing in "b-roll" of his absurd pimp costume and more broadly by misrepresenting what ACORN organizers do. This despite the clear admission by O’Keefe co-conspirators Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart both being caught on tape saying he never wore the pimp suit in any ACORN office. Despite the findings of the Harshbarger report. Despite Breitbart’s admission that the pimp get-up was just a marketing gimmick.

Please send a letter to the editor asking the New York Times and other publications to change their reporting to reflect the truth about the ACORN videos

That still has not prompted an apology yet from Hoyt or anyone else at the Times.

So proud and arrogant is the New York Times, that they not only didn’t offer a retraction right after the truth was out, but they haven’t even bothered to admit their folly to this day.

And even worse is the decision to do an article on ACORN’s wallow into fiscal irrelevance without acknowledge their role in making it happen.

Update: But wait a minute, just wait a minute………I see that after weeks of requests, the New York Times has finally decided to apologize to ACORN just late tonight . Well about time Mr. Hoyt:

I could not reach O’Keefe — who is facing federal criminal charges of tampering with a Democratic senator’s phone in a different attempted sting — or Giles. But I am satisfied that The Times was wrong on this point, and I have been wrong in defending the paper’s phrasing. Editors say they are considering a correction.

Even so, Hoyt’s apologize is still really poor in my mind. He shows penitence for ACORN only in that paragraph of a lengthy type up, as it is surrounded by a myriad of idiotic "balance" and even some finer pointing still at ACORN for being in the position they are in.

It is truly amazing how immature and childish some of the people in important positions in the American news world are.

And with an indifferent mindset that he and the paper displayed, Hoyt is another example why some can be justified in not shedding any tears for the demise of old, arrogant, corporate newspaper media.

Unless of course, they listen to whatever Fake pimp telephone guy tells them.